#to denounce the evils of fidelity

[the-daily-male]

SIDE 6J

James

Odysseus of Ithaca

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Spiritualism was not popular in all BC towns, but when Emily Carr attended her seance, it had won a significant following in Victoria. Spiritualist associations were founded in Victoria and Nanaimo during the late 1880s, and they remained vibrant well into the twentieth century. Victoria gained an ordained spiritualist minister in 1915 and Nanaimo in 1926. In 1901, forty-three Victorians defined themselves as spiritualists, and many more attended their meetings. In the Nanaimo area, with its smaller population, eighty people told the census-taker that they were spiritualists. ...Nanaimoites typically opted for some level of fuzzy fidelity, with nominal adherence to mainstream Christian denominations. Nonetheless, the eighty spiritualists outnumbered the irreligious in Nanaimo by about two to one, as only forty-four residents defined themselves as atheists or of “no religion” in 1901. This ratio is atypical, as the irreligious in other BC towns significantly outnumbered the adherents of metaphysical religions in both 1901 and 1911.

Many Nanaimo spiritualists were miners or members of a mining family. Of the twenty-six spiritualist Nanaimo men who listed occupations on the census, twenty, or 77 percent, were miners. Perhaps the high number of fatal accidents in the mines led at least some colliers and their wives to spiritualism, which offered the hope of reconnecting with a loved one. An address of appreciation from George Campbell, chair of the Nanaimo Spiritualist Association, to visiting medium George P. Colby stressed the importance of this. Campbell thanked Colby for his work in the community as “Test Medium and Inspirational Lecturer,” noting that the association felt

grateful for the privilege we have had of communing with those of our loved ones who have joined the greatest throng of immortals in the summerland beyond – for the words of sympathy that have comforted bruised hearts bringing to them a realization of the presence of their supposed dead and a knowledge of the measureless possibilities of life.

Although spiritualism was popular among many people who sought connection with lost loved ones, it was far from popular with certain segments of BC society. Protestant church leaders attacked it as occultism and rank heresy. Such criticism was not new at the turn of the century. In 1870, Edward Cridge, dean of Victoria’s Christ Church Cathedral and soon to become the first bishop of the Carr family’s Reformed Episcopal Church, published a sermon titled “Spiritualism:” or Modern Necromancy, in which he denounced spiritualism as “divining or soothsaying by means of the dead.” He warned readers that it was

a very ancient wickedness. Its various forms are enumerated and condemned in the Book of Deuteronomy ... The Christian who meddles with spiritualism stands on the verge of an abyss.

Cridge clearly knew that at least some of his flock had experimented with spiritualism because he acknowledged that curiosity or a desire to commune with departed loved ones could tempt people to try it. However, he proclaimed firmly that

this practice is denounced in Holy Scripture under the severest penalties ... That which is hateful to God, and punishable by his law with death, cannot be a thing for a Christian to touch, but to shun with abhorrence.

Other Protestant ministers were also strongly opposed to spiritualism, and the Catholic Church declared that spiritualists were trafficking with demons and evil spirits.

Both church leaders and people of a more secular and scientific bent enjoyed unmasking visiting mediums as frauds. For example, in July 1900, a lengthy Vancouver Province article titled “Some Shady Shades” attacked a recent visiting medium as a charlatan and provided a more detailed critique of a “Professor Raymond” – a dubious traveller “in the path of easy money” – who was then in town. It described a Raymond seance, complete with several female “victims” of the deception and typical spiritualist manifestations, such as rapping and the playing of musical instruments by unseen hands in the dark. The reporter clearly believed that Raymond himself was the source of all these phenomena, and he commented snidely that

the guitar banging shade was careless, for not only did it drop the guitar, but it most reprehensibly jabbed an elbow into the eye of the little girl.

For their part, spiritualists recognized that some mediums were frauds, but they strongly defended the authenticity of most mediums and of spiritualism as a legitimate religious alternative. In late-nineteenth-century Ontario, the criminal courts did not always agree. In 1899, some Toronto mediums were charged under the witchcraft section of the Vagrancy Act for telling fortunes or conjuring spirits. The BC courts seemed less concerned with this issue, and at least some BC authorities were willing to grant legitimacy to spiritualist organizations. For example, spiritualists petitioned Nanaimo City Council in 1897, protesting a bylaw that forced local mediums and seers to pay a fifty-dollar licence fee every six months, lumping them in with fortune tellers and other occultists. They insisted that spiritualism be treated like any other church, and council complied with their wishes. The words “medium” and “seer” were removed from the bylaw, though fortune tellers still had to pay the fee. The fact that a year afterward, a leading Nanaimo spiritualist was elected mayor reinforces the acceptability of this alternative movement in the community.

Whereas orthodox Christian ministers condemned spiritualist beliefs, some spiritualists claimed that their movement could bolster Christian faith, as it proved the existence of life after death and therefore negated the arguments of atheists and other “infidels.” For example, George Colby, who gave a talk in Nanaimo titled “What Good Has Spiritualism Done,” argued that

with the advance of material science, the people became more materialistic in their opinions and boldly denied the immortality of the soul. What theology failed to prove, Spiritualism, with its phenomena practically and in a scientific manner demonstrated the truth that we continue to live after the dissolution of the body.

As Timothy Noddings notes, mainstream Christians, unbelievers, and adherents of metaphysical religions all employed the rhetorical weapons of science, rationality, and modernity in their debates with each other, with each side labelling the other as irrational and unscientific.

Although these groups often painted themselves as antithetical to the others, scholars have demonstrated that like Emily Carr, many spiritualists in the United States and Central Canada, particularly many middle-class spiritualists, saw nothing incompatible with practising spiritualism, especially in the privacy of their homes, while remaining members of Protestant churches. Some clergy dabbled in spiritualism themselves, but the Canadian Protestant churches had limited tolerance for such behaviour, as Stan McMullin reveals in chronicling the expulsion of Reverend B.F. Austin from the Methodist ministry for heresy in 1899. Robert Lowery, the infidel newspaperman of the Kootenays, certainly felt that Christianity and spiritualism had much in common, none of it good. As he explained in an article:

You are not expected to examine the Bible; neither are you permitted to investigate the seance. How like as two peas are twin sisters of superstition.

...

...prominent spiritualists also spurned the churches, despite the contrary opinions of family members. The death of a former mayor of Victoria, James Fell, revealed the complex relationship that could exist between secularism, spiritualism, and mainstream Christianity. In 1890, the Anglican bishop Hills noted in his diary that Fell had just passed away and had

left directions no other Service should be said over his body but the form used by the Odd Fellows. Poor man he held spiritualist opinions in which he persevered to the last. He used occasionally to come to the Cathedral where he had a pew. His family are much vexed at the directions left.

Fell’s son asked Hills for permission to have his father buried in the Church of England section of the cemetery, despite the lack of an Anglican burial service. Hills agreed, apparently because

Fell had many excellent qualities was benevolent and never minded what trouble he took for the poor and the sick. Under these circumstances I consented to the request and indeed felt it to be a relief that the service of the Church was not required.

...

As several scholars have noted, women were much more attracted to spiritualism than to irreligion. Owen speculates that many who turned to the alternative religions in Britain may have been alienated by the cold scientific rationalism of unbelief, as it left no room for a spiritual dimension. Women may have been drawn to spiritualism because their natures were assumed to be more spiritual than those of men. The gender ideology of the time, which defined women as sensitive and passive, made them especially suited as mediums, and many took on this role. As well, infant mortality rates in the nineteenth century were much higher than they are today. Although both fathers and mothers mourned dead children, and both sought reconnection through spiritualism, this option appears to have appealed chiefly to women, who had generally had close ties to their children. The fact that the census lists so few unmarried spiritualists may indicate that a number of wives brought their husband to spiritualism, as many did to the Christian churches. For example, the 1881 census records Mary Ann Hardy of Nanaimo as a spiritualist, whereas her miner husband, Thomas, is enumerated as a Unitarian. In the 1891 census, both Mary Ann and Thomas defined themselves as spiritualists, as they also did in 1901. A few husbands identified themselves as spiritualists, whereas their wives remained orthodox Christians (at least officially), but these cases were the exception, unlike those involving unbelieving husbands and Christian wives. Some married women differed from their husbands in defining themselves as spiritualists, as was true of well-known Victoria photographer Hannah Maynard. She and her husband were both Anglicans in 1881, but after her youngest daughter died of typhoid in 1883, she began to attend seances, incorporating ghostly figures into some of her photographic work. Her desire to reconnect with lost family members was intensified by the deaths of another daughter and a daughter-in-law within the next ten years. In 1891, the census identified her as a spiritualist, whereas her husband’s religion was “not given.”

...

An 1894 petition to the Legislative Assembly allows us to look more deeply at potential interest in and support for spiritualists on Vancouver Island. The petition, a first effort to eliminate the licence fee for clairvoyants, who were lumped in with astrologers, seers, and fortune tellers under the Municipal Act, was signed by 186 people, 58 from Victoria and the rest from Nanaimo. This is significantly more than the 123 Victorians and Nanaimoites who were listed on the 1901 census as spiritualists (a large minority of whom were children, who do not sign petitions). The petitioners stated that they were “Spiritualists, and profess that form of religious belief commonly known as Spiritualism, and others are their friends.” Many could not be linked to either the 1891 or the 1901 census, but of the Victoria petitioners who could be traced, five were spiritualists and five were infidels or freethinkers, pointing once again to the connection between the two. Ten belonged to mainstream denominations. The latter pattern was even clearer among the Nanaimo petitioners, most of whom identified with orthodox denominations, primarily as Methodists, Anglicans, or Presbyterians. Seven Nanaimo petitioners were listed as spiritualists in the census, one was an atheist, and over thirty were officially Christian (including a Quaker and a Unitarian). Perhaps the Methodist, Anglican, and Presbyterian signatories were simply friends of spiritualists, but it seems much more likely that most would have had at least some level of interest in the alternative religion, perhaps attending an occasional seance or other spiritualist event, and revealing once again that the census omitted many people who had a significant interest in this form of spirituality.

The Sivertz family, which emigrated from Iceland to British Columbia in 1888, is a case in point. Bent Sivertz wrote a detailed account of his parents’ working-class lives in Victoria and Vancouver before the First World War, and his parents, Elinborg and Christian, can also be found on the Victoria census of 1911, which lists them as Lutherans. Bent, however, tells a different and more complex story. Although his mother was raised a Lutheran, she had left the church well before 1911, disenchanted by its hellfire-and-damnation preaching. She spent some years with a Baptist church but had become much more interested in spiritualism by 1910, perhaps influenced by a female friend who had joined the faith. She “gradually over half a dozen years, left off attendance at the Baptist Church in favour of séances.” This did not deter her from praying for her children as they grew up or from attending at least one revival meeting at the Metropolitan Methodist Church. Like many other people, Elinborg created a lived religion that worked for her but did not necessarily correspond to the clear divisions preferred by theologians. Although she had a close relationship with her husband, she did not have his support in her spiritual explorations, as he “preferred not to go to church” and practised what his son termed a “kindly agnosticism.” Whereas the majority of Victoria’s married spiritualists shared their belief in the supernatural with their spouse, the Sivertzes reflect a not uncommon BC pattern of fluidity between alternative and mainstream religions, and a familiar gendered pattern of an agnostic husband and a believing wife. But this configuration was invisible to the census-taker, as either he or the Sivertzes themselves conflated their ethnic and religious identities – in Iceland, where they grew up, the Lutheran Church was the official denomination. Or perhaps, even in the religiously open climate of British Columbia, these working-class immigrants simply felt safer in naming a relatively mainstream denomination than in telling the enumerator that they were an unbeliever and a spiritualist.

The Sivertzes also reflect links between unbelief, alternative religions, and political activism that were not uncommon in British Columbia and Canada more generally. A labour leader, Christian Sivertz was president of the B.C. Federation of Labour by 1912. He was no socialist, though, and he opposed radicalism in the labour revolt of 1919. Unbelief was typically linked to the more radical BC socialists, but Christian demonstrates that it had a broader reach among at least some less radical BC labour leaders. Elinborg was involved in the major suffrage organization in Victoria, the Political Equality League, and in other social reform endeavours. Although BC suffragists tended to be Christians, some were not. Scholars have noted the link between alternative religions, such as spiritualism, and social activism, including the struggle for women’s rights, a connection that certainly applied in Elinborg’s case."

- Lynne Marks, Infidels and the Damn Churches: Irreligion and Religion in Settler British Columbia. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2017. p. 190-197.

[mariacallous]

Honestly I know it’s a bs “gotcha!” By the GOP but like the best reaction is to say “jeez yeah Stalin was a fucking monster” so like who are these 80 democrats who won’t cop to that come on guys don’t score the GOP points for them

Especially because it's a nonbinding resolution - it's not a piece of legislation implementing any policy. It has no legal status. It's meaningless, ultimately.

The resolution overwhelmingly cleared the chamber in a 328-86-14 vote. The majority of Democrats — 109 of them — voted with all Republicans for the resolution, while 86 voted against it and 14 voted “present.”

The measure, which runs three pages, says “socialist ideology necessitates a concentration of power that has time and time again collapsed into Communist regimes, totalitarian rule, and brutal dictatorships.”

It argues that “many of the greatest crimes in history were committed by socialist ideologues” — mentioning Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Kim Jong Un, Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez and Nicolás Maduro — and it lists atrocities committed under socialist regimes.

“Congress denounces socialism in all its forms, and opposes the implementation of socialist policies in the United States of America,” the resolution reads.

When introducing the measure, the office of Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) — a sponsor of the resolution — said passing it “would make a bold statement that the People’s House unequivocally denounces this cruel and unjust ideology.”

“It would also ensure the United States commits to never begin or normalize the implementation of socialist policies that inevitably lead to economic ruin and political authoritarianism,” Salazar’s office added in a statement.

Several Democrats who voted against the resolution expressed concerns regarding the future of Social Security and Medicare. They noted that Republicans on the Rules Committee rejected an amendment proposed by Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) which sought to clarify that opposition to the implementation of socialist policies in the U.S. does not include federal programs like Medicare and Social Security.

Republicans are pushing for spending cuts to be linked to a debt ceiling increase and some have floated cuts to entitlement programs. Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), however, has said cuts to the two federal programs are “off the table.”

“Here’s what this is really about: More and more members on the other side of the aisle are calling for cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and many have referred to these programs as socialism throughout their existence,” Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said on the House floor during debate. “The other night in the Rules Committee, they showed their cards. Republicans refused an amendment to declare that Social Security and Medicare is not socialism.”

“This resolution is little about intelligent discourse and everything to do about laying the groundwork to cut Social Security and Medicare,” he added.

Additionally, some Democrats who voted against the measure have been described as democratic socialists. Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.) were all endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America in the 2022 cycle.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who supported the resolution, condemned socialist autocrats during a speech on the House floor before taking aim U.S. leaders who attack democratic elections and other American programs.

“I rise to condemn all socialist autocrats who place power and wealth over their own citizens. Yet this resolution ignores some of their worst evils, then falls silent while American leaders mimic their cruel tactics,” she said.

“Let’s condemn socialist abuses, yes, but leaders on this very floor seek to overturn democratic elections, confiscate long-held rights and gut programs our families, veterans and service members need,” she added.

Rep. Theresa Leger Fernandez (D-N.M.), who voted “present,” denounced socialism on the House floor, but criticized House Republicans for spending time on that resolution and not other matters.

“i absolutely denounce the brutal and communist regimes of Castro, Maduro, Stalin and other dictators in the whereas clauses of this resolution. But sadly, instead of spending our precious moments in the People’s House expanding opportunity for hard-working Americans, supporting ranchers, farmers, and rural communities, lowering health care costs and strengthening Social Security and Medicare, we’re spending hours — actually days — in pure political theater,” she said.

[arlengrossman]

OUR TIMID CONGRESSMAN

Letter to the Editor, Monterey Herald, February 19 Republicans, lacking plans to help ordinary people, recently pushed an idiotic bill that called for members of Congress to denounce “The Horrors of Socialism.” There was no reason for it, other than to embarrass Democrats into taking a stand on “socialism.” Of course, to Republicans, all “socialism” is evil, and they threw in Fidel Castro,…

[gisellelx]

Hi! For the sake of not making one post too embarrassingly long, I'll ask instead of reblog.

In this post you say the kind of Christian that Carlisle is would be fine with murdering non-innocent people. I respectfully disagree, but you have my curiosity peaked, so if you don't mind elaborating, I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

- Vinelle

So this rests on a central presupposition that is not explicitly stated in canon, which is that by what SM has laid out, Carlisle was raised as a nonseparating Puritan.

But I also want to be clear about the rephrasing here. What I said was that by all accounts "for the kind of Christian he was raised to be—murdering non-innocent people would’ve been totally fine." Which is not the same thing as "Carlisle would be fine murdering non-innocent people." This disconnect is actually something I consider central to his character and the way that I write him--if you combine actual history with what Meyer laid down, the kind of Christian he was raised to be should not have big hang-ups about murdering people who "deserve it" but Carlisle does and that tells us a lot about who he is.

Nonseparatists, who arrived to the US as the Massachusetts Bay colonists (as opposed to the earlier migration of separatist colonists who settled Plymouth) in the 1630s, made up over 70% of the Church of England clergy in the 1600s when Carlisle was born. They came later and many were still in England in the 1640s, making it perfectly reasonable that Carlisle's suddenly widowed dad hadn't attempted to make the jump with this kid he barely knew what to do with. They didn't aim to denounce the Church of England, but rather to reform it from the inside. They recognized many things as capital crimes, including many things we would not consider to be capital today, like blasphemy, counterfeiting, and adultery.

So if Carlisle really was an "obedient son" (TW 331), all signs point to him being obedient to the laws of Puritanism, which should've included being perfectly fine with some people dying for their egregious sins. So either he wasn't Puritan, or he isn't obedient. Let's test these in turn.

Q1: Was Carlisle a nonseparating Puritan?

We don't have a lot here--there are only a handful of pointers in the saga, even including Midnight Sun, which in instances where it Josses the original canon, I am inclined to side with the original canon, messy as it is.

We know the following about Carlisle's upbringing:

He was born in the sixteen-forties (TW 331)

His father was an Anglican pastor (TW 331)

His father was "enthusiastic in his persecution of Roman Catholics and other religions....and believed very strongly in the reality of evil" (TW 331)

The other thing we know about Carlisle is that he was born "just before Cromwell's rule" (TW 331). Vampires supposedly lose their human memories, except for the strong ones. So...let's assume for a second that Carlisle does not actually know when he was born (which makes no sense whatsoever, but fine, Stephenie, it's your world) but what he remembers and passes on to Edward is his birthdate relative to Cromwell? Well either his father hated Cromwell, which does not jive with the "persecution of Roman Catholics" part, or he loved Cromwell, which suggests he was in support of Cromwell's Calvinist reforms of the Anglican church.

In the sixteen-forties huge swaths of the Anglican priesthood in Britain believed in Puritan ideals, and these usually went hand-in hand with the latter two bullet points above. Add that to the Cromwell thing, and what SM has described, inadvertently or not, is a Puritan minister, not an Anglican priest who considered his fidelity to be first and foremost to the Church of England.

This boy is as Puritan as they come.

Q2: So why isn't he okay with killing sinners?

I attribute this to Meyer just fundamentally not bothering to research or think much about what she was writing until it spun out. She not unsurprisingly took a very LDS approach to murder, ignoring the fact that even by her own writing, there were lots of reasons that Carlisle should think it acceptable to murder someone (and maybe he did! We never did get inside his head about what happened after Edward returned!)

What I take issue with is Meyer's seeming thinking of the idea "he's a Christian ergo good and compassionate" when that is incongruous with the very brand of Christianity she otherwise laid out. Puritans were not interested in compassion and goodness, they were fundamentally interested in righteousness.

So it’s not because all Christians are good; many are not. It’s certainly not because Carlisle was taught to be against murder at all costs; he was not. Carlisle is not down with killing people…because he’s Carlisle.

And this gets you to why I'm still writing about this goofy series that on balance, I think was quite poorly written, going on 14 years after I read it for the first time. It's the disconnect between how Carlisle was likely raised and the man we meet in canon that actually gives a ton of insight into his character. From this break you can infer that he's not a milquetoast "Every life is sacred" kind of person (which is what I think SM had in mind and how he is written and acted in the movies), but rather that his whole life has been a struggle against people who thought that at least some lives were beneath them--first his father, then Aro, then Edward, and as you've pointed out, the rest of his family to a certain extent.

"So I didn't agree with my father's particular brand of faith" (NM 36) doesn't even start to explain this guy. He is fundamentally a rebel; a stubborn man driven by his own internal compass and not by what other people tell him is acceptable, and that's the kind of characterization that I find rewarding to sink my teeth into.

[stephenjaymorrisblog]

USA Leniency for Right Wing Terrorists

Stephen Jay Morris

8/10/2022

©Scientific Morality

It took decades before January 6, 2021 to awaken the USA government to the fact that Right wing terrorists are a danger to the security of American society. In the 60’s, the general public laughed at the conspiracy group, The John Birch Society. The famous meme back then was of little old ladies in tennis shoes, with pro-gun bumper stickers on their 4-door Fords. Otherwise, most people respected the Republican Party. Why? People thought of Conservatives as the true representatives of the USA. Exiles from communist countries became United States citizens who would then register as Republicans because they were considered true Americans.

The American Right has a bloody history of terrorism. There were cross burnings by the KKK to synagogue vandalism by the local Anti-Semites. When any of these incidences occurred, the police and other government authorities would turn their backs and pretend it never happened. Oil magnate, John D. Rockefeller, called the governor to have him send the state militia to slaughter hundreds of Left wing union workers. Way before there was a Soviet Union, the 1% demonized the Left as evil monsters. The Jews were portrayed as demons of Satan. The only freedom the Conservatives cared about was the grand potentates of American capitalism: their rights to underpay their workers and pay zero taxes. Conservatives in the 18th and 19th Centuries would change positions in a blink of the eye. When the government was helping the poor, they were Anti-government; but, when the government was protecting the rich, they were the most patriotic sons of bitches you could meet!

During World War II, in secret war rooms in Congress, there was talk of using the “Big One” to end the war. There are alleged classified documents of those debates: “Should we drop the Atom Bomb on the German Aryan people?” Votes were cast by both Democrat and Republican Congressman for an astounding “no!” “How about those yellow savages in Japan!” They all voted unanimously, “Hell, Yeah!” So...they dropped the evil bomb just a week before Japan was going to surrender anyway, just to showcase White American might! It was a warning to the whole world: “Don’t fuck with the USA!”

After the war, America was at the top of its might. The Republican Party became anti-Communist fanatics. When Nazis and Klansmen marched in the streets, they were merely dismissed as a bunch of nut cases. However, when a bunch of “Ban the Bomb” Beatniks protested against nuclear weapons in 1959, the newspapers claimed that they were personally sent by Fidel Castro! Speaking of Anti-Castro exiles, they bombed a beloved Hollywood, California, folk-blues club called “The Ash Grove,” in 1973. Why? Because a Trotskyite Socialist group used the place for meetings. No one was ever arrested or convicted for the crime; the incident quietly went into the cold files.

The 1960’s first militia group, “The Minutemen,” in California, were involved in bombings and drive-by shootings. They liked to threaten the so-called “New Left.” They threatened to disrupt anti-war demonstrations with automatic rifles. Was there an investigation by authorities? No. The FBI was too busy with the New Left and the CIA was fighting against Communists that were taking over Fascist foreign governments.

The Right never protested against Fascists. They did support the “Hard Hats” in New York as they were beating up anti-war protesters. The New York cops turned their heads and didn’t lift a finger to help the protesters. Did you ever hear the expression, “Silence is complicity?” I get the feeling that Conservatives like Fascism better than Communism. If the Republican Party doesn’t denounce Fascism, then they are Fascist sympathizers!

The Democratic Party has already denounced Communism, so don’t ask!

[orthodoxydaily]

Saints&Reading:  Fri., Dec. 27, 2019

Protomartyr  St Stephen

The Holy Protomartyr and Archdeacon Stephen was the eldest of the seven deacons, appointed by the Apostles themselves, and therefore he is called “archdeacon.” He was the first Christian martyr, and he suffered for Christ when he was about thirty. In the words of Asterias, he was “the starting point of the martyrs, the instructor of suffering for Christ, the foundation of righteous confession, since Stephen was the first to shed his blood for the Gospel.”

Filled with the Holy Spirit, Saint Stephen preached Christianity and defeated Jewish teachers of the Law in debate. The Jews maligned Saint Stephen, saying that he had uttered blasphemy against God and against Moses. Saint Stephen came before the Sanhedrin and the High Priest to answer these charges. He gave a fiery speech, in which he recounted the history of the Jewish nation, and denounced the Jews for persecuting the prophets, and also for executing the promised Messiah, Jesus Christ (Acts ch. 7)...keep reading

Venerable Theodore the Branded

Saint Theodore the Confessor, and his brother Theophanes (October 11) were born in Jerusalem of Christian parents. From early childhood Theodore shunned childish amusements and loved to attend church services. With his younger brother Theophanes (October 11), he was sent to the Lavra of Saint Sava to be educated by a pious priest. Both brothers became monks, and Saint Theodore was ordained to the holy priesthood.

The iconoclast emperor Leo V the Armenian (813-820) expelled and replaced the pious ruler Michael I Rhangabe (811-813). In the beginning, Leo concealed his heretical views, but later declared himself an iconoclast. The Patriarch of Jerusalem sent the two brothers to Constantinople to defend the holy icons. Theodore refuted Leo’s arguments, proving the falseness of his beliefs. Leo ordered that both brothers be beaten mercilessly, and then had them sent into exile, forbidding anyone to help them in any way...keep reading

Titus 1:15-2:10 NKJV

15 To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled. 16 They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being [a]abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work.

Qualities of a Sound Church

2 But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: 2 that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; 3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.

6 Likewise, exhort the young men to be sober-minded, 7 in all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility,[b]8 sound speech that cannot be condemned, that one who is an opponent may be ashamed, having nothing evil to say of [c]you.

9 Exhort bondservants to be obedient to their own masters, to be well pleasing in all things, not answering back, 10 not [d]pilfering, but showing all good [e]fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things.

Footnotes:

Titus 1:16 detestable

Titus 2:7 NU omits incorruptibility

Titus 2:8 NU, M us

Titus 2:10 thieving

Titus 2:10 honesty

Mark 12: 1-12 NKJV

The Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers

12 Then He began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a place for the wine vat and built a tower. And he leased it to [a]vinedressers and went into a far country. 2 Now at vintage-time he sent a servant to the vinedressers, that he might receive some of the fruit of the vineyard from the vinedressers. 3 And they took him and beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4 Again he sent them another servant, [b]and at him they threw stones, wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully treated. 5 And again he sent another, and him they killed; and many others, beating some and killing some.6 Therefore still having one son, his beloved, he also sent him to them last, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 7 But those [c]vinedressers said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 8 So they took him and killed him and cast him out of the vineyard.

9 “Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the vinedressers, and give the vineyard to others. 10 Have you not even read this Scripture:

‘The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. 11 This was the Lord’s doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes’?”

12 And they sought to lay hands on Him, but feared the multitude, for they knew He had spoken the parable against them. So they left Him and went away.

Footnotes:

Mark 12:1 tenant farmers

Mark 12:4 NU omits and at him they threw stones

Mark 12:7 tenant farmers

New King James Version(NKJV) Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. All rights reserved @biblegateway1​

[pope-francis-quotes]

18th June >> (@vaticannews) Pope Francis’ Homily during Mass, denounces “slanderous communication” of dictatorships In his homily at Mass at Casa Santa Marta, June 18, the Pope spoke about the devastating power of slanderous communication used by dictators against others. It is something that happens even today. (By Robin Gomes @vaticannews) If you want to destroy institutions or people, you start by speaking ill of them. This is the “slanderous communication” that Pope Francis exhorted Christians to watch out against in his homily at Mass Monday morning in the chapel of the Vatican’s Casa Santa Marta residence. Slander makes martyrs of innocents The Pope was reflecting on the episode in the First Book of Kings, where Jezebel, the cruel wife of King Ahab of Samaria, used slander and falsehood to have Naboth killed in order to take possession of his vineyard which her husband greatly coveted. The Pope described Naboth as a “martyr of fidelity to the inheritance" that he had received from his forefathers: "an inheritance of the heart". He said the story of Naboth is repeated in the story of Jesus, Saint Stephen and all the martyrs who were falsely condemned with slander. The episode also reflects the ways of “many heads of state or government". One begins with a lie and, "after having destroyed both a person and a situation with slander", one judges and condemns them. Dictatorship of evil communication Pope Francis pointed out that even today this method of slanderous communication is used in many countries. Media and communication law is brushed aside with the entire communication system handed to a company or a group that weakens democratic life with slander and falsehood. The judges then condemn these weakened institutions and destroyed people. That’s how dictatorship works, the Pope said. The Pope said all dictatorships began by adulterating communication by putting it in the hands of an unscrupulous person or government. The seduction of scandals This also happens in daily life, the Pope pointed out, saying one begins to destroy a person by starting with communication – speaking ill of others, slandering and spreading scandals, which he said have great seductive power. Good news doesn’t seduce, it passes by, but a scandal draws attention. This is how a person, institution and country ends up in ruins. The Pope said many persons and nations have been destroyed by evil and slanderous dictatorships, such as in the last century. He particularly pointed to the example of the persecution of Jews, who because of a slanderous communication did not deserve to live and thus ended up at Auschwitz. Calling it a horror, the Pope said it happens even today in small societies, in persons and in many countries. The Pope said James the Apostle speaks precisely of the "destructive capacity of evil communication". The Holy Father thus exhorted Christians to re-read the episode of Naboth and think of the many people and countries destroyed by dictatorships of 'white gloves'.

[mofodopoulis]

Thank you for denouncing Socialists and Socialism at CPAC!

The Honorable Kevin McCarthy U.S. House of Representatives 2468 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 (via webform) March 1, 2019 Dear Leader McCarthy, Congratulations on your appearance today at the Conservative Political Action Committee conference in Maryland. This annual gathering of sober-minded conservative thinkers is more important than ever, now that unAmerican liberals have seized control of part of the legislative branch through rampant voter fraud. I was particularly struck by the comments you made at CPAC about the many proud and unrepentant Socialists you're serving with in the House and the Senate. Of course, all of them are Democrats and most of them newly elected. It's a shame you're forced to rub shoulders with such reprobates. It goes without saying that Socialism is one of the world's true evils, and that it undermines everything the United States of America stands for. Socialism has resulted untold harm and destruction around the globe. Just through Josef Stalin's actions alone, we're talking about tens of millions brutal deaths, not counting those inflicted by Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro and other Socialist icons. Socialists are enemies of the freedom we hold so dearly. In view of that, I believe the Republican Party has a duty to declare a War on Socialism, in the same way we've declared a War on Drugs. This fight MUST be the party's number-one priority. We've outlawed heroin. Why not Socialism? The war's first step should be banning all Socialist thought and prosecution of all of Socialism's adherents. Wouldn't you like to see the smirks wiped off the faces of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortz, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders once they were imprisoned? I sure would. For their perfidies, they should be locked up for many years! An interesting aspect to my proposal is that it would also serve as an ironic realization of their dreams. Prison would give them free government-provided housing, furniture, clothing, food, jobs, medical care, etc. Every one of their colleagues (fellow prison inmates) would get exactly the same benefits, and all would be treated with cruel equality. That's a Socialist paradise! The bonus to this proposal is that AOC, Warren, et al  would be re-educated by their prison experiences. After 10 or 20 years of confinement, they would emerge as Socialism's fiercest critics. The second priority of the War on Socialism should be military action to stomp it out elsewhere, as a defensive measure. That would prevent Socialism from ever again infecting the American mindset. We should start by invading Canada -- which would be easy because they have only one-tenth the population of the United States and a rinky-dink military. Once we destroyed the awful Canadian healthcare system, Congress could get rid of Medicare in the United States, which is almost as bad, and then Social Security. There are plenty more aspects to my proposal that I'm willing to share with you whenever you have a minute. Please drop me an email or give me a call! Sincerely, Arthur Mofodopoulis 26980 Avenue 140 Porterville, CA 93527-9430

[enriqueestradaword]

Jun 18, 1987 MIAMI Vice President George Bush with my father Enrique Estrada- Campaigning before a sparse but enthusiastic crowd, Vice President George Bush was cheered on Wednesday as he christened a Little Havana street as Ronald W. Reagan Avenue. Before pulling a brown cardboard covering off the new street sign, Bush denounced Cuban leader Fidel Castro and praised the contra guerrillas who are fighting the leftist Nicaraguan government. In a 10-minute speech, Bush vowed to "work with whatever strength I have to bring freedom and democracy to Cuba" and Nicaragua. "We must never turn our heads away from the evils of Fidel Castro," said Bush, who had U.S. and Cuban flags sticking out of his jacket pocket. Bush is counting on strong support from Dade County's Republican Cuban- Americans to propel him to victory in the Florida presidential primary next March 8. Reagan is extremely popular among Dade Cubans and every mention of the president's name got loud applause on Tuesday. Bush staffers felt it would help their cause in Little Havana to use the renaming of Southwest 12th Avenue to align the vice president with the president. Much of Dade's Latin political elite was on the bandstand with Bush, who was introduced by Miami Mayor Xavier Suarez as "a vice president whose grandchildren spoke Spanish before they spoke English." Bush's son, Florida Commerce Secretary Jeb Bush, is married to a woman of Hispanic heritage. Despite the obvious popularity of Bush's tough anti-Castro stance and the heavy advance billing that his visit got on Spanish-language radio, half of the seats at the ceremony were empty. About 350 people braved the blistering sun to attend. Only a handful of spectators stood beyond the police barriers, including two dozen Nicaraguans who demonstrated against the current immigration law's employment curbs for exiles who arrived after 1981. Others held hand-lettered signs demanding a stronger stand against the Nicaraguan Sandinista rulers. One woman waved a sign that featured the names "Castro and (Nicaraguan President Daniel) Ortega," and had two stick figures hanging from a gallows. In addition to the city politicians, Maria DeSillers greeted Bush (at Little Havana) https://www.instagram.com/p/Bq2r93KnUf0/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=11unhw2f6t139

[catholicwatertown]

Pope Mass: Discern and denounce evil, care for others

(Vatican Radio) A shepherd must be passionate, must know how to discern and how to denounce evil. Those were Pope Francis’ words during Mass on Thursday at the Casa Santa Marta, where he focused on the figure of the Apostle Paul and then turned his attention to the example offered by Don Milani. Like the parish priest of Barbiana, the Pope said, one should take care of one’s neighbour.

"The Good Shepherd gives his life for his sheep," said Pope Francis during his homily, drawing inspiration from the readings of the day and dwelling on the characteristics that a shepherd should have. The Pope noted in Saint Paul, the figure of the "true shepherd", who does not abandon his sheep unlike a "mercenary". The first quality, therefore, the Holy Father indicated, is that St Paul  is "passionate". Passionate,  he added, "to the point of telling his people, 'I feel for you all a kind of divine jealousy'." He  is "divinely jealous," the Pope commented.

The true shepherd knows how to discern, on guard against at the seduction of evil

A passion therefore becomes almost "madness", "stupidity" for his people. "And this – the Pope added - is that which we call apostolic zeal: he cannot be a true shepherd without this fire." A second characteristic, he continued, the pastor must be "a man who knows how to discern":

"He knows what seduction in life is. The lying father is a seducer. The Shepherd, is not. The shepherd loves. Instead, the snake, the father of lies, is a seducer. He is a seducer trying to turn away from fidelity, because that divine jealousy of Paul was to bring the people to a single groom, to keep the people loyal to their bridegroom. In the history of salvation, in Scripture many times we turn away from God, disloyalty towards the Lord, idolatry as if it were a maternal infidelity. "

You must know how to report evil, not be naïve

The Shepherd’s first characteristic, then, "is to be passionate, zealous, zealous". The second feature is, "someone who knows how to discern: to discern where the dangers are, where the graces are... where the real road is". This, the Pope said, "means he always accompanies his sheep: in beautiful moments and even in bad moments, even in moments of seduction, with patience he brings them to the fold." And the third feature: is "the ability to denounce":

"An apostle cannot be naive: 'Ah, it's all right, let's go ahead, eh? It's all right ... Let's party, everyone ... everything is possible ...'. because there is the fidelity to the only groom, to Jesus Christ, to be defended. And he knows how to condemn it: that concreteness, to say ' no,' like the  parents say to the baby when he starts to clap and goes to the electric socket to put his fingers in : 'No, no! It's dangerous!'. But, I think so many times of that 'tuca nen' (do not touch anything ndr) that my parents and grandparents told me at those moments where there was a danger. "

Take care of others  as Don Milani did

 "The Good Shepherd – Pope Francis said - can denounce, by name and surname" as St. Paul did.

The Holy Father returned to his visit to Bozzolo and Barbiana, this week, referring, "to those two good shepherds of Italy." And speaking of Don Milani, he recalled his "motto" when he "taught his boys":

"I care. But what does it mean? They explained to me that he wanted to say 'I care'. He taught that things were to be taken seriously, against the fashion motto at that time that was 'I do not care,' but said in another language, which I dare not say here. And so he taught the kids to move on. Take care: take care of your life, and this no! '"

Paul's apostolic zeal, was passionate, zealous. Man, commented the Holy Father knows how to discern because he knows the power of seduction and knows the devil seduces.

The Pope then concluded with a prayer "for all the shepherds of the Church, for Saint Paul who intercede before the Lord, for all of us pastors in order to serve the Lord."

(from Vatican Radio) from News.va http://ift.tt/2txMqIh via IFTTT from Blogger http://ift.tt/2sYqtF8

[michaellozano171]

Salvation

Bible Study Salvation sal - vā´shun : I. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 1. General 2. Individualism 3. Faith 4. Moral Law 5. Sacrifices 6. Ritual Law II. INTERMEDIATE LITERATURE 1. General 2. The Law III. THE TEACHING OF CHRIST 1. The Baptist 2. Kingdom of God 3. Present and Future 4. Individualism 5. Moral Progress 6. Forgiveness 7. Person of Christ 8. Notes IV. PAUL 1. General 2. Moral Progress 3. The Spirit 4. Mystical Union 5. Forgiveness 6. Atonement 7. Summary 8. Notes V. THE REST OF THE NEW TESTAMENT : SUMMARY 1. John 2. Hebrews 3. Peter 4. Summary LITERATURE In English Versions of the Bible the words "salvation" "save," are not technical theological terms, but denote simply "deliverance," in almost any sense the latter word can have. In systematic theology, however, "salvation" denotes the whole process by which man is delivered from all that would prevent his attaining to the highest good that God has prepared for him. Or, by a transferred sense, "salvation" denotes the actual enjoyment of that good. So, while these technical senses are often associated with the Greek or Hebrew words translated "save," etc., yet they are still more often used in connection with other words or represented only by the general sense of a passage. And so a collection of the original terms for "save," etc., is of value only for the student doing minute detailed work, while it is the purpose of the present article to present a general view of the Biblical doctrine of salvation. I. In the Old Testament 1. General: (1) As long as revelation had not raised the veil that separates this life from the next, the Israelite thought of his highest good as long life in a prosperous Palestine, as described most typically in Deuteronomy 28:1-14 . But a definite religious idea was present also, for the "land of milk and honey," even under angelic protection, was worthless without access to God (Exodus 33:1-4 ), to know whom gives happiness (Isaiah 11:9; Habakkuk 2:14; Jeremiah 31:34 ). Such a concept is normal for most of the Old Testament, but there are several significant enlargements of it. That Israel should receive God's characteristic of righteousness is a part of the ideal (Isaiah 1:26; Isaiah 4:3 , Isaiah 4:4; Isaiah 32:1-8; Isaiah 33:24; Jeremiah 31:33 , Jeremiah 31:34; Ezekiel 36:25 , Ezekiel 36:26; Zec 8; Daniel 9:24; Psalms 51:10-12 ). Good was found in the extension of Israel's good to the surrounding nations (Micah 4:1-4; Isaiah 2:2-4; Isaiah 45:5 , Isaiah 45:6; Zechariah 2:11; Zechariah 8:22 , Zechariah 8:23; Isa 60; Isaiah 66:19-21; Zechariah 14:16 , Zechariah 14:17 , etc.), even to the extension of the legitimate sacrificial worship to the soil of Egypt (Isaiah 19:19-22 ). Palestine was insufficient for the enjoyment of God's gifts, and a new heaven and a new earth were to be received (Isaiah 65:17; Isaiah 66:22 ), and a share in the glories was not to be denied even to the dead (Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2 ). And, among the people so glorified, God would dwell in person (Isaiah 60:19 , Isaiah 60:20; Zechariah 2:10-12 ). (2) Salvation, then, means deliverance from all that interferes with the enjoyment of these blessings. So it takes countless forms - deliverance from natural plagues, from internal dissensions, from external enemies, or from the subjugation of conquerors (the exile, particularly). As far as enemies constitute the threatening danger, the prayer for deliverance is often based on their evil character (Psalms 101:1-8 , etc.). But for the individual all these evils are summed up in the word "death," which was thought to terminate all relation to God and all possibility of enjoying His blessings (Psalms 115:17; Isaiah 38:18 , etc.). And so "death" became established as the antinomy to "salvation," and in this sense the word has persisted, although the equation "loss of salvation = physical death" has long been transcended. But death and its attendant evils are worked by God's wrath, and so it is from this wrath that salvation is sought (Joshua 7:26 , etc.). And thus, naturally, salvation is from everything that raises that wrath, above all from sin (Ezekiel 36:25 , Ezekiel 36:26 , etc.). 2. Individualism: (1) At first the "unit of salvation" was the nation (less prominently the family), i.e. a man though righteous could lose salvation through the faults of others. A father could bring a curse on his children (2 Samuel 21:1-14 ), a king on his subjects (2 Sam 24), or an unknown sinner could bring guilt on an entire community (Deuteronomy 21:1-9 ). (On the other hand, ten righteous would have saved Sodom (Genesis 18:32 ).) And the principle of personal responsibility was grasped but slowly. It is enunciated partly in Deuteronomy 24:16 (compare Jeremiah 31:29 , Jeremiah 31:30 ), definitely in Ezekiel 14:12-20; 18; 33:1-20, and fairly consistently in the Psalms. But even Ezekiel still held that five-and-twenty could defile the whole nation (Ezekiel 8:16 ), and he had not the premises for resolving the problem - that temporal disasters need not mean the loss of salvation. (2) But even when it was realized that a man lost salvation through his own fault, the converse did not follow. Salvation came, not by the man's mere merit, but because the man belonged to a nation peculiarly chosen by God. God had made a covenant with Israel and His fidelity insured salvation: the salvation comes from God because of His promise or (in other words) because of His name. Indeed, the great failing of the people was to trust too blindly to this promise, an attitude denounced continually by the prophets throughout (from, say, Amos 3:2 to Matthew 3:9 ). And yet even the prophets admit a real truth in the attitude, for, despite Israel's sins, eventual salvation is certain. Ezekiel 20 states this baldly: there has been nothing good in Israel and there is nothing good in her at the prophet's own day, but, notwithstanding, God will give her restoration (compare Isaiah 8:17 , Isaiah 8:18; Jeremiah 32:6-15 , etc.). 3. Faith: Hence, of the human conditions, whole-hearted trust in God is the most important. ( Belief in God is, of course, never argued in the Bible.) Inconsistent with such trust are, for instance, seeking aid from other nations ( Isaiah 30:1-5 ), putting reliance in human skill (2 Chronicles 16:12 ), or forsaking Palestine through fear (Jer 42). In Isaiah 26:20 entire passivity is demanded, and in 2 Kings 13:19 lukewarmness in executing an apparently meaningless command is rebuked. 4. Moral Law: (1) Next in importance is the attainment of a moral standard, expressed normally in the various codes of the Law. But fulfillment of the letter of the commandment was by no means all that was required. For instance, the Law permitted the selling of a debtor into slavery (Deuteronomy 15:12 ), but the reckless use of the creditor's right is sharply condemned (Nehemiah 5:1-13 ). The prophets are never weary of giving short formulas that will exclude such supralegalism and reduce conduct to a pure motive: "Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish justice in the gate" (Amos 5:15 ); "To do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God" (Micah 6:8 ). And the chief emphasis on the Law as written is found in the later books, especially Ps 119 (compare Psalms 147:20 ). (2) Certain breaches of the Law had no pardon, but were visited with death at once, even despite repentance and confession (Josh 7). But for the most part it is promised that repentance will remove the guilt of the sin if the sin be forsaken (Ezek 18) or, in the case of a sin that would not be repeated, if contrition be felt (2 Sam 12). Suffering played a part in salvation by bringing knowledge of sin to the conscience, the exile being the most important example (Ezekiel 36:31 ). But almost always it is assumed that the possibility of keeping the Law is in man's own power, Deuteronomy 30:11-14 stating this explicitly, while the Wisdom Books equate virtue with learning. Consequently, an immense advance was made when man felt the need of God's help to keep the Law, the need of the inscription of the Laws on the heart ( Jeremiah 31:31-34 ). So an outlook was opened to a future in which God would make the nation righteous (see references in 1, above). 5. Sacrifices: (1) The acceptance of repentance as expiating past sins was an act of God's mercy. And so His mercy instituted other and additional means of expiation, most notably that of the sacrifices. But a theology of sacrifice is conspicuously absent from the whole Old Testament, for Leviticus 17:11 is too incidental and too obscure to be any exception. The Christian (or very late Jewish) interpretations of the ritual laws lack all solidity of exegetical foundation, despite their one-time prevalence. Nor is the study of origins of much help for the meaning attached to the rites by the Jews in historic times. General ideas of offering, of self-denial, of propitiation of wrath, and of entering into communion with God assuredly existed. But in the advanced stages of the religion there is no evidence that sacrifices were thought to produce their effect because of any of these things, but solely because God had commanded the sacrifices. (2) Most sins required a sacrifice as part of the act of repentance, although in case of injury done the neighbor, only after reparation had been made. It is not quite true that for conscious sins no sacrifices were appointed, for in Leviticus 5:1; Leviticus 6:1-3 , sins are included that could not be committed through mere negligence. And so such rules as Numbers 15:30 , Numbers 15:31 must not be construed too rigorously. (3) Sacrifices as means of salvation are taught chiefly by Ezekiel, while at the rebuilding of the temple (Haggai, Zechariah) and the depression that followed (Malachi), they were much in the foreground, but the pre-exilic prophets have little to say about their positive value ( Jeremiah 7:22 is the nadir ). Indeed, in preexilic times the danger was the exaltation of sacrifice at the expense of morality, especially with the peace offering, which could be turned into a drunken revel (Amos 5:21-24; Isaiah 22:13; compare Proverbs 7:14 ). Attempts were made to "strengthen" the sacrifices to Yahweh by the use of ethnic rites (Hosea 4:14; Isaiah 65:1-5 ), even with the extreme of human sacrifice (Jeremiah 7:31; Ezekiel 20:26 ). But insistence on the strict centralization of worship and increasing emphasis laid on the sin and trespass offerings did away with the worst of the abuses. And many of the Psalms, especially Ps 66 and Ps 118, give beautiful evidence of the devotion that could be nourished by the sacrificial rites. 6. Ritual Law: Of the other means of salvation the ritual law (not always sharply distinguishable from the moral law) bulks rather large in the legislation, but is not prominent in the prophets. Requisite to salvation was the abstention from certain acts, articles of food, etc., such abstinence seeming to lie at the background of the term "holiness." But a ritual breach was often a matter of moral duty (burying the dead, etc.), and, for such breaches, ritual means of purification are provided and the matter dropped. Evidently such things lay rather on the circumference of the religion, even to Ezekiel, with his anxious zeal against the least defilement. The highest ritual point is touched by Zechariah 14:20 , Zechariah 14:21 , where all of Jerusalem is so holy that not a pot would be unfit to use in the temple (compare Jeremiah 31:38-40 ). Yet, even with this perfect holiness, sacrifices would still have a place as a means by which the holiness could be increased. Indeed, this more "positive" view of sacrifices was doubtless present from the first. II. Intermediate Literature. 1. General: (1) The great change, compared with the earlier period, is that the idea of God had become more transcendent. But this did not necessarily mean an increase in religious value, for there was a corresponding tendency to take God out of relation to the world by an intellectualizing process. This, when combined with the persistence of the older concept of salvation in this life only, resulted in an emptying of the religious instinct and in indifferentism. This tendency is well represented in Ecclesiastes, more acutely in Sirach, and in New Testament times it dominated the thought of the Sadducees. On the other hand the expansion of the idea of salvation to correspond with the higher conception of God broke through the limitations of this life and created the new literary form of apocalyptics, represented in the Old Testament especially by Zechariah 9 through 14; Isaiah 24 through 27, and above all by Daniel. And in the intermediate literature all shades of thought between the two extremes are represented. But too much emphasis can hardly be laid on the fact that this intermediate teaching is in many regards simply faithful to the Old Testament. Almost anything that can be found in the Old Testament - with the important exception of the note of joyousness of Deuteronomy, etc. - can be found again here. (2) Of the conceptions of the highest good the lowest is the Epicureanism of Sirach. The highest is probably that of 2 Esdras 7:91-98 Revised Version: "To behold the face of him whom in their lifetime they served" the last touch of materialism being eliminated. Indeed, real materialism is notably absent in the period, even Enoch 10:17-19 being less exuberant than the fancies of such early Christian writers as Papias. Individualism is generally taken for granted, but that the opposite opinion was by no means dormant, even at a late period, is shown by Matthew 3:9 . The idea of a special privilege of Israel, however, of course pervades all the literature, Sibylline Oracles 5 and Jubilees being the most exclusive books and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the most broad-hearted. In place of national privilege, though, is sometimes found the still less edifying feature of party privilege (Ps Sol; Enoch 94-105), the most offensive case being the assertion of Enoch 90:6-9 that the (inactive) Israel will be saved by the exertions of the "little lamb" Pharisees, before whom every knee shall bow in the Messianic kingdom. 2. The Law: (1) The conceptions of the moral demands for salvation at times reach a very high level, especially in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (making every allowance for Christian interpolations). "The spirit of love worketh together with the law of God in long-suffering unto the salvation of men" (Test. Gad Matthew 4:7 ) is hardly unworthy of Paul, and even Jubilees can say, "Let each love his brother in mercy and justice, and let none wish the other evil" (Jub 36:8). But the great tendency is to view God's law merely as a series of written statutes, making no demands except those gained from a rigid construing of the letter. In Luke 10:29 , "Who is my neighbor?" is a real question - if he is not my neighbor I need not love him! So duties not literally commanded were settled by utilitarian motives, as outside the domain of religion, and the unhealthy phenomenon of works of supererogation made its appearance ( Luke 17:10 ). The writer of Wisdom can feel smugly assured of salvation, because idolatry had been abstained from (Wisd 15:4; contrast Paul's polemic in Rom 2). And discussions about "greatest commandments" caused character in its relation to religion to be forgotten. (2) As God's commands were viewed as statutes the distinction between the moral and the ritual was lost, and the ritual law attained enormous and familiar proportions. The beautiful story of Judith is designed chiefly to teach abstinence from ritually unclean food. And the most extreme case is in Jubilees 6:34-38 - all of Israel's woes come from keeping the feasts by the actual moon instead of by a correct (theoretical) moon (!). (3) Where self-complacency ceased and a strong moral sense was present, despair makes its appearance with extraordinary frequency. The period is the period of penitential prayers, with an undercurrent of doubt as to how far mercy can be expected (Song of Three Children verses 3-22; Pr Man; Baruch 3:1-8, etc.). "What profit is it unto us, if there be promised us an immortal time, whereas we have done the works that bring death?" (2 Esdras 7:119 the Revised Version (British and American)). The vast majority of men are lost (2 Esdras 9:16) and must be forgotten (2 Esdras 8:55), and Ezra can trust for his own salvation only by a special revelation (7:77 the Revised Version (British and American)). So, evidently, Paul's pre-Christian experience was no unique occurrence. (4) Important for the New Testament background is the extreme lack of prominence of the sacrifices. They are never given a theological interpretation (except in Philo, where they cease to be sacrifices). Indeed, in Sirach 35 they are explicitly said to be devotions for the righteous only, apparently prized only as an inheritance from the past and "because of the commandment" (Sirach 35:5; yet compare 38:11). When the temple was destroyed and the sacrifices ceased, Judaism went on its way almost unaffected, showing that the sacrifices meant nothing essential to the people. And, even in earlier times, the Essenes rejected sacrifices altogether, without losing thereby their recognition as Jews. III. The Teaching of Christ. 1. The Baptist: The Baptist proclaimed authoritatively the near advent of the kingdom of God, preceded by a Messianic judgment that would bring fire for the wicked and the Holy Spirit for the righteous. Simple but incisive moral teaching and warning against trusting in national privileges, with baptism as an outward token of repentance, were to prepare men to face this judgment securely. But we have no data to determine how much farther (if any) the Baptist conceived his teaching to lead. 2. Kingdom of God: It was in the full heat of this eschatological revival that the Baptist had fanned, that Christ began to teach, and He also began with the eschatological phrase, "The kingdom of God is at hand." Consequently, His teaching must have been taken at once in an eschatological sense, and it is rather futile to attempt to limit such implications to passages where modern eschatological phrases are used unambiguously. "The kingdom of God is at hand" had the inseparable connotation "Judgment is at hand," and in this context, "Repent ye" (Mark 1:15 ) must mean "lest ye be judged." Hence, our Lord's teaching about salvation had primarily a future content: positively, admission into the kingdom of God, and negatively, deliverance from the preceding judgment. So the kingdom of God is the "highest good" of Christ's teaching but, with His usual reserve, He has little to say about its externals. Man's nature is to be perfectly adapted to his spiritual environment (see RESURRECTION ), and man is to be with Christ (Luke 22:30 ) and the patriarchs (Matthew 8:11 ). But otherwise - and again as usual - the current descriptions are used without comment, even when they rest on rather materialistic imagery (Luke 22:16 , Luke 22:30 ). Whatever the kingdom is, however, its meaning is most certainly not exhausted by a mere reformation of the present order of material things. 3. Present and Future: But the fate of man at judgment depends on what man is before judgment, so that the practical problem is salvation from the conditions that will bring judgment; i.e. present and future salvation are inseparably connected, and any attempt to make rigid distinctions between the two results in logomachies. Occasionally even Christ speaks of the kingdom of God as present, in the sense that citizens of the future kingdom are living already on this earth (Matthew 11:11; Luke 17:21 (?); the meaning of the latter verse is very dubious). Such men are "saved" already (Luke 19:9; Luke 7:50 (?)), i.e. such men were delivered from the bad moral condition that was so extended that Satan could be said to hold sway over the world (Luke 10:18; Luke 11:21 ). 4. Individualism: That the individual was the unit in this deliverance needs no emphasis: Still, the divine privilege of the Jews was a reality and Christ's normal work was limited to them (Matthew 10:5; Matthew 15:26 , etc.). He admitted even that the position of the Jewish religious leaders rested on a real basis (Matthew 23:3 ). But the "good tidings" were so framed that their extension to all men would have been inevitable, even had there not been an explicit command of Christ in this regard. On the other hand, while the message involved in every case strict individual choice, yet the individual who accepted it entered into social relations with the others who had so chosen. So salvation involved admission to a community of service (Mark 9:35 , etc.). And in the latter part of Christ's ministry, He withdrew from the bulk of His disciples to devote Himself to the training of an inner circle of Twelve, an act explicable only on the assumption that these were to be the leaders of the others after He was taken away. Such passages as Matthew 16:18; Matthew 18:17 merely corroborate this. 5. Moral Progress: Of the conditions for the individual, the primary (belief in God being taken for granted) was a correct moral ideal. Exclusion from salvation came from the Pharisaic casuistry which had invented limits to righteousness. Exodus 20:13 had never contemplated permitting angry thoughts if actual murder was avoided, and so on. In contrast is set the idea of character, of the single eye ( Matthew 6:22 ), of the pure heart (Matthew 5:8 ). Only so can the spiritual house be built on a rock foundation. But the mere ideal is not enough; persistent effort toward it and a certain amount of progress are demanded imperatively. Only those who have learned to forgive can ask for forgiveness (Matthew 6:12; Matthew 18:35 ). They who omit natural works of mercy have no share in the kingdom (Mt 25:31-46), for even idle words will be taken into account (Matthew 12:36 ), and the most precious possession that interferes with moral progress is to be sacrificed ruthlessly (Matthew 18:8 , Matthew 18:9 , etc.). Men are known by their fruits (Matthew 7:20 ); it is he that doeth the will of the Father that shall enter into the kingdom (Matthew 7:21 ), and the final ideal - which is likewise the goal - is becoming a son of the Father in moral likeness (Matthew 5:45 ). That this progress is due to God's aid is so intimately a part of Christ's teaching on the entire dependence of the soul on God that it receives little explicit mention, but Christ refers even His own miracles to the Father's power (Luke 11:20 ). 6. Forgiveness: Moral effort, through God's aid, is an indispensable condition for salvation. But complete success in the moral struggle is not at all a condition, in the sense that moral perfection is required. For Christ's disciples, to whom the kingdom is promised (Luke 12:32 ), the palsied man who receives remission of sins (Mark 2:5 ), Zaccheus who is said to have received salvation (Luke 19:9 ), were far from being models of sinlessness. The element in the character that Christ teaches as making up for the lack of moral perfection is becoming "as a little child" (compare Mark 10:15 ). Now the point here is not credulousness (for belief is not under discussion), nor is it meekness (for children are notoriously not meek). And it most certainly is not the pure passivity of the newly born infant, for it is gratuitous to assume that only such infants were meant even in Luke 18:15 , while in Matthew 18:2 (where the child comes in answer to a call) this interpretation is excluded. Now, in the wider teaching of Christ the meaning is made clear enough. Salvation is for the poor in spirit, for those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for the prodigal knowing his wretchedness. It is for the penitent publican, while the self-satisfied Pharisee is rejected. A sense of need and a desire that God will give are the characteristics. A child does not argue that it has earned its father's benefits but looks to him in a feeling of dependence, with a readiness to do his bidding. So it is the soul that desires all of righteousness, strives toward it, knows that it falls short, and trusts in its Father for the rest, that is the savable soul. 7. Person of Christ: Christ speaks of the pardon of the publican (Luke 18:9 ff) and of the prodigal welcomed by the Father ( Luke 15:20 ), both without intermediary. And it is perhaps not necessary to assume that all of those finding the strait gate (Matthew 7:14 ) were explicitly among Christ's disciples. But would Christ have admitted that anyone who had come to know Him and refused to obey Him would have been saved? To ask this question is to answer it in the negative (Mark 9:40 is irrelevant). Real knowledge of the Father is possible only through the unique knowledge of the Son ( Luke 10:21 , Luke 10:22 ), and lack of faith in the Son forfeits all blessings (Mark 6:5 , Mark 6:6; Mark 9:23 ). Faith in Him brings instant forgiveness of sins (Mark 2:5 ), and love directed to Him is an indisputable sign that forgiveness has taken place (Luke 7:47 ). But Christ thought of Himself as Messiah and, if the term "Messiah" is not to be emptied of its meaning, this made Him judge of the world (such verses as Mark 8:38 are hardly needed for direct evidence). And, since for Christ's consciousness an earthly judgeship is unthinkable, a transcendental judgeship is the sole alternative, corroborated by the use of the title Son of Man. But passage from simple humanity to the transcendental glory of the Son-of-Man Messiah involved a change hardly expressible except by death and resurrection. And the expectation of death was in Christ's mind from the first, as is seen by Mark 2:18 , Mark 2:19 (even without Mark 2:20 ). That He could have viewed His death as void of significance for human salvation is simply inconceivable, and the ascription of Mark 10:45 to Pauline influence is in defiance of the facts. Nor is it credible that Christ conceived that in the interval between His death and His Parousia He would be out of relation to His own. To Him the unseen world was in the closest relation to the visible world, and His passage into glory would strengthen, not weaken, His power. So there is a complete justification of Mark 14:22-25 : to Christ His death had a significance that could be paralleled only by the death of the Covenant victim in Exodus 24:6-8 , for by it an entirely new relation was established between God and man. 8. Notes: (1) Salvation from physical evil was a very real part, however subordinate, of Christ's teaching ( Mark 1:34 , etc.). (2) Ascetic practices as a necessary element in salvation can hardly claim Christ's authority. It is too often forgotten that the Twelve were not Christ's only disciples. Certainly not all of the hundred and twenty of Acts 1:15 (compare Acts 1:21 ), nor of the five hundred of 1 Corinthians 15:6 , were converted after the Passion. And they all certainly could not have left their homes to travel with Christ. So the demands made in the special case of the Twelve (still less in such an extremely special case as Mark 10:21 ) in no way represent Christ's normal practice, whatever readiness for self-sacrifice may have been asked of all. So the representations of Christ as ruthlessly exacting all from everyone are quite unwarranted by the facts. And it is well to remember that it is Matthew 11:19 that contains the term of reproach that His adversaries gave Him. IV. Paul. Instead of laying primal stress on Paul's peculiar contributions to soteriology, it will be preferable to start from such Pauline passages as simply continue the explicit teaching of Christ. For it is largely due to the common reversal of this method that the present acute "Jesus-Paulus" controversy exists. 1. General: That Paul expected the near advent of the kingdom of God with a judgment preceding, and that salvation meant to him primarily deliverance from this judgment, need not be argued. And, accordingly, emphasis is thrown sometimes on the future deliverance and sometimes on the present conditions for the deliverance (contrast Romans 5:9 and Romans 8:24 ), but the practical problem is the latter. More explicitly than in Christ's recorded teaching the nature and the blessings of the kingdom are described (see KINGDOM OF GOD ), but the additional matter is without particular religious import. A certain privilege of the Jews appears (Romans 3:1-8; 9-11), but the practical content of the privilege seems to be eschatological only (Romans 11:26 ). Individual conversion is of course taken for granted, but the life after that becomes highly corporate. See CHURCH . 2. Moral Progress: (1) The moral ideal is distinctly that of character. Paul, indeed, is frequently obliged to give directions as to details, but the detailed directions are referred constantly to the underlying principle, Romans 14 or 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 being excellent examples of this, while "love is the fulfillment of the law" ( Romans 13:10 ) is the summary. (2) Persistent moral effort is indispensable, and the new life absolutely must bring forth fruit to God (Romans 6:4; Romans 13:12; Galatians 5:24; Colossians 3:5; Ephesians 2:3; Ephesians 4:17 , Ephesians 4:22-32; Titus 2:11-14 ). Only by good conduct can one please God (1 Thessalonians 4:1 ), and the works of even Christians are to be subjected to a searching test (1 Corinthians 3:13; 1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Corinthians 5:10 ) in a judgment not to be faced without the most earnest striving (1 Corinthians 10:12; Philippians 2:12 ), not even by Paul himself (1 Corinthians 9:27; Philippians 3:12-14 ). And the possibility of condemnation because of a lack of moral attainment must not be permitted to leave the mind (1 Corinthians 3:17; Galatians 5:21; compare Romans 8:12 , Romans 8:13; Romans 11:20; 1 Corinthians 10:12; Galatians 6:7-9 ). Consequently, growth in actual righteousness is as vital in Paul's soteriology as it is in that teaching of Christ: Christians have "put off the old man with his doings" ( Colossians 3:9 ). 3. The Spirit: That this growth is God's work is, however, a point where Paul has expanded Christ's quiet assumption rather elaborately. In particular, what Christ had made the source of His own supernatural power - the Holy Spirit - is specified as the source of the power of the Christian's ordinary life, as well as of the more special endowments (see SPIRITUAL GIFTS ). In the Spirit the Christian has received the blessing promised to Abraham (Galatians 3:14 ); by it the deeds of the body can be put to death and all virtues flow into the soul (Galatians 5:16-26 ), if a man walks according to it (1 Corinthians 6:19 , 1 Corinthians 6:20; 1 Thessalonians 4:8 ). The palmary passage is Romans 7 through 8. In Romans 7 Paul looks back with a shudder on his pre-Christian helplessness (it is naturally the extreme of exegetical perversity to argue that he dreaded not the sin itself but only God's penalty on sin). But the Spirit gives strength to put to death the deeds of the body (Romans 8:13 ), to disregard the things of the flesh (Romans 8:5 ), and to fulfill the ordinance of the Law (Romans 8:4 ). Such moral power is the test of Christianity: as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God (Romans 8:14 ). 4. Mystical Union: This doctrine of the Spirit is simply that what Christ did on earth would be carried on with increased intensity after the Passion. That this work could be thought of out of relation to Christ, or that Christ Himself could have so thought of it (see above, III, 7) is incredible. So the exalted Christ appears as the source of moral and spiritual power (Paul speaks even more of Christ's resurrection than of the Passion), the two sources (Christ and the Spirit) being very closely combined in 2 Corinthians 3:17; Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 . Our old man has been crucified, so putting an end to the bondage of sin, and we can prevent sin from reigning in our mortal bodies, for our burial into Christ's death was to enable us to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:2-14 ). The resurrection is a source of power, and through Christ's strength all things can be done (Philippians 4:13 , Philippians 4:10 ). Christ is the real center of the believer's personality (Galatians 2:20 ); the man has become a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17; compare Colossians 2:20; Colossians 3:3 ); we were joined to another that we might bring forth fruit to God (Romans 7:4 ). And by contact with the glory of the Lord we are transformed into the same image (2 Corinthians 3:18 ), the end being conformation to the image of the Son (Romans 8:30 ). 5. Forgiveness: (1) This growth in actual holiness, then, is fundamental with Paul: "If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Romans 8:9 ). And the acquisition of strength through union with Christ is vitally connected with the remission of sins. In Romans 7:1-6 (compare Colossians 2:11 , Colossians 2:12 ), the mystical union with Christ makes His death ours (compare Colossians 3:3 ) and so removes us from the Law (compare Romans 10:4; 1 Corinthians 15:56 ), which has no relation to the dead. And by the life-giving power of this union the strength of sin is broken (Romans 6:6 ). (2) The condition in man that makes forgiveness possible Paul calls "faith" - a very complicated term. Its chief use, however, is in opposition to "works" (most clearly in Rom 9:30 through 10:13). The Jews' "pursuit after righteousness" - the attempt to wring salvation from God as wages earned - was vain (Romans 10:13 ), and in contrast is the appeal to God, the conscious relinquishment of all claim (Romans 4:5 ). The soul looks trustingly for salvation to its Father, precisely the attitude of the "children" in the teaching of Christ. But no more than in the teaching of Christ is faith a purely passive virtue, for man must be "obedient" to it (Romans 1:5; Romans 10:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:13 ). And for the necessary presence of love in faith compare 1 Corinthians 13:2; Galatians 5:6; Ephesians 3:17 . 6. Atonement: Because of faith - specifically, faith in Christ (except Romans 4; Galatians 3:6 ) - G od does not visit the penalties of sins on believers, but treats them as if they were righteous (Romans 5:1 , etc.). But this is not because of a quality in the believer or in the faith, but because of an act that preceded any act of Christian faith, the death of Christ (not the cross, specifically, for Paul does not argue from the cross in all of Roman). Through this death God's mercy could be extended safely, while before this the exercise of that mercy had proved disastrous (Romans 3:25 , Romans 3:26 ). And this death was a sacrifice (Romans 3:25 , etc.). And it is certain that Paul conceived of this sacrifice as existing quite independently of its effect on any human being. But he has given us no data for a really complete sacrificial doctrine, a statement sufficiently proved by the hopeless variance of the interpretations that have been propounded. And that Paul ever constructed a theory of the operation of sacrifices must be doubted. There is none in the contemporary Jewish literature, there is none in the Old Testament, and there is none in the rest of the New Testament, not even in Hebrews. Apparently the rites were so familiar that sacrificial terminology was ready to hand and was used without particular reflection and without attempting to give it precise theological content. This is borne out by the ease with which in Romans 3:24 , Romans 3:25 Paul passes from a ransom (redemption) illustration to a (quite discordant) propitation illustration. For further discussion see ATONEMENT; JUSTIFICATION . Here it is enough make a juridical theory constructed from Pauline implications and illustrations central in Christianity is to do exactly what Paul did not do. 7. Summary: Summing up, there is a double line of thought in Paul: the remission of penalties through the atoning death of Christ and the destruction of the power of sin through strength flowing from Christ, the human element in both cases being faith. The question of the order of the steps is futile, for "to have faith," "to be in Christ," and "to have the Spirit" are convertible terms, i.e. in doctrinal phraseology, the beginnings of sanctification are simultaneous with justification. Attempts to unify the two lines of thought into a single theory cannot claim purely Biblical support. The "ethical" theory, which in its best form makes God's pardon depend on the fact that the sinner will be made holy (at least in the next world), introduces the fewest extraneous elements, but it says something that Paul does not say. On the other hand one may feel that considering Paul as a whole - to say nothing of the rest of the New Testament - the pure justification doctrine has bulked a little too large in our dogmatics. God's pardon for sin is an immensely important matter, but still more important is the new power of holiness. 8. Notes: (1) Baptism presents another obstacle to a strict unifying of Pauline theology. A very much stronger sacramentarianism is admitted in Paul today than would have been accepted a generation ago, and such passages as Romans 6:1-7; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12 make it certain that he regarded baptism as conferring very real spiritual powers. But that he made a mechanical distinction between the blessings given then and those given at some other time must be doubted. (2) Salvation from the flesh ( Romans 7:24 ) involves no metaphysical dualism, as "flesh" is the whole of the lower nature from which the power to holiness saves a man (Romans 8:13 ). Indeed, the body itself is an object of salvation (Romans 8:11; and see RESURRECTION ). (3) Quite in the background lies the idea of salvation from physical evil (2 Corinthians 1:10 , etc.). Such evils are real evils (1 Corinthians 11:30 ), but in God's hands they may become pure blessings (Romans 5:3; 2 Corinthians 12:7 ). (4) Salvation from sin after conversion is due to God's judging the man in terms of the acquired supernatural nature ( Romans 8:14 , etc.). Yet certain sins may destroy the union with Christ altogether (1 Corinthians 3:17 , etc.), while others bring God's chastening judgment (1 Corinthians 11:30-32 ). Or proper chastisement may be inflicted by Paul himself (1 Corinthians 5:1-5; 1 Timothy 1:20 ) or by the congregation (Galatians 6:1; 2 Thessalonians 3:10-15; 2 Corinthians 2:6 ). V. Rest of New Testament: Summary. 1. John: (1) John had the task of presenting Christ to Gentiles, who were as unfamiliar with the technical meaning of such phrases as "kingdom of God" or "Son of Man" as is the world today, and to Gentiles who had instead a series of concepts unknown in Palestine. So a "translation of spiritual values" became necessary if the gospel were to make an immediate appeal, a translation accomplished so successfully that the Fourth Gospel has always been the most popular. The Synoptists, especially the extremely literal Mark, imperatively demand a historical commentary, while John has successfully avoided this necessity. (2) The "kingdom of God," as a phrase (John 3:3 , John 3:5; compare John 18:36 ), is replaced by "eternal life." This life is given in this world to the one who accepts Christ's teaching (John 5:24; John 6:47 ), but its full realization will be in the "many mansions" of the Father's house (John 14:2 ), where the believer will be with Christ (John 17:24 ). A judgment of all men will precede the establishment of this glorified state (John 5:28 , John 5:29 ), but the believer may face the judgment with equanimity (John 5:24 ). So the believer is delivered from a state of things so bad as expressible as a world under Satan's rule (John 12:31; John 14:30; John 16:11 ), a world in darkness (John 3:19 ), in ignorance of God (John 17:25 ), and in sin (John 8:21 ), all expressible in the one word "death" (John 5:24 ). (3) The Jews had real privilege in the reception of Christ's message (John 1:11; John 4:22 , etc.), but the extension of the good tidings to all men was inevitable (John 12:23 , John 12:12 , etc.). Belief in Christ is wholly a personal matter, but the believers enter a community of service (John 13:14 ), with the unity of the Father and Son as their ideal (John 17:21 ). (4) The nature of the moral ideal, reduced to the single word "love" (John 13:34; John 15:12 ), is assumed as known and identified with "Christ's words" (John 5:24; John 6:63 , etc.), and the necessity of progress toward it as sharply pointed as in the Synoptists. The sinner is the servant of sin (John 8:34 ), a total change of character is needed (John 3:6 ), and the blessing is only on him who does Christ's commandments (John 13:17 ). This "doing" is the proof of love toward Christ (John 14:15 , John 14:21 ); only by bearing fruit and more fruit can discipleship be maintained (John 15:1-6; compare John 14:24 ), and, indeed, by bearing fruit men actually become Christ's disciples (John 15:8 , Gr). The knowledge of Christ and of God that is eternal life (John 17:3 ) comes only through moral effort (John 7:17 ). In John the contrasts are colored so vividly that it would almost appear as if perfection were demanded. But he does not present even the apostles as models of sanctity (John 13:38; John 16:32 ), and self-righteousness is condemned without compromise; the crowning sin is to say, "We see" (John 9:41 ). It is the Son who frees from sin (John 8:36 ), delivers from darkness (John 8:12; John 12:46 ), and gives eternal life (John 11:25 , John 11:26; compare John 3:16; John 5:24;

[prekese1spiritum]

EXPOSED-THE LESSONS OF THE HORRIBLE DEATH OF THE "PASTOR" MYLES MUNROE (THE "FATHER" OF YVAN CASTANOU OF ICC)

THE LESSONS OF THE HORRIBLE DEATH OF THE "PASTOR" MYLES MUNROE (THE "FATHER" OF YVAN CASTANOU OF ICC)

JesusChrist TV

Subscribe54,821Add to Share More63,134 views Published on Nov 16, 2014

member of the FRC, member of the Federation ... Examples of doctrines of demons: pastor Yvan Castanou - 5 ways to hear God - part 1 - YouTube ▶ 47:44 https: //www.youtube.com/watch? V = _SarD ... December 17, 2013 - Uploaded by ICC TV Impact Christian Center broadcasts its worship live on the internet every Sunday at 11:30. You can us ... Pastor Yvan Castanou ▶ 1:18:01 https: //www.youtube.com/watch? V = ... dUPcW? Aug 26, 2012 - Uploaded by Nacel oyaraht Pasteur Yvan Castanou a Time Was set by God ... you Pasteur Yvan Castanou - fidelity, key to ... Yvan Castanou | Facebook https: // www. facebook.com/YCastanou/ Translate this page Yvan Castanou, Boissy-Saint-Léger. 377020 likes · 12417 talking about this. Pastor, teacher, mentor and entrepreneur, Yvan Castanou - TopChretien http://www.topchretien.com/auteurs/y ... Translate this page Yvan Castanou is the senior pastor of Impact Center Christian (ICC) That church gathers about 20 000 people in about thirty local churches ... Yvan Castanou ICC: The hidden face of an abominable false pastor ... jesuschrist1.tv> denunciations Translate this page this video Openly Reveals the true face of the Pseudo pastor Yvan Castanou, one of the most abominable Yves Castanou - Wikipedia https: // fr. wikipedia.org/wiki/Yves_Ca ... Translate this page Yves is a Protestant Christian pastor Castanou Congolese born June 22, 1971 in France, he is associate pastor, co-founder of the church ... Impact Christian Center pastor Biography Yvan CASTANOU - France | Nycodem.net www.nycodem.net/actualites-chretiennes /? ... Yvan CASTANOU ... Translate this page Yvan CASTANOU is the senior pastor of the Protestant Evangelical Church Impact Christian Center Located in Paris, member of the FRC ... Biography Yvan Castanou - Home www.cmessagers.com/index.php / the ... / 83-biography-yvan-castano ... Translate this page Yvan Castanou is the senior pastor of the Church Christian impact Center (ICC) A spiritual family that meets every Sunday several dozen ... Biography of Yvan Castanou - Pictures, statistics, concerts, videos ... www.last.fm/en/music/Yvan+Castanou/+wiki Translate this page Watch videos and Listen free Yvan Castanou: Healing. Discover more ... We have not yet wiki for this. Edit this wiki. The Masonic gospel of Yves and Yvan Castanou (ICC) bared jesuschrist1.tv> denunciations Translate this page as a serpent (green mamba) That subtly slides through the green grass to catch prey ict, false pastor Freemason Yves Castanou (brother ... Yvan Castanou - JesusChrist TV jesuschrist1.tv> France ---------------------------- ------------ CLICK HERE: Https://www.youtube.com/user/kidofgod777 ---------------------- --------------- --- People Who watched this video: https: //www.youtube.com/watch? V = ... EARqw? Also searched online for: Searches related to Yvan castanou yvan castanou biography pastor teaching castanou mp3 download yvan yvan castanou wedding yvan castanou pray together yvan castanou education yvan castanou worship yvan castanou youtube yvan castanou preaching ------------ -------- ----------------------- DETAILS: https://www.youtube.com/user/kidofgod777 ---- ------ --------------------------------- JOIN US : Https: //www.facebook.

SHOW MORE

COMMENTS • 41

Add a public comment ...Top

Alexia renee debrime

2 years ago

Never put his trust in a man alone in a pastor or so-called man of God. The world is infested with Pastor franc-mason. Ke God preserve us. To God alone the glory.Reply 3  

Chantal n'guessan

2 years ago

You're just defeated me, I know the truth you can not fool meReply 4  

Manuel Malfoty

8 months ago

Hello everyone friend (s) Christian, George I 'm white and French, you' re probably more Christian and practitioners that many priests here in France. I'm from you to maybe about a week and your message and clear, do not go astray with the clever, follow the teachings of Christ in the faith that is bear. Thank you for your patience, thanks for your patience, and thank you for your patience. Friendship to all of you, and peace of Christ comes to earth and touches all mankind ...Show lessReply 2  

Goggles kijo

2 years ago

When I listen to George, I go to a place where I have a good sense of humor.  Reply 2  

Ran

1 year ago

+ Goggles Kijo m'ôtes you the words of the mouth.Reply  

Abanda joseph

2 years ago

TRULY GOD, I resent MY LORD AND SAVIOR, INSULT, BLASPHERMATORY BY WORDS SUCH ,,, THIS IS REALLY VERY CHOCKING ... IT'S TRUE BROTHER GEORGE THIS GUY HAS NO REGARD TO CREDIBILITER LORD JESUS ​​... IT IS NOT OF THIS THE BRIDGE GEORGES THE LORD SAYS BY ITS SERVANT PAUL IN THE BOOK OF EPHESIANS THAT GOD IS A GIFT AIMEE, SO THOSE, THE MOST OF THE BIBLE SAYS, THIS HAPPY DEATH OF THE APRESENT IN CHRIST AS THEIR WORK FOLLOWING THEIR EVERYWHERE. WHO WANT TO STAY IN THE DARKNESS, Y ,,, WILL RING THE TRUMPET ,, FOR BUY ... Demeur BLESSED BROTHERShow lessReply 2  

Aleck January

1 year ago

We are going to have a great time with God in heaven.Reply  

Abanda joseph

1 year ago

Amen ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Reply  

MARIE THERESE Abogo

2 years ago

Thank you to the Lord Jesus Christ for this teaching and to our own conversion. That's what it feels like every day.Reply 1  

Grace Africa

2 years ago

Isaiah iniquities 57 v 1 Amen thank you brother George and his team good good luck in the Lord God of our God Jesus in the Lord Jesus Christ.  Reply 1  

Laurent Lille

2 years ago

Bless my brother continue to awake the children of God .... For the word of God says, more seductive entered the world, and do not publicly declare that BC is come in the flesh. Whoever is the deceiver and the antichrist. 2John: 1; 7,10 If thou comest not this doctrine, receive him not into thy house, neither bid him no salvation! For he who says hello! Partaker of his evil deeds. Show lessReply 1  

Adjoua Florence niamien

2 years ago

This! Is not this award which no! No time for peaceReply 2  

Jenovain samu

2 years ago

JESUS ​​CHRIST You for the work of the Lord.Reply 1  

Adjoua Florence niamien

2 years ago

A pastor who says peace his soul from d! A pastor I am surprised it has really made peace with God before dying?Reply 2  

LICENCE3 / FPC COMMUNICATION

1 month ago

Courage my brotherReply  

Emerald D

6 months ago

Thank you for t ns builds bcq unfortunate for heads ki ki people speak ill of you, may God open your eyes before ls n kil too lateReply 1  

Joseph Doré

8 months ago

And Christians that decapitates it is not normalReply  

Juda Ziane

8 months ago

The lord binisse you my brother marvelous this is what you did this Matthew

7:15

Reply  

Good News

9 months ago

I think this show is not for the dead but the living as for the dead there is more possibility of return. However, there are many living though already dead for having rejected the doctrine of holy Lord Mashiach (Christ).Reply  

Mahotin Gbeboumé

10 months ago

Thank you very much Mr. Georges for clarification. When you present such proofs, we can only be convinced of the truth of your words. Denounce them and with these incontrovertible evidence. May God support you and strengthen you.Reply  

Iams Daughter

11 months ago

Myles Monroe was an antichrist. A living God can not go this way, and HIM and his wife. Death as the couple who had sold their land but not lied to the Holy Spirit of the received. And the man and woman were punished for sudden death!Reply  

Darly Lambert

11 months ago

Blessed be my brother!Reply  

Laure Abbé

1 year ago

Times are bad. Read the Bible e pray. and really love him god e

seul.pa

men. God only the worship.Reply  

Djogbenou Gildas

1 year ago

Thank you Pastor Georges for the clarificationReply  

Yannick Lusila

1 Year sketch

That Jesus saves His own that we are !!! Thanks to you George the belovedReply  

Grace Africa

2 years ago

Thank you my brother George that the grace of God our father is given to you from his son our Lord Jesus Christ be fortifi amenReply  

Chantal n'guessan

2 years ago

You are defeatedReply 1  

Bibi Mbiada

6 months ago

It is the devil who is defeated and not a man. So my sister must read your BibleReply  

Konan Narcisse

2 years ago

Aho so he's dead what lol God does not sleep oh, he thought he was smarter than God still lolReply  

Konan Narcisse

2 years ago

Yvan Castanou repends you Jesus you love drops all these stupidities it is not yet lateReply  

Gina below

2 years ago

IReply  

Gina below

2 years ago

Reply  

Daniel somabey

2 years ago

I was a pastor both agree that you have spirit to say, because I say to you that my role for the eternal is to stop the fake 5 As servants of God I think I can be glad we have the fact of attention. 1- I would also like to say that with these kind of missions you will not be easy if you have the response from the devil. 2 I am also a servant of God 3- God regrets having certain person who is ultimately disappointed. 4-blessed my brother what you have done if you are any time convinced that God agrees then do everything and everything about you and hate you, 5-Praise God and also like to say sorry to God pr somebody Duplex life. Read moreReply  

Joelle kouakou

2 years ago

Thank you brother GEORGES that God will strengthen youReply  

Marie Edmée Assamoi

2 years ago

Denounces my brother God bless you abundantly! Thank you Lord for your life! Reply  

Landu1000

2 years ago

We read all the information. Do not be discouraged in your work, continue to the people of God who blindly follow these spiritual uncircumcised. God bless you my brother GoergesReply  

First Mission

2 years ago

Thank you brother Georges.Really God mouvies eyes growing through your emissions.Que God bless you, strengthen you.Reply  

TOURDUMONDE Martial

2 years ago

Tshatoumba destructive pastor of Christian homes and Mathieu kayeye, the one of the first church founded in France that tried to abort in Sealed, his daughter then aged 12 years ... I have read these and other bully of a casa believing their eyes open, they have simply blocked their site. They are not interested in the truth but claim to be Christ. I ve nausea since I hearRead moreReply  

Pintagger

2 years ago (edited)

HERE IS A TRUE PROPHET WHICH TO HAVE DIED DEVIE ACCIDENTAL (1 Kings 13) Here, a man of God came from Judah to Bethel by the word of the LORD, while Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense. 2 He cried against the altar by the word of the LORD, and said, Altar! Altar! Thus saith the LORD, Behold, is to be born to the house of David; Josiah by name; He will sacrifice on you the priests of the high places that burn incense on you, and they will burn thee men's bones! 3 And on the same day he gave a sign, saying, This is the sign which Jehovah hath spoken: Behold, and the ashes that are on it will be widespread. ... The man of God went, and he was on the road by a lion killed him. His body was thrown in the road; The donkey stood by it, the lion also stood by the corpse. 25 And behold, men passed by and saw the body thrown in the road and the lion standing beside the body; And they spoke to their arrival in the city where the old prophet lived. 26 When the prophet said to him, "God has heard," he said, "This is the man of God who disobeys the order of the Lord, and the Lord hath delivered to the lion, To the word of the LORD had said to him. Show lessReply  

Fernand NDONGO

2 years ago

Mm severin kakouReply  

Marybelle Jacob

2 years ago (edited)

2 Timothy 3: 1-9 This know also, in the last days there will be difficult times. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving ,, slanderers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, Pleasure more than God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power. Get away from these men. There are a lot of people in the world who live in the United States and in the United States. Now as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men oppose the truth of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they will not get very far; For their folly will be all of youShow lessReply 1  

Marybelle Jacob

2 years ago

Ephesians

5:11

-17 proving what is pleasing to the Lord; Take part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather condemn them.Car it is shameful to say what they do in secret; This is why it is said, Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you. Take heed that you walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are bad.This is so do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord.Read moreReply  

CER2E SENEGAL

2 years ago

Unfortunately they are in a bubble and they are blinded so that they persevere in their abomination! It is a grace for us to understand what is really happening in this world. This shows that Jesus will soon return. May the Lord keep you brother George for this work, this trumpet that you ring for the resurrection of souls! May God bless you and your incentive in this hard work! Read moreReply  

Christ is my life

2 years ago

The badge was 60 000FCFA for pastors and otherReply  

Christ is my life

2 years ago

The prosperity gospel is in the churches is a false gospel. I know the Bible only a servant of the Living God and truth which was poor. Jesus Christ Himself tells us to "seek first the Kingdom and the justice of God and all these things (Material goods) we will be over ".It knows we need these things for a living. Myles Munroe was in Gabon in October. 60 000f the right input.Show lessReply