George Whitefield and John Wesley did not see eye-to-eye on a theology of grace however. In 1740 Wesley published "Free Grace," saying that God's grace was extended to all. Wesley rejected the concept of divine election. Whitefield was a Calvinist. He once wrote, "God, himself, I find, teaches my friends the doctrine of election. If I mistake not, my dear and honored Mr. Wesley will hereafter be convinced of it also." -- The two men were never to agree on divine election. Whitefield thought Wesley's was preaching universal redemption whereas Wesley thought Whitefield's preaching implied Christians need not take moral responsibility. They parted ways but managed, in the end, to maintain a respect for each other in that their hearts were the same in terms of unity in Jesus Christ. After Whitefield's death, John Wesley preached a memorial sermon. -- Wesley said: "Let my last end be like his!" How many of you join in this wish? Perhaps there are few of you who do not, even in this numerous congregation! And O that this wish may rest upon your minds! - that it may not die away till your souls also are lodged "where the wicked cease from troubling, and where the weary are at rest!"

But this book by Johnson and Vanvonderen is different. Drawing upon years of ministry experience as pastor and counselor (respectively), they examine the fine line between Biblical leadership and abuse. Without mentioning groups or demonizing those involved, they discuss how well-intentioned leadership can have abusive effects. This "high road" approach is highly helpful in identifying some of the critical factors that have led to harsh and harmful leadership in churches. -- Marks of a Spiritually Unhealthy Environment: For example, the authors identify the marks of a spiritually unhealthy system. I'd like to include these here as a sample of how the authors address these issues. (The following consists of verbatim citations of copyrighted material from Chapter 5,6 of "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse.") -- 1. Power-Posturing: Power-posturing simply means leaders spend a lot of time focused on their own authority and reminding others of it, as well. They spend a lot of energy posturing about how much authority they have and how much everyone else is supposed to submit to it. The fact that they are eager to place people under them-- under their word, under their "authority"-- is one easy-to-spot clue that they are operating in their own authority. -- 2. Performance Preoccupation: In abusive spiritual systems, power is postured and authority is legislated. Therefore, these systems are preoccupied with the performance of their members. Obedience and submission are two important words often used. The way to tell if someone is doing the right thing for the wrong reason is if they are keeping track of it. Let's say that another way. If obedience and service is flowing out of you as a result of your own dependence on God alone, you won't keep track of it with an eye toward reward, you'll just do it. But if you're preoccupied with whether you've done enough to please God, then you're not looking at Him, you're looking at your own works. And you're also concerned about who else might be looking at you, evaluating you. What would anyone keep track of their godly behavior unless they were trying to earn spiritual points because of it? For many reasons, followers sometimes obey or follow orders to avoid being shamed, to gain someone's approval, or to keep their spiritual status or position intact. This is not true obedience or submission, it is compliant self-seeking. When behavior is simply legislated from the outside, instead of coming from a heart that loves God, it cannot be called obedience. It is merely weak compliance to some form of external pressure. -- 3. Unspoken Rules: In abusive spiritual systems, people's lives are controlled from the outside in by rules, spoken and unspoken. Unspoken rules are those that govern unhealthy churches or families but are not said out loud. Because they are not said out loud, you don't find out that they're there until you break them. The most powerful of all unspoken rules in the abusive system is what we have already termed the "can't talk" rule. The "can't talk" [rule] has this thinking behind it: "The real problem cannot be exposed because then it would have to be dealt with and things would have to change; so it must be protected behind walls of silence (neglect) or by assault (legalistic attack). If you speak about the problem, you are the problem. -- 4. Lack of Balance: The fourth characteristic of a spiritual abusive system is an unbalanced approach to living out the truth of the Christian life. This shows itself in two extremes: Extreme Objectivism - The first extreme is an empirical approach to life, which elevates objective truth to the exclusion of valid subjective experience. This approach to spirituality creates a system in which authority is based upon the level of education and intellectual capacity alone, rather than on intimacy with God, obedience and sensitivity to His Spirit. Extreme Subjectivism - The other manifestation of lack of balance is seen in an extremely subjective approach to the Christian life. What is true is decided on the basis of feelings and experiences, giving more weight to them than what the Bible declares. In this system, people can't know or understand truths (even if they really do understand or know them) until the leaders "receive them by spiritual revelation from the Lord" and "impart" them to the people. In such systems, it is more important to act according to the word of a leader who has "a word" for you than to act according to what you know to be true from Scripture, or simply from your spiritual growth-history. As with the extreme objective approach, Christians who are highly subjective also have a view of education-- most often, that education is bad or unnecessary. There is almost a pride in not being educated, and a disdain for those who are. Everything that is needed is taught through the Holy Spirit. ("After all, Peter and Timothy didn't go to college or seminary...") -- 5. Paranoia: In the church that is spiritually abusive, there is a sense, spoken or unspoken, that "others will not understand what we're all about, so let's not let them know-- that way they won't be able to ridicule or persecute us." There is an assumption that (1) what we say, know, or do is a result of our being more enlightened that others; (2) others will not understand unless they become one of us; and (3) others will respond negatively. In a place where authority is grasped and legislated, not simply demonstrated, persecution sensitivity builds a case for keeping everything within the system. Why? Because of the evil, dangerous, or unspiritual people outside of the system who are trying to weaken or destroy "us." This mentality builds a strong wall or bunker around the abusive system, isolates the abusers from scrutiny and accountability, and makes it more difficult for people to leave-- because they will then be outsiders too. While it is true that there is a world of evil outside of the system, there is also good out there. But people are misled into thinking that the only safety is in the system. Ironically, Jesus and Paul both warned that one of the worst dangers to the flock was from wolves in the house (Matthew 10:16, Acts 20:29-30). -- 6. Misplaced Loyalty: The next characteristic of spiritually abusive systems is that a misplaced sense of loyalty is fostered and even demanded. We're not talking about loyalty to Christ, but about loyalty to a given organization, church, or leader. Once again, because authority is assumed or legislated (and therefore not real), following must be legislated as well. A common way this is accomplished is by setting up a system where disloyalty to or disagreement with the leadership is construed as the same thing as disobeying God. Questioning leaders is equal to questioning God. "We Alone Are Right" There are three factors that come into place here, adding up to a misplaced loyalty. First, leadership projects a "we alone are right" mentality, which permeates the system. Members must remain in the system if they want to be "safe," or to stay "on good terms" with God, or not be viewed as wrong or "backslidden." - Scare Tactics - The second factor that brings about misplaced loyalty is the use of "scare tactics." We're already seen this in some of the paranoia described in the last section. Scare tactics are more serious. This is more than just the risk of being polluted by the world. We have counseled many Christians who, after deciding to leave their church, were told horrifying things. "God is going to withdraw His Spirit from you and your family." "God will destroy your business." "Without our protection, Satan will get your children." "You and your family will come under a curse." This is spiritual blackmail and it's abuse. And it does cause people to stay in abusive places. - Humiliation - The third method of calling forth misplaced loyalty is the threat of humiliation. This is done by publicly shaming, exposing, or threatening to remove people from the group. Unquestionably, there is a place for appropriate church discipline. In the abusive system, it is the fear of being exposed, humiliated or removed that insures your proper allegiance, and insulates those in authority. You can be "exposed" for asking too many questions, for disobeying the unspoken rules, or for disagreeing with authority. People are made public examples in order to send a message to those who remain. Others have phone campaigns launched against them, to warn their friends and others in the group about how "dangerous" they are. -- 7. Secretive: When you see people in a religious system being secretive-- watch out. People don't hide what is appropriate; they hide what is inappropriate. One reason spiritual abusive families and churches are secretive is because they are so image conscious. People in these systems can't even live up to their own performance standards, so they have to hide what is real. Some believe they must do this to protect God's good name. So how things look and what others think becomes more important than what's real. They become God's "public relations agents." The truth is, He's not hiring anyone for this position. Another reason for secrecy in a church is that the leadership has a condescending, negative view of the laity. This results in conspiracies on the leadership level. They tell themselves, "People are not mature enough to handle truth." This is patronizing at best. Conspiracies also develop among the lay people. Since it is not all right [sic] to notice or talk about problems, people form conspiracies behind closed doors and over the telephone as they try to solve things informally. But since they have no authority, they solve, and solve, and solve-- but nothing really gets solved. And all the while, building God's true kingdom is put on hold. -- Conclusion: I hope that what I have cited gets your attention and motivates you to read this book. The subtle patterns of unhealthy characteristics are discussed in a way that actually helps people identify them, resist them, and recover from them. Copyright © 2000 John Engler. All rights reserved. The Barnabas Ministry

Reaching4Truth says: January 3, 2012 at 3:01 pm -- Hanna, you said: "I still keep my hopes up that we will find a church, but as I have said before..in our town it is all about who can have the biggest church, who can draw the largest crowd, who can own more hotels and claim more territory on the monopoly board. People have no idea what the Pastor is purchasing in terms of real estate and investments, and they don't really even care because they trust him completely." -- This is not just a phenomenon in your town, but is widespread everywhere. Because in this era, pastors have been given celebrity status and encouraged to build their kingdoms, their resume, on ideas borrowed from the business realm. Over time they've been seduced by numerous voices from without and within the evangelical world, to produce measurably "effective" and "successful" ministries.. Pursuing and inculcating worldly business values and methodologies and wrongly applying them to the church and the realm of ministry. And basically it turns out to be an abandonment of their allegiance to the Lord in exchange for the approval of men and the respect of men, both in the church and in the world. -- Pastors and ministry leaders have been seduced by things appealing to their pride to pursue accomplishments and a measure of renown - respectability - for themselves. To be someone that others in the community (church and beyond) look up to and speak well of. -- Through many avenues and means, Christian pastors and ministry leaders have received worldly advice dressed up in acceptable Christian language, and coming from trusted "christian" sources. I employ the quotes because to look at the nature of what has come to be accepted as wise Christian insight and counsel, through resources such as Leadership Journal and Christianity Today, just to name two among a plethora of resources with a large readership among pastors, is to find, if one compares the "wisdom" offered from such sources, they wander quite a distance from sound spiritual wisdom or true compatibility with the word of God. -- Our pastors have been drinking from poisoned wells, even from what have been in the past trusted Christian sources. But, minus the requisite discretion and discernment that is expected of those we trust, a scourge has set upon the churches. Having listened to and consulted the voices of so many Pied Pipers in the business realm, there is very little left now of truly Holy Spirit-inspired leadership. We have been in the business of exchanging the truth of God for a lie for so long that we can barely distinguish the difference. Church and ministry leaders, in their efforts to win the worldly (yes I mean "worldly") to Christ through clever means, have drunk deeply from the wells of "vain philosophy and empty deceit". And we are sadly observing the results of that exchange. -- Clever wolves have entered in, and/or risen up from our midst, and had their effect upon the churches. I have observed with great sadness and sobriety the Christian establishment being given over to a host of clever lies and the spirit of the world. -- And hero worship has had a lot to do with it. A WHOLE lot to do with it. I think it's for lack of (or for need of) a hero in our lives that we (pastors and their flocks) have become worshippers of admired Christian men, inclined to enshrine them in a sort of "holy glow" - a sort of spiritual 'static' where we assume they will always and forever continue in a faithful path, as if they can do no wrong and, like their Lord, were immaculately conceived of the Holy Spirit. -- We have been, the whole lot of us - pastors and others alike - led onto deceptive paths because of having given our unquestioning trust to men with feet of clay. I believe we have entered a time of the Lord cleaning house, and waking His people up from a long slumber, a longer slumber than we would guess, wherein the enemy has now effectively infiltrated the mustard tree and overspread the churches. -- Jesus was careful to warn us that these days would come, and tremendous deception all around us was given as a key sign of the nearness of His return. He led with "See to it THAT NO MAN DECEIVES YOU." It was much more a matter of having our eyes/hearts exercised to recognize cleverly cloaked deception and delusion than it was ever a call to make an idol of earthly Jerusalem, for instance. JESUS is to be our focus; ALWAYS JESUS. We were instructed not to put our trust in man, but only IN HIM. -- So… pastors are to blame, for having wandered from the scriptures as their sole source of spiritual light, life and guidance, and succumbing to spiritual blindness… but so are we. We are living in a time of strong hero worship, leading to strong delusion, with sobering effect. The sooner we return our affection to the LORD and away from faulty leaders, the better for all of us. -- Chuck Smith is simply one example of what hero worship - the desire to elevate a hero in our midst (besides Jesus) can lead to. By giving our indiscriminate trust to men we admire, we forget that they can be just as prone to sin and error as the rest of us. The mercy of God is a great need in all of our lives, and our relationship with Him is to be first and foremost. I need these reminders as much as the next person. --- Lord, I'm thankful for your MERCY and your GREAT, GREAT kindness to us. Help us wind our way out of this mess we find ourselves in and into singlehearted allegiance to You and affection for your word. Clean us up and restore the broken places? and rekindle our love for YOU.

Wondering what the past teaches us about the present? Francis Schaeffer's sweeping series on the rise and decline of Western thought and culture surveys history -- from the Roman Empire through the 20th century -- and offers biblical answers to modern problems. Features an interview with the late Dr. Schaeffer and his wife, Edith. Includes study guide. Set includes 10 episodes on two DVDs with a total running time of approximately 6 hours.

Francis Schaeffer was a Presbyterian minister with an ability to see how the questions of meaning, morals, and value being dealt with by philosophy, were the same questions that the Bible dealt with, only in different language. Once an agnostic, Schaeffer came to the conclusion that Biblical Christianity not only gave sufficient answers to the big questions, but that they were the only answers that were both self-consistent and livable. With this conviction he became a man of conversation. Schaeffer taught that God is really there and He is not silent. He had spoken to man in the Bible as and a result we could have "true truth" about God and man. Knowing the dignity of man created in God's image, he placed a high value on creativity as an expression of that image. He opened his Swiss home to travelers to discuss these things. Later he began lecturing in universities and writing a number of books. Perhaps no other Christian thinker of the twentieth century, besides C.S. Lewis, has had more influence on thinking people.

Youth: Müller was born in Kroppenstaedt (now Kroppenstedt), a village near Halberstadt in the Kingdom of Prussia. In 1810, the Müller family moved to nearby Heimersleben, where Müller's father was appointed a collector of taxes. He had an older brother, Friedrich Johann Wilhelm (1803 - 7 Oct 1838) and, after his widowed father remarried, a half-brother, Franz (b 1822). His early life was not marked by righteousness - on the contrary, he was a thief, a liar and a gambler. By the age of 10, Müller was stealing government money from his father. While his mother was dying, he, at 14 years of age, was playing cards with friends and drinking. Müller's father hoped to provide him with a religious education that would allow him to take a lucrative position as a clergyman in the state church. He studied divinity in the University of Halle, and there met a fellow student (Beta) who invited him to a Christian prayer meeting. There he was welcomed, and he began regularly reading the Bible and discussing Christianity with the others who attended the meetings. After seeing a man praying to God on his knees, he was convinced of his need for salvation. As soon as he got home he went to his bed where he knelt and prayed. He asked God to help him in his life and to bless him wherever he went and to forgive him of his sins. He immediately stopped drinking, stealing and lying, and began hoping to become a missionary. He began preaching regularly in nearby churches and continued meeting with the other churches. -- Early work: In 1828, Müller offered to work with Jews in England through the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews, but upon arriving in 1829, he fell ill, and did not think that he would survive. He was sent to Teignmouth to recuperate and, whilst there, met Henry Craik, who became his life-long friend. When he recovered, however, he dedicated himself to doing the will of God. He soon left the London Society, convinced that God would provide for his needs as he did Christian work. Craik invited him to become a minister with him in Teignmouth and he became the pastor of Ebenezer Chapel in Devon and soon after, married Mary Groves, the sister of Anthony Norris Groves. During his time as the pastor of the church, he refused a regular salary, believing that the practice could lead to church members giving out of duty, not desire. He also eliminated the renting of church pews, arguing that it gave unfair prestige to the rich (based primarily on James 2:1-9). -- Theology: The theology that guided George Müller's work is not widely known, but was shaped by an experience in his mid twenties when he "came to prize the Bible alone as [his] standard of judgement". He records in his Narratives that "That the word of God alone is our standard of judgment in spiritual things; that it can be explained only by the Holy Spirit; and that in our day, as well as in former times, he is the teacher of his people. The office of the Holy Spirit I had not experimentally understood before that time. Indeed, of the office of each of the blessed persons, in what is commonly called the Trinity, I had no experimental apprehension. I had not before seen from the Scriptures that the Father chose us before the foundation of the world; that in him that wonderful plan of our redemption originated, and that he also appointed all the means by which it was to be brought about. Further, that the Son, to save us, had fulfilled the law, to satisfy its demands, and with it also the holiness of God; that he had borne the punishment due to our sins, and had thus satisfied the justice of God. And, further, that the Holy Spirit alone can teach us about our state by nature, show us the need of a Saviour, enable us to believe in Christ, explain to us the Scriptures, help us in preaching, etc. It was my beginning to understand this latter point in particular which had a great effect on me; for the Lord enabled me to put it to the test of experience, by laying aside commentaries, and almost every other book, and simply reading the word of God and studying it. The result of this was, that the first evening that I shut myself into my room, to give myself to prayer and meditation over the Scriptures, I learned more in a few hours than I had done during a period of several months previously. But the particular difference was, that I received real strength for my soul in doing so. I now began to try by the test of the Scriptures the things which I had learned and seen, and found that only those principles which stood the test were really of value."

At age 15 Bach joined the choir at St. Michael's church. At age 19 Bach left St. Michael's and became a professional organist at St. Boniface. Bach studied music until 1703. In 1707, when Bach was 22 he married his cousin Maria Barbara. Maria had 7 children with Bach. Three of them died. In 1716, when Bach was thirty-one, he was put in jail for thirty-one days because people didn't believe that he shouldn't be writing that kind of music at that time. In those 31 days, Bach wrote five to ten musicals. Those five to ten musicals he wrote when he was in jail turned into two hundred musicals. In 1717 Bach became the court conductor at Anhalt-Cothen. 14 years later in 1721 Maria died leaving Bach to take care of four children. Bach was thirty-six at this time. One year later when Bach was thirty-seven in 1722 he married another woman. This woman's name was Anna Magdalina. Anna had thirteen children. ... Bach wrote 300 religious and nonreligious pieces called cantatas. Some people think that bach was the best composer of all time. Bach was a very religious man. Bach showed his religions in his music. Bach joined an orchestra at Weimar as a violinist. His home town was famous for music. One time when Bach was young, he walked thirty-five miles to a town named Hamburg to hear a concert.

Plot summary: The novel depicts a mythical island, Bensalem, which is discovered by the crew of a European ship after they are lost in the Pacific Ocean somewhere west of Peru. The minimal plot serves the gradual unfolding of the island, its customs, but most importantly, its state-sponsored scientific institution, Salomon's House, "which house or college ... is the very eye of this kingdom." On arriving to Bensalem, the travellers are initially instructed to leave without landing, but are successively quarantined to "the House of Strangers", then given greater leave to explore the island, and finally granted an explanation of Salomon's House. Their conversations with the inhabitants disclose how they in such isolation came to be Christian, how they came to know so much of the outside world (without themselves being known), the history and origin of the island's government and the establishment of Salomon's House by King Solamona, the Bensalemite customs regarding marriage and family, and purpose, properties, and activities of Salomon's House. The interlocutors include the governor of the House of Strangers, Joabin the Jew, and the Father of Salomon's House. -- Only the best and brightest of Bensalem's citizens are selected to join Salomon's House, in which scientific experiments are conducted in Baconian method in order to understand and conquer nature, and to apply the collected knowledge to the betterment of society. Near the end of the work, the Father of Salomon's House catalogues the activities of the institution's members: "For the several employments and offices of our fellows, we have twelve that sail into foreign countries under the names of other nations (for our own we conceal), who bring us the books and abstracts, and patterns of experiments of all other parts. These we call merchants of light. "We have three that collect the experiments which are in all books. These we call depredators. "We have three that collect the experiments of all mechanical arts, and also of liberal sciences, and also of practices which are not brought into arts. These we call mystery-men. "We have three that try new experiments, such as themselves think good. These we call pioneers or miners. "We have three that draw the experiments of the former four into titles and tables, to give the better light for the drawing of observations and axioms out of them. These we call compilers. "We have three that bend themselves, looking into the experiments of their fellows, and cast about how to draw out of them things of use and practice for man's life and knowledge, as well for works as for plain demonstration of causes, means of natural divinations, and the easy and clear discovery of the virtues and parts of bodies. These we call dowry-men or benefactors. "Then after divers meetings and consults of our whole number, to consider of the former labours and collections, we have three that take care out of them to direct new experiments, of a higher light, more penetrating into nature than the former. These we call lamps. "We have three others that do execute the experiments so directed, and report them. These we call inoculators. "Lastly, we have three that raise the former discoveries by experiments into greater observations, axioms, and aphorisms. These we call interpreters of nature." Even this short excerpt demonstrates that Bacon understood that science requires analysis and not just the accumulation of observations. Bacon also foresaw that the design of experiments could be improved.

Let's look at Sir Francis Bacon: The content in the Shakespearian dramas are politically recognized viewpoints of Sir Francis Bacon (His "enemies" are frequently caricatured in the plays.) The religious, philosophic, and educational messages all reflect his personal opinions. Similarities in style and terminology exist in Bacon's writings and the Shakespearian plays. Certain historical and philosophical inaccuracies are common to both (such as identical misquotations from Aristotle.) Sir Francis Bacon possessed the range of general and philosophical knowledge necessary to write the Shakespearian plays. Sir Francis Bacon was a linguist and a composer. (Necessary to write the sonnets.) He was a lawyer, an able barrister and a polished courtier and possessed the intimate knowledge of parliamentary law and the etiquette of the royal court revealed in the Shakespearian plays. Bacon furthermore visited many of the foreign countries forming the background for the plays (Necessary to create the authentic local atmosphere. There is no record of William Shakspere's ever having travelled outside of England). ... Why the secrecy? Manly Palmer Hall writes: "Sir Francis Bacon knew the true secret of Masonic origin and there is reason to suspect that he concealed this knowledge in cipher and cryptogram. Bacon is not to be regarded solely as a man but rather as the focal point between an invisible institution and a world which was never able to distinguish between the messenger and the message which he promulgated. This secret society, having rediscovered the lost wisdom of the ages and fearing that the knowledge might be lost again, perpetuated it in two ways: (1) by an organization (Freemasonry) to the initiates of which it revealed its wisdom in the form of symbols; (2) by embodying its arcana in the literature of the day by means of cunningly contrived ciphers and enigmas."

In 1643, during a period of civil war, the English "Long Parliament" (under the control of Presbyterian Puritans) convened an Assembly of Divines (mostly Puritan ministers, including a few influential Scottish commissioners) at Westminster Abbey in London. Their task was to advise Parliament on how to bring the Church of England into greater conformity with the Church of Scotland and the Continental Reformed churches. The Westminster Assembly produced documents on doctrine, church government, and worship that have largely defined Presbyterianism down to this day. These documents included a Confession of Faith (1646), a Larger Catechism (1647), and a Shorter Catechism (1647), often collectively called "the Westminster standards." Parliamentary efforts to reconstitute the established Church of England along Presbyterian lines were soon thwarted by the rise to power of Cromwell (who favored Independency) and the expulsion of Presbyterians from Parliament in 1648, and then the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, which quickly led to the reinstitution of Episcopacy and the suppression of Puritanism. -- But things were different in Scotland. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland adopted the Confession of Faith in 1647 and the Catechisms in 1648. The Scottish Parliament ratified them in 1649 and again (after a time of political and religious strife) in 1690. The Presbyterian character of the Church of Scotland was safeguarded when Scotland and England were united under one crown in 1707. Numerous Presbyterian bodies have been formed since then, both in the United Kingdom and around the world, and they have always been constituted on the basis of the Westminster standards (although declension from them has sometimes followed). -- When the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America was formed in 1788, it adopted the Westminster standards, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures. However, it revised chapters 20.4, 23.3, and 31.2 of the Confession, basically removing the civil magistrate (i.e., the state) from involvement in ecclesiastical matters.

The Westminster Catechism was completed in 1647 by the Westminster Assembly and continues to serve as part of the doctrinal standards of many Presbyterian churches.

Tyndale was the first to translate considerable parts of the Bible from the original languages (Greek and Hebrew) into English. While a number of partial and complete translations had been made from the seventh century onward, particularly during the 14th century, Tyndale's was the first English translation to draw directly from Hebrew and Greek texts, and the first to take advantage of the new medium of print, which allowed for its wide distribution. This was taken to be a direct challenge to the hegemony of both the Roman Catholic Church and the English church and state. Tyndale also wrote, in 1530, The Practyse of Prelates, opposing Henry VIII's divorce on the grounds that it contravened scriptural law. -- In 1535, Tyndale was arrested and jailed in the castle of Vilvoorde outside Brussels for over a year. He was tried for heresy, choked, impaled and burnt on a stake in 1536. The Tyndale Bible, as it was known, continued to play a key role in spreading Reformation ideas across the English-speaking world. The fifty-four independent scholars who created the King James Version of the bible in 1611 drew significantly on Tyndale's translations. One estimation suggests the New Testament in the King James Version is 83% Tyndale's, and the Old Testament 76%. -- Printed works: Most well known for his translation of the Bible, Tyndale was an active writer and translator. Not only did Tyndale's works focus on the way in which religion should be carried out, but were also greatly keyed towards the political arena. "They have ordained that no man shall look on the Scripture, until he be noselled in heathen learning eight or nine years and armed with false principles, with which he is an clean shut out of the understanding of the Scripture."

On January 3, 1521 the Vatican published the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem ([It] Befits [the] Roman Pontiff), excommunicating Martin Luther for Luther's refusal to recant. The pope [Leo X] had issued a previous bull, Exsurge Domine (Arise, O Lord), giving Luther 60 days to recant and another 60 days to make his recantation known to Rome. Meanwhile, Luther's books were being burned for allegedly containing heresy. On December 10, 1520 Luther responded by publicly burning his copy of Exsurge Domine. -- The Church usually handed excommunicated persons over to civil authorities to be burned at the stake. However, circumstances prevailed that spared Martin Luther this fate and paved the way for Luther's stand at the Diet of Worms in April 1521. The pure teaching of Scripture would not be snuffed out by the flames. -- Luther wasn't looking to split the Church; he wanted the Church to institute reforms and took a more conciliatory tone at first in his writings. When it became clear that the pope cared not at all for Scripture and reason, only for Luther's recantation, Luther rose to the challenge and prepared to take his stand. The truth of God's Word, long muffled or distorted by the noise of human traditions, would find a voice in Martin Luther and others willing to risk everything on the authority and benevolence of Sola Scriptura.

Lawrence's interpretation, however narrow and flawed, does highlight an indisputable element of Grazzini's tale of Dr. Manente: its cruelty and "monstrosity," traits that, I will argue, provide insight into the social structures of the mid-sixteenth century, particularly those that rely upon coersion and force. In Florence, how did one family--the Medici--secure their power after over a century of struggle, and how did they come to construct a myth of their own legitimacy? ... It is important to remember that, from 1494--when the friar himself gained widespread support and offered a major threat to the rule of the Medici family--until long after his execution in 1498, Savonarola bequeathed a powerful religious and political vision that was not dependent on his leadership for survival--a fact that fascinated the political theorist Niccolo Machiavelli. Savonarola's followers--called the Piagnoni first by their enemies and later, proudly, by themselves--remained politically active after his execution, through the Republic that lasted until 1513, when the first Medici pope, Leo X, used the considerable influence of this position to help his family and their allies to return to Florence, and again after the sack of Rome in 1527, which occurred during the pontificate of another Medici, Clement VII. The Piagnoni continued to be active even after the Medici, first Alessandro and then Cosimo I, openly turned Florence onto the path of absolutism [unlimited, centralized authority and absolute sovereignty] by accepting the [nobility] title of Duke. ... Lorenzo's manipulation of the Church comes into play in the next phase of the beffa. ... At this point, Grazzini emphasizes not only that many friars and priests were ignorant, but, more importantly, that the kind of people Lorenzo elevated to positions of power in the Florentine church hierarchy were either superstitious [occult] or corrupt, criticisms that Savonarola also often made of the Medici.

Pope Leo X - Giovanni de'Medici, 1475 - 1513 - 1521: Giovanni de'Medici, second son of Lorenzo and younger brother of the fatuous Piero, became the first of the Medici Popes (Leo X - Leone Decimo) at the age of 38 on 11 March 1513. Prior to this his life had been a complete roller coaster. Brought up in Medici luxury alongside Michelangelo (who was included in the Medici household by Lorenzo), older brother Piero and cousin Giulio (who was adopted by Lorenzo after his father (who was Lorenzo's brother) was killed in the Pazzi Conspiracy in 1478), he had access to the incomes of several wealthy monasteries, including Badia a Passignano, and was made a Cardinal at the age of 13. All this came to an abrupt end in 1494 when, in the wake of Lorenzo's death, the incompetent surrender of his brother Piero the Fatuous to the French, and the ensuing Savanorola stirred turbulence, he had to sneak out of Florence dressed as a Franciscan Friar, and then live in hiding with his cousin for the next decade, latterly being protected by the Habsburg Emperor Maximilian (who ironically was to be a major cause of the collapse of the Bruges branch of the Medici Bank) and then by the dreadful Cesare Borgia and his father Pope Alessandro VI (1431 - 1492 - 1503 (72)) in Rome. ... Pope Clement VII Giulio de'Medici, 1478 - 1523 - 1534 (56) Illegitimate son of Lorenzo's (Pazzi murdered) brother Giuliano, adopted son of Lorenzo, and companion in exile to Lorenzo's son Giovanni (Leo X), who was three years his senior, Giulio de'Medici became Pope Clement VII (Clemente Settimo). He was good looking, intellectually sophisticated, a talented musician and a political disaster. In reality he also faced the legacy of the corrupt practices of his cousin Leo X, and the impossible task of operating in the emergent nation state Europe dominated by Charles V, Francis I, and Henry VIII (whom he excommunicated), and threatened by Suleiman the Magnificent, plus Martin Luther dealing the protestants into the game as well - see Insight Page. He lost England, and was humiliated by having to flee in disguise from Rome when it was barbarically sacked by Charles V's rabble army after Clement mistakenly got too close to flashy Francis I of France.

He opposed Jerome's translation in two vital areas. He detected that the Greek text [of the Egyptian manuscripts] had been corrupted as early as the fourth century [by the desert monks - desert fathers]. He knew that Jerome's translation had been based solely on the Alexandrian manuscript, Vaticanus, written itself early in the fourth century. He also differed with Jerome on the translation of certain passages which were vital to the claimed authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Jerome rendered Matthew 4:17 thus: "Do penance, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand." Erasmus differed with: "Be penitent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Erasmus was also a staunch defender of both Mark 16:9-21 and John 8:1-12. Zeal which our modern day scholars cannot seem to find. -- Possibly Erasmus's greatest gift to mankind was his attitude toward the common man. In the rigidly "classed" society in which he lived, he was an indefatigable advocate of putting the Scripture in the hands of the common man. While Jerome's Latin had been translated at the bidding of the Roman hierarchy, Erasmus translated his Latin with the express purpose of putting it into the hands of the common people of his day. A practice that the Roman Catholic Church knew could be dangerous to its plan to control the masses. Erasmus is quoted as saying, "Do you think that the Scriptures are fit only for the perfumed?" "I venture to think that anyone who reads my translation at home will profit thereby." He boldly stated that he longed to see the Bible in the hands of "the farmer, the tailor, the traveler and the Turk." Later, to the astonishment of his upper classed colleagues, he added "the masons, the prostitutes and the pimps" to that declaration. Knowing his desire to see the Bible in the hands of God's common people, it seems not so surprising that God was to use his Greek text for the basis of the English Bible that was translated with the common man in mind, the King James Bible. -- It has been said that "Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched." There is probably far more truth to this statement than can be casually discerned. For the reformers were armed with Erasmus's Bible, his writings and his attitude of resistance to Roman Catholic intimidation. Of Luther he said, "I favor Luther as much as I can, even if my cause is everywhere linked with his." He wrote several letters on Luther's behalf, and wholeheartedly agreed with him that salvation was entirely by grace, not works. He refused pressure by his Roman Catholic superiors to denounce Luther as a heretic. If Erasmus had turned the power of his pen on Luther, it would undoubtedly have caused far more damage than the powerless threats of the pope and his imps were able to do. As it is, only his disagreement with Luther's doctrine of predestination ever prompted him to criticize the Reformer with pen and ink. Erasmus's greatest point of dissension with the Roman Church was over its doctrine of salvation through works and the tenets of the church. He taught that salvation was a personal matter between the individual and God and was by faith alone. Of the Roman system of salvation he complained, "Aristotle is so in vogue that there is scarcely time in the churches to interpret the gospel." And what was "the gospel" to which Erasmus referred? We will let him speak for himself. "Our hope is in the mercy of God and the merits of Christ." Of Jesus Christ he stated, "He ... nailed our sins to the cross, sealed our redemption with his blood." He boldly stated that no rites of the Church were necessary for an individual's salvation. "The way to enter paradise," he said, "is the way of the penitent thief, say simply, Thy will be done. The world to me is crucified and I to the world." Concerning the most biblical sect of his time, the Anabaptists, he reserved a great deal of respect. He mentioned them as early as 1523 even though he himself was often called the "only Anabaptist of the 16th century." He stated that the Anabaptists that he was familiar with called themselves "Baptists." (Ironically, Erasmus was also the FIRST person to use the term "fundamental.") So we see that when Erasmus died on July 11, 1536, he had led a life that could hardly be construed to be an example of what could be considered a "good Catholic." But perhaps the greatest compliment, though veiled, that Erasmus's independent nature ever received came in 1559, twenty-three years after his death. That is when Pope Paul IV put Erasmus's writings on the "Index" of books, forbidden to be read by Roman Catholics.

Thomas is held in the Catholic Church to be the model teacher for those studying for the priesthood. The works for which he is best-known are the Summa Theologica and the Summa Contra Gentiles. As one of the 33 Doctors of the Church, he is considered the Church's greatest theologian and philosopher. Pope Benedict XV declared: "This (Dominican) Order ... acquired new luster when the Church declared the teaching of Thomas to be her own and that Doctor, honored with the special praises of the Pontiffs, the master and patron of Catholic schools."

When we think about the Middle Ages, it is easy to view Europe in light of what it became rather than what it was. The colossus of the medieval world was Islam, not Christendom. The Crusades are interesting largely because they were an attempt to counter that trend. But in five centuries of crusading, it was only the First Crusade that significantly rolled back the military progress of Islam. It was downhill from there. When the Crusader County of Edessa fell to the Turks and Kurds in 1144, there was an enormous groundswell of support for a new Crusade in Europe. It was led by two kings, Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany, and preached by St. Bernard himself. It failed miserably. Most of the Crusaders were killed along the way. Those who made it to Jerusalem only made things worse by attacking Muslim Damascus, which formerly had been a strong ally of the Christians. In the wake of such a disaster, Christians across Europe were forced to accept not only the continued growth of Muslim power but the certainty that God was punishing the West for its sins. Lay piety movements sprouted up throughout Europe, all rooted in the desire to purify Christian society so that it might be worthy of victory in the East. ... Yet, even while these close shaves were taking place, something else was brewing in Europe-something unprecedented in human history. The Renaissance, born from a strange mixture of Roman values, medieval piety, and a unique respect for commerce and entrepreneurialism, had led to other movements like humanism, the Scientific Revolution, and the Age of Exploration. Even while fighting for its life, Europe was preparing to expand on a global scale. The Protestant Reformation, which rejected the papacy and the doctrine of indulgence, made Crusades unthinkable for many Europeans, thus leaving the fighting to the Catholics. In 1571, a Holy League, which was itself a Crusade, defeated the Ottoman fleet at Lepanto. Yet military victories like that remained rare. The Muslim threat was neutralized economically. As Europe grew in wealth and power, the once awesome and sophisticated Turks began to seem backward and pathetic-no longer worth a Crusade. The "Sick Man of Europe" (the Ottoman Empire) limped along until the 20th century [WWI], when he finally expired, leaving behind the present mess of the modern Middle East.

the first, 1095-1101;

the second, headed by Louis VII, 1145-47;

the third, conducted by Philip Augustus and Richard Coeur-de-Lion, 1188-92;

the fourth, during which Constantinople was taken, 1204;

the fifth, which included the conquest of Damietta, 1217;

the sixth, in which Frederick II took part (1228-29); also Thibaud de Champagne and Richard of Cornwall (1239);

the seventh, led by St. Louis, 1249-52;

the eighth, also under St. Louis, 1270.

There are a number of theories that attempt to identify a historical Robin Hood. A difficulty with any such historical search is that "Robert" was in medieval England a very common given name, and "Robin" (or Robyn), especially in the 13th century, was its very common diminutive. The surname "Hood" (or Hude or Hode etc.), referring ultimately to the head-covering, was also fairly common. Unsurprisingly, therefore, there are a number of people called "Robert Hood" or "Robin Hood" to be found in medieval records. Some of them are on record for having fallen afoul of the law, but this is not necessarily significant to the legend. The early ballads give a number of possible historical clues: notably, the Gest names the reigning king as "Edward", but the ballads cannot be assumed to be reliable in such details. For whatever it may be worth, however, King Edward I took the throne in 1272, and an Edward remained on the throne until the death of Edward III in 1377. On the other hand, what appears to be the first known example of "Robin Hood" as stock name for an outlaw dates to 1262 in Berkshire, where the surname "Robehod" was applied to a man after he had been outlawed, and apparently because he had been outlawed. This could suggest two main possibilities: either that an early form of the Robin Hood legend was already well established in the mid 13th century; or alternatively that the name "Robin Hood" preceded the outlaw hero that we know; so that the "Robin Hood" of legend was so called because that was seen as an appropriate name for an outlaw. It has long been suggested, notably by John Maddicott, that "Robin Hood" was a stock alias used by thieves.

One of the main purposes of the survey was to determine who held what and what taxes had been liable under Edward the Confessor; the judgment of the Domesday assessors was final-whatever the book said about who held the material wealth or what it was worth, was the law, and there was no appeal. It was written in Latin, although there were some vernacular words inserted for native terms with no previous Latin equivalent, and the text was highly abbreviated. Richard FitzNigel, writing around the year 1179, stated that the book was known by the English as "Domesday", that is the Day of Judgment "for as the sentence of that strict and terrible last account cannot be evaded by any skilful subterfuge, so when this book is appealed to ... its sentence cannot be put quashed or set aside with impunity. That is why we have called the book 'the Book of Judgment' ... because its decisions, like those of the Last Judgment, are unalterable." In August 2006 a limited online version of Domesday Book was made available by the United Kingdom's National Archives, charging users £2 per page to view the manuscript. In 2011, the Domesday Map site made the manuscript freely available for the first time.

Wars with the Moors [Muslims]: The conquest of Italy brought Charlemagne in contact with the Saracens who, at the time, controlled the Mediterranean. Pippin, his son, was much occupied with Saracens in Italy. Charlemagne conquered Corsica and Sardinia at an unknown date and in 799 the Balearic Islands. The islands were often attacked by Saracen pirates, but the counts of Genoa and Tuscany (Boniface) kept them at bay with large fleets until the end of Charlemagne's reign. Charlemagne even had contact with the caliphal court in Baghdad. In 797 (or possibly 801), the caliph of Baghdad, Harun al-Rashid, presented Charlemagne with an Asian elephant named Abul-Abbas and a clock. -- In Hispania [Spain], the struggle against the Moors continued unabated throughout the latter half of his reign. His son Louis was in charge of the Spanish border. In 785, his men captured Gerona permanently and extended Frankish control into the Catalan littoral for the duration of Charlemagne's reign (and much longer, it remained nominally Frankish until the Treaty of Corbeil in 1258). The Muslim chiefs in the northeast of Islamic Spain were constantly revolting against Córdoban authority, and they often turned to the Franks for help. The Frankish border was slowly extended until 795, when Gerona, Cardona, Ausona, and Urgel were united into the new Spanish March, within the old duchy of Septimania. -- In 797 Barcelona, the greatest city of the region, fell to the Franks when Zeid, its governor, rebelled against Córdoba and, failing, handed it to them. The Umayyad authority recaptured it in 799. However, Louis of Aquitaine marched the entire army of his kingdom over the Pyrenees and besieged it for two years, wintering there from 800 to 801, when it capitulated. The Franks continued to press forward against the emir. They took Tarragona in 809 and Tortosa in 811. The last conquest brought them to the mouth of the Ebro and gave them raiding access to Valencia, prompting the Emir al-Hakam I to recognize their conquests in 812 A.D.

King Charlemagne: The greatest of medieval kings was born in 742, at a place unknown. He was of German blood and speech, and shared some characteristics of his people- strength of body, courage of spirit, pride of race, and a crude simplicity many centuries apart from the urbane polish of the modern French. He had little book learning; read only a few books- but good ones; tried in his old age to learn writing, but never quite succeeded; yet he could speak old Teutonic and literary Latin, and understood Greek. In 771 Carloman II died, and Charles at twenty-nine became sole king. Two years later he received from Pope Hadrian II an urgent appeal for aid against the Lombard Desiderius, who was invading the papal states. Charlemagne besieged and took Pavia, assumed the crown of Lombardy, confirmed the Donation of Pepin, and accepted the role of protector of the Church in all her temporal powers. -- Returning to his capital at Aachen, he began a series of fifty-three campaigns- nearly all led in person- designed to round out his empire by conquering and Christianizing Bavaria and Saxony, destroying the troublesome Avars, shielding Italy from the raiding Saracens, and strengthening the defenses of Francia against the expanding Moors of Spain. The Saxons on his eastern frontier were pagans; they had burned down a Christian church, and made occasional incursions into Gaul; these reasons sufficed Charlemagne for eighteen campaigns (772-804), waged with untiring ferocity on both sides. Charles gave the conquered Saxons a choice between baptism and death, and had 4500 Saxon rebels beheaded in one day; after which he proceeded to Thionville to celebrate the nativity of Christ. -- The empire [of Europe] was divided into counties, each governed in spiritual matters by a bishop or archbishop, and in secular affairs by a comes (companion- of the king) or count. A local assembly of landholders convened twice or thrice a year in each provincial capital to pass upon the government of the region, and serve as a provincial court of appeals. The dangerous frontier counties, or marches, had special governors- graf, margrave, or markherzog; Roland of Roncesvalles, for example, was governor of the Breton march. All local administration was subject to missi dominici- "emissaries of the master"- sent by Charlemagne to convey his wishes to local officials, to review their actions, judgments, and accounts; to check bribery, extortion, nepotism, and exploitation, to receive complaints and remedy wrongs, to protect "the Church, the poor, and wards and widows, and the whole people"from malfeasance or tyranny, and to report to the King the condition of the realm; the Capitulare missorum establishing these emissaries was a Magna Carta for the people, four centuries before England's Magna Carta for the aristocracy. That this capitulary meant what it said appears from the case of the duke of Istria, who, being accused by the missi of divers injustices and extortions, was forced by the King to restore his thievings, compensate every wronged man, publicly confess his crimes, and give security against their repetition. ... (Charlemagne) had four successive wives and five mistresses or concubines. His abounding vitality made him extremely sensitive to feminine charms; and his women preferred a share in him to the monopoly of any other man. His harem bore him some eighteen children, of whom eight were legitimate. -- The ecclesiastics [priests] of the court and of Rome winked leniently at the Moslem [Muslim] morals of so Christian a king. He was now head of an empire far greater than the Byzantine, surpassed, in the white man's world, only by the realm of the Abbasid caliphate. But every extended frontier of empire or knowledge opens up new problems. Western Europe had tried to protect itself from the Germans by taking them into its civilization; but now Germany had to be protected against the Norse and the Slavs. The Vikings had by 800 A.D. established a kingdom in Jutland, and were raiding the Frisian coast. Charles hastened up from Rome, built fleets and forts on shores and rivers, and stationed garrisons at danger points. In 810 the king of Jutland invaded Frisia and was repulsed; but shortly thereafter, if we may follow the chronicle of the Monk of St. Gall, Charlemagne, from his palace at Narbonne, was shocked to see Danish pirate vessels in the Gulf of Lyons. Perhaps because he foresaw, like Diocletian, that his overreaching empire needed quick defense at many points at once, he divided it in 806 among his three sons- Pepin, Louis, and Charles. But Pepin died in 810, Charles in 811; only Louis remained, so absorbed in piety as to seem unfit to govern a rough and treacherous world. Nevertheless, in 813, at a solemn ceremony, Louis was elevated from the rank of king to that of emperor, and the old monarch uttered his nunc dimittis: "Blessed be Thou, O Lord God, Who hast granted me the grace to see with my own eyes my son seated on my throne!" -- Death: Four months later, wintering at Aachen, he was seized with a high fever, and developed pleurisy. He tried to cure himself by taking only liquids; but after an illness of seven days he died, in the forty-seventh year of his reign and the seventy-second year of his life (814 A.D.). He was buried under the dome of the cathedral at Aachen, dressed in his imperial robes. Soon all the world called him Carolus Magnus, Karl der Grosse, Charlemagne; and in 1165 A.D., when time had washed away all memory of his mistresses, the Church which he had served so well enrolled him among the blessed.

One of the many high-profile productions being affected by the looming writers' strike is Angels & Demons, the follow-up to The Da Vinci Code -- but if director Ron Howard and his fellow filmmakers have anything to say about it, their sequel's progress will be unimpeded. Variety reports on the last-minute preparations behind the scenes of Angels & Demons, which will find Tom Hanks reprising his role as Robert Langdon from The Da Vinci Code, the $758 million-grossing adaptation of Dan Brown's bestselling book. Angels is scheduled to start filming in Europe next February, but with the writers' strike coming as early as November 1, Howard's team has to move quickly. ... Meanwhile, the "Angels" team have begun casting around Tom Hanks, who will reprise his role as Robert Langdon. Hanks' character, a Harvard-based expert on religious symbols, this time sleuths a mystery that involves a secret society and a conspiracy that leads to Vatican City and threatens the future of the Catholic Church. Variety's report goes on to note that, although the Angels & Demons novel was written before -- and takes place before -- The Da Vinci Code, the film will be a sequel.

Papal authority: Decree of Valentinian - Leo was a significant contributor to the centralisation of spiritual authority within the Church and in reaffirming papal authority. While the bishop of Rome had always been viewed as the chief patriarch in the Western church, much of the pope's authority was delegated to local diocesan bishops. Not without serious opposition did he succeed in reasserting his authority in Gaul. Patroclus of Arles (d. 426) had received from Pope Zosimus the recognition of a subordinate primacy over the Gallican Church which was strongly asserted by his successor Hilary of Arles. An appeal from Chelidonius of Besançon gave Leo the opportunity to reassert the pope's authority over Hilary, who defended himself stoutly at Rome, refusing to recognize Leo's judicial status. Feeling that the primatial rights of the bishop of Rome were threatened, Leo appealed to the civil power for support, and obtained from Valentinian III the famous decree of June 6, 445, which recognized the primacy of the bishop of Rome based on the merits of Peter, the dignity of the city, and the Nicene Creed (in their interpolated form); ordained that any opposition to his rulings, which were to have the force of ecclesiastical law, should be treated as treason; and provided for the forcible extradition by provincial governors of anyone who refused to answer a summons to Rome. Faced with this decree, Hilary submitted to the pope, although under his successor, Ravennius, Leo divided the metropolitan rights between Arles and Vienne (450). -- Dispute with Dioscorus of Alexandria: In 445, Leo disputed with Pope Dioscorus, St. Cyril's successor as Pope of Alexandria, insisting that the ecclesiastical practice of his see should follow that of Rome on the basis that Mark the Evangelist, the disciple of Saint Peter and founder of the Alexandrian Church, could have had no other tradition than that of the prince of the apostles. This, of course, was not the position of the Copts, who saw the ancient patriarchates as equals. -- Council of Chalcedon: A favorable occasion for extending the authority of Rome in the East was offered in the renewal of the Christological controversy by Eutyches, who in the beginning of the conflict appealed to Leo and took refuge with him on his condemnation by Flavian. But on receiving full information from Flavian, Leo took his side decisively. In 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, after Leo's Tome on the two natures of Christ was read out, the bishops participating in the Council cried out: "This is the faith of the fathers ... Peter has spoken thus through Leo ..." -- Battling heresies: An uncompromising foe of heresy, Leo found that in the diocese of Aquileia, Pelagians were received into church communion without formal repudiation of their errors; he wrote to rebuke them, making accusations of culpable negligence, and required a solemn abjuration before a synod. Manicheans fleeing before the Vandals had come to Rome in 439 and secretly organized there; Leo learned of this around 443, and proceeded against them by holding a public debate with their representatives, burning their books, and warning the Roman Christians against them. Nor was his attitude less decided against the Priscillianists. Bishop Turrubius of Astorga, astonished at the spread of this sect in Spain, had addressed the other Spanish bishops on the subject, sending a copy of his letter to Leo, who took the opportunity to exercise Roman policy in Spain. He wrote an extended treatise (21 July 447), against the sect, examining its false teaching in detail, and calling for a Spanish general council to investigate whether it had any adherents in the episcopate, but this was prevented by the political circumstances of Spain. -- On Dignity and Equality: In his Nativitate Domini, in the Christmas Day sermon "Christian, Remember your Dignity" Leo appears to articulate a fundamental and inclusive human dignity and equality: The saint, the sinner, and the unbeliever are all equal as sinners, and none is excluded in the call to "happiness": "Our Saviour, dearly-beloved, was born today: let us be glad. For there is no proper place for sadness, when we keep the birthday of the Life, which destroys the fear of mortality and brings to us the joy of promised eternity. No one is kept from sharing in this happiness. There is for all one common measure of joy, because as our Lord the destroyer of sin and death finds none free from charge, so is He come to free us all. Let the saint exult in that he draws near to victory. Let the sinner be glad in that he is invited to pardon. Let the gentile take courage in that he is called to life."

According to his contemporary, Jerome, Augustine "established anew the ancient Faith." In his early years he was heavily influenced by Manichaeism and afterward by the Neo-Platonism of Plotinus. After his conversion to Christianity and baptism in AD 387, Augustine developed his own approach to philosophy and theology, accommodating a variety of methods and different perspectives. He believed that the grace of Christ was indispensable to human freedom, and he framed the concepts of original sin and just war. -- When the Western Roman Empire was starting to disintegrate, Augustine developed the concept of the Catholic Church as a spiritual City of God (in a book of the same name), distinct from the material Earthly City. His thoughts profoundly influenced the medieval worldview. Augustine's City of God was closely identified with the Church, the community that worshipped God. In the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion, he is a saint and pre-eminent Doctor of the Church, and the patron of the Augustinian religious order; his memorial is celebrated 28 August, the day of his death. ... Works: Augustine was one of the most prolific Latin authors in terms of surviving works, and the list of his works consists of more than one hundred separate titles. They include apologetic works against the heresies of the Arians, Donatists, Manichaeans and Pelagians, texts on Christian doctrine, notably De Doctrina Christiana (On Christian Doctrine), exegetical works such as commentaries on Book of Genesis, the Psalms and Paul's Letter to the Romans, many sermons and letters, and the Retractationes, a review of his earlier works which he wrote near the end of his life. Apart from those, Augustine is probably best known for his Confessiones (Confessions), which is a personal account of his earlier life, and for De civitate dei (Of the City of God, consisting of 22 books), which he wrote to restore the confidence of his fellow Christians, which was badly shaken by the sack of Rome by the Visigoths in 410. His De trinitate (On the Trinity), in which he developed what has become known as the 'psychological analogy' of the Trinity, is also among his masterpieces, and arguably one of the greatest theological works of all time. He also wrote On Free Choice Of The Will (De libero arbitrio), addressing why God gives humans free will that can be used for evil. ... Influence on St. Thomas Aquinas: For quotations of St. Augustine by St. Thomas Aquinas see Aquinas and the Sacraments and Thought of Thomas Aquinas. On the topic of original sin: Aquinas proposed a more optimistic view of man than that of Augustine in that his conception leaves to the reason, will, and passions of fallen man their natural powers even after the Fall. Influence on Protestant reformers: While in his pre-Pelagian writings Augustine taught that Adam's guilt as transmitted to his descendants much enfeebles, though does not destroy, the freedom of their will, Protestant reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin affirmed that Original Sin completely destroyed liberty (see total depravity). Abortion and ensoulment: Like other Church Fathers such as Athenagoras St Augustine "vigorously condemned the practice of induced abortion" as a crime, in any stage of pregnancy.

Priesthood: In 361 Gregory returned to Nazianzus and was ordained a presbyter by his father, who wanted him to assist with caring for local Christians. The younger Gregory, who had been considering a monastic existence, resented his father's decision to force him to choose between priestly services and a solitary existence, calling it an "act of tyranny". Leaving home after a few days, he met his friend Basil at Annesoi, where the two lived as ascetics. However, Basil urged him to return home to assist his father, which he did for the next year. Arriving at Nazianzus, Gregory found the local Christian community split by theological differences and his father accused of heresy by local monks. Gregory helped to heal the division through a combination of personal diplomacy and oratory. By this time Emperor Julian had publicly declared himself in opposition to Christianity. In response to the emperor's rejection of the Christian faith, Gregory composed his Invectives Against Julian between 362 and 363. Invectives asserts that Christianity will overcome imperfect rulers such as Julian through love and patience. This process as described by Gregory is the public manifestation of the process of deification (theosis), which leads to a spiritual elevation and mystical union with God. Julian resolved, in late 362, to vigorously prosecute Gregory and his other Christian critics; however, the emperor perished the following year during a campaign against the Persians. With the death of the emperor, Gregory and the Eastern churches were no longer under the threat of persecution, as the new emperor Jovian was an avowed Christian and supporter of the church. Gregory spent the next few years combating Arianism, which threatened to divide the region of Cappadocia. In this tense environment, Gregory interceded on behalf of his friend Basil with Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (Maritima). The two friends then entered a period of close fraternal cooperation as they participated in a great rhetorical contest of the Caesarean church precipitated by the arrival of accomplished Arian theologians and rhetors. In the subsequent public debates, presided over by agents of the Emperor Valens, Gregory and Basil emerged triumphant. This success confirmed for both Gregory and Basil that their futures lay in administration of the Church. Basil, who had long displayed inclinations to the episcopacy, was elected bishop of the see of Caesarea in Cappadocia in 370. -- Gregory at Constantinople: Emperor Valens died in 378. The accession of Theodosius I, a steadfast supporter of Nicene orthodoxy, was good news to those who wished to purge Constantinople of Arian and Apollinarian domination. The exiled Nicene party gradually returned to the city. From his deathbed, Basil reminded them of Gregory's capabilities and likely recommended his friend to champion the trinitarian cause in Constantinople. In 379, the Antioch synod and its archbishop, Meletios, asked Gregory to go to Constantinople to lead a theological campaign to win over that city to Nicene orthodoxy. After much hesitation, Gregory agreed. His cousin Theodosia offered him a villa for his residence; Gregory immediately transformed much of it into a church, naming it Anastasia, "a scene for the resurrection of the faith". From this little chapel he delivered five powerful discourses on Nicene doctrine, explaining the nature of the Trinity and the unity of the Godhead. Refuting the Eunomion denial of the Holy Spirit's divinity, Gregory offered this argument: "Look at these facts: Christ is born, the Holy Spirit is His Forerunner. Christ is baptized, the Spirit bears witness to this… Christ works miracles, the Spirit accompanies them. Christ ascends, the Spirit takes His place. What great things are there in the idea of God which are not in His power? What titles appertaining to God do not apply also to Him, except for Unbegotten and Begotten? I tremble when I think of such an abundance of titles, and how many Names they blaspheme, those who revolt against the Spirit!" -- Gregory's homilies were well-received and attracted ever-growing crowds to Anastasia. Fearing his popularity, his opponents decided to strike. On the vigil of Easter in 379, an Arian mob burst into his church during worship services, wounding Gregory and killing another bishop. Escaping the mob, Gregory next found himself betrayed by his erstwhile friend, the philosopher Maximus the Cynic. Maximus, who was in secret alliance with Peter, bishop of Alexandria, attempted to seize Gregory's position and have himself ordained bishop of Constantinople. Shocked, Gregory decided to resign his office, but the faction faithful to him induced him to stay and ejected Maximus. However, the episode left him embarrassed and exposed him to criticism as a provincial simpleton unable to cope with intrigues of the imperial city. Affairs in Constantinople remained confused as Gregory's position was still unofficial and Arian priests occupied many important churches. The arrival of the emperor Theodosius in 380 settled matters in Gregory's favor. The emperor, determined to eliminate Arianism, expelled Bishop Demophilus. Gregory was subsequently enthroned as bishop of Constantinople at the Basilica of the Apostles, replacing Demophilus.

Tertullian lived in the ancient city of Carthage in what is now Tunisia, sometime around 200 AD. Very little is known about his life - that little comes either from writers two centuries later, or from the scanty personal notes in his works. Much of it has been asserted to be untrue anyway by some modern writers. He was born a member of the educated classes, and clearly gained a good education. Life in his times wasn't very different in some ways to the modern day - he indulged his passions as he saw fit, including sex, and like everyone else attended the games where gladiators killed each other and criminals were eaten alive, for the enjoyment of the spectators. But among the sights he saw, was that of Christians being executed this way. He was struck with the courage with which stupid and contemptible slave men and little slave girls faced a hideous death, against all nature; and after investigating, became a Christian himself, and turned his budding talents to writing in defense of this despised and victimised group. Tertullian was the first Christian writer to write in Latin, and was described three centuries later as writing 'first, and best, and incomparably', of all the writers to do so. (by the unknown author of 'Praedestinatus'). His writing is aggressive, sarcastic and brilliant, and at points very funny even after 2000 years. He was deeply conscious of his own failings, and had a burning desire for truth and integrity. He was described by Jerome as celebrated in all the churches as a speaker; and his works bear the marks of the need to keep an audience awake! His erudition was immense. Much of what he read is lost, but what remains gives a picture of wide reading, which was celebrated even in antiquity. He wrote a great number of works - how many is unknown. Thirty-one are extant; lists of known lost works are elsewhere on this site; but we have no reason to suppose this to be anything like an exhaustive list. Most of those extant have come down to us by the slenderest of threads, and the very nature of Tertullian's terse and ironic style, means that copyists made many errors, and in some cases his text is beyond certain restoration. Not all of his works were ever completed. His most important work is the Apologeticum, in defense of the Christians. Running it close must be Adversus Praxean, in which the doctrine of the Trinity comes into clear focus for the first time, in response to a heretic who was twisting the biblical balance between the persons of the Godhead. In this work, he created most of the terminology with which this doctrine was to be referred (and is still), such as Trinitas, etc. His discussion of how heretical arguments are in general to be handled in De praescriptio haereticorum also deserves wider recognition. Tertullian wrote no systematic theology; all of his works are brought forth by a local event, a persecution, or a heretic. In his time, the church finally decided to reject a movement calling itself 'The New Prophecy', and known later as Montanism. The New Prophecy made no doctrinal innovations, but said that the Holy Spirit was calling Christians to a more ascetic position. But obeying the prophets inevitably meant a problem, if the bishop did not recognise their authority. Tertullian had grown angry at what looked like compromise creeping into the church - unwillingness to be martyred, willingness to forgive more serious public sins - and aligned himself with the Montanists [it was a prophetic movement that called for a reliance on the spontaneity of the Holy Spirit and a more conservative personal ethic. Parallels have been drawn between Montanism and modern day movements such as Pentecostalism and the charismatic movement - wiki.com]. It is unclear whether this involved actually leaving the church, but his later works are avowedly Montanist, and one or two explictly attack the mainstream church on these points. As such he was not recognised as a Saint, despite his orthodoxy, and his works were all marked as condemned in the 6th Century Decretum Gelasianum. His later life is unknown, and we do not know if he was martyred or died of old age as Jerome says.

Life: Little is known of the life of Dionysius, and what is known is from Eusebius Pamphilius and text fragments from his letters. It is clear Dionysius was held in high esteem as a writer of letters by the second century churches, not only from Eusebius' statement, but also from the fact that heretics thought it worthwhile to circulate interpolated and mutilated copies of his letters. That he wrote epistles to churches so widely scattered shows that he possessed a widely held reputation. Most of these letter are no longer extant. -- Dionysius can be dated to the second half of the second century from the dating of his letters to noted Christians of the time, such as to the Bishop of Rome Soter who served from about 167 to 175, a period of service overlapping that of Dionysius. -- Eusebius knew of a collection of seven Catholic Epistles by Dionysius, a letter to him from Bishop Pinytus of Knossus, a private letter of spiritual advice to a lady named Chrysophora, who had written to him, and his letter to Bp. Soter. In his letter to Bp. Soter, Dionysius lauds the practice of the Church of Rome for its practice of sending alms and gifts for the needy to churches in many cities. In a letter to Nicomedia, Bp. Dionysius praises the Nicomedians for their standing fast in the truth and condemnation of the heresy of Maricion of Sinope that was active in his day. The date and cause of Dionysius' death is unknown. He reposed [retired] before the year 199 A.D. While traditionally Dionysius has been held by some in the Eastern Church to be a martyr, there is no historical foundation for his martyrdom.

But even more importantly than the tweaking of Modalism so that it gets a place at the table is the attitude McDonald has displayed toward the Nicene definition. He says he does not trace his beliefs to credal statements. Really? If by that he means creeds are always subject to the higher authority of Scripture, of course. But this is where you fall off the other side of the narrow path and rather than believing in sola scriptura, you end up with something much less, and in fact, much different. Nicea's authority comes from its fidelity to Scripture. It does not stand alone as a new revelation, and it survived simply because it is, despite all the arguments to the contrary, the consistent, harmonious testimony of divine writ. To throw its authority into the dustbin of history in the service of some kind of "emergent" attitude is not only to display an astoundingly arrogant hubris, it is to show deep disrespect to those who fought, and some who died, in defense of its truth. And for what? For some kind of post-modern feel-goodism that cannot even recognize modalism when it is standing right in front of you. A truly educational example of just how far the emergent movement is willing to go in pursuit of its ultimately destructive goals. -- Recently Jamin Hubner has raised issues relating to a simple question: is the modern secular state of Israel religiously and theologically significant? Is it "Israel" as in the Israel of Scripture, or Romans 11? And if it is not, is it open to criticism? He is concerned about the strength of the movement, mainly amongst American evangelicals, that has granted to Israel not only a theological position it does not actually hold, but which precludes even the slightest mention of criticism of a secular state. Now, I am not going to re-hash everything here, but he has even been accused of being a "shill for Hamas" due to sources he has cited and issues he has raised (which seems to me to provide strong evidence of the need to raise such issues and challenge the knee-jerk reactions of many in the Evangelical community as a whole). While he has sought fair and non-emotional responses to questions he has raised, his requests have, in the main, fallen upon deaf ears, for I see no evidence that his critics really want to have a give-and-take.

Such councils include the **Council of Jerusalem (50 AD) [Acts 15:6], the Council of Rome (155 AD), the Second Council of Rome (193 AD), the Council of Ephesus (193 AD), the Council of Carthage (251 AD), the Council of Iconium (258 AD), the **Council of Antioch (264 AD), the Councils of Arabia (246-247 AD), the Council of Elvira (306 AD), the Council of Carthage (311 AD), the Synod of Neo-Caesarea (314 AD), the Council of Ancyra (314 AD) and the Council of Arles (314 AD). -- and later the **Council in Nicaea, Bithynia (Turkey) in 325 A.D.

He is infamously known as the Emperor who "fiddled while Rome burned", although this is now considered an inaccurate rumor, and as an early persecutor of Christians. He was known for having captured Christians burned in his garden at night for a source of light. This view is based on the writings of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio, the main surviving sources for Nero's reign. Few surviving sources paint Nero in a favorable light. Some sources, though, including some mentioned above, portray him as an emperor who was popular with the common Roman people, especially in the East. The study of Nero is problematic as some modern historians question the reliability of ancient sources when reporting on Nero's tyrannical acts. ... According to Tacitus, the population searched for a scapegoat [for the fire] and rumors held Nero responsible. To deflect blame, Nero targeted Christians. He ordered Christians to be thrown to dogs, while others were crucified and burned.

The Muratorian Fragment is the oldest known list of New Testament books. It was discovered by Ludovico Antonio Muratori in a manuscript in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, and published by him in 1740. It is called a fragment because the beginning of it is missing. Although the manuscript in which it appears was copied during the seventh century, the list itself is dated to about 170 because its author refers to the episcopate of Pius I of Rome (died 157) as recent. He mentions only two epistles of John, without describing them. The Apocalypse of Peter is mentioned as a book which "some of us will not allow to be read in church." A very helpful and detailed discussion of this document is to be found in Bruce Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 191-201.

Bishop of Milan: In the late 4th century there was a deep conflict in the diocese of Milan between the Catholics and Arians. In 374 the bishop of Milan, Auxentius, an Arian, died, and the Arians challenged the succession. Ambrose went to the church where the election was to take place, to prevent an uproar, which was probable in this crisis. His address was interrupted by a call "Ambrose, bishop!", which was taken up by the whole assembly. Ambrose was known to be Catholic in belief, but also acceptable to Arians due to the charity shown in theological matters in this regard. At first he energetically refused the office, for which he was in no way prepared: Ambrose was neither baptized nor formally trained in theology. Upon his appointment, St. Ambrose fled to a colleague's home seeking to hide. Upon receiving a letter from the Emperor Gratian praising the appropriateness of Rome appointing individuals evidently worthy of holy positions, St. Ambrose's host gave Ambrose up. Within a week, Ambrose was baptized, ordained and duly consecrated bishop of Milan. As bishop, he immediately adopted an ascetic lifestyle, apportioned his money to the poor, donating all of his land, making only provision for his sister Marcellina (who later became a nun), and committed the care of his family to his brother. Ambrose also wrote a treatise by the name of "The Goodness Of Death". -- Ambrose and Arians: According to legend, Ambrose immediately and forcefully stopped Arianism in Milan. He studied theology with Simplician, a presbyter of Rome. Using his excellent knowledge of Greek, which was then rare in the West, to his advantage, he studied the Hebrew Bible and Greek authors like Philo, Origen, Athanasius, and Basil of Caesarea, with whom he was also exchanging letters. He applied this knowledge as preacher, concentrating especially on exegesis of the Old Testament, and his rhetorical abilities impressed Augustine of Hippo, who hitherto had thought poorly of Christian preachers. In the confrontation with Arians, Ambrose sought to theologically refute their propositions, which were heretical. The Arians appealed to many high level leaders and clergy in both the Western and Eastern empires. Although the western Emperor Gratian held orthodox belief in the Nicene creed, the younger Valentinian II, who became his colleague in the Empire, adhered to the Arian creed. Ambrose did not sway the young prince's position. In the East, Emperor Theodosius I likewise professed the Nicene creed; but there were many adherents of Arianism throughout his dominions, especially among the higher clergy. In this contested state of religious opinion, two leaders of the Arians, bishops Palladius of Ratiaria and Secundianus of Singidunum, confident of numbers, prevailed upon Gratian to call a general council from all parts of the empire. This request appeared so equitable that he complied without hesitation. However, Ambrose feared the consequences and prevailed upon the emperor to have the matter determined by a council of the Western bishops. Accordingly, a synod composed of thirty-two bishops was held at Aquileia in the year 381 A.D. Ambrose was elected president and Palladius, being called upon to defend his opinions, declined. A vote was then taken, when Palladius and his associate Secundianus were deposed from the episcopal office. Nevertheless, the increasing strength of the Arians proved a formidable task for Ambrose. In 385 or 386 the emperor and his mother Justina, along with a considerable number of clergy and laity, especially military, professed Arianism. They demanded two churches in Milan, one in the city (the basilica of the Apostles), the other in the suburbs (St Victor's), to the Arians. Ambrose refused and was required to answer for his conduct before the council. He went, his eloquence in defense of the Church reportedly overawed the ministers of Emperor Valentinian, so he was permitted to retire without making the surrender of the churches. The day following, when he was performing divine service in the basilica, the prefect of the city came to persuade him to give up at least the Portian basilica in the suburbs. As he still continued obstinate, the court proceeded to violent measures: the officers of the household were commanded to prepare the Basilica and the Portian churches to celebrate divine service upon the arrival of the emperor and his mother at the ensuing festival of Easter. -- In spite of Imperial opposition, Bishop Ambrose declared: "If you demand my person, I am ready to submit: carry me to prison or to death, I will not resist; but I will never betray the church of Christ. I will not call upon the people to succour me; I will die at the foot of the altar rather than desert it. The tumult of the people I will not encourage: but God alone can appease it."

The Council of Jerusalem: We may prove this quite readily by turning to Acts 15:6-31, where we read of the first General Church Council. A serious question of doctrine arose, and "the apostles and the presbyters came together to consider this matter" (Acts 15:6). After hearing the arguments and testimony of Peter, Paul and Barnabas, the leader of the Council, James [half brother of Jesus, writer of the book of James], then passed a decree with the words, "Therefore I judge" (Acts 15:19, 'dio ego krino'). This passage describes no truly democratic process, but rather it describes submission to the judgment of a central ecclesiastical authority [an authority completely submitted to Jesus Christ]. -- After receiving the judgment of James, "it pleased the apostles and presbyters together with the whole Church" (Acts 15:22: 'apostolois kai tois presbyterois syn hole ekklesia') to dispatch delegates with a letter promulgating the decree of the Council. The council then drafted a letter in the name of "the apostles and the brother-presbyters" (Acts 15:23: 'hoi apostoloi kai hoi presbyteroi adelphoi'). This phrasing, and especially the apposition of 'presbyteroi' and 'adelphoi', is quite precise in establishing the authority of the decision of the Council in the office of the ministers who serve and lead the Church, as opposed to a democratic process. -- Does the phrase "whole Church" here refer to the universal Church, or merely to the entirety of the congregation at Jerusalem. Recalling that the leadership of the Council was comprised of the apostles who were planting local churches in the Hellenistic world, delegates of the Hellenistic churches, and the presbyters of the church at Jerusalem, we can only rightly conclude that they spoke in the name of the universal Church. Indeed, the letter explicitly states that the authors speak in the authority of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28); since Paul tells us that it is by one Spirit that we were baptized into one body (1 Cor. 12:13) which is Christ (1 Cor. 12:27) and over which Christ is the head (1 Eph. 1:22-23), when Luke writes in Acts 15:22 of the leadership of the whole Church assenting to the decree of James which is binding on all Gentile Christians, he is necessarily speaking of the Church in its universal or catholic sense. -- The Council then sent the letter to the local churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. This letter remarks that the false doctrine which the council repudiated was in fact discernibly false because "we gave no such commandments" (Acts 15:24). Hence, the Bible tells us that right doctrine is subject to the discernment of the leadership of the whole Church. The decree of the Council of Jerusalem went on, then, to establish a binding obligation upon all Christians in the local churches of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: "that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality" (Acts 15:29). Did the local churches bristle at this imposition of doctrine and practice from the ecclesiastical leadership of the whole Church? Not at all, but rather they "rejoiced over its encouragement" (Acts 15:31). Clearly, the Bible itself sets a precedent for the government of the universal Church by means of General Councils.

The Basic Christian resource for select Mp3 downloads from various internet websites. -- Selected as a part of the original 2003 Tract-CD Project the Basic Christian Ministry was asked to share two PDF resources [Basic Christian: Theology, Biblical Proof Jesus is God] with the Tract-CD project and in return a CD of Mp3's was mailed to the Ministry. -- These are some of those original Mp3s plus many more new mp3s have been added for download.

Christian Faith Downloads -- "1st Corinthians 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."

**To download each file: "Right Click" and select "Save Target AS..."

On this episode of Remnant X Radio we will be advancing the story with the latest edition of "Thugonomics" entitled, "Birds of a Feather." We will look at the linkage between John Higgins and his friend David Berg, between the recruitment of members for House of Miracles and The Child of God Cult. A lot of folks do not know that John and David worked on a few things together and shared ideas. You will be surprised at how much of the Children of God Cult is in Calvary Chapel. -- Your homework will be to google "Children of God."

Christian apologist and talk show host Chris Rosebrough (Fighting For The Faith) was recently the featured guest on Stand Up For The Truth radio show. From the Stand Up For The Truth website: "We know that the God of the Bible is not the same god of the Qur'an. Yahweh of the Bible became flesh 2,000 years ago to be that perfect lamb, the Son, the atonement for our sins. The Jesus we believe in is God. But Allah of the Qur'an did not have a son. There was no atonement, no hope of a Messiah, and no grace for sinners. The Christian God and the Muslim Allah cannot be one and the same. And yet there are a growing number of Christians and Muslims who are combining the faith-syncretizing the two into one. That's called Chrislam, and it is heresy. -- This week the Orange County Register reported in an article that leadership of Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Church believe that Muslims and Christians believe in the same God. Is the article accurate? Is that truly what these leaders believe? Our guest today has communicated with Rick Warren twice in the past few days, and it's as close as anyone has gotten to America's Pastor to hear in his own words what is going on. -- Chris Rosebrough is host of a daily two-hour internet radio program, Fighting For The Faith, heard around the world on Pirate Christian Radio, a broadcast group he started in his hometown of Indianapolis. Chris is at the forefront of those contending for the truth of God's Word."

On this episode of "No King But Jesus" Tish Bowling will continue her discussion about the first admendment. She will be covering, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. -- Please plan to join us! Peace and God Bles to his Elect!

Critics commonly charge that the traditional Bible text used by believers for 1800 years adds material, and that we should be thankful for Westcott and Hort who came along in the 19th century to restore the text of the New Testament that had been corrupt for 1800 years and during the entire reformation. This charge is of course made against evidence to the contrary, as you will find if you research the text lines (read other articles on this website). Further, it is interesting to note that one of these verses is this: Romans 13:9: For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The phrase "thou shalt not bear false witness" is missing from the modern critical text (and therefor most modern versions). Now I ask you: is it reasonable to assume that a scribe added a self-incriminating phrase to the passage? Isn't it more likely that "those who corrupt the word of God" (2 Cor. 2:17, KJV) removed the phrase which indicted them?

This is a study of the Godhead; also called the Trinity, or the Tri-unity of God. The best definition of the Trinity is that there is only one God, but in unity of the divine and infinite Godhead there are three personalities, the Father, the Word (or Son), and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided. Again in simpler terms; There is only one God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three eternal and co-equal Persons; the same in essence but distinct in existence.

Update 03-03-2012: After this group of postings there should be only one or two more blog postings of material until Holy Week 2012. Then the postings of Holy Week 2012 or shortly after would conclude the Basic Christian blog Ministry. ~ God bless everyone, David Anson Brown

MADISON, Wisc., Dec. 22 /Christian Newswire/ - Focus on the Family has a story on Glenn Beck, a Mormon, on their CitizenLink Website. Glenn Beck was a CNN host and will move to Fox News in January. Beck is currently promoting his book, "The Christmas Sweater." The CitizenLink story focuses on Beck's faith and why he wrote "The Christmas Sweater." ... Through the years, Focus on the Family has done great things to help the family and has brought attention to the many social ills that are attacking the family. However, to promote a Mormon as a Christian is not helpful to the cause of Jesus Christ. For Christians to influence society, Christians should be promoting the central issues of the faith properly without opening the door to false religions. Some of the false doctrines of Mormonism include polytheism, an attack on the trinity, that Jesus was the spirit-brother of Lucifer, that God the Father is married to Mother God, temple baptisms for the dead, the Bible has missing parts and many errors. Christians are to stand up against the social ills of society, however, we are to put Christ first and His essential biblical truths.

If you'll notice the diagram behind him, the Kingdom Circles are part of the session. Basically, it's a simple but highly questionable [completely wrong] evangelical tool that people are being taught to draw (sometimes called the "napkin drawing") to demonstrate how those of other faiths can enter the Kingdom of God without converting to Christianity. If you've not heard of this, you need to. The video from the Common Path Alliance as well as this article from the Jesus in the Qur'an organization explains it: -- {Note: In the misleading demonstration three circles are drawn first a lager Kingdom of God (KoG) circle and then two small identical circles supposedly representing Christians and Muslims outside the larger KoG circle, yes in the completely misleading diagram Christians are placed outside of the Kingdom with all the other unsaved Gentiles. Apparently the already saved Christians are still attempting to enter the Kingdom of God and in the demonstration Jesus is not mentioned so their kingdom is not the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. Interestingly though not explicitly explained it seems that entrance into their KoG is not directly through the cross of Jesus Christ but apparently through special knowledge (Gnosticism), enlightenment (Occult), and works (i.e. Service and Tithes) it sound very familiar, is sounds like the New Age gospel.} -- Colossians 1:12-23 "Giving thanks unto the Father [God], which hath made us [Christians] meet [assembled] to be partakers of the inheritance **of the Saints in Light: Who [God] hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us **into the Kingdom [of God] of His dear Son [Jesus]: **In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins: [Jesus] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn [inheritor] of every creature: For by Him [Jesus] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: And He is [Eternal] before all things, and by Him all things consist. And He is the head [Authority] of the body, the Church: who is the beginning, the firstborn [Resurrection] from the dead; that in all things He might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father [God] that in Him [Jesus] should all fulness [Godhead] dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of His cross, **by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you [Gentiles], that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled In the body of His flesh through death, **to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in His sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the [True] Gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I [Apostle] Paul am made a minister ..."

By R. SCOTT MOXLEY Thursday, Apr 14 2011: Legendary Garden Grove televangelist Robert H. Schuller once noted, "High achievers spot rich opportunities swiftly." The creator of Crystal Cathedral, a best-selling author and star of Hour of Power broadcasts, Schuller has long served as Exhibit A of that credo. In the 1950s, he saw an opportunity to build a profitable church, grabbed it and-thanks largely to donations from poor and lower-middle-class folks trying to win the blessings of God-created an $89-million religious empire with hints of opulence. ... Records also show that the reverend wasn't a cheapskate in one charity case. Indeed, the recipients of his generosity weren't poor at all. They were a wealthy Newport Beach couple, Kenneth and Glenia Reafsnyder. Ken's first wife was a member of Buena Park's Knott family, founders of Knott's Berry Farm. He also palled around with actor John Wayne. In 1995, Schuller agreed to divert $4,000 a month in church donations to the Reafsnyders for the rest of their lives in exchange for a quarter ownership in the couple's home. Ken has since died, but the deal calls on Crystal Cathedral Ministries to continue to pay Glenia. In 2008, the ministry increased the payments to $4,500 a month while reducing its ownership percentage. This means that the church's current 8.5 percent portion of the house has cost more than $1,250,000-$55,000 more than the value of the entire house. Speaking of houses, over the years the Schuller family has purchased oceanfront property in Orange County, a Big Bear vacation house, a San Diego County time-share, a Colorado mansion and a Honolulu condo. Just before filing for bankruptcy, Schuller sold a San Juan Capistrano property that had been bequeathed to the church decades ago and pocketed $22.5 million. The reverend's son, Robert Anthony Schuller, has lived in a $2.2-million oceanfront Laguna Beach dream house worthy of an Architectural Digest feature. Fred Southard, a longtime Schuller aide, lives behind palatial, guarded gates in a 13-room, 13,600-square-foot Newport Coast estate that could fetch $3 million on the open market. ... In court filings, they've remained optimistic that, despite a 50-percent drop in church membership to 5,000 attendees, the ministry can eventually pay off all of the debt. To accomplish that feat, however, the Schuller clan is going to have to stir up the congregation and then, despite all the unsettling revelations, ask them to dig deeper into their wallets.

In today's secular world, Easter earns millions of dollars for marketing companies - some of which are Christian companies. (Think Lifeway!) Pastel colored eggs, candies, and baskets scream "Buy Me!" from the supermarket shelves. The all-important "Easter Bunny" springs forth… seducing kids and parents into a market-driven frenzy of eggs, chocolate, and giving gifts. What's missing? The real meaning of the Christian Easter Holiday! Where's Jesus in all of this? -- Before I became a Christian, Easter was just another holiday. I knew it was about Jesus, but I didn't really care. I often skipped church on Easter, preferring to stay home. After all, if I didn't love God during the rest of the year, why "fake it" by showing up in a suit one day out of the year - hoping the pastor would count me as one of the redeemed? But…. AFTER I became a Christian, Easter took on a whole new meaning. Why shouldn't it? I mean, I LOVE Jesus. He lives within me. Easter became a special day of celebrating Jesus' victory over hell, death, and the grave. -- If I love Jesus and worship Him, then Easter becomes such a special day! Yet why do I see such apathy in other Christians when it come to celebrating the resurrection of our Lord? -- Why? I think it has to do with our culture, and how over-marketed we are. Everywhere we turn we're bombarded with messages to buy something. Every holiday has it's own theme, and Easter is no exception. Pastel colors bombard the eyes. Decorations are sold in most major department stores. I've even seen people put up "Easter trees" ... Just like a Christmas tree, but with eggs for ornaments. Why do Christians even fall for this? I mean, shouldn't we be "in the world, and not OF the world?" This is an important question, and I think the reason why most Christians give short shrift to Easter is because they don't want to face up to 3 basic truths of Christianity. -- As a pastor, I have heard the critique of my ministry that I spend too much time in the New Testament, and not enough time in the old. Fair enough. I do spend time in the New Testament. Part of that has to do with the fact that when I took a good hard look at Berean Baptist Church where I'm the shepherd, I came to the conclusion that as a church, we needed a fresh vision of who Jesus was. But just as a jeweler sets a diamond against a black velvet cloth to show it's luster, Christ makes the most sense to us when we see him in the grand perspective of our need of a savior. What are these 3 spiritual truths that we must embrace as Christians? ...

WHAT IS IMPLIED IN EVANGELICAL FAITH:

1. It implies an intellectual perception of the things, facts, and truths believed. No one can believe that which he does not understand.
2. Evangelical faith implies the appropriation of the truths of the Gospel to ourselves. It implies an acceptance of Christ as our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. The soul that truly believes in Christ, believes that He tasted death for every man, and of course for it. It apprehends Christ as the Saviour of the world, as offered to all, and embraces and receives Him for itself. It appropriates His atonement, and His resurrection and His intercession, and His promises to itself. Christ is thus presented in the Gospel not only as the Saviour of the world, but also to the individual acceptance of men. He saves the world no further than He saves individuals. Evangelical faith implies a personal acceptance and appropriation of Christ to meet the necessities of the individual soul.
3. Faith is a state of committal to Christ, and of course it implies that the soul will be unreseveredly yielded up to Him, in all His relations to it, so far and so fast as these are apprehended by the intellect.
4. Evangelical faith implies an evangelical life. This would not be true if faith were merely an intellectual state or exercise. But since, as we have seen, faith is of the heart, since it consists in the committal of the will to Christ, it follows, by a law of necessity, that the life will correspond with faith. Let this be kept in perpetual remembrance.
5. Evangelical faith implies repentance towards God, that is, a turning from sin to God.
6. Evangelical faith implies a renunciation of self-righteousness. It is impossible for one to embrace Christ as the Saviour of the soul, any further than he renounces all hope or expectation of being saved by his own works, or righteousness.
7. Of course it implies peace of mind. In Christ the soul finds its full and present salvation. It has found its resting-place in Christ, and rests in profound peace under the shadow of the Almighty.
8. It implies hope, as soon as the believing soul considers what is conveyed by the Gospel, that is, a hope of eternal life in and through Christ.
9. It implies joy in God and in Christ. St. Peter speaks of joy as the unfailing accompaniment of faith, as resulting from it.
10. Present evangelical faith implies a state of present sinlessness [covered by the blood of Jesus (1 John 1:7)]. Observe: faith is the yielding and committal of the whole will, and of the whole being to Christ. This, and nothing short of this, is evangelical faith. But this comprehends and implies the whole of present, true obedience to Christ. This is the reason why faith is spoken of as the condition, and as it were, the only condition, of salvation. It really implies all virtue.

When contemplated as an attribute of love, it is only a branch of sanctification. When contemplated in the wider sense of universal conformity of will to the will of God, it is then synonymous with entire present sanctification. Contemplated in either light, its existence in the heart must be inconsistent with present sin there. Faith is an attitude of the will, and is wholly incompatible with present rebellion of will against Christ. This must be true, or what is faith? -- REVIVAL TRUTHS by Charles G. Finney

Psalms 70:4 Let all those that seek Thee rejoice and be glad in Thee: and let such as love Thy Salvation say continually, Let God be magnified. -- Holy Bible