May 14, 2019
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) exposed as weak gutless grace wimpy girliemen as per our Clear Teachings that all Truly Biblical manly-men have beards. In fact we’re beginning to question the Spine of their doctrines as they claim to teach gender distinction but are all clean shaven men. Where does such thinking come from? Where is the consistency when it is taught women have to dress like women and know their place but men can claim “christian liberty” when it comes to shaving off the God given mark of masculinity.
Only spineless Evanjellyfish would shave their beards off—now we all know Spurgeon the Prince of Preachers had a beard that’s why his Doctrines were so Pure as did Calvin. Luther once had a beard but had a lapse of judgment and shaved it off—if only he had followed Calvin’s example when he started the Protestant Reformation when Calvin was only 8 years old. We believe that’s why he erred in attacking our Truth that Calvin’s teachings are the most important teachings in all of Church History as any True Reformer would like John MacArthur (PBUH)*:
It is recorded that Luther later said that Calvin was “educated, but strongly suspected of the error of the Sacramentarians.” That is, that Calvin did not believe the same things regarding the Lord’s Supper as the Lutheran Reformers.
In this it appears that in Luther’s grand biography Calvin does not receive a great deal of mention. For Luther, Calvin would appear perhaps as a footnote.
How can the CBMW expect to stop the GLBT hordes if they refuse to follow the Bible’s Clear Teachings that all True and Godly manly-men have beards?
In our current culture, the progressive trends of gender confusion and transgenderism is all the more reason we should uphold the biblical picture of a masculine man by having beards to stand separated from the pagan culture of today.
Thankfully you have True Bible-based ministries like ours with the Spines and beards to prove it to help protect you in the Purity of our facial hair—and the Sound Doctrines of the Ways of the Master himself which teach Absolute Biblical Truth in his book The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception from the spineless beardless GLBT Evanjellyfish agenda slipping into our churches.
May 10, 2019
Post-millennialism and amillennialism is really the same thing. I like to call amillennialism negative, and postmillennialism positive. That’s just two ways to look at the same thing. It’s two ways to view human history. One says it’s not the Kingdom. The other says it is the Kingdom. One says moving toward the coming of Christ there will be no Kingdom. The other says there will be a Kingdom. But in both cases it will be the flow of history under the influence of the church. So they’re really looking at the same thing. One calls it a kingdom and says it will expand and expand and expand, that’s the positive spin. The other looks at it as a spiritual kingdom also but says it will decline and decline and decline until Jesus finally comes. But in both cases they would deny the actual thousand-year reign of Christ and they would deny that Christ will reign and rule on earth and literally fulfill all His promises to the nation Israel given in the Old Testament covenants. Whether you’re an amillennialist or a postmillennialist, you basically say Israel forfeited all its promises, forfeited all its privileges, forfeited all those things that God declared in covenant that He would give to them in the future and they forfeit it by their disobedience to the Mosaic Covenant, by their apostasy from true religion and by their rejection of their Messiah. Therefore, Israel has been permanently set aside so that the only Kingdom will be that Kingdom that we call the church ruled by Christ either expanding to take over the world, or existing in the world, and finally in heaven. So, it is really one of the strange ironies of Reformed Theology. And therefore it’s a strange irony in the church today that those who love the doctrine of sovereign election most, that would be Reformed theologians, those who love the doctrine of sovereign election most supremely and who love that doctrine most sincerely and…this is going to be a long sentence…and who are most unwavering in their devotion to the glory of God, the honor of Christ, the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, the veracity and inerrancy of Scripture, those who are usually the most fastidious in Bible interpretation, yes those who are the most careful and intentionally biblical regarding all categories of doctrine, those who see themselves as guardians of biblical truth, those who are passionate to get it right, those who are not content to be wrong at all, and those who most heartily agree on the essential matters of Christian truth so that they labor with all their powers to examine in a Berean fashion every relevant text to discern the true interpretation of all matters of divine revelation are…and there’s the main verb in the sentence…are in varying degrees of disinterest in applying their skills to the end of the story and rather content to be in happy if not playful disagreement in regard to the vast biblical data on eschatology as if the end doesn’t matter much…period. Or another way to say it would be this, how many of you have attended an amillennial prophecy conference? There isn’t such a thing. If you don’t know what you believe about the future, you can’t preach on it. Whether you are a pessimistic amillennialist, or an optimistic amillennialist, that’s a post-millennialist, you don’t know what to do with prophetic truth because if you interpret prophetic truth in the same normal natural way you interpret all the rest of the passages of Scripture, you’re going to end up a pre-millennialist. It’s inevitable. And so you have to change the rules of interpretation. And once you say the Bible doesn’t mean what it says, then we have no idea what it means. Certainly you have no idea what it means, neither does anybody else.—Pope Pyro aka John MacArthur (PBUH)
The only True Eschatology is premillennial dispensationalism—never mind the fact that it and the rapture are nowhere to be found in the Bible nor was it taught for the first 1800+ years of Church History. It also doesn’t matter that it came from the teachings of Darby and Scofield and that the Rapture has it’s origins in demonic mysticism. If our Pope of the Truth War—the only True Living Teacher of God’s Word with a Study Bible named after him (complete with his personal study notes; annotations; maps and teachings
and opinions) teaches Premillennial Dispensationalism and the Rapture as a FACT in the annotations of his Holy Study Bible and from his pulpit then we can know with Absolute Certainty that these teachings are Absolute Biblical Truth!
April 20, 2019
You dare question our unquestionable Doctrines sinners. We know that Wrath=Love as we’ve already presupposed this to be true (as we got our education from unaccredited colleges unlike you sinners who went to worldly schools; worked hard and actually earned a Real Doctoral Degree*) therefore you too must presuppose it to be true as well. Nevermind the fact that this isn’t found in the New Testament:
“Barth distances himself from classic substitution views, especially those stemming from Anselm. He acknowledges that the concept of punishment is present in Isaiah 53, but denies that it is present in the New Testament (a puzzling assertion, since he has used the term himself just earlier ). He then says this:
The decisive thing is not that He has suffered what we ought to have suffered so that we do not have to suffer it, the destruction to which we have fallen victim by our guilt, and therefore the punishment which we deserve. This is true, of course. But it is true only as it derives from the decisive thing that in the suffering and death of Jesus Christ it has come to pass that in His own person He has made an end of us as sinners and therefore of sin itself by going to death as the One who took our place as sinners. In His person He has delivered up us sinners and sin itself to destruction (253).
Earlier on the same page Barth also denies that the concept of satisfying God’s wrath is present in the New Testament. Thus my takeaway is this: Barth affirms a version of PSA, but not propitiation; and for Barth the penal element is peripheral, not central. The main thing for Barth is that Christ deals with our sin itself (and destroys it) by taking our places as the judged. Also, Barth’s version of PSA seems more oriented to Christ’s entire incarnate life, just just his death – this, and his frequent arguments from Christ’s “solidarity” with the world make his version of PSA sounds more compatible with a kind of recapitulation theme, as found in Irenaeus. Thus despite the similarity of language, at a very crucial juncture I think Barth’s doctrine of atonement must be seen as in a quite different category than classic PSA views in the reformed tradition. While I think some of his assertions stand in an ambiguous relationship with Scripture, I do find him an enlivening theological sparring partner, especially on the nature of the incarnation.”
Our Presuppositions are always correct.
*Our official Diploma of Presuppositional Apologetics: