Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, Received Text-KJV, Dispensational

Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, Received Text-KJV, Dispensational

Saturday, July 31, 2021

All Christians Believe in Predestination: The Classic Collection with R.C. Sproul


 

What Is Truth?: The Classic Collection with R.C. Sproul


 

If There Is a God, Why Are There Atheists?: The Classic Collection with R.C. Sproul


 

Salvation Guaranteed: The Classic Collection with R.C. Sproul


 

Nothing Left to Chance: The Classic Collection with R.C. Sproul

 


Brian Houston | Teaching Errors


 

3 Biggest Threats Facing The Southern Baptist Convention


 

Feminism Destroyed | with Bekah Merkle


 

Flat Irons: Church Of The Bad Boys?


 

John MacArthur: What a true convert looks like | WRETCHED


 

A Diagnosis of the Christ-Rejecters (Luke 20:19-26)


 

Friday, July 30, 2021

Is It Possible to Say "Yes" to Jesus and "No" to the Church?


 

7 Lies Your Kids Will Believe Unless You Do Something - with Elizabeth Urbanowicz


 

John MacArthur: The Holiness of God and His People


 

Steven Lawson: The Attributes of God (Seminar)


 

Is God Really in Control? | Steven Lawson


 

What does it mean to fear the Lord?


 

The First and Great Commandment - Charles Spurgeon Sermon


 

What would you say to someone who still doubts his salvation after seeing its fruit in his life?


 

Sexuality and Gender by Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh


https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/preface-sexuality-and-gender

The golden key to gaining assurance of salvation | WRETCHED RADIO


 

Why the “born this way” argument doesn't advance LGBT equality | Dr. Lisa Diamond | TEDxSaltLakeCity


I disagree with her one sided and anti Christian view of sexual fluidity in therapy, but, this is just an interesting look at how the born the way hypothesis is not accurate.

Evolutionists Say the Oddest Things


 

Masculinity is not toxic, but, individuals can be toxic and that has nothing to do with their sex/gender.

Photo:

Digit Ratio/Gender Non-conformity and sexuality -- A Meta-Analyses of the actual research

There is a word that is often thrown about in our society called "Gaydar." and it is prevalent throughout various areas of science too. It is not just a term bandied about by people that come off as stupid, but, people that seem quite logical as well. They point to studies which claim that all the stereotypes about straight people and gay people are correct. That straight equals being a gender conforming god and gays being gender queer and atypical aberrations from the norm in ways other than their sexual desires. 

However, is it really true that Gaydar exists and is it also true that straight people never are gender-non conforming? Oh and does a difference in your ring finger really tell you anything about your orientation? Most people will point to studies mainly by the people associated with Michael J. Bailey and his studies. However, how correct are these studies? Are they consensus building? Are they even scientific or are they quackery? Looking at the Meta-Analyses of the data shows serious holes in the idea that Gaydar is a consistently true phenomenon. 

Moreover it shows some serious flaws in the idea of what is manly for men as well. Especially when it comes to activities like dancing. If you look at the studies gay men played game show and performance more than straight boys did as children.. However, there is a serious flaw in all these studies. No straight people are even given a chance to take part in the research. Of course you will have a majority of gay boys and lesbian girls being sissies and tomboys. There is no control sample of straight people in these studies to see how many of them have videos of non-conforming home movies. 

If you saw my Moms old photos of me back at her place one of them is me in a very flamboyant coat that has a color in it a mix between purple and pink. Yet, I am straight I am not gay. I both danced when I was younger, was in a play "Twelve Dancing Princesses," and played with guns too. I was the 1 of only 3 boys in a play and was also playing Chris Bond with my toy gun at the same time. As long as there is no control group in any of these studies I call unscientific hogwash on them all. I call them quackery and Michael J. Bailey is himself in denial about the existence of sexual fluidity. He does not even acknowledge male fluidity exists.

Is there any studies on Gaydar related traits that is not by Bailey and what do they show? Well, it shows much more importantly the demographics of actual non-conforming people no matter how small the number. The top tier of people whom had gender non-conforming childhoods are in fact heterosexual as adults. 

Not mostly heterosexual, but, self-identified complete heterosexuals are the most to have had moments of various levels of non-conformism in life. This was according to a wonderful study done outside of Bailey's narrative back in 2012. However, there are other ideas out there trying to tell people certain factors tell you what orientation you are. That being your ring to index finger ratio with the length of your ring finger being longer meaning you are more likely straight than not as a man. While supposedly gay men have digits similar to women not straight men. Yet, in meta-analyses shows there is not enough evidence to show any sort of connection. 

I think the meta-analyses of non-conformity makes perfect sense. As meta-analyses of orientation identification overtime shows heterosexuality as being the most stable and the most likely to be where people with any sort of same sex play to end up. The two most taken up identities are either mostly straight or completely straight for most men and women by the time they are in their 30's and going into their 40's. This is shown in the studies that took a scientific and objective eye on human sexual orientation. Every single Longitude based tracing of populations done since around 2002ish shows a bisexual or a just curious at one time direction. Lisa Diamond; a very out and proud Lesbian Psychologist for the APA cites this among other things in her research which shows a lack of any real evidence for the biological determinism or existentialist etiology for bisexual or homosexual attractions. 

So, it would make sense that most men and women irregardless of behavior or interests to be not gay and to be at least some variant of heterosexual. Only 2-3% of any human population is steadily gay or homosexual over their entire life without change to at least at bisexual identity. People with non-conformism with actual Gender Dysphoria (Transsexualism) is less than even 1% of the population. Most people whom have at some point gone through non-conformism or continue to be non-conforming are Gender Concordant and heterosexual. There is no reason to assume someone is gay just because they act a certain way, talk a certain way or have certain interests. 

Gaydar is a false pattern which does not help when dealing with people as individuals. Gaydar should be shoved off as the Pseudio-science it is for it is quackery at its finest. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Masculine traits, feminine traits and human traits.

 


If one actually looks up on Google or some other search engine the words masculine traits one is sure to find numerous results. Sometimes you can find very useful and truthful claims about what is masculine psychologically and feminine psychologically. Other times what you find is snake oil salesmen pitches. Still further there is also a whole bunch of blatantly anti-male feminist stuff online as well which calls masculinity toxic. When one is wondering what is masculine and what is feminine the Internet can harm as well as help your mindset. There are some really good websites dedicated to men and masculinity. There is also a bunch of junk science and excuses to collectivize the sexes or generalize them. 

Let me state first of all I do not think being feminine actually makes you less of a man. However, I do find there to be a difference between a masculine and feminine man. These are not matters of one being worth more than the other when it comes to human worth and value. Just because people are different even within the same sex does not mean those differences have any moral or ethical weight. You judge a person by the contents of his character and not how limp or firm his wrist is. However, I do find that the differences do exist for sure. 

I have taken more than one Gender Identity Expression and psychology test on the net. I find I always get the same results more or less. I end up with either a standard or very high masculine metric on each one of them simply by answering authentically about how my brain works when presented with certain situations. Some of these situations are more generic than others. Further still some psychological testing simply uses descriptors and sliding scales of where you sit in regards to it. 

Also, one must differentiate between what ones brain thinks or responds like and whether said person actually acts in accordance with those thoughts. A person could think in a more masculine way than they act in the actual environment around them. One could also think more feminine typical than they act as well. Not every little reflex, thought or desire manifests in behavior or mannerisms. The point being that metrics do exist that are not just some airy fairy nonsense and I would never argue otherwise. 

Yet, some things that seem to get lumped into the feminine side sometimes is to me patently false and not feminine at all. For example the BEM sex role inventory puts compassion in the feminine box. So, I get like 20% -40% feminine on some tests along side 100% masculine in the same exact test. Mainly due to things like compassion being coded as being feminine instead of just being a human trait and perfectly compatible with being in the masculine box. So, men whom take these tests get coded by default as some sort of androgynous being simply for being human. 

So, men are incapable of being caring of others is basically what this misandric anti-male nonsense is trying to say. The standard non-androgynous man is an uncaring, coldhearted jerk? This is complete nuttiness to say that the moment you might somewhat care about anything you are becoming like a woman. There are things that are definable and masculine or feminine, but, that is not one of them. It is a human trait that manifests irregardless of what is in between your legs. Often men's compassion is shown differently, but, it sure exists.

Just because emotions are expressed differently by men does not mean men do not have them. To argue we do not is to misunderstand human nature itself. It is to in essence make an argument that men are not human and never can be unless they deal with emotions the way a woman would. To argue that I see the word compassion and say I agree makes me or any man any amount of less masculine is absurd.

"Hypermasculinity" has its origins in gender studies and colonial studies.

I pointed out to my men's group on its last evening the problem with its defining of certain things. I pointed out that the term hypermasculinity as the term for male avoidance or faking masculinity was not accurate. As well as that aggression should not be defined by some sort of extreme masculinity.


I pointed out; if anything a hypermasculine man based on traditional roles would be hyper-protecting and providing of those around him. Not dominating of others or extremely aggressive against innocent people around them. That they should simply say violent and aggressive, or abusive and domineering if that is what they mean not putting into a form of masculinity.

I pointed out that women are also aggressive and violent; even domineering over others. Should we I asked call these acts hyperfeminine of these women? Or should we I pointed out; if hypermasculine means acting out or faking masculinity call women that are ultra-feminine be called hyperfeminine?

How is one supposed to know if masculine traits are being faked or it is just the man is like this? Unless they come out and say they are faking it. Even in that case it is the opposite of being hypermasculine, which would be called Hypomasculine and masking the fact. Let us just call that being a phony or hell, "masking."

The truth is the very definition and terminology as it was being used in the documentation of the group does not come from a reasoned and scientific source. Instead it was first used academically and in literature in 1994 by Ashis Nandy. It was used from the very beginning from a radical feminist worldview which ignored all conquering Queens in the past for the idea colonialism was interlocked with gender.

Specifically it came out of a warped view of an Indian psychologist. It was from its formation with this sort of definition a demonizing of men and males in general associating masculinity with all the horrors of the passed and the future. It is of a gender studies origin and always was a radical-feminist term.

I refused to use invalid terms for invalid ideas and ridiculous demonizing feminist terminology for various ways of being a man in this world. I refuse to do so in the future as well. Men and their various ways of being; the various shades of masculinity are not something to be demonized. I cannot abide by demonizing masculine men anymore than abiding people demonizing feminine men as cucks by Ethonationalists and douchebags online.

Aggression has a word aggression. Faking things has a term faking it or masking. There is no reason to conceptualize these things as hypermasculine; they show up in all humans in different contexts and are human traits not just masculine ones on hyper drive.

Is Evolution Anti-Religion? It Depends. (Article Podcast)


 

Mass Shootings are not the result of men or masculinity

Earlier today I took a look at my Google News feed only to see misandric bullshit flash at me as headlines. It looks the Feminazi side of the far-left is now parading around the idea that "toxic" masculinity holds responsibility for the recent mass shootings that have taken place. Further than that they went onto try and say all mass shootings are a product of this "toxic" masculinity. This is nothing less than the pure unadulterated hatred of men and their core characteristics as men known as masculinity.  


Somehow being masculine has been once again interchanged for mental instability possible in any member of the human species. It has been tagged with being the worst of human traits with women and the feminine being pure as the driven snow never violent or insane. This is historically and objectively wrong. In the real world any woman you meet could turn out to be a hysterical psycho as much as any man. Women also rape, women also pillage, women also shoot other people and women kill all the time. 

It is in human nature to have the possibility to embrace either being a good person who does not harm others or to embrace instead the evil part of human nature and go on a rampage. It has nothing to do with what is between your legs if you are going to do vile things. It comes down to the way your brain is functioning and also how your mindset is within that brain. It comes down a lot of times to brans that are damaged. For example brain tumors have turned sane folks into pedophiles and violent dangerous individuals. 

It is not just men that are violent all humans have the ability to do violence and sometimes that is completely justified. What people do not want to admit is people that people misusing violence are in fact choosing to use something that could be used for great good for the wrong things. Violence is not interchangeable with harming innocent people that is only one manifestation of this very important part of our human nature. No humans have ever been the so-called Noble Savage, but, we have been a savage alright. Violence can and has historically been used over and over for great good. 

Fighting off the barbarian hordes that want to rape and kill your tribes is built into our evolutionary psychology. It is in our deepest levels of our brains wiring to be prone to violence and extensive violence if needed in order to defend the village innocent from the barbarians at the gates. This is just in our nature as the species that we are. Sometimes that nature also can be misused for great evils and people can be manipulated into doing horrible things with the great power called violence. As Uncle Ben said "with great power comes great responsibility." It is something that we hold in our hand at any time which is why we need institutions that work to mitigate the violence. We call them governments. 

The truth is that masculinity is all about historically the opposite of harming others. It is the men that have historically fought off the predators and protected the innocent. They are the ones that were majority in the role of defenders and fighters on the front lines against the psychopaths that killed. It is the men as hunters that protected the women and children of the tribe living lives as disposable to the needs of the tribe for protection and provision. Indeed these men were often fighting other men whom themselves were also intending to protect their own tribes and too being disposable for their own tribe. It was a fight of two groups of men both considering what they were doing as protecting their own. 

Far from being the cause of mass shootings and modern day violence masculinity is most embraced in the people that jump in to help people out from that violence. All the security, police, firemen and so forth that jumped in for example in Las Vegas are portraying masculinity and embracing their manhood. Just like the women that jumped in and helped were showing the best in their femininity and womanhood. Mass shooters and other scumbags are embracing the darker side of human nature and anyone can do that the gender does not make a difference. Masculinity is not toxic being a dangerous psychopath is which is genderless. To say masculinity is toxic is to collectivize all people with a penis to being x, y or z.

We are in a weird time where all men are being called the bad men. We are constantly being told by the fem-fem the nutters in gender that all men need to repent for the actions of a few. That being a man is an original sin no different than being born into a world as fallen by Fundamentalists. Men are not bad because some men do bad things. Men are not all rapists and murderers. Men are simply usually going through our daily lives trying to show to the world we are people of good character. Trying to have good friends, decent families and find our partner or companions. Most men you meet will not be assaulting you or harming you in anyway. 
  

Karen Straughan – Toxic Masculinity & TOXIC FEMININITY

A search for Biblical Manhood

Recently I have been looking into what exactly was Gods definition of manhood. It struck me as an interesting thing to do some investigating into the matter. In this post I will present what I have found.

One needs to first separate away our information here from the secular or even the Satanic idea of manhood or manliness. The secular view which denies the Creation week and the definition pushed by the Devil are both false views of manhood/masculinity. 

One comes from so-called Evolutionary psychology which is not really a true science. Instead it comes from a presupposition that one can link certain behaviors and stereotypes to the Unbiblical idea of millions of years of Earth history. This view denies the very ground of saving Faith which required Christ to die on the cross. 

The Satanic view takes things even further by saying that in order to be a full man you need to embrace sexual behavior which is against God's commandments. That those aspects of the evolutionary psychology paradigm that are related to virility and getting women into bed are definitive of manhood. Further he lies and says to men that if you are not being a bad boy going against The Lord you are no true man.

The Bible paints manhood in a much different light. To gird your loins and be men means to follow The Lord. Men are not instructed to be disrespectful or a jerk. They are not to treat women as less than. They are to love their enemies. To be good neighbors. They are to love women as Christ loves his bride the Church. 

The beautiful complementary of men and women in the Bible is never to be a machismo chasing macho man. The following is some of what I found in my search for the elusive Biblical manhood.

https://www.familyradio.org/devotional/biblical-manhood-bible-defines-masculinity/ "This doesn’t mean predominantly physically strong, but the meaning is that of an internal strength and fortitude. He is to be resolute in his beliefs, character, and integrity. He is to be firm as to what he stands for and in carrying out justice. He is to do his part to see that God’s will prevails in the kingdom. He is to courageously stand tall in battle, and he is to be courageous when it comes to standing for truth and the laws of God. Part of being a man is to be strong in Christ, recognizing as Paul did, that we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us (Philippians 4:13). 

This brings us to the second mark of a man, which, according to David, is obedience to the revealed Word of God. This is foundational to Biblical manhood, and it truly is the very essence of it. If a man obeys God’s Word in terms of how he lives and treats others, he has shown himself to be a man indeed. 

There is no rite of initiation or strange set of circumstances that a boy must pass through before becoming a man. There are many young boys and teens who are far more manly than grown adult men. This is because they stand for righteousness, they act in strength, and they obey God’s Word. This is manhood to the max. They treat women with honor, they respect their parents, and they are willing to share the gospel, among many other things which require strength.

Granted, there are physical, mental, and emotional changes that take place as a boy transitions through adolescence and into adulthood, but the main criteria for true manhood is who a person is on the inside in respect to fearing the Lord and trembling at His Word. There are men who live as boys, and there are boys who live as men. The issue isn’t so much age as it is heart.

https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2014/06/28/masculine-women-and-feminine-men-part-1/ "...we must then recognize that there are varying degrees of masculinity and varying degrees of femininity. For instance a man may be very manly in 90% of his physical and behavioral traits, but there may be a small amount of feminine behavior or physical traits in one area of his life.

The same could be said of a woman, where for the most part she is extremely feminine, but there may be some small part of her that is more masculine (whether it is in behavior or physical attributes). Let me give some examples to illustrate what I am saying:

There are some beautiful and extremely feminine women who are extremely competitive. Maybe they like to play sports, it would be mistake to call that type of woman a masculine woman just because she gets a little competitive on the softball field.

There are some men that look very manly, big muscular and hairy, but the minute they open their mouth you hear a high, soft sounding voice. Just because a man’s voice sounds more feminine, does not make him a feminine man.

The reality is no matter how feminine a man you may be, you are still a MAN.

No matter how masculine you may be as a woman, you are still a WOMAN..

https://www.gotquestions.org/biblical-manhood.html "Biblical manhood can be boiled down to five basic principles, which each man is expected to conform to. These are 1) humility before his God, 2) control of his appetites, 3) protecting his family, 4) providing for his family, and 5) leading his family. Men who fail to meet these expectations are not behaving as “men,” biblically speaking, but as something less noble (Psalm 49:20). Some good examples of biblical manhood in Scripture are Daniel, Caleb, Joshua, Paul, and, of course, Jesus.

Men and women are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27), something no other creature can claim. This makes every single human being valuable and worthy of respect. And yet males and females are not identical. We are biologically, psychologically, and emotionally distinct. This is not in any sense a bad thing; God called His original creation, which included distinct genders, “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Biblical manhood must include a godly view of women. Mistreatments of women such as forbidding education, sexual abuse, or denying civil rights are violations of the image-of-God principle. So, too, are attitudes that ignore meaningful differences between the sexes or erase gender roles.

Critically, note those things that Scripture does not include as part of biblical manhood. Men are not called to be tyrants, ruling a home with an iron fist and a dictator’s attitude. Nor are they instructed to be cowed and weak-kneed toward their families. Nor are men called on to enforce, in any sense, the biblical ideals of womanhood in their wives. Humility, self-control, protection, provision, and leadership are the man’s responsibilities and his tools. Men are accountable for spiritual leadership within their families, yet each person is ultimately accountable to God for his or her own life.

The proper perspective for this leadership comes from Ephesians 5:25–32. The goal of every believer’s life is to become more and more like Christ (Romans 8:29). For men in their God-given role, this means leading and loving their wives in the same way Christ loved the church: sacrificially (Ephesians 5:2), through service (John 13:14–15), and in selfless love (Ephesians 5:28). Just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal yet serve different roles, so, too, can men and women be equal in value and in spiritual worth yet have different roles to play.

The fundamental requirement for biblical manhood is a proper relationship with God (Micah 6:8). This informs and empowers every other responsibility a man has in his life. Humility means an acknowledgement of his imperfection (Romans 3:23), acceptance of Christ for salvation (2 Peter 3:9), and a continual sense of dependence on God (1 Peter 5:7; Hebrews 13:15). A godly man will study, learn, and understand the will of God (Matthew 6:33; Romans 12:2) through the Word of God (Hebrews 4:12). This gives him the tools to meet all of his other obligations; it does not automatically make his life biblically sound (1 Corinthians 3:2).

Knowing what God wants is only the first step, as biblical manhood also requires submission to that knowledge. Men are called on to control their urges and appetites (1 Thessalonians 4:3–5), relying on God to overcome temptations (1 Corinthians 10:13). Men, according to the Bible, are not to twist the Scripture in order to get their way (Mark 7:8–9) or to match their own preferences (Proverbs 14:12). Instead, they are to follow God’s commands (Proverbs 1:7) instead of their own urges (Romans 6:12; 1 Peter 1:14). This includes the other requirements of biblical manhood, which can be difficult to apply in a humble, godly way.

Biblical manhood includes the responsibility to protect one’s family. This may mean physically, to the point of laying down his life (Ephesians 5:25). In the Bible, men are called to fight to protect their wives and children (Nehemiah 4:13–14); women are never called to do the same for their husbands. This also involves spiritual protection—consider that Eve sinned first, but Adam was blamed for failing to lead her (Genesis 3:11, 17). Men are instructed to “honor” their wives as a “weaker vessel” (1 Peter 3:7), a phrase that in context invokes something precious, expensive, and valuable. Protecting one’s spouse and family from harm, both spiritual and physical, should be a natural instinct for Christian men.

Men are also called to be the primary providers for their families. Obviously, this can take different forms, and particular circumstances can change who contributes to family finances. Unemployment, illness, injury, and so forth are circumstances, not deliberate arrangements. Adam’s punishment at the fall was increased pain in his primary responsibility within the family, which was to be a provider (Genesis 3:17–19). Passages such as 1 Timothy 5:9 describe support for widows but not for widowers. Rather, it is men who are singled out to provide for their own families, in the clearest of terms (1 Timothy 5:8). Repeatedly, the Bible calls on men to provide and for women to care for the home.

The role of leader, both within the church and within a marriage, is also part of biblical manhood. This requirement originates even before the fall, where Adam and Eve shared equality in differing responsibilities (Romans 12:4–5). It is also seen in Adam’s naming of Eve (Genesis 2:23), an act which symbolizes authority. As already referenced, Christ has to be the model for this type of leadership. A man is called to lead through love, through service, and through sacrifice. This is not a domineering leadership or a repressive arrogance. Male leadership in the home and in the church is meant to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church.

https://religionnews.com/2016/08/30/how-the-christian-masculinity-movement-is-ruining-men/ "For every biblical reference to warriors like Samson or Saul, we read of characters like young David, a harpist, who through no power of his own defeated a giant. We meet Simeon, known for patiently waiting decades to see God’s promise revealed. Jesus himself notably refused to fight back, even giving up his life and physical body in a history-making display of spiritual strength.

A closer reading suggests that the Bible’s heroes aren’t meant to be models of outward toughness but exemplars of inner fortitude. So why have so many Christians accepted secular standards of masculinity as the basis for biblical manhood?

C.S. Lewis warned against this conflation of Western machismo and scriptural precedent in his seminal work, The Screwtape Letters. In it, the eponymous demon advises a devil-in-training to feed his target “the grand lie which we have made the English humans believe, that physical exercise in excess and consequent fatigue are specially favorable” and, therefore, worthy of divine aspiration.

Such misguided thinking, Lewis writes, creates “a condition of false spirituality,” in which the object of godly manhood is confused with that which mainstream culture portrays as truly manly.

Sadly, in many American churches, you won’t find an alternative to this vain portrait of masculinity but a co-opting of it. Not athletic? You’re not a man. Can’t shoot a gun? You’re not a man. Not dating? You’re not a man. Enjoy music more than weightlifting? Turn in your man card. That’s the message of the Christian masculinity movement.

When Christians casually throw around loaded terms like “real masculinity” in ways that reinforce—rather than rebut—secular formulas, we oversimplify a nuanced concept best expressed through eternal values, not earthly ambitions.

I’m of no illusion that the state of many modern men is strong in the metaphorical sense. We know, of course, of the negative impacts of couch-potato lifestyles and porn addiction on the American population. Even so, we must resist the temptation to lay blame first at our physical conditions before our spiritual ones. We must recover the idea that the marker of a true man is his moral strength, not his muscular fitness.

Popular notions of manhood shame, repel, and ruin too many young boys and men who fail to meet those standards and who do not possess dispositions toward “typical” masculine behaviors. Rather than push them into wholesale rejection of the male archetype, we should instead call them to virtuous—and, yes, manly—aspirations of humility, service, kindness, and wisdom.

Maybe today’s Christian men should focus less on “acting like men” and more on acting like Christians. Surely, this includes speaking about gender in ways that are loving, hopeful, nuanced, and biblical. We owe at least this much to the boys in our schoolyards, ministries, and homes."

What is toxic masculinity?

 This article comes from got questions.org. 

Toxic masculinity is an expression common in popular culture, frequently applied with a bias contrary to its original intent. When misused, these two ideas, “toxic” and “masculine,” are assumed to be one and the same. Rather than implying an inappropriate concept of maleness, toxic masculinity typically implies that all things masculine are inherently toxic.


It’s important to distinguish among what the term toxic masculinity originally meant, how it is used today, and what the Bible says about maleness and manhood. Initial use of the phrase toxic masculinity was a well-meaning effort to confront unhealthy attitudes that put undue pressure on men. Over time, attempts to confront negative behavior degenerated into an attack on almost anything associated with maleness. The Bible gives clear warnings about conduct men should avoid, but it doesn’t condemn all expressions of masculinity. On the contrary, healthy examples of manhood are vital for the health of a culture.

Used Against Men Behaving Badly

Initially, toxic masculinity referred to a warped caricature of manhood—a distortion of what it meant to be a “real man.” This unhealthy perspective was associated with “hypermasculinity”: the cartoonish, stereotypical he-man or macho man, perpetually scowling, tough, and immune to pain or emotions. That kind of unfair, unreasonable stereotype of a “real man” was often blamed when men felt pressured to suppress emotion, close themselves off to others, overwork, or refuse to admit failure. Originally, the term toxic masculinity was aimed at the misguided perception that “real men” didn’t express feelings, exhibit gentleness, practice submission, or demonstrate nurture.

As part of that same effort, toxic masculinity was also applied to other behaviors, toward which stereotypical attitudes often pressure someone to “be a real man.” For example, the “playboy” mindset that lauds promiscuity and objectifies women was rightly considered toxic. Such early discussions of toxic masculinity also condemned misogyny, aggression, posturing, and bullying, among other character flaws.

Used Against Men Behaving

Over time, attacks on hypermasculinity seeped into criticism of any behavior stereotypically associated with men. Toxic masculinity has been unfairly applied to men who want to be protectors and providers for their spouse. Or to men who behave in ways that were once considered chivalrous. Or to those who value manual labor or athletics. Or even to men who prefer not to be excessively emotional or vulnerable. Traits such as competitiveness, bravery, or even merely being loud have been labelled as expressions of toxic masculinity by some modern critics.

Related to the idea of toxic masculinity is the modern term mansplaining. This word was coined to denote a man’s speech when talking down to a woman, assuming she doesn’t understand a subject—when, in fact, she understands better than he. Some people now use that expression nearly any time a male expresses a strong opinion or attempts to rationalize a viewpoint. Rather than dealing with the substance of the conversation, they dismiss it as “mansplaining” and reject the speaker for simply being a self-assured male.

Used Against Men

Misuse of the phrase toxic masculinity came about when the focus was placed on maleness rather than on truly inappropriate behaviors. The practical effect of this has been a general form of misandry: a prejudiced, unfair attitude or open hatred of men or all things masculine. Rather than criticizing excessive behaviors or encouraging positive ones, some people leap to the assumption that anything “boyish” or “manly” is, by definition, to be mocked or avoided.

Boys, especially, have suffered from this cultural trend. Competitiveness, risk-taking, daring, noisiness, and so forth are not always bad and were once accepted as “boys being boys.” Today, however, those traits are often labelled as inappropriate or even “toxic.” Group settings frequently exacerbate this problem. Schools, care centers, recreation programs, and even churches now tend to promote equality of results, communal work, sentimentality, and other more typically feminine expressions. Classically feminine behavior is stressed as “good,” while roughhousing, boisterousness, adventurousness, and so forth are punished as misbehavior.

The result is an environment where girls expressing more typically “girlish” behavior feel empowered and connected, and boys expressing more typically “boyish” behavior feel ashamed or rejected.

Consequences of Misandry

Culturally, the problem with deriding all expressions of manhood as toxic masculinity is that it makes legitimately wrong behaviors harder to confront. Use of anti-male terms like toxic masculinitymansplaining, and manspreading causes even benign expressions of maleness to be labelled as inappropriate. This only serves to blur the distinction between being “male” and being “toxic,” since it’s all condemned, anyway.

Truly toxic behaviors such as promiscuity, bullying, and emotional isolation aren’t made better when behaviors like chivalry, competitiveness, or boldness are scorned. On the contrary, misandry results in fewer positive examples of male expression. It doesn’t incentivize boys to act like girls; it only encourages shame and hiding. Leave a “boyish” boy with no safe, measured way to express himself, and he’s likely to become hardened to criticism and correction, developing a truly toxic character as a result.

Expressions of Goodness

The Bible says that everything God created is good when used for a good purpose (1 Timothy 4:4), and that includes God’s created pattern of male and female (Genesis 1:27). There is absolutely nothing wrong with masculinity, but there is much wrong with behaviors that are toxic. What separates the two is a matter of application. Robbing a bank requires a measure of bravery, daring, and risk-taking, but so does being a firefighter. Like tools, such general ideas can be used with positive or negative intentions.

The goal ought not to be condemning that which is masculine but encouraging it. That is, those attitudes and behaviors that are naturally male—and that are applied in a godly way—should be celebrated. This accomplishes two things. First, it provides positive examples for boys and other men: “this is good; please do this.” Second, it empowers legitimately masculine men to confront and challenge those who exhibit toxic behavior.

Promoting a biblical model of masculinity also leads to a greater respect and appreciation for women. Attempting to make men and boys just like women and girls doesn’t help anyone. It’s been said that God did not create women to do everything men can do, but to do everything men cannot do (see Genesis 2:18–24). Celebrating the unique and precious gift of femininity isn’t possible unless there’s a complementary approach.

Masculinity and the Bible

Scripture debunks all notions of toxic masculinity; it condemns inappropriate behaviors and applauds positive ones. There is no better example of real manhood than Jesus Christ. His example, as given in the Bible, not only confronts hypermasculine attitudes, but it also shows how it’s possible to express supposedly “male” traits in a positive way.

Jesus was unafraid to show His emotions (John 11:35), and yet He was also willing to chase crooks out of a temple with a whip (John 2:13–16). Christ cared for the needs of others (John 6:5–13) and demonstrated compassion (Mark 1:40–41), sensitivity (Luke 10:38–42), forgiveness (Luke 7:44–50), and humility (John 13:1–16). At the same time, He exhibited bravery (Mark 11:15–18; Luke 22:39–46), righteous confrontation (Matthew 23:13–36), proper judgment (John 4:15–18), boisterousness (John 7:37), self-control (Matthew 4:1–11), and even playfulness (John 1:47–48).

More generally, God’s Word speaks against those attitudes that are truly toxic. Scripture denounces domineering (1 Peter 5:3), greed (Hebrews 13:5), refusal to rest (Genesis 2:3; Mark 6:31), promiscuity (Romans 13:13), selfishness (Philippians 2:3), arrogance (Romans 12:3), vengeance (Romans 12:19), and so forth. It extolls the value of love (John 13:34–35), openness (Galatians 6:2), gentleness (Galatians 5:22–23), and peace (Romans 12:18), while promoting strength (Ephesians 6:10), bravery (1 Corinthians 16:13), respectability (Titus 2:7; 1 Timothy 3:7), and boldness (Ephesians 3:12; Titus 2:15). A truly biblical approach to manhood, then, is not toxic, nor should it be labelled as such.


© Copyright 2002-2021 Got Questions Ministries. All rights reserved.
www.GotQuestions.org

B.R Merrick on the definition of manhood/masculinity

I came across an article by one B. R. Merrick simply entitled, "What is Masculinity?"

Much to my surprise I found a very well written article all about essentials and stereotype formation more or less.

This much broader and yet still fundamental definition was as follows;

The existence of manhood; and the perception, recognition, and application of reality through it. 

This frees up men to both have a broad brush, but, also still have fundamental differences to women in many ways. It essentializes; thus separating masculine from feminine. Yet, it does not render a man against any particular desire, interest or trait that might be within the man.

He continues on in his article after asking a trick question of whether the more emotionally contemplating music or the aggressive music above is by a man. The trick being that both are by a man writing his music about different topics and in different moods. He follows from this to explain what he means in more detail VS what he does not mean.

" ....both musical examples above fit nicely within this definition, as both were written by one who existed in manhood, and who perceived, recognized, and applied the principles of the universe in which he lived to create his music. His contribution is different from a football player’s, from mine, and from every other man who ever walked upon this earth, or whoever will, but it is still masculine"

Least you think his brush is still not broad enough he goes onto describe his Men's Group Therapy sessions. In which he says the following;

"Over the next several months, or perhaps it was longer than a year, this group of men became my lifeline, my outlet, my anchor, and my friends. They were the genuine article..... I wasn’t the only masculine entity walking around on that campus that initially dismissed them as less-than-manly.  I’m sure I am not the last to have been proven wrong. The masculine qualities these guys expressed were different than most. But there was no mistaking that each of them had a penis and testicles, and that the unavoidable, external acknowledgement of the possession of those members, along with the internal surging of testosterone, had its influence on their behavior and their manly bodies. None of these guys wore a dress. None of these guys wanted a sex change. None of them was under the impression that he wasn’t really a man. 

Masculinity, whether we choose to define it or not, will continue. It’s natural law.  What is required at this point in time is not to abandon the word, any more than I think we ought to abandon the word “honor.” What will benefit us the most is understanding, whenever we encounter it, those aspects of manhood that have been left behind, ignored, derided, or simply misunderstood."

I think this is an excellent descriptions of masculinity. It lets men be men, but, also does not deny men access to full humanity in the name of being masculine as opposed to feminine. It also lets into the masculine club if you will lots of men that get labelled by society as womanly or effeminate even if they do not match the actual Biological or Psychological definition of that term in anyway at all.

It is both defining and freeing all at the same time. By defining masculinity in a way in which one is also acknowledging not everyone that tosses around that term knows what it in fact means. The answer to the man or boy that is "different" is not to make him feel like he is less than his sex. Is not to label him "effeminate," but, to understand this might be just aspects of "masculinity" miss-labelled as"feminine," It is instead once more as B. R. Merrick put it so well;

"....... those aspects of manhood that have been left behind, ignored, derided, or simply misunderstood."

Exposing the Agenda and Origins of "The Passion Translation"


 

Thursday, July 29, 2021

Full Playlist clearing up misunderstandings about Sexual Orientation Changes within Therapy.

The Gay Agenda Is Real: San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus Commentary Part 1


References (Note: clips from others' videos are used for commentary and fall under Fair Use): Bilek, Jennifer. (Feb. 20, 2018). "Who are the rich, white men institutionalizing transgender ideology?" The Federalist. https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/20/... Doyle, Christopher. (2019). The War on Psychotherapy: When Sexual Politics, Gender Ideology, and Mental Health Collide. Kirk, Marshall, & Madsen, Hunter. (1989). After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s. Goldberg, Arthur. (2008). Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality and the Power to Change. The San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus. (July 1, 2021) "A Message from the Gay Community" https://youtu.be/ArOQF4kadHA "Share of Americans who identify as LGBT from 2012 to 2020, by generation." (Mar. 16, 2021). Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/7...

F4F | Charismatics Justifying Blasphemy


 

Gender Dysphoria in Males: Part 2 - A Conversation with Angus Fox


 

Tranzformed - Finding Peace With Your God Given Gender


 

Such Were Some Of You


“Such Were Some of You” (A Documentary) was inspired by the passage in 1st Corinthians 6:11 that declares that in Jesus’ day there was a population who had been so transformed by their relationship with Him that they were no longer “same-sex attracted” or at the very least, actively homosexual. They had found such a measure of healing from the brokenness and strongholds associated with what we now call homosexuality that they no longer considered themselves homosexual, nor did they act in that way. “Such Were Some of You” features interviews with a “cloud of present-day witnesses” who testify to the same life-transforming power of Jesus Christ. They describe the development of their same-sex attractions, what the gay lifestyle was like, what their conversion process was like, and the various ways that Jesus has brought healing to their broken places. “Such Were Some of You” lays out the facts about healing homosexual confusion and rejoices in the reality that Jesus Christ can heal anyone from anything while providing grace for the journey.

Potential Causes of Homosexual Confusion


 

HOPE 2015 Homosexuality 101 - Dr. Julie Harren Hamilton


"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." American Psychogical Association.

Gender Dysphoria in Boys


 

Otherizing


 

Pornography & Gender Dysphoria


 

Boys & Gender Dysphoria


 

Wednesday, July 28, 2021

Calvin's Two Kingdoms


 

Two Cities, Two Kingdoms: Augustine and Luther on Church and State


 

Calvinism vs Arminianism: What the Bible Teaches

 

We The Kingdom - Don't Tread On Me (Church Sessions)


 

John Calvin on the Twofold Kingdom of Christ


 

San Francisco Chorus | A Response


 

The Christian Family


 

Creation #1-Birds are Not Dinosaurs


 

Amy Grant Interview | Thoughts


 

Plagiarism, Homosexuality, Pastoral Integrity and the State of the SBC: An Interview With Jim Osman


 

John MacArthur: we have countless deceived souls on the Jesus bandwagon | WRETCHED


 

The Bible and Homosexuality


 

Is former Lesbian Rosaria Butterfield a Militant Feminist by JD Hall


 

JD Hall with RedGraceMedia - Theonomy Thoughts PT 2


 

JD Hall with RedGraceMedia PT 1


 

Replying to Article Claiming that Moderate Calvinists Are Defending the Arminian Gospel


 

Arminianism: The Road to Rome by Augustus Toplady

Arminianism: The Road to Rome

by Augustus Toplady

Actually the title given to my article is not mine, it belongs to Augustus Toplady; the famous Calvinist pastor and hymn compositor. Everyone knows his famous hymn: “Rock of ages”. Many people praise Toplady as a good author of Christian classics in music but the great majority, even Calvinists, bear grudge against him because they consider him very unfair toward Arminians and especially John Wesley, the great Methodist preacher of that time. It is not fair at all to criticise the man who was the best defender of the true doctrine, and who had no respect of persons in this holy fight for the faith once given to the saints. Nowadays whosoever is aware of the present predicament wherein Protestant churches find themselves, ought to praise Toplady more for his theological stance than for his beautiful hymns! He did perceive the wiles of Satan through the deceit of Arminianism, and that is why he came to the correct conclusion that Arminianism is the road to Rome!

First let us see the sum of what he said, I will give you the whole article at the end for the way it is written is not very clear because it is more a kind of “last news report” than a treaty about Arminianism, and these last news are almost 300 years old, so it is not easy to follow him... There are 3 main facts according to Toplady, which make appear Arminianism an ally to popery.

John Wesley is not a pastor who gathers the sheep but rather a wolf that scatters them because he is busy destroying the doctrine of predestination and replacing it by the false doctrine of free will. In others words Wesley fights Calvinism and preaches Arminianism.

Toplady reports that Jacob Arminius was formerly a Calvinist before he made a trip to Rome. As a matter of fact Arminianism is just a copy of Pelagianism or mild Pelagianism that rules the Roman Catholic soteriology. Therefore knowing that the Jesuits had already declared that Calvinism is utterly irreconcilable with Catholicism, Jacob Arminius really looks like an undercover agent working for the Jesuits. True it is rigid predestinarian Calvinism is the antithesis of Catholicism, because in Reformed soteriology the whole scheme of salvation is based upon God’s eternal decrees. Unconditional election and predestination are the roots of salvation, whereas membership of the “holy mother church of Rome” is the foundation of salvation for all Catholics. Arminius was the man who introduced this “new” Pelagianism in Protestantism.

All these apparent suspicions become reality, when you happen to know that a certain letter was found in the belongings of William Laud, the archbishop of Canterbury, after he passed away. It must be pointed out that Laud was a fervent Arminian and during his ministry the faithful were told to treat their church’s communion table as an altar, and they were now forced whether they like it or not to kneel to receive the bread and wine at the communion rail... This letter that was in his possession was dated by his own hand: March 1628, and the design of this letter was to give the Superior of the Jesuits, then resident at Brussels, an account of the posture of civil and ecclesiastical affairs in England; an extract from it I shall here subjoin: "Father Rector, let not the damp of astonishment seize upon your ardent and zealous soul, in apprehending the sudden and unexpected calling of a Parliament. We have now many strings to our bow. We have planted that sovereign drug called Arminianism, which we hope will purge the Protestants from their heresies; and it flourisheth and beareth fruit in due season. For the better prevention of the Puritans, the Arminians have already locked up the Duke's (of Buckingham) ears; and we have those of our own religion, which stand continually at the Duke's chamber, to see who goes in and out: we cannot be too circumspect and careful in this regard. I am, at this time, transported with joy, to see how happily all instruments and means, as well great as lesser, co-operate unto our purposes. But, to return unto the main point: OUR FOUNDATION IS ARMINIANISM...”

This article is solid evidence that a plot has been going on since the beginning of the Church. Paul already spoke of the mystery of iniquity in 2 Thes.II; 7: “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work...” Since the beginning Satan has been sending his workers to the churches so as to destroy them from within by introducing false doctrines that destroy the gospel of grace, blending grace and works of the law or of the tradition of the elders. But Romans XI; 6 says: “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work”. In the beginning of the Reformation, all Protestants held the orthodox and Augustinian dogmas of grace, predestination, total depravation of man. Martin Luther averred that his best book, he ever wrote, was: “The bond will”. It was the answer he gave unto Erasmus of Rotterdam, in 1525 to his “Diatribe of free will”. In his preface, Martin gratefully thanks Erasmus, because he did not bother him with trifle matters like indulgencies, mass, purgatory and so on, for the real issue of the whole matter was to know if man can obey God’s commandments in his own strength. In his diatribe, Erasmus upheld that man was able to some extent to obey his Creator, whereas Luther maintained the dogma of man’s total disability to do any good at all. Therefore in his book, Luther ascribes man’ sanctification and salvation solely to grace, and grace is ascribed to predestination. 200 years later, most protestant churches were still holding sound doctrines, and Calvinism had flourished all over, meanwhile Lutheranism had lost its purity. But the mystery of iniquity was working, and had his champion to defile the doctrine inside the Protestant churches, his name was: Jacob Arminius, 1560-1609.

Arminius was a Dutch man, instructed in the Calvinist faith that he rejected later, and henceforth reintroduced a kind of Pelagianism under a new name: Arminianism. Since then new doctors of this heresy sprang everywhere, the most famous in England has been till now: John Wesley. I do not think of course that Wesley was an agent of the pope, but he did a great job for him unconsciously. Notwithstanding I believe that Arminius was an agent of the Jesuits. I do believe in the theory of the great plot, the so called mystery of iniquity! There has always been a crucial struggle for the truth of the gospel: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in heavenly issues”. Paul started struggling with Judaism, later Augustine against Pelage, then Luther against Erasmus, Calvin against Arminius, Toplady against Wesley, Spurgeon against the liberals, and today we continue in the same struggle. Time and actors change, but we still fight for the same doctrines: predestination, sovereign grace, total depravation, limited atonement etc. On one side we can see the defenders of human dignity proclaiming: “Man can do and must do something to get close to God”; we call them Arminians, on the other side we are the detractors of human dignity and we know that “man is a world of darkness and a bottomless pit of lewdness”; we are called Calvinists.

Since the days of Toplady, 250 years ago, the mystery of iniquity has been very successful in the Protestant churches. What is the situation today? First of all, churches are no more called Protestant, for this an offence to Christian charity and ecumenism! They are called evangelical. These evangelical churches are 90% Arminianist. There should be 10% Calvinist churches left, but anyway most of them turned evolutionist or feminist, i.e., women speak and even teach in the congregations. The sovereign drug the Jesuits implanted has been working indeed for 3 centuries: Christendom is now Arminianist. The gospel available today is the one that teaches unlimited atonement and conditional election. Nevertheless the Jesuits do know that classical Arminianism still requires a complementary process and that in spite of holding a Roman Catholic doctrine in soteriology. As a matter of fact, Arminians are not keen on gross idolatry; they would not break easily the second commandment. John Wesley himself said about the pope: “He is obviously the man of sin, because he increases all kind of sins without any measure”. During the last decades, Jack Chick, who is Arminian, has been the worst enemy of Rome, and has brought to light very useful information to supply us with ammunitions in this war against the Antichrist’s hosts. The best of all are Alberto Rivera’s revelations, a former Spanish Jesuit, converted to Christ, whose testimony Jack Chick published massively. A. Rivera’s testimony corroborates Toplady’s charges against the Jesuit’s plot, and even adds many more charges and evidences against them. Thus Arminianism comes from Rome and brings back to Rome, but not so directly, for we see Arminian brothers fighting valiantly against Roman Catholicism.

Being a Christian does not mean necessarily being a Calvinist. To be a Christian is to believe in Jesus as the only mediator between God and man, it is to know that Jesus is God made man, and that our salvation is by personal faith in the death of the cross and resurrection of Christ Jesus. Being a Calvinist is a Christian who holds these 5 points:

1, unconditional election

2, limited atonement

3, total depravation

4, irresistible grace

5, perseverance of the saints

Arminians reject these 5 points, but many are still brothers in Christ. Luther spoke about that kind of brothers saying: “If any men ascribe any part of his salvation, even the most insignificant one to free will, he definitely knows nothing about grace, and he has not assimilated Jesus Christ properly”. A Calvinist is the only believer who has assimilated Jesus Christ’s doctrines properly!

Arminianism is the road to Rome, but not as direct as Toplady believed. Rome built that road to absorb Protestantism, but the Jesuits realised that they had to turn that road into a high way in the last kilometres, by Montano’s doctrines. Montano was a heretic who during the 3rd century disturbed the churches proclaiming that the ministries of miracles and prophecies were still alive as in the first century, and were to continue until the second coming of Christ. Therefore a council was held and condemned that heresy, stating that these ministries had ended once the Bible was finished, because they were a kind of scaffolding for the establishment of the New Testament. Afterward God removed it, for Abraham said in L.XVI; 31: “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, (the Scriptures), neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead”. Thus the holy Bible is the only way to know God through the Holy Spirit. Montano’s heresy is called today: new Pentecostalism.

Notwithstanding I myself do not deny that Jehovah is a God of surprises and miracles, and therefore He does sometimes a miracle, He can heal a disease without drugs and doctors, make you walk on the water, or cancel any law that rules in the nature realm. He is free to do what He will, and He is not subject to any law; His will is the law: “And who may say unto Him: what doest thou?”. But I do not believe in a new era for these ministries. There are no more prophets; only false prophets, no more ministries of tongues and miracles. God doing a miracle is an exception, and an exception to a general rule does but the more establish it. The rule is that God uses only the Scriptures to deal with man; SOLA SCRIPTURA is the Protestants’ fundament.

I have said that (new) Pentecostalism is the last part of the Arminian road, built by the Jesuits, to bring back the modern evangelical people to Rome on a speed way. I do aver it, because ALL Pentecostal churches share the same Arminian soteriology, (doctrines of expiation), there is not one which is Calvinist, none of them! Arminianism teaches that man can get close to God and walk in his statutes up to some extent, in his own natural strength. Pentecostalism is the next step; it teaches that man can already enjoy the glory of the divine nature in this world, concerning health or material riches, and meet God physically, face to face. Both schools over estimate the power of man; they exalt man, they fall in pride and arrogancy. The only power man has is to sin, and fall every day lower in the pit of the desire of his eyes and of his flesh. Arminianism deceives man making him believe that he can walk with God if he wants. Pentecostalism deceives man making him believe that he can enter into the fourth dimension, as boasts Yonghi Cho, and satisfy his worldly desires by supernatural means. Arminianism pretends that we can walk toward God in the strength of the flesh, and Pentecostalism that we can enjoy the divine nature in this filthy flesh of ours. Pentecostalism is the logical outcome of Arminianism. A big road usually, in a modern nation, becomes a high way before it reaches the capital. Arminianism exalts man in a certain measure; Pentecostalism exalts man beyond any measure, with its visions of God, angelical tongues, new prophecies; it buries the Bible exactly as Roman Catholics do under tradition and priesthood ! This highway has to be connected with the Catholic Charismatical outskirts of Rome, and then the Jesuits’ plan will be consumed. Evangelicals will be brought into subjection to the Antichrist: the pope of Rome, because the authority of the Bible will not prevail upon their visions of a false Christ and a false Mary.

I have recently heard about a very famous Pentecostal preacher, called Benny Hin, who committed adultery with another famous female TV Pentecostal evangelist. But this not the point, we are not fond of gossips! The point is that he did it in Rome where he is involved with the renewal of the Vatican library, and at that time he came in order to deliver an offering he gathered from his disciples to the pope Benedict XVI! I do not know the sum, but the fact in itself is solid evidence that I am not dealing with theories. Some “moderate” Pentecostal evangelists, when they heard about Benny’s affair, claimed that their Pentecostalism is not the same, and that they would never fall in so shameful a situation. They boast of a sounder and more biblical Pentecostalism but: “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump”. They ought not to say so, because they are just at the beginning of the highway, whereas Benny has arrived at the end! If they do not take the exit, they will arrive themselves at the toll very soon!

Now I will say something to my brothers who have been caught in that Pentecostal snare: “He that is of God heareth God’s word”. Thus I am talking to the ones who consider Holy Writ as their supreme authority. There is no hope for people who cling to the interpretation of their pastor or of their church, or tradition, and have no personal conviction. I always repeat that I am a Calvinist, because I am thoroughly convinced of the truth of the 5 points of Calvinism. I am a Calvinist by conviction, not by tradition. Wherefore as Luther said, so I say: “I preach to the elect”. I do not care about the Pharisees’ opinions; the truth that is committed unto me, is for the chosen ones exclusively. And the truth is that the era of the churches is over. I am not the first one to proclaim it. The first one was Harold Camping, president of Family radio, Oakland, California, USA. What I hardly perceived, Harold made it clear for me. His testimony was determinative to make me accept that sad reality: the end of the church era. The Holy Spirit has abandoned the local congregations, and He is working outside using radio broadcasts, individuals, massive publication of Bibles and Protestant literature by modern means of communication like internet. Wherefore Daniel XII; 4 says: “…the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased”. Today, you can read by internet the best of Augustine, Wycliff, Luther, Calvin, Gurnall, Spurgeon, Owen, Bunyan, Whitefield, Pink, Bates, Lloyd Jones etc. For 1 o 2 dollars you have access to so great a knowledge, which had been reserved during the past centuries for rich people and Bible seminaries. On the other hand, sadly enough, it is true that the communion of the saints is decreasing, notwithstanding where 2 o 3 meet to pray and read the Bible together; Jesus is here amidst them. Moreover, our Lord prophesized in Luke XVIII; 8: “…nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” So we should not be startled and discouraged to find ourselves in a barren land. Now I must say that I am sorry about the falling apart of Harold Camping who is now denying that our redemption was actually made on the Calvary cross, and that the reprobates shall be raised again and not annihilated as he avers. The same for Russellists who in spite of being real antichrists, (1J.II; 22), say the truth when they proclaim that Jehovah is the name of God, although the wrath of Jehovah- Jesus abide on them! Therefore I will repeat to my brothers who are still members of a local church, what the Bible says about the religious system of today: “Get out of Babylon, and do not share in her sins”! Get out for the doctrine sake, because since the days they have abandoned the apostolic doctrines of grace, sovereignty of Jehovah, predestination, depravation of human nature, supremacy of the Scriptures, of faith as the solely and exclusive means of salvation, since that day churches entered on the Arminian road, and today they are on the Pentecost highway, which shall be soon connected to the Catholic Charismatic outskirts of Rome. This Charismatic movement was designed to absorb the so called “separate brothers”; the former foes; the Protestants.

One issue may help you to find the exit, if you start to feel uneasy with the doctrines wherewith you were deceived. This is the main issue; the substantial dogma of Protestantism: predestination. Is predestination a biblical doctrine? I am not talking about God’s foreknowledge of the fate that a man will choose freely, because this is the Arminian concept of predestination. Fancy concept based upon preposterousness, for if man is free to choose his own way, as they claim, how is it possible that God knowing beforehand that millions of them will choose the way of perdition, will let them go on, when the same Arminian theologians, teach that the Almighty does not want any of them to perish? Nevertheless He can do nothing, because He must respect their free will! The absurdity is that in this case, God’s foreknowledge reveals that his power is limited; He is not the Almighty God! But the Bible says: “Whatsoever Jehovah pleased, that did He, in heaven above, in the earth beneath, and in the waters under the earth”. I am talking about predestination as a program God predetermined in past eternity. Everything was planned by God before it happens. This does not suppress man’s will, neither moral responsibility, it just incline it for the eternal and anticipate purpose. Man has a will, but he has no free will, his will is bound to his nature, and his nature is left in its depraved condition or transformed so as to participate of the divine nature, according to God’s predestination. If there is predestination, then there is no free will, for all was decided by God before it comes to pass. If there is free will, then God may be omniscient, but He is not omnipotent, because he cannot do what He wants, or maybe He is all mighty but He wants what He does not want! This is the Arminian concept of God: His Majesty has decided to be submitted to his sinful creatures ‘will for the achievement of his eternal purpose. Man chooses God, we are no more the chosen people; God is chosen by us! But Scripture says in R.IX; 11 “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand not of works but of him that calleth”. Are we vessels in the hands of the Almighty potter who does what he wants with the clay, or are we co authors of our fates? Search the Scriptures, and get the answer, but bear in mind that let your yes be yes and your no be no; one must stand and the other must fall: either man’s free will or God’s sovereignty in all, even in man’s will. If you cling to the human dignity and freewill, you are bound to stay in the road back to Rome. If your conclusion is that God is the controller, even of your will, as says Holy Writ:”For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure”,(Phi.II; 13), then you are to get out of that road to hell! He that loves more his congregation than the Word of God is not fit for the Kingdom of God.: “Thou shalt not have other gods than me”. The communion is first with God Himself, and afterward with our brothers.

In the days of Jeroboam, there was a national cult to Jehovah. It was an abomination to the Lord. Their priests, their altars, their holocausts were not conformed to the Law of Moses. Their golden calves were an open and blasphemous rebellion against God. Nothing new under the sun; today we are in the same situation. Most evangelicals bow down themselves before the golden calves of their egocentric dogmas. Man’s will has been declared free to make the sacrifice of Christ on the cross a failure or a success. Christ does not choose us, but we choose him, contrary to what he said: “I chose you, you did not choose me”. Will you keep worshipping a false Christ who loves all men, but is not able to save them all, by reason of their sacred free wills and by respect to the human rights, or will you leave Jeroboam’s churches, as Elijah, to serve even in the desert, the living and almighty God? If you are a chosen one you will find the exit of that Highway to Vatican. The Holy Spirit will work in you this will. I hope that it will be before you reach the toll, where a famous employee called Benny Hin, dressed in a white uniform, is already collecting the money for his boss: the pope!

Some quoting the Scriptures, Mat.XVI; 18, will plead that the gates of hell shall never prevail against the church. They are right, but they confound the invisible Church, whose members are the elect through all ages and denominations, and the local churches which have fallen in the great Apostasy by the injection of the Arminian drug, which lead them first to Pentecostalism and afterward to Rome. They all agree that salvation is not of faith only but of works also. Like Wesley they find that the doctrine of predestination is a horrible decree, which ignores the human rights! They have all adopted a conditional salvation, and at the end, when they reach the toll, they will realize that the only condition to be saved according to that kind of gospel is to bow down before the Roman Antichrist, and to worship his image and to receive his mark…

As I have said before, there is still a very small percentage of congregations which hold the sound Calvinist doctrine, without falling into the evolutionist and feminist abominations. Still there are faithful and efficient pastors at the pulpits, waiting for a revival. They preach good sermons full of faith, doctrine, exhortations, rebukes, in order to bring salvation and edification to the members of their congregations. They are hoping for a new Luther, or Whitefield, or Spurgeon to wake up the churches from their worldly sleep and “to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”. Their hope is right and holy, but is not according to what the Scriptures tell us to do and hope in these very last days. As a matter of fact, the Gospel has been preached to all nations, we are in again in the time of Lot where the world is turned into a great Sodom, and the hope is not of the appearing of a new Luther, but of the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ who shall descend from heaven after this great Apostasy defiles the churches all over the world. Those pastors’ ministries are still useful, as long as they can preach the sound doctrine, but it will not be a long time before they have their backs against the wall. Right now, meanwhile they preach the Calvinism at the pulpit, their deacons teach Arminianism at the Sunday school, but soon it will harder; they will have to betray openly their Lord or leave the ministry, and loose their pensions, their social security, and the honour to be called “Reverend”. This is not theory; we have seen it with our own eyes, my wife and I, when we congregated at a Baptist church, whose pastor dismissed at that time. Romans XVI; 17, 18 says: “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences CONTRARY TO THE DOCTRINE that ye have learnt, and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ but their own belly, and with good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple”. Avoiding these people means leaving the church because they are therein the great majority and they rule it…

Brothers, Protestantism owes its name from the formal protest that Luther’s followers raised at the second Diet of Spire in 1529 against the arrogant Catholic proposals. Today the churches are not protestant, now they are evangelical, ecumenical and Arminian; they are on the road back to Rome, and most of them have entered the Pentecostal speedway. The true Christians, the real Protestants, are getting out of this snare, they are waking up from the slumbering effect of the Arminian doctrines and cling to the Bible which says unto us in 2 Thes.II;3: “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first…”wherefore let’s follow Clements’s advise, a famous bishop during the third century, who said: “The Scripture; the criterion by which truth is revealed against lie”. Therefore search the Scripture, and you will definitely find out that the falling away is real and universal: Apostasy is here! So let‘s remember that concerning our salvation; “we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand and rejoice in the glory of God”. Remember Solomon, who could not stand in this grace because he married women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians and Hittites. Solomon started his spiritual life with the most conspicuous success, but his love for heathen women brought him to such a shameful end, as to build altars to abominable idols. If you stay in these churches which preach a universal expiation based on the free will, because you love, you esteem yourself to have some ability and moral qualities; you will end bowing down at the feet of the pope. Depart from self-confidence and cleave only to Jesus as your all in all.

Leave Babylon and live!

www.radicallyprotestant.webs.com

Toplady‘s article:

ARMINIANISM: THE ROAD TO ROME.

Whose Voice Do You Hear?

"My sheep, saith Christ, hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish. O, most worthy Scriptures! which ought to compel us to have a faithful remembrance, and to note the tenor thereof; which is, the sheep of Christ shall never perish.

"Doth Christ mean part of his elect, or all, think you? I do hold, and affirm, and also faithfully believe, that he meant all his elect, and not part, as some do full ungodly affirm. I confess and believe assuredly, that there shall never any of them perish: for I have good authority so to say; be- cause Christ is my author, and saith, if it were possible, the very elect should be deceived. Ergo, it is not possible that they can be so deceived, that they shall ever finally perish, or be damned: wherefore, whosoever doth affirm that there may be any (i.e. any of the elect) lost, doth affirm that Christ hath a torn body."1

The above valuable letter of recantation is thus inscribed: "A Letter to the Congregation of Free-willers, by One that had been of that Persuasion, but come off, and now a Prisoner for Religion:" which superscription will hereafter, in its due place, supply us with a remark of more than slight importance.

John Wesley, a Friend of Rome?

To occupy the place of argument, it has been alleged that "Mr. Wesley is an old man;" and the Church of Rome is still older than he. Is that any reason why the enormities, either of the mother or the son, should pass unchastised?

It has also been suggested, that "Mr. Wesley is a very laborious man:" not more laborious, I presume, than a certain active being, who is said to go to and fro in the earth, and walk up and down in it:2 nor yet more laborious, I should imagine, than certain ancient Sectarians, concerning whom it was long ago said, "Woe unto you Scribes, hypocrites; for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte:"3 nor, by any means, so usefully laborious, as a certain diligent member of the community, respecting whose variety of occupations the public have lately received the following intelligence: "The truth of the following instance of industry may be depended on: a poor man with a large family, now cries milk, every morning, in Lothbury, and the neighbourhood of the Royal Exchange; at eleven, he wheels about a barrow of potatoes; at one, he cleans shoes at the Change; after dinner, cries milk again; in the evening, sells sprats; and at night, finishes the measure of his labour as a watchman."4

The Quarrel is With the Wolf

Mr. Sellon, moreover, reminds me (p. 128.) that, "while the shepherds are quarrelling, the wolf gets into the sheep fold;" not impossible: but it so happens, that the present quarrel is not among "the shepherds," but with the "wolf" himself; which "quarrel" is warranted by every maxim of pastoral meekness and fidelity.

I am further told, that, while I am "berating the Arminians, Rome and the devil laugh in their sleeves." Admitting that Mr. Sellon might derive this anecdote from the fountain head, the parties themselves, yet, as neither they nor he are very conspicuous for veracity, I construe the intelligence by the rule of reverse, though authenticated by the deposition of their right trusty and well-beloved cousin and counselor.

Once more: I am charged with "excessive superciliousness, and majesty of pride:" and why not charged with having seven heads and ten horns, and a tail as long as a bell-rope? After all, what has my pride, or my humility, to do with the argument in hand? Whether I am haughty or meek, is of no more consequence either to that, or to the public, than whether I am tall or short: however, I am, at this very time, giving one proof, that my "majesty of pride" can stoop; that even to ventilate the impertinences of Mr. Sellon.

Arminianism at Home in Rome

But, however frivolous his cavils, the principles for which he contends are of the most pernicious nature and tendency. I must repeat, what already seems to have given him so much offence, that Arminianism "came from Rome, and leads thither again." Julian, bishop of Eclana a contemporary and disciple of Pelagius, was one of those who endeavoured, with much art, to gild the doctrines of that heresiarch, in order to render them more sightly and palatable. The Pelagian system, thus varnished and paliated, soon began to acquire the softer name of Semipelagianism. Let us take a view of it, as drawn to our hands by the celebrated Mr. Bower, who himself, in the main, a professed Pelagian, and therefore less likely to present us with an unfavourable portrait of the system he generally approved. Among the principles of that sect, this learned writer enumerates the following:

"The notion of election and reprobation, independent on our merits or demerits, is maintaining a fatal necessity, is the bane of all virtue, and serves only to render good men remiss in working out their salvation, and to drive sinners to despair. "The decrees of election and reprobation are posterior to, and in consequence of, our good or evil works, as foreseen by God from all eternity."5

Is not this too the very language of modern Arminianism? Do not the partizans of that scheme argue on the same identical terms? Should it be said, "True, this proves that Arminianism is Pelagianism revived; but it does not prove, that the doctrines of Arminianism are originally Popish:" a moment's cool attention will make it plain that they are. Let us again hear Mr. Bower, who, after the passage just quoted, immediately adds, "on these two last propositions, the Jesuits found their whole system of grace and free-will; agreeing therein with the Semipelagians, against the Jansenists and St. Augustine."6 The Jesuits were moulded into a regular body, towards the middle of the sixteenth century: toward the close of the same century, Arminius began to infest the Protestant churches. It needs therefore no great penetration, to discern from what source he drew his poison. His journey to Rome (though Monsicur Bayle affects to make light of the inferences which were at that very time deduced from it) was not for nothing. If, however, any are disposed to believe, that Arminius imbibed his doctrines from the Socinians in Poland, with whom, it is certain, he was on terms of intimate friendship, I have no objection to splitting the difference: he might import some of his tenets from the Racovian brethren, and yet be indebted, for others, to the disciples of Loyola.

Papists and Predestination

Certain it is, that Arminius himself was sensible, how greatly the doctrine of predestination widens the distance between Protestantism and Popery. "There is no point of doctrines (says he) which the Papists, the Anabaptists, and the (new) Lutherans more fiercely oppose, nor by means of which they heap more discredit on the reformed churches, and bring the reformed system itself into more odium; for they (i.e. the Papists, & etc.) assert, that no fouler blasphemy against God can be thought or expressed, than is contained in the doctrine of predestination."7 For which reason, he advises the reformed world to discard predestination from their creed, in order that they may live on more brotherly terms with the Papists, the Anabaptists, and such like.

The Arminian writers make no scruple to seize and retail each other's arguments, as common property. Hence, Samuel Hoord copies from Van Harmin the self same observation which I have now cited. "Predestination (says Samuel) is an opinion odious to the Papists, opening their foul mouths, against our Church and religion:"8 consequently, our adopting the opposite doctrines of universal grace and freewill, would, by bringing us so many degrees nearer to the Papists, conduce to shut their mouths, and make them regard us, so far at least, as their own orthodox and dearly beloved brethren: whence it follows, that, as Arminianism came from Rome, so "it leads thither again."

The Jesuits and Predestination

If the joint verdict of Arminius himself, and of his English proselyte Hoord, will not turn the scale, let us add the testimony of a professed Jesuit, by way of making up full weight. When Archbishop Laud's papers were examined, a letter was found among them, thus endorsed with that prelate's own hand: "March, 1628. A Jesuit's Letter, sent to the Rector at Brussels, about the ensuing Parliament." The design of this letter was to give the Superior of the Jesuits, then resident at Brussels, an account of the posture of civil and ecclesiastical affairs in England; an extract from it I shall here subjoin: "Father Rector, let not the damp of astonishment seize upon your ardent and zealous soul, in apprehending the sudden and unexpected calling of a Parliament. We have now many strings to our bow. We have planted that sovereign drug Arminianism, which we hope will purge the Protestants from their heresies; and it flourisheth and beares fruit in due season. For the better prevention of the Puritans, the Arminians have already locked up the Duke's (of Buckingham) ears; and we have those of our owne religion, which stand continually at the Duke's chamber, to see who goes in and out: we cannot be too circumspect and careful in this regard. I am, at this time, transported with joy, to see how happily all instruments and means, as well great as lesser, co-operate unto our purposes. But, to return unto the main fabric: OUR FOUNDATION IS ARMINIANISM. The Arminians and projectors, as it appears in the premises, affect mutation. This we second and enforce by probable arguments…"

The Sovereign Drug Arminianism

The "Sovereign drug, Arminianism," which said the Jesuit, "we (i.e. we Papists) have planted" in England, did indeed bid fair "to purge our Protestant Church effectually. How merrily Popery and Arminianism, at that time, danced hand in hand, may be learned from Tindal: "The churches were adorned with paintings, images, altar-pieces, & etc. and, instead of communion tables, alters were set up, and bowings to them and the sacramental elements enjoined. The predestinarian doctrines were forbid, not only to be preached, but to be printed; and the Arminian sense of the Articles was encouraged and propagated." The Jesuit, therefore, did not exult without cause. The "sovereign drug," so lately "planted," did indeed take deep root downward, and bring forth fruit upward, under the cherishing auspices of Charles and Laud. Heylyn, too, acknowledges, that the state of things was truly described by another Jesuit of that age, who wrote: "Protestantism waxeth weary of itself. The doctrine (by the Arminians, who then sat at the helm) is altered in many things, for which their progenitors forsook the Church of Rome: as limbus patrum; prayer for the dead, and possibility of keeping God's commandments; and the accounting of Calvinism to be heresy at least, if not treason."11

Arminianism from the Pit

The maintaining of these positions, by the Court divines, was an "alteration" indeed; which the abandoned Heylyn ascribes to "the ingenuity and moderation found in some professors of our religion." If we sum up the evidence that has been given, we shall find its amount to be, that Arminianism came from the Church of Rome, and leads back again to the pit whence it was digged.