To whom it may concern,

 The world has gone crazy, every few years there is an event which shakes up civilization, Pearl Harbor, 911 and now the 2020pandemic.  This pandemic is different in the fact that society has been more effected by the ripple or "reset" than by the virus itself.  We are seeing shut down governments and economies, and even society around the globe.  Some people believe all major events are just random.  But just like biology I believe that designs in civilization have a designer.  So I am not in a state of shock at the recent events involved.
  As we look at the earthquakes and the tornadoes  and flames I think we forget the important part of the narrative regarding a still small voice.
 Just after the SBC awakened to all these things, the convention pushes a bizarre doctrine called "Critical Race Theory". But what is this idea?  Once upon a time a philosopher name Karl Marx developed an idea of history and economics where societies are in a never ending struggle between the oppressor's and oppressed or victims and victimizers.  He advocated war to end the oppressed and create a utopian society based on ideal of equality.  His writings were very contagious and dozens of countries engaged in various revolutions across the globe. Communism as it is known would reek havoc however, causing massive poverty and resulted in around 100,000,000 million executions in the 20thcentury.  Early on academic Marxists in Germany established what was known as the "Frankfurt School".  These academic assumed that the reason for the apparent failures is the fact that "Marx was not Marxist enough" Thus they reasoned that by attaching the "Oppressor/Oppressed paradigm to other aspects of life they could achieve their utopian goals. Thus we see the birth of critical theory.  One of the first and most successful applications of this theory is critical race theory. The idea was that the black race(or native american, etc)  was the victim class, while the white race is the Privileged class that due to the offenses of the past the white race must yield it's wealth privileges' of all forms to the offended party, hopefully until utopia is obtained.  Later a revolution called intersectionality was invented.  This is to accommodate all the various alternative classifications.  Whether it be a race or sex or sexual preference or gender preference, handicap and perhaps religion.  This has become a very systematic understanding of race.  Conduct or merit is worthless in this system.  As it seeks to treat any stereotype of humanity as a lifeless tool for the manufacturing company. Someone is to either be shamed as an offender or they are to be condescended as pitied hopeless victim without any input!
    Marxists finished redefining religion earlier with liberation theology.  The idea that the work of Christ was not about heaven and hell but more of a victim calling for revolution and bloody war.  This would manifest itself in "black theology" and "feminist theology" but it had massive implications in South America in the many communist revolutions leaving a trail of genocide in the name of Christ.  Paul warned us that Satan would come as an angel of light. Of course many of us ignored the savior when told to also be wise as serpents.  Some of the most heartfelt Christians I know have fallen victim to naivete'.  But the question for this generation of Christians is would they rather commit deeds of racism and be in good reputation; or would they prefer to commit good deeds at the cost of a bad reputation even with the fiery darts of accused racism?

  Where is the convention leadership saying the name of David Dorn?  What would Russel Moore say to Horace Lorenzo Anderson Sr. when he was not even able to identify the body of his son in Seattle? When these men were publicly praising Black Lives Matter, BLM was publicly Killing African American people among others. 
As a result of the behavior of these leaders, Black Baptist and White Baptists have come together from across the board to disassociate themselves from the SBC.  But can we blame them?  The Current leadership has actively and publicly portray the denomination from which take take Sanctified money from as pedophiles, racists, sexist, homophobic and a deplorable bunch of wretches.  The are harsh words to stir up strife and are ultimately schismatic.
These ideas if carried out to their logical conclusion leave us with a different gospel.  How could Christ be the advocate for women, gentiles, black skinned, white skinned, gay or straight, trans, handcicapped, giant, dwarfed, obese, or illiterate people?  Because if these barriers are permanently insurmountable then there would have to be many christs to mediate instead of one. Also how could all people be sinners if sin is relative to the culture? This is where we see the earlier Marxist denying salvation.
This contradicts the bible
Also this contradicts the BF&M.  The scripture is "the extreme standard by which all" "religious opinions should be tried". Jesus was "identifying himself completely with mankind". That "every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love." Either shaming or belittling someone based on their skin tone is not respect and Christian love!  Most importantly "It is the duty and privilege of every follower of Christ and of every church of the Lord Jesus Christ to endeavor to make disciples of all nations."  The great commission is at stake because missionaries visiting other cultures will be viewed as racist for delivering the soul saving Gospel!!"
As the current extended President Greer has attempted to set a precedent of over-reach against our autonomous congregations and Russel Moore has used his position in the SBC to not advance liberal preferences but to push his political agenda against Donald Trump and for Joe Biden;  Albert Mohler has exercised his influence over almost all the SBC Seminaries and forced revisionist history.  This year Dr. Mohler stands to keep his power and add on the SBC presidency which will make him the most powerful man over the Convention in our the last 2 centuries.
 Brothers in faith and Pastoring, Let's stop running from the snakes in our back yard.  It is time to drive them out and clean up the temple! No more whoring after idols, no more creeping behind the hole in the wall.  Choose ye this day, will we be the body of Christ or a business of men?

Sincerely, Pastor Matt Singleton

The Fact of Creation

In the last book I wrote "But.... what is the Truth?" I presented a cumulative case for the truth of God, Jesus, Creation and the Bible.  As I presented this publicly many critics would not engage the material and dismiss it because essentially it promoted faith or belief.
  However, this popular criticism is nonsensical, because every true statement requires belief in order to recognize truth
For a couple generations, truth has been under attack. Now we can settle in liberty; but we can not tolerate lies. Facts are facts and if we do not acknowledge them, they will destroy us.  In the information age we have gathered more facts than ever before.  In light of that, those who are not advocates of truth want to flood the public with misinformation so that common people miss vital knowledge for their daily living.
 SO the goal of this book is not so much as an attempt to compel people to positive faith, as it is an indictment upon the lie of atheism.
#1 I show the historical record of Secular forces in the war for western civilization.
#2 I show the historical record of the factual observations of the creator God
#3 I logically justify the Judeo Christian God through Ontological argumentation
#4 I make the case for a geocentric cosmology and the anthropic principle of the universe.
#5 I Show that the evolutionary theory has been and is currently debunked to the point where there is no epistemological value from the theory.
#6 I respond to metaphysical attacks upon God with evidence for and the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ
  While my first book would be persuasive for belief, this book attacks the heart of denial
At the end of the day if your basis is agnosticism, "having no knowledge" then your place in society is submission "Having no authority".
Now as I set out this cumulative case consider these points/
#1 Subjective desire
#2 A fact observed
#3 The facts proven rational
#4 The whole of the Evidence in a teleological framework.
#5 The Alternative debunked
#6 The "Truth" vindicated.
So if we assume that the articles are proven, would it stand to reason that creation is a fact? If so then it is time to weigh the case.

Now often Christians these days debate the need for evidence, if our belief is only based on faith or if it is entirely based on evidence, or if it is some scale in the middle.
This debate is ironically off topic because the goal is not about reasoning someone to faith in Christ for salvation.   I believe that scripture is the only BASIS for belief.
  Now, Thomas Aquinas or "Thomism" Argues for a similar division between reason and faith. However, this author rejects the category of this division. The division proposed is between reason and faith.  Reason being a basis for moral and belief in God while Faith being the basis for theology and religion. This division is false because faith involves reason and reason involves faith.
   Instead this is over how denial of creation is immoral. It is not immoral based on the requirement of faith. It is not immoral based upon the persuasion or reasoning theism. It is immoral because Creation and it's creator God is an observed fact and that denying this fact is a lie at the foundation of world civilization.

  A fact might not be absolutely certain and yet the logic can work enough to be compelling.  However a fact is an observation and must not be rejected; it could be reinterpreted, but not rejected.  Denying creation and the creator is not natural, what is natural is for man to be religious. Not only for their life to have meaning, but indeed a higher power to cling to in the face of death or annihilation. When we use propaganda to take this meaning of life, and the need for life, away from people We are violating the hearts and lives of scores of people, which of course is morally wrong.
The last chapter does transgress the goal slightly. Secularist tend to cross over categories and their greatest arguments are metaphysical in nature. Since they mostly don't have metaphysics in their system they are contradicting themselves but the objections must be addressed or the false premise will be assumed truth.


The experience of creation

bible smack: The experience of creation

http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-historical-case-for-creator.html


http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2019/11/an-ontological-argument-for-creationism.html


http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2020/04/defense-of-neo-tychonian-solar-system.html


http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2020/04/extinction-how-evolutionism-and-all-of.html


bible smack: Jesus, the God of Creation

The experience of creation

Is man generally by nature good or evil?
If man was good, why would he need government or at least why would he need law enforcement?
The need for law and force is based on the fact that there is natural lack of law and force in the human condition.
But some may argue that we simply have bad government systems. But these systems then translate into war and many may ask "why the conflict?"
Once again if there is conflict then peace is not natural.
If humanity is in such conflict then there is a struggle over the identity of good vs bad.
But as long as there is this struggle there is a bad which is the condition of humanity.


The left wing chain of thought.

A. There is no God, the universe is empty without intelligence or purpose.

B. Out of the chaos nature evolves and it operates according to science.

C. life is a product of this evolution of nature.

D. Humans are a product of the same evolution, they have no purpose or design.

E. Metaphysics & religion are a combination of things 1. Whatever extraterrestrial undiscovered life has accomplished in the present or in pre-historic times. 2. The sub conscience shaped by evolutionary primordial memories in pre-history. 3. Our evolving minds and untapped potential. 4. evolving social norms.

F. The individual operates under the philosophy "Survival of the fittest" with self centered motivation.

G. Society is the ultimate arbiter of truth. All things must be mastered and conquered by the group until all are 1. The goal is a utopian society.

H. Society has 3 rivals with which they must conquer in order to achieve their goals. 1. Nature 2. Primitive religion 3. Individualism

I. different philosophies may have a different emphasis towards achieving these goals but once utopia is reached then all three rivals will be decimated.

J. Ultimately the group dynamic(communism) will have the highest priority, because the group has the most power. The self only has a higher priority than primitive religion/God . Nature has a higher priority than the individual(environmentalism) but not a higher priority than the collective(New World Order). The ultimate motivation of the group is tyrannically selfish.(Satan the god of this world system)

The point of God in government


Cicero and moral law
"True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions.... It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely.  We can not be freed from it's obligations by senator or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it.  And there will never be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now or in the future, but one eternal, unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, it's promulgator, and it's enforcing Judge. whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment."  (Quoted by Ebenstein, Great Political Thinkers p. 133) 

  This is quite astounding in the sense that a heathen philosopher can discern right from wrong and endorse monotheism based on natural logic. This shows that morality can indeed be universal 


The Godly Common Law
"The secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in it’s adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western civilization and the Common Law of the United States.” Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist

1. The Foundation of English Common Law
   Anglo – Saxon law
   The law of the Anglo – Saxons prior to the invasion of the Normans in 1066 A. D. was a legal political system similar to the Old Testament Israel. In their decentralized government, a head of ten families was called a “tithing man.” The head of fifty families was a “vil-man”. The head of a hundred families was named a “hundred-man” while the head of a thousand families was known as an “eolderman”. The term "eolderman" may be related to the Scandinavian term “jarl.” Eventually the “eolderman” became known as an “earl” and governed a region called a “shire.” A “shire reef” was his assistant and became known as a “sheriff.”
   
   The Code of Alfred the Great
   Alfred the Great codified biblical law throughout his kingdom. He became known as the "Father of English common law."
   

   “The Laws of Alfred (about A. D. 890) start with a recitation of the Ten Commandments and excerpts from the Mosaic Law; and in restating and revising the native Anglo – Saxon laws. Alfred includes such great principles as: ‘doom (i.e. judge) every evenly; doom not one doom to the rich, another to the poor, nor doom one to your friend, another to your foe.’” (Cf. Exodus 23: 1-3; Deut. 1:16 – 18)

   Ecclesiastical law
   The law of the church known as ecclesiastical law was an important influence on the creation of English common law. The Bible was the foundation of law of an independent church court system.
   Jewish law
   The church prohibited money lending (based on interpretation of various passages of Scripture) during the Middle Ages. Jewish people were not bound by the interpretations of passages of Scripture by the church for they interpreted the passages differently. The Jews were almost the only people from whom money could be borrowed during the Middle Ages. Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (Maimonides) codified Jewish law which formed the basis of commercial law in England. Consequently, this was based on Jewish interpretation of passages from the Old Testament.

             http://liberty-virtue-independence.blogspot.com/2008/12/foundation-of-english-common-law.html

English common law - American law

English common law is the most significant source of American law.
The Scriptural principles of Biblical law were the basic foundation of English common law. The Christian English jurist, Sir William Blackstone published his Commentaries which were a compilation of English common law. In the ten years prior to the American War for Independence; nearly 2500 copies of his commentaries were purchased and widely read in the American colonies. The English common law scholar Coke was respected and more widely read in the American colonies than in England.
Furthermore, the American colonists wanted to “biblicize” their legal and judicial systems further. The early colonists saw themselves as the “new Israel” whom God planted in a "Promised land".
Attempts to conform civil law to biblical code can be found in the “Massachusetts Body of Liberties” and in the “New Haven Colony Laws.”                                  http://liberty-virtue-independenc

The Godly American Foundation   
1. “George Washington added the phrase ‘so help me God’ to his inaugural oath, and he later said ‘It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.’”
2. “Thomas Jefferson the primary Author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote “The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty; therefore student perusal of the sacred volume will make us better citizens, better fathers, and better husbands.”
3. “John Adams made no secret of the fact that he studied the Bible often and with diligence. “Our constitution,” he said, “was made only for a moral and religious people. So great is my veneration of the Bible that the earlier my children begin to read it, the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful citizens of their country and respectful members of society.’”
4. “Even Ben Franklin wrote ‘A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know the price of the rights which God has given them, cannot be enslaved.’” And “Young man, my advice to you is that you cultivate an acquaintance with and firm belief in the Holy Scriptures, for this is your certain interest. I think Christ’s system of morals and religion as he left them with us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see.”
5. William Penn, founder and governor of the Pennsylvania colony, said, “If we will not be governed by God, we will be ruled by Tyrants.” (Btw Pennsylvania was the most pluralistic of all American colonies)
6. “Andrew Jackson referred to the Bible as “the rock on which our republic rest.”
7. Abraham Lincoln in light of a national fast which he called for “We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own.” He felt America had become “too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proudly to pray to the God that made us.” In light of the Civil War “fondly do we hope-fervently do we pray- that this mighty scourge of war might speedily pass away,” “Yet if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-mans two hundred years of unreqited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid with another drawn with the sword, as said three thousand years ago so still it must be said, ‘the judgements of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.’”
8. “Ulysses S. Grant, the nations eighteenth president, urged his fellow citizens to “hold fast to the Bible as the sheer anchor of your liberties; write it’s precepts in your hearts and practice them in your lives. To the influence of this book we are indebted for all the progress made in true civilization and to this we must look as our guide in the future.”
9. Garfield “While the young James A. Garfield was serving as a teacher and lay minister, the people of chagrin falls Ohio, called upon him to defend the Bible against vicious attacks of an influential professor in that community.” United States History in Christian Perspective After extensive scientific preparation he was able to best the professor “…while he claimed that with further research he could yet establish his theories, he manfully admitted that he was surprised and defeated for the time, by the apparently inexhaustible learning of his opponent. He said it was the first time he had met so gifted an adversary and learned an adversary.” The life, Speeches, and public Services of James A. Garfield by Russle H. Conwell
10. Evangelist James Robison once privately asked President Ronald Reagan “I want to ask you something very personal, and the only way I know to ask it is to phrase it in this manner: Is Jesus real to you? Is He real in your life?’ Mr. Reagan paused and then said in inimitable style, “Well, the only way I know how to answer is to share that my father was an alcoholic. I never really knew him. The strongest influence in my life was my mother. I want you to know that Jesus Christ is as real to me as my mother.” The Absolutes by James Robison
Judeo Christian base
   Every state constitution mentions God.  Every presidential inauguration invoked the name of God.  The money says one nation under God. Even the Supreme Court noted America to be a protestant nation in the case of the U.S. vs the trinity.  The US in it's administration is secular, meaning that it does not push Religious opinions.  However, the culture and worldview of the founding fathers is based upon a light acknowledgement of the Christian God.

Scientific evidence of universal God-based morality
Carl Jung
"According to Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961), archetypes are patterns that repeat themselves in the collective unconscious of human beings. This could be in the form of dreams, stories, art, or even in myths (including religious ones), which don't seem to have cultural boundaries. These are then seen as universal and thus embody a hereditary factor of the human psyche."

"EVIDENCE FOR ARCHETYPES can be divided into several different categories: (1) ‘associative evidence’, similar or associative theory which overtly supports archetypes or bears a resemblance to archetypal theory; (2) ‘scientific evidence’, where it is argued Jung’s method which is descriptive and phenomenological is not unscientific, and ‘archetypes’ are given theoretical support from the theory of other scientists; (3) ‘evidence from quantum physics’, which is support from the theory of quantum physicists."https://sophiageography.com/2020/05/22/evidence-for-archetypes/#:~:text=EVIDENCE%20FOR%20ARCHETYPES%20can%20be%20divided%20into%20several,scientists%3B%20%283%29%20%E2%80%98%20evidence%20from%20quantum%20physics%20

"We cannot speak of “God” but only of a God-image which appears to us or which we make. If, for instance, we were to create a myth, we would say that “God” has two aspects, spiritual and chthonic, or rather: material. He appears to us as the world-moving spirit (= wind) and as the material of the world. That is the image we create for ourselves of the prima causa.  But in reality we can say nothing at all about “God.” We can only project a conception of him that corresponds to our own constitution: a body perceived by the senses and a spirit (= psyche) directly conscious of itself. After this model we build our God-image."

"The self becomes only a determining factor, and it is not bounded by its apparent entry into consciousness; in spite of this it remains an ideal, i.e., purely imagined, entity dwelling essentially in the background, just as we also imagine God existing in his original boundless totality in spite of the Creation and Incarnation.
So far as the integration of personality components are concerned, it must be borne in mind that the ego-personality as such does not include the archetypes but is only influenced by them; for the archetypes are universal and belong to the collective psyche over which the ego has no control."
https://carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog/2020/09/01/carl-jung-on-god-and-a-god-image/#.X7ShmOWSmM8

Typically, naturalist see the human being as a material product of evolution  without metaphysical existence.  However, if  morals and God is not physically real, there is a reality in the mind for mythology.   After all, if God is not real in space, He is still nevertheless real in the human mind. Thus physical universe has still evolved a mental construction of God which effectively displays moral authority. 
 Jung discovered how the human condition has universal archetypes active in the sub-conscience. Thus ruling our ethics and morality, this universal phenomena might be metaphysical or intelligently designed. Either which way, the structure of the mind gives us clues about nature and that even strictly presented for the natural man; reveals the same creator so desperately ignored 


William James
"I wish during this hour to call your attention to some of the psychological peculiarities of such an attitude as this, of belief in an object which we can not see.  All our attitudes, moral practical emotional, as well as religious, are due to the "objects" of our consciousness, the things which we believe to exist, whether really or ideally, along with ourselves. Such objects may be present to our senses, or they may be present only to our thought. In either case they elicit from us a reaction; and the reaction due to things of thoughts is notoriously in many cases as strong as that due to sensible presences.  it may be even stronger.  The memory of an insult may make us angrier than the insult did when we received it.  We are frequently more ashamed of our blunders afterwards than we were at the moment of making them; and in general our whole higher prudential and moral life is based on the fact that material sensatioIns actually present may have a weaker influence on our action than ideas of remoter facts."  James, William The varieties of Religious Experience  pg. 58 lecture I
      Legendary psychologist William James argues for the reality of religion in this book.  These mental concepts at have to have a psychological reality. Also the concept of God is not unique as a metaphysical reality there are many faculties which are clearly not physical and if evolution were true it would mean that humanity is adapting to metaphysical reality to survive.  Whereas if creation is true then men are created with an awareness of God.  Either 


Al-Anon and the other 12 step programs

"Spirituality is an important part of recovery from addiction. Alcohol and other drugs make us feel like we’re alone. They make us believe there’s no reason to live. Sometimes we already feel that way when we turn to mind-altering substances. For a brief moment, the substances trick us into thinking we’re happy. In the end, they make things worse. To recover from addiction, we must believe we can be happy again. We have to have faith that we can be healthy. We have to have a purpose that motivates us to maintain sobriety. Believing in a higher power helps us find that purpose. Regardless of the higher power we believe in, having faith in something bigger than ourselves can help us find peace.  Motivation is an important aspect of achieving and maintaining sobriety. Knowing that we have a place in this world and that we aren’t alone can motivate us to quit drinking or using. A higher power helps many people realize they are connected to something important. For many people, the journey toward finding a higher power is as beneficial as the addiction treatment process. As they detox from alcohol or other drugs, they become capable of thinking critically about the important things in life. As they go through therapy and hear the stories of others in recovery, they understand they aren’t alone.  They begin to believe in something they weren’t capable of thinking about while they were under the influence of addictive substances. As they experience a spiritual awakening, they buy into the treatment process. They connect with others, and they feel happiness." What is a Higher Power? Finding Purpose During Recovery (drugrehab.com)

    We see that the idea of the necessity of faith is not simply a perspective, but a working hypothesis. This is very important as it not only helps in terms of governing civilization but is essential in private morality. The  Jungian and 12 step the methods are secular models.  Yet through this method of faith we have millions and millions of testimonials even with the restraint of organized religion, faith is a natural component which mankind relies upon in order to properly function.

As we look at the war of values in my generation we see the forming of a dichotomy from the old world to the New.

The New World Order Values               The American values
Tyranny                                               Democracy
Globalism                                            Nationalism
Corporations                                        small business/agriculture
Socialism                                             Capitalism
Sexual anarchy                                    Nuclear family
Internet                                                Church/neighborhood


Communism's horrific example
"Lysenkoism, a body of "dialectic Marxist" beliefs almost magic in nature, was created by Trofim Lysenko, a largely uneducated agronomist.  Soviet leaders appreciated Lysenko's denial of the existence of genes as the basis of inheritance (and chromosomes where the genes were located and of species as the basis of evolution.  It was much easier for them to understand Lysenkos simplified anthropomorphic ideas that individuals within a species "help" each other (i.e. there is no competition within the same species) and inherit changes from environmental conditions than it was for them to deal with the complicated knowledge of "burgeoise" geneticist and evolutionist" pg 46
The Perversion of Knowledge Vadim J. Birstein "The True Story of Soviet Science"

      What we see here we see is an example of the fact that the humanist religion of marxism does not subject itself to science but instead subjects science to it.
We see this principal playing out today in terms of sexuality studies.


The New World Order was planned

The other 9/11: George H.W. Bush's 1990 New World Order speech

"We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective — a new world order — can emerge: a new era — freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony.
A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we've known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and other leaders from Europe, the Gulf, and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come.
The test we face is great, and so are the stakes. This is the first assault on the new world that we seek, the first test of our mettle. Had we not responded to this first provocation with clarity of purpose, if we do not continue to demonstrate our determination, it would be a signal to actual and potential despots around the world. America and the world must defend common vital interests — and we will. America and the world must support the rule of law — and we will. America and the world must stand up to aggression — and we will. And one thing more: In the pursuit of these goals, America will not be intimidated." The other 9/11: George H.W. Bush's 1990 New World Order speech (dallasnews.com)

"What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea- a New World Order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace security, freedom and the rule of law.  such is a world worthy of our struggle, and worthy of our children's future!" President Bush 41 to Congress in January 29, 1991


"We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government." Humanist Manifesto II - American Humanist Association "World Community

 


The New World Order is based on evolution
"I believe that the Messiah whom we await, whom we all without any doubt await, is the universal Christ; that is to say, the Christ of evolution." Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, as quoted in “ Teilhard de Chardin: Christianity and Evolution,” Spiritual Conspiracies Project Journal: 56.

"...a general convergence of religions upon a universal Christ who satisfies them all: that seems to me the only possible conversion of the world, and the only form in which a religion of the future can be conceived"  
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Christianity and Evolution (Collins, 1971): 130.

"Chardin is one of the most frequently quoted writers by leading New Age occultists" Gary Kah, En Route to Global Occupation (Lafayette, LA: Huntington House Publishers, 1992), p. 41.

"Once complete unity has been achieved, Christ—who will be the Omega Point—will appear; man will then be more than man, will be what Teilhard called Ultra-Human, the cosmos will be transformed; and the glory of it all will be established" Malachi Martin, The Jesuits (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988): 288

America was based on creation
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator certain unalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Excerpt from  The Declaration of Independence

The New World Order is contrary to the family
 Since man does not possess "common sense" then the common man is not a responsible creature. Instead there must be a base authority brought through the state which calls upon a higher evolved dictator(Uber man?) for final authority. Families can not have more authority over their own children than the dictator and global government.  We see this play out in the "hitler youth" of the nazis.  We see the propaganda in a softer form with Hillary Clinton's book "It takes a village"
  We see evidence of this attack in the watering down of the definition of marriage and family. Starting with "no fault divorce and ending with gay marriage. Also parental authority being devalued and homeschooling being made illegal in Europe and Canada.


America is based upon a traditional nuclear family
"The positive effects of stable marriage and stable nuclear families also spill over. Neighborhoods, towns, and cities are more likely to flourish when they are sustained by lots of married households. The work of the Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson tells us that neighborhoods with many two-parent families are much safer. In his own words: “Family structure is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, predictor[s] of variations in urban violence across cities in the United States.” 
 "His Harvard colleagues, the economists Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren, have drawn similar conclusions about the relationship between the health of the American dream and the presence of two-parent families in a community. Working with a team of scholars, they found that black boys are more likely to achieve upward economic mobility if there are more black fathers in a neighborhood—and more married couples, as well. And for poor children of all races, Chetty and his team have found that the fraction of children with single parents in a given community is the strongest and most robust predictor of economic mobility—or its absence. Children raised in communities with high percentages of single mothers are less likely to move up. In other words, it takes a village—but of married people—to raise the odds that a poor child will have a shot at the American dream."
The Nuclear Family Is Still Indispensable - The Atlantic



Atheism against God

"Christianity is our foe.  If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian religious tradition." Peter Singer

https://www.bing.com/search?q=http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/2900/psai/html

"I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, and the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough - I call it the one immortal blemish on the human race." Delphi Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche (Illustrated): Friedrich Nietzsche”, Delphi Classics

"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.    "Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”  1998  Darwin Day Keynote Address  1  2   †As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.    No Free Will  (1999)  p.123 †" Evolution Quotes (bevets.com) William Provine

Communist plans fulfilled by leftwing in america

The propaganda of communism
45 Communist Goals by Dr. Cleon Skousen (1958)

08Jan

The following is a list of Current Communist Goals as revealed by Dr. Cleon Skousen in The Naked Communist, written in 1958 and read into the Congressional Record in 1963. .
Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR., (D) OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963
Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.
At Mrs. Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:
[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]
CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS [excerpts]

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principal of “separation of church and state.”
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”


36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]

Evolution and secularism
 "I suppose the reason why we leaped at the origin of species was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores" Sir Julian Huxley head of UNESCO in a television interview
   Now to be fair this quote is often taken out of context.  Huxley was not referring to a perverted need to break God's sexual laws so much as he was wanting to defend the sanctity of the humanist view of sex.
 "The Kinsey team understood and presented human sexual behavior as a closed darwinian system of simple mammalian behavior: a stimulus provides b) a genital response which produces c) an orgasmic 'outlet.'  Indeed, Kinsey applied Pavlovian conditioning to sex, saying all sex is conditioned by environment and that love, jealousy, fear, shame and similar emotions have no operational meaning.. This worldview drove Kinsey's work from the start, as the zoologist denied explanations for human behavior contrary to evolutionary assumptions." Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences by Dr. Judith Reisman pg. 51

Evolution's power over the public school.
"Murray gell-Mann, no doubt, reflecting prevailing sentiment in the scientific community, concludes his analysis this way: fundamentalist have a perfect right to their beliefs, but no right to control  the teaching of science in the public school" Now, aside from the adoption of this common vaguely prejorative , and certainly misleading use of the term 'fundamentalist' (not all fundamentalist are creationists, not all creationists are fundamentalists) Gell-Mann actually poses a question about power.  Very well, suppose he is right that parents who believe that God the universe and the earth in a relatively short period of time have "no right" to decide what gets taught as science in the public schools. Query then: Who does then have "the right"?
  It is no answer to say that the majority of the people should have the right to decide what is taught in school, because in many jurisdictions the creationists are the majority. Nor is it much of an answer to say that professionals-educators or scientist- should always get to decide what is taught, not least because millions of dollars of parents are not really interested in having their tax dollars spent for education in accordance with the views of experts whose knowledge the parents may find inaccessible and threatening and who in any case often heap abuse on the opinions of the parents themselves.  Indeed one of the strongest arguments in favor of public assistancefor private school tuition is that only in that way can parents choose for themselves the education their children should have, rather than having some other entity, one over which they may have little control, make the choice for them." Stephen L. Carter The culture of disbelief pg. 170

New(religious) Atheism
Agnostic Vincent Bugliosi bashes the poor representation from the New Atheist movement.
"He writes these words "As almost every page of my book is dedicated t the problem of religious faith, it is ironic that some of my harshest criticism has come from atheist who feel that I have betrayed their cause,,,, If there is a book that takes a harder swing at religion, I'm not aware of it." In other words, I've destroyed religion and therefore I have destroyed God.  But does Harris actually believe that there can be no God without religion?  Indeed that there can be in a creator, a supreme being concomitantly, a member of some organized religion or religious faith?"pg 47-48

"The thinking of Harris and many other atheists is that belief in God is based on faith, if they can demonstrate the invalidity of faith as a basis for belief in God, this justifies their belief that there is no God.  But I submit that there is a problem with this thinking.  If the fulcrum of the debate is faith, since faith can be defined as the belief in something that cannot be proved by evidence, why isn't the belief by atheists that there is no God any less of a faith based belief than the belief by atheist than the belief by atheists that there is?"
"To illustrate the weakness of the atheistic philosophy and putting the shoe on the other foot, what would their reaction be if theists said to them, "Since your belief that there is no God, is based solely on faith, not evidence, this is complete justification for our belief that there is a God"?  They'd think the theists were crazy. Well then..."pg. 49

"It would seem that someone of even rather dull intelligence would know this.  Since Dawkins is a man of high intelligence, this gives rise to the possibility that Dawkins, unable to produce to support his position, decided to rely on the hope that his startlingly vapid arguments would go over the heads of his readers without their feeling the breeze.  (If this is true based on the sales of his book his gamble apparently paid off.) pg. 55

"There are those who say that religion only appeals to people who wish to imbue their lives with meaning in the face of allow evidence to the contrary.  But whatever the basis for the appeal, religion does indeed give many a sense that we are here for a reason, that life is not an empty, accidental adventure.  Indeed for a great many religion is there secure anchoring life, without which they would be as lost as sheep without a shepherd. And we all know that a religious belief in God gives millions of people equanimity and strength to overcome fear of the unknown" pg. 45-46 {Divinity of Doubt Vincent Bugliosi)

   Now typically most "new atheists" also claim agnosticism, but Mr. Bugliosi can not see the connection and afford them the title. The trick is to convince people that God can not exist without admitting that this in itself is a statement of faith.  By using the title "agnostic" logically one must admit this. But New Atheism does not want to spend anytime meditating on this fact.

Secular humanism is intertwined with communism
"Humanism and Communism are not identical twins, but they are good bedfellows. A comparison of the Communist manifesto and the Humanist manifestos I and II reveals that their aims are almost identical. Communism is humanism in political disguise.
Both deny the supernatural
Both deny Divine Revelation
Both seek to control the education system.
Both seek to destroy all religions except their own.
Both seek the betterment of the human race.
Both promote world government.
Both seek alliance of Apostate Christendom, but when they are through with the whore, they will burn her flesh and burn her with fire." pg. 30 Secular Humanism: The most dangerous Religion in America by Homer Duncan


Marxism is so total that it becomes religious.
"And here we note , particularly since Stalin's control, the increasing approximation to other totalitarian regimes in terms of nationalism, imperialism, and militarism, with a consistent pursuit of power politics and the total disregard of the rights of smaller nations. Thus facism and communism force us to a like conclusion, that autocracy, it avowed aims may be,, is destructive of the highest social values, and that totalitarianism is necessarily in direct conflict with Christianity.  As with facism, Russian communism has a certain religious quality; quite consciously, apparently the leaders are furthering ideas and activities which might serve as a substitute for religion.  There is a distinct messianic faith, a halfway mystical belief in communism as the bringer of the new earth.  There is a call for sacrifice and absolute devotion.  There are sacred scriptures which must not be questioned and an authorized interpretation whose acceptance is equally required.  It has new processions in place of the old, and Lenin's tomb is here although the miracle working bones of the saints are discarded." Harris Franklin Rall Christianity 130-131  CO. 1940

Marxism in religious terminology and racial terminology

"The issue today is whether in a secularized church we are still talking about Christian faith at all when we do theology. Naturally one can imagine countless ways of continuing to linger with the self as private self. The problem is whether this Is really the task of theology in light of what Christianity stands for in it's crucial originating event.
"So I am trying to say two things (1) We have to learn to "think black" theologically. To "think white" is to turn in upon the cartesian self to engage in "naval gazing," The black self over against the white self is the compassionate self ("compatior, ergo sum") It s the corporate self upon which the "I" shares. This is a more adequate corrective (from the Christian perspective) of the cogito, ergo sum than the "I rebel, therefore we exist" (Camus). To "think black" means to be able to think from the perspective of the underdog. We could also suggest "Thinking Indian"- the underdog has many colors in this country and the world over. (2) To think from the perspective of the oppressed, however, is not as yet theologically "Thinking black" ("Thinking Indian") has to be radically tied to the originating event f the Christian faith in order to be theological. In fact ultimately we can "think black" only if we are bound to the originating event. This does not mean leaving reason out of the picture. While the theologian can not be the man "who is led by reason alone" qui sola ducitur), he is a man who is also led by reason, a "black reason" that has been tied to the Incarnation. But reason as an agent here is not primary. It does not control the theological endeavor." Liberation theology Frederick Herzog page 14-15
   So the Marxists developed a method for controlling churches by changing their mission from internal spirituality to race.
It can be observed here that Marxists are still being obedient to Nietzsche in the fact that they recognizing a distinction between "Will to truth" and "Will to power".
Some people are going to have a "will to truth" and have inferior religious status but are never-the-less needed to control society.   So the Marxist liberation churches are indeed the tools to control that segment of society. In fact whereas they would normally be in opposition to atheism they are now the foot soldiers of such cause.

Now in life we need to have at least some objective morality in order for both public and private survival.
"Modern Science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with deterministic principles or chance. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable. The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.    Evolutionary Progress  (1988)  p. 65 †" William Provine
William Provine  (b. 1942?)  Andrew H. and James S. Tisch Distinguished University Professor of Biology at Cornell University
It is obvious from the blunt Professor that Ethics  and purpose are not welcome in his evolutionary worldview.
The problem is that not only has universal ethics been effective for civilizations over several millennia.  But that we really have to appeal to morality to even claim that universal morality is somehow wrong.
This is the base of the social justice movement ; a morality that is chaotic and arbitrary typically used as an excuse for force.
       In order to address the threat of right vs wrong or good vs evil. we have to appeal to the higher power.

Truly, this Man was the Son of God: the case for incarnational Sonship

 


Mark 15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God."




Definition: In response to the question over which of the 2 natures of Christ was begotten or generated by the God the Father. Incarnational Sonship holds that The Human nature of Christ, aka Jesus was generated from the Father, and that the Logos/Word of God being God was not generated.
__________

           Many have held that the Logos became the Son of God and was not known as the Son until the incarnation. 
  However, I, Matt Singleton argue for a more tolerant expression of this doctrine. Given other Axioms of theology, such as the Omniscience of God and the Singularity of Christ' person.  It is implied that The persons of the trinity would identify individually and corporately their roles as connected with their identities. As such the Logos could understand and be understood as being the figure and called the Son of God in light of the coming generation and translation to humanity.
My view which lies in the camp of Incarnational Sonship if needed I would label "Specific Generation"
   However, the point of consequence in this debate is the nature of Generation, the deity of Christ can never be humbled; The humanity of Christ can never be reprobate.



Attacks upon Incarnational Sonship

misinterpreting Arians
Jehovah's Witnesses deny incarnational Sonship!
"13 Jesus was called God's "only begotten Son" because Jehovah created him directly. (John 3:16) as the firstborn of all creation,"  Jesus was then used by God to create all other things." pg. 39 Knowledge that leads to Everlasting Life 1995  Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
  As expressed by JW's, Arian theology agrees very closely with Eternal generation, the only difference being that the logos would be created in the span of time, prior to the creation of the physical realm while eternal generation would have the logos being transcendantly created or generated outside of space and tim. 

"This is ironic since Arius, the arch enemy of the doctrine of the trinity in the 4th century, claimed Origen as the source of his subordination of the Son in which he declared that "there was when the Son was  not" pg. 109-110 The Story of Christian Theology Roger Olson 1999


Challenge: If the members of the trinity are not understood by their offices then how can they be 3 separate persons at all?
Answer: God has a language and thought process higher than ours.  The members of the trinity do not have to be named after their offices.  The names are important for our understanding of them. But they have the advantage of omniscience They know eachother intimately without needing to acquire information

 
The ORIGEN-al sin of Catholicism

 The Son reveals the Father to us. Origen followed Neo-Platonism, which taught that from the Divine Being proceeds the Nous. The Son proceeds from the Father somewhat as the will proceeds from a human being. This procession is expressed in the conception of a generation (genesis) of the Son from the Father. But Origen made a larger contribution to the dogma of the Trinity by speaking of an eternal generation. The Father is always generating the Son...He looked upon the Logos as a Person, and taught that the Son, begotten of the Father from all eternity, was also from all eternity a hypostasis. Origen's teaching differed thus from all previous conceptions of a hypostatic Logos; especially was this true with reference to the Apologists who took the position that the hypostasizing of the Logos occurred in time for the purpose of creation and incarnation...This was the first advance made towards stating the Son's co-eternity with the Father.
A History of Christian thought Dr. J.L. Neve pg. 86-87
  It has been a well established aspect that Origen, the inventor of the concept of eternal generation developed the idea from neo-platonic philosophy.  In many ways a lower form of gnosticism(though Origen did debate the gnostics) that shows a procession from divinity to creation.  Here the persons of the trinity are used as a conduit to keep a distance between man and God.


"Even Origen had been uncertain as to whether or not the Spirit had been 'created or uncreated' or a 'son of God or not'" De Principiis preface    A history of the Christian Church by Whiliston Walker pg. 115

"We therefore, as the more pious and truer course,  admit that all things were made by the Logos and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and first in order of all that was made by the Father through Christ."  Origen Allen Menzies, Anti-nicene Fatherspg.328(gathered from  Final Authority by William P.Grady)   Pg.91

"We say that the Savior and the Holy Spirit exceed all creatures without possible comparison, in a wholly transcendent way but that they are exceeded by the Father by as much or even more than they exceeded the other beings." Origen quoted by Henry Crouzel pg. 203 and later Roger E. Olson The Story of Christian theology pg. 110

"The Son reveals the Father to us. Origen followed Neo-Platonism, which taught that from the Divine Being proceeds the Nous. The Son proceeds from the Father somewhat as the will proceeds from a human being. This procession is expressed in the conception of a generation (genesis) of the Son from the Father. But Origen made a larger contribution to the dogma of the Trinity by speaking of an eternal generation. The Father is always generating the Son...He looked upon the Logos as a Person, and taught that the Son, begotten of the Father from all eternity, was also from all eternity a hypostasis. Origen's teaching differed thus from all previous conceptions of a hypostatic Logos; especially was this true with reference to the Apologists who took the position that the hypostasizing of the Logos occurred in time for the purpose of creation and incarnation...This was the first advance made towards stating the Son's co-eternity with the Father.
A History of Christian thought Dr. J.L. Neve pg. 86-87

“It was in Caesarea that Origen deposited his library, began a school, and continued his scholarship until his death in 254-within a decade of Eusebius’ birth. After Origen’s death, his library came under the curatorship of pamphilus, who had studied in Alexandria under the Originist teacher Pierus. In his youth, Eusebius assisted Pamphilus; about the year 308 he coauthored the ‘Apology for Origen’ with Him. Breathing the air of Origen’s Own library, having learned from and assisted Origen’s principle defender, it is self evident that Eusebius was not only an easterner, but also a supporter of Origen.
“It is not surprising to learn that Eusebius should have later been Arian in His theology. Like Origen, Arius also taught subordinationism, and, like Origen, Arius found support in the east, from Eusebius of Nicomedia, and our Eusebius, who by that time was bishop of Caesaria.” Attridge, Harold W. “Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism” Pg. 317-18
    The relationship between Origen and Eusebius was at perfect infuential teaching  for propagating his doctrine. Origin died  just previous to Eusebius generation.

"Arius Christology was opposed by the theologian Athanasius, who argued persuasively that the deity of the Son is necessitated by soteriology.  If Jesus is not fully God, we truly do not truly receive salvation, for in salvation we participate in the divine nature......" 
"....The followers of the Alexandrian deacon not only postulated that the Son was the first creature of the Father but that the Holy Spirit was the first creature of the Son.  Even though the Council of Nicea rejected Arius Christology, many otherwise orthodox thinkers accepted the pneumatology that followed from it."pg 59 Stanley J.  Grenz Theology for the community of God
 At this point we can see a development of PanenTheism where other things are deified and God loses his holiness.  Origen would be the Father of the Eastern Orthodox church

Apollinarianism)
"Apollinaris' rejection that Christ had a human mind was considered an over-reaction to Arianism and its teaching that Christ was a lesser god.^{[2]"
McGrath, Alister. 1998. Historical Theology, An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Chapter 1.}
"Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has proposed a neo-Apollinarian Christology in which the divine Logos completes the human nature of Christ. Craig says his proposal is tentative and he welcomes critique and interaction from other scholars.^[3]"
 William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland. 2003. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. InterVarsity Press. 608.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollinarism#cite_note-3
  So in reaction to Arianism we have a Christology that is opposed to the humanity within the mind of Christ. When We look at the sympathy to apollinariansim of William Lane Craig we are seeing a high church a high church protestant who actually invokes a great deal of fidelity to Catholic scholars. Given his universal acceptance by Catholics and evangelicals it seems apparent that heterodoxy is free to flourish in even the most conservative Christian homes.
More so this trend is towards an apollinarian non human view of the person of Christ.  Thus the Son of God must be segregated away from humanity, thus we see the apparent influence of eternal generation.



Example of orthodox incarnational christology.
1632 "Mennonite" Dordrecht confession

IV. Of the Coming of Christ into This World, and the Purpose for Which He Came

We believe and confess further, that when the time of the promise, for which all the pious forefathers had so much longed and waited, had come and was fulfilled, this previously promised Messiah, Redeemer, and Saviour, proceeded from God, was sent, and, according to the prediction of the prophets, and the testimony of the evangelists, came into the world, yea, into the flesh, was made manifest, and the Word, Himself became flesh and man; that He was conceived in the virgin Mary, who was espoused to a man named Joseph, of the house of David; and that she brought Him forth as her first-born son, at Bethlehem, wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger. John 4:25; 16:28; I Tim. 3:16; John 1:14; Matt. 1:23; Luke 2:7.
4We confess and believe also, that this is the same whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting, without beginning of days, or end of life; of whom it is testified that He Himself is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, the first and the last; that He is the same, and no other, who was foreordained, promised, sent, and came into the world; who is God's only, first and own Son; who was before John the Baptist, before Abraham, before the world; yea, who was David's Lord, and the God of the whole world, the first-born of every creature; who was brought into the world, and for whom a body was prepared, which He yielded up as a sacrifice and offering, for a sweet savor unto God, yea, for the consolation, redemption, and salvation of all mankind. John 3:16; Heb. 1:6; Rom. 8:32; John 1:30; Matt. 22:43; Col. 1:15; Heb. 10:5.

But as to how and in what manner this precious body was prepared, and how the Word became flesh, and He Himself man, in regard to this we content ourselves with the statement pertaining to this matter which the worthy evangelists have left us in their accounts, according to which we confess with all the saints, that He is the Son of the living God, in whom alone consist all our hope, consolation, redemption, and salvation, which we neither may nor must seek in any other. Luke 1:31, 32; John 20:31; Matt. 16:16.

We furthermore believe and confess with the Scriptures, that, when He had finished His course, and accomplished the work for which He was sent and came into the world, He was, according to the providence of God, delivered into the hands of the unrighteous; suffered under the judge, Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, was buried, and on the third day, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven; and that He sits on the right hand of God the Majesty on high, whence He will come again to judge the quick and the dead. Luke 22:53; 23:1; 24:6, 7, 51.

And that thus the Son of God died, and tasted death and shed His precious blood for all men; and that He thereby bruised the serpent's head, destroyed the works of the devil, annulled the handwriting and obtained forgiveness of sins for all mankind; thus becoming the cause of eternal salvation for all those who, from Adam unto the end of the world, each in his time, believe in, and obey Him. Gen. 3:15; I John 3:8; Col. 2:14; Rom. 5:18."

The original creed of Eusebius of Caesarea. - The creed which Eusebius presented to the Nicene Council was of this expanded character, and ran as follows: ‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of (from) God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only-begotten Son, the first-born of all creation, begotten of the Father before all ages; through whom also all things were made; who for our salvation
[124]
was made flesh and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in glory, to judge the living and dead; and in the Holy Spirit.’
H.N. Bate, History of the Church to 325, 2nd edn. London: Rivingtons, 1924. Hbk. pp.119-125.CHAPTER X The Council of Nicaea
   When we look at the wording of the 1st creed, it reveals how obvious the doctrine of subordination was in the creed.
Personally as a young Bible college student I was always confused by the wording "God of God, light of light and Life from Life"  Of course it was nice and poetic, But creeds were meant to be logically coherent and not simply an exercise of piety.  When we see eternal generation in it's original context it may have confessed the divinity of Christ, however it only confesses a subordinate divinity.
For instance if I wanted Cheese of Cheese or pizza of pizza I am not saying that the Cheese of Cheese is the equal amount of Cheese or pizza, but a piece.




John Calvin critical of eternal generation
"If we are to believe these triflers, divine essence belongs to the Father only, on the ground that he is sole God and essentiator of the Son.  In this way the divinity of the Son will be something abstracted from the essence of God, or a derivation of a part from the whole." Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 1 chapter 13 Section 24 pg 131 trans Henry Beveridge

It is obvious that Calvin would steer clear of any view of subordination and that a literal understanding of eternal generation in his view would be false. Not that he was going to rock the boat on the

Macarthur's original fidelity to Incarnational Sonship
"But the Greek word here is not poieo, 'to make or create ,' but ginomai, 'to become'- the meaning which most Bible translators must make clear.  Jesus Christ always existed, but he became better than the angels in His exaltation, implying that at one time He had been made lower than the angels- the truth that Hebrews 2:9 makes clear. but the reference in 1:4 is to his incarnation as God's Son. As the Son He became lower than the angels.  But because of His faithfulness, obedience and wonderful work He accomplished as God's Son, He was exalted again above the angels, as He had been before.  This time however, He was exalted as the Son.  Christ technically did not become God the Son of God until He was incarnated.  Christ was not the Son of God in eternity past-He was God as the 2nd person in the Godhead. He became Identified as the Son, and as the Son was exalted above the angels. So he became better than the angels again- though for a while he had been lower." pg. 26 Macarthur New Testament Commentary Hebrews
    Now while I find myself in the camp of the young Macarthur and several others espousing Incarnational Sonship. This evidence by the phrase "Jesus was not the Son of God in eternity past".
The point of contention must not be upon of denial of the 2nd person of the trinity as the Son. The contention must be placed upon the root issue proposed by the Catholic Creeds and that is the issue of the LOGOs being "Begotten/generated". 'Deity cannot be generated' is the rightful point of contention.  However, since the movement focused upon Hebrews as opposed to Luke 1:34 the conversation was quickly wrestled into a strawman.

John Macarthur recants)
"I am now convinced that the title "Son of God" when applied to Christ in Scripture always speaks of His essential deity and absolute equality with God, not His voluntary subordination. The Jewish leaders of Jesus' time understood this perfectly. John 5:18 says they sought the death penalty against Jesus, charging Him with blasphemy "because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."https://www.gty.org/library/Articles/A235/Reexamining-the-Eternal-Sonship-of-Christ
      Jesus himself refutes John MacArthur!!!
John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
    For Macarthur to make such an error implies that he was perhaps hasty in his recantation and that implies to me that this was motivated by other factors.
  What factors could those be? Well, during this time period, Macarthur was working together with reformers of various denominations like R.C. Sproul to erect a "New Calvinism" movement.  The reformers were high church creedalists who were in submission to the doctrine of Eternal Generation. It seems to easy to assume that Macarthur was synchrotizing his theology to the movement.


The Old Testament: A poor place to argue for eternal generation.
"The pre-existence of the Messiah is not found in the Old Testament.  Some indeed have interpretted such passages as Micah 2 as references to Pre-existence, but this is doubtful exegesis. The note in the New Oxford Annotated Bible is perhaps correct when it says that the statment that the ruler from Bethlehem will be one 'whose origin is from of old' could mean from the days of David rather than pre-existence from the beginning of time.'   The existence of Christ is not even taught in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. ..........."In lampe's view only a low view of Christology of the relation of the man Jesus to God is possible". " Dale Moody The Word of Truth92-393

  Now I do not agree with theologian Dale Moody's contention regarding the pre-existence of Christ. However, when there is smoke, there is bound to be fire. If the pre-existence of Christ is difficult a case to be made in the OT then it is only natural that the eternal generation also be foreign to the OT.

The Jewish view of the messiah emphasizes humanity as opposed to Divinity

Scriptural proof

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."
 Here Sonship is applied to the virgin birth of a divine being.

2:15 and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
     How could the LOGOS come out of Egypt? that would be the operation of a physical person whom we understand in the incarnation.

Matthew 16: 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."
   Jesus is personally identified as the Son of God and thus incarnationally God's Son.


Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him."
   Jesus was just earlier compared with humans and then given the title Son of God by His Father. This leans to the incarnational sonship.

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. 10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: 11 and there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
    Jesus is Associated as the Son of God and given historical reality with home and baptism. Also the decending Spirit points to the title in relation to an event.

16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God"
 If this were referring to the deity of christ we would be seeing something of a subordination between the logos and the father. But if it id the humanity then we see an exaltation of the humanity while the divinity would be equivalent.


Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."


John 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? 36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? 37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. 38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake. 12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4 being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."

Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."

The alternative disaster
John 8:26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. 27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. 29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. 30 As he spake these words, many believed on him."

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

OT
Jewish though consistantly teaches that the Messiah/Son of God is a human

How eternal generation has been making christen-DUMB

1. Alexandria had Jews and Christians who would confuse the faith with pagan philosophy

2. One of which was Origen who taught that Jesus' divine nature was birthed by the Father in eternity past   (subordination, eternal generation), he also altered bibles and influenced other Christians to do likewise.

3. When Constantine took over the Roman Empire, he stopped persecuting Christians  But spoiled and pampered the bishops.  Then he organized a church Council (Nicaea) to make a new law of the land concerning God.

4. Eusebius was a follower of Origen:  He studied under the curator of his library.  Origen was Ordained in the city of Caesarea. Eusebius convinced Constantine and the bishops to use his church's confession. He tried to get them to downplay the deity of Christ, but they rejected it.

5. Included was this doctrine of eternal generation
"begotten of the Father Light of Light, very God of very God",

later they changed it to
"the Only Begotten Son of God,  born of the Father before all ages."
How can God come from God?  This is because they were confused about Jesus being the only begotten Son.  Was the Son His eternal nature or his human nature?

6. The bible teaches that the man was the Son and the divine Word/Logos became the Man.
Matthew 27:43, mark 5:7, 15:39, Luke 1:31,34, 22:70, John 1:34-35, 10:36, 20:31
John 1:1, 1 John 5:7, john 1:14 1 Timothy 3:16

7.The confusion of eternal generation would distort both east and west.
Roman Catholics think that because the logos is the Son that He is not very personal.

The Eastern Orthodox think that because The logos is the Son, that He is less God than the father.

8. The RCC would add a clause (et filioque) to indicate the relationship of the trinity.  They assert divine simplicity to say that the 3 persons are the same but that the 2 submit to the Father and the Spirit submits to the Son.
"Who proceeds from the Father and the Son,."
The EOC rejects this and says that both are less powerful than the father.

9. Both East and West Catholics think that since Christ is less persona l(7) So they need to recognize God's mother Mary for his affection.

The EOC can not understand justification because Why would God(father) punish God(son)? So they emphasize sacraments to become godlike.

10. Catholics being defensive of their differences with the EOC would start to exaggerate their teaching about divine simplicity. as a result the persons would fade into the background of the divine godhead. So instead of speaking of the Father or Jesus they simply speak of God.(a)

11. The reformers were catholic priests who were just starting to focus on the scriptures.  Luther and Calvin often would differ back to Augustine.

12. The Protestants believed in the Gospel.  But they were confused about the church due to their catholic upbringing and indoctrination in the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle.  They are organized as Catholics instead of NT Christians.

13. They think their denominations are the kingdom of God, Their preachers are separate priests, to be teachers, or prophets or apostles.

14. When the reformers give up sacramentalism they replace it with doctrine as a sacrament.

15. The reformers kept the traditions of creedalism even the catholic ones.

16.  Over time protestants turned into New Testament Christians through the preaching of scripture.  However, in recent years Seminaries have been used, to get Christians more friendly with the Roman Catholic church.  Protestants who are more catholic are picked out to the education of pastors to make them think more catholic.

17. The "New Calvinists" are roman friendly and have engaged in many ecumenical meetings.  They emphasize catholic friendly New Translations, Lordship salvation, and the hatred of popular evangelistic methods

18. Augustine is well known to have been an ex-platonic and Manichean professional philosopher prior to his conversion. And he was propelled to the bishopric rather early.  He repented of his views at first, but then turned back to some of them after his confrontations with Pelagius.

19 Augustine wrote before the majority of the creeds dealing with Christology.  Scholars have noticed that his views of salvation work as if Christ's personality was dominated By God to where he was less human.  So as Christ was forced to be sinless, salvation would be forced upon the elect.  But Jesus is one person! His one person is not just divine but also human.

20. This is the typical personality displayed in Calvinism.  Why do the preachers seem to say Christ instead of Jesus? Jesus is his name Christ is only his Title.  But reformer after reformer will speak of Christ as if it were his personal name. A culture that wants to emphasize the position and authority; instead of the personality of the Savior.



Questions for Eternal Generationists
1.  How could he(Jesus) be "the life" while being dependant upon life from the Father?

2.  Why did Christ need to be born of a virgin?

3.  Was there a division of the Godhead when Jesus died on the cross?

4.  Did the Logos ascend only to the right hand of the Father? (galatians 4:4)