Hallowe'en

Hallowe'en (a contraction of All Hallows’ Evening) is thought to have roots in "Christian" beliefs and practices. However, where it reads "Christian," it should actually read Catholic. Beginning in the 4th century, the feast of All Hallows' in the western Catholic religion commemorated martyred saints. By the end of the 12th century, it involved superstitious traditions such as ringing church bells for souls in "purgatory."

All Hallows' Eve along with All Hallows' Day or All Saints Day (November 1st) and All Souls' Day (November 2nd), collectively called Allhallowtide or Allsaintstide, are a time when Catholics (not "Christians") honour dead saints and pray for recently departed souls who have yet to reach Heaven.

All of this, of course, is nothing but utter superstition and sheer nonsense. Most Catholic practices and beliefs are based on nonsense that the Bible condemns. There is no such thing as "purgatory." This life is all you get to repent of your sins and place your trust and faith in Jesus the risen Lord and Saviour. Once you die, that is it. You cannot pray the soul of a dead person into Heaven, nor can you purchase salvation for them from the "church." These are scams being conducted by the Catholic religions. This includes the scam where you pay a certain amount of money in order to "remit" your sins, while you go out and recommit those same sins the next day. That is not how forgiveness or salvation work!

People seriously need to learn how to think critically and investigate the practices of the various "Orthodox" Catholics, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, "Calvinists," Anglicans, Anabaptists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, Pentecostals, etc. Many of them have beliefs and practices that do not square with the Scriptures.

Whether or not Hallowe'en was "Christianized" by the Catholic religion (they seem to like to "Christianize" everything pagan, yet merge the pagan with "Christianity"), everything about it is still based on paganism. Most beliefs and practices of the Catholic religion are rooted in paganism. Because the Reformers did not leave the Catholic nonsense in its entirety, or even other denominations like Baptists, many of their traditions are still rooted in paganism as well.

A Biblical and Historical Look at Elders

Presbuteros [G: 4245], the word translated "elder," is never used as a noun in the following passages: Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22-23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 23:14; 24:1: 25:15; 1 Tim. 5:2, 17, 19; Titus 1:5; Heb. 11:2; James 5:14; 1 Pet. 5:1, 5; 2 John 1:1; 3 John 1:1; Rev. 4:4, 10; 5:5-6, 8, 11, 14; 7:11, 13; 11:16; 14:3; and 19:4. The word is an adjective. Adjectives are words or phrases that name an attribute. They are added to a noun in order to modify it.

"Elders" are merely men who live with spiritual maturity in the faith. An "elder" is not a position, nor is it something you are elected to. You are chosen as an elder because you are known and trusted by everyone (you have nothing to hide), and your life demonstrates spiritual maturity.

"Therefore, I exhort the elders [presbuteros, adjective] among you, as your fellow elder [sumpresbuteros, noun] and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd [poimaino, verb—tend to, take care of] the flock [poimnion, noun] of God among you, exercising oversight [episkopeo, verb] not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording [katakurieuo, verb—control, subjugate, dominate] it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd [archipoimen, noun] appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. You younger men [neos, adjective], likewise, be subject to your elders [presbuteros, adjective]; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE." 1 Peter 5:1-5

Elders (shepherd-teachers) were not to be motivated by fleshly desires, but to walk by the Spirit of God in the love of Jesus. They were to shepherd the flock with the following attitude and mindset:

NOT by constraint or being forced to (by worldly ambition or pride or obligation),

BUT with personal desire out of a love for God, Jesus, and others.

NOT to get any money or personal gain from such service,

BUT with a great passion to give and bless others.

NOT acting as someone better or "holier than thou" among the people,

BUT setting an example for others to follow.

So, what can we learn about these men from the writings of the early Christians?

"The apostles have preached the Gospel to us by the command of the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] by the command of God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both things were done, then, in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and confirmed by the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they [the apostles] appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved [tested] them by the Spirit, to be overseers and servants of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning overseers and servants. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their overseers in righteousness, and their servants in faith" [Is. 60:17]." —Clement of Rome

As you can see, biblical elders emerged from within the community life of the congregation they grew up in. There was first a very strong brotherhood in place before elders were selected. This incubation period preceded the selection of elders. Paul established a congregation, left them on their own to the leading of the Holy Spirit for a number of years, and when he returned elders were appointed. This incubation period allowed time for the believers to mature in the faith and for their lives to be known by everyone. They had to be trusted by everyone. They were selected by and in the presence of the entire congregation.

"Our elders are proven [tested] men who obtain their title not by purchase, but by established character." —Tertullian

"As to anyone who teaches principles to live by and molds the characters of others, I ask, "Is he not obligated himself to live by the principles he teaches?" If he himself does not live by them, his teaching is nullified. ...His student will answer him like this, "I cannot practice the things you teach, because they are impossible. You forbid me to be angry. You forbid me to covet. You forbid me to lust. And you forbid me to fear pain and death. This is totally contrary to nature; all living creatures are subject to these emotions. If you are so convinced that it is possible to live contrary to natural impulses, first let me see you practice the things you teach so I will know they are possible." ... How will [the teacher] take away this excuse from the self-willed, unless he teaches them by his example, so they can see with their own eyes that the things he teaches are possible? For this very reason, no one obeys the teachings of the philosophers. Men prefer examples to words, because it is easy to speak—but difficult to act." —Lactantius

"[The elder] should be chosen in the presence of the people under the eyes of all, and should be proved worthy and suitable by public judgment and testimony. ...For a proper ordination, all the neighboring overseers throughout the same province should assemble with the congregation. The overseer should be chosen in the presence of the congregation, since they are intimately familiar with his life and habits." —Cyprian

Episkopos [G: 1984] is the word translated "overseer" (or incorrectly as "bishop" in some translations in order to give support to that denomination's particular proof-text eisegesis and practices). Watchmen (or overseers) were "elders." Both terms are frequently used interchangeably in Scripture and by the early Christians in their writings. Watchmen (shepherd-teachers) were to watch over the flock and look out for wolves who wanted to devour the flock.

Peter and Paul use the terms episkopos (watchman, overseer) and presbuteros (elder) interchangeably, informing these men that they are the ones who will shepherd (poimen) the Congregation of Yahweh.

Paul:

Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the congregation. And when they had come to him, he said to them ... Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God which He purchased with His own blood. (Acts 20:17-18, 28)

Peter:

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you ... shepherd the flock of God among you, overseeing not under compulsion, but willingly, according to God... (1 Pet. 5:1-2)

The New Testament teaches that watchmen (overseers) and elders are the same people. The congregations set up by Peter and Paul had multiple watchmen (overseers). However, John the apostle structured his congregations differently, as we can discern from the writings of Ignatius and Polycarp, who were disciples of John. In the second century, John's structure won out. Each congregation had one watchman (overseer) and multiple elders. Despite this, several writings of the early believers still used the terms interchangeably.

"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, there would be strife on account of the title of the oversight [or watchman]. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them [the apostles], or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Congregation, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the oversight those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those elders who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour." —Clement of Rome

Elders were to exemplify a certain kind of life (Acts 20:22-35). Paul shared with these elders the kind of life they were expected to lead, using his life as the example. Only in four of these 13 verses (vv. 28-31) does Paul address elders, and his actual instructions are in only two of those verses. The elders Paul was speaking to in this passage were later rebuked by him in a letter written to Timothy (1 Tim. 5:17-22)! Ephesus already had elders in Acts 20. Roughly 5 years later, Paul instructed Timothy to appoint elders.

"Deacon" is merely a transliteration of the Greek, diakonos [G:1249]. This word is found all over the New Testament and translated as "minister" or "servant," except in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 for some unknown reason. Just as the Greek word poimen [G:4166], which is translated as "shepherd" everywhere else in the New Testament, is falsely translated as "pastor" in Ephesians 4:11. "Pastor" was a term developed by Martin Luther to replace the "priest," a term desperately clung to by Catholics. The term "priest" started showing up in the mid-third century, and then became normal use from the time of Constantine onward. A "priest" is nothing other than an elder. But Catholics use it after the Old Testament religion and after the pagan religions.

In the first and second century congregations, servants ("deacons," if you must) would visit the sick and imprisoned, distribute the food, bring communion to to those who could not attend the Sunday meetings (what their assembling together was actually called), and help with whatever was required during their meetings. Interestingly, in the third century there is reference to them watching the doors in order to make sure that only Christians entered the meetings.

Both Justin (A.D. 155) and Tertullian (A.D. 200), the only two people to use this term, referred to the leader of the Sunday meeting as "the president," which likely meant "whoever happens to be presiding over the meeting." A watchman or elder was not necessarily present. "Church" buildings did not exist during their lifetimes. By Cyprian's time, the battles against heresies had led to a stronger emphasis on meetings led by ordained and proven (tested) men who were trusted completely.

For the first two centuries, a family atmosphere with shared responsibilities is how the congregations functioned. In the third century, the leaders began carrying more responsibilities. They began teaching the believers to be lazy and complacent, which is how all the heresy in the fourth century came to be common place.

The terms episkopos (watchman, overseer), presbuteros (elder), and diakonos (servant, minister) meant something completely different to the early believers than what they mean to modern believers. We are severely guilty of imposing our concepts of Christianity and these terms eisegetically upon not only the biblical text but also the writings of the early Christians (c. A.D. 70-300). We need to learn to pay attention to Scripture in its historical-chronological order and stop imposing our experience of the congregation ("church") upon Yahweh's Word.

The Fall of the Church

by Paul F. Pavao

In this article I capitalize "Church" when it refers to the Church universal or the Church throughout the Roman empire. I use "church" with a small c when referring to local churches.

In 323, Eusebius, bishop of the church in Caesarea wrote a history of the Christian churches. It is full of the kind of things you expect a church history to contain. It describes the spread of Christianity to all lands, the establishing of the churches, the occasional conflict between them, and the bravery of the Christians in the face of persecution.

A century later, several others--Theodotus, Sozomen, Socrates Scholasticus, Rufinus, and Jerome--wrote histories taking up where Eusebius left off. These histories are not like his. They are filled with violence, divisions, and political intrigue.

The cause for the shift is not difficult to determine. The emperor Constantine ended persecution against Christians with the Edict of Milan in 313, then began to support the Christians, and even call himself a "fellow servant" (Eusebius, Life of Constantine, Bk. III, ch. 17). Many thousands of pagans followed him into the Christian church (Eusebius, "In Praise of Constantine," Ch. II, par. 6).

With only short exceptions (e.g., under Emperor Julian the Apostate from 360 to 363), from that time on Christian bishops became wards of the state and found themselves with great political influence (Schaff, P. History of the Christian Church. Vol. 3. sec. 15). The results of the influx of pagans and the new political power of the bishops can be seen in the differences between the history of the church up to 323 and the histories written afterward.

The Gates of Hades
Those who have descended from those fourth- and fifth-century churches--the Orthodox in Greece and eastward into Asia and the Roman Catholics in Europe and the Americas--typically tell me that Jesus promised that the Church would not fall in Matthew 16:18. There we read, "... I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

The problem is that the drastic changes (described below) between the churches of the third century and those of the fourth century can and must be described as a fall or as apostasy. If Jesus' had really prophesied that the major churches of the Roman empire could not fall, then his prophecy would have been false. The simple fact, as I will be showing throughout this "Fall of the Church" series, is that they fell.

Fortunately for us as Christians, Jesus is not a false prophet. It is just shy of silly to interpret "the gates of Hades shall not prevail against the Church" as "the major churches of the Roman empire cannot apostatize." Since gates are defensive structures, it is much more sensible to interpret Jesus' statement to mean that Hades, the realm of death, will not be able to maintain its hold on the souls of men against the power of the Church's strongest weapon, the Good News that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

Unless Jesus makes empty threats of punishment, we have solid biblical evidence that individual churches can fall. Ephesus must surely be regarded as one of the major churches of the first three centuries, and Jesus threatened to remove their candlestick (Rev. 2:5). Since the candlesticks in Revelation represented churches (1:20), Jesus is clearly threatening to remove their status as a church.

Jesus' warning to the church of Laodicea is even more dreadful. If they did not repent, he was going to vomit them out of his mouth! (3:16).

Surely losing one's status as a church or being vomited out of Jesus' mouth constitutes a fall!

It is apparent, then, that churches can fall, and I will be showing you that it is just as apparent that all or most of the major churches of the Roman empire did fall.

Evidence of the Fall of the Churches of the Roman Empire
A century before the Emperor Constantine embraced Christianity, a Christian from Carthage described Christianity in this way:

It is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to label us. "See," they say, "How they love one another!" For they themselves are animated by mutual hatred. "How they are ready even to die for one another!" For they themselves will sooner put to death. ... The family possessions, which generally destroy brotherhood among you, create fraternal bonds among us. One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives. (Tertullian, c. AD 200, Apology, ch. 39)

A half century later, in 248, one of the leading teachers of the third century confidently defended Christians against a Roman accuser by writing:

And so, too, you must compare the ruler of the church in each city with the ruler of the people of that city in order to observe that even among those councilors and rulers of the church of God who come very far short of their duty and who lead more indolent lives than those who are more energetic, it is nevertheless possible to discover a general superiority in things relating to the development of virtue over the characters of the councilors and rulers in the various cities. (Origen, Against Celsus, Bk. III, ch. 29-30)

No churches have ever been perfect, but in general the Christians of the second and third centuries described and defended their churches with words like we have just read from Tertullian and Origen. After the Church in the Roman Empire embraced the Roman emperor, Christians could no longer make such claims. They not only engaged in constant bickering, but they began to resolve their differences in violent ways.

By this internal war among the Christians, continuous seditions arose in that city, and many lives were sacrificed in consequence of these occurrences. (The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus, 439, Bk. II, ch. 12)

This "internal war" in Constantinople was over the removal of a bishop by the Emperor Constantius (one of Constantine's three sons). While Constantius aroused much of the conflict, it was "Christians" who were killing one another over the choice of bishop. Think of it, their response was actually worse than that of American secular society over the election of the highly controversial Donald Trump. True, the United States has had numerous demonstrations, but no loss of life.

Even outside Constantinople, these Christians, newly "converted" by following Emperor Constantine into the Church, found violence the preferred method for dealing with dissatisfaction over the current bishop.

Dissension arose among the people [of Rome]; their disagreement being not about any article of faith or heresy, but simply as to who should be bishop. Hence frequent conflicts arose, insomuch that many lives were sacrificed in this contention. (The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus, 439, Bk. IV, ch. 29)

Simply put, in the fourth century, these kind of stories are not unusual. Notice the term "continuous" in the first passage from Socrates Scholasticus and "frequent" in the second. The shift from a peaceful people to a violent one is sufficient for me to call this change a fall of the Church, but it does not end there.

Pomp and Circumstance
Besides the violence and bickering, from the third to the fourth century there was a change in the structure of the churches that cannot be described in stories of the "Fall of the Church" section, but which must be pointed out and remembered.

Can any of us imagine Peter and Paul gladly being referred to as "the most holy and reverend" Peter and Paul? It is common today, and at the Council of Ephesus in 432, this is exactly how Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, referred to Celestine, archbishop of the church in Rome. Right afterward, Peter, an elder from Alexandria, refers to Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, as "his holiness" ("Council of Ephesus." Extracts from the Acts. Session 1. (Continued). In The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Series 2. Volume 14.)

Of course, none of us are surprised by this. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have only improved on those honorifics, not discarded them. Despite the fact that the apostles used no such honorific titles and Jesus forbad them (Matt. 23:8-12), the high churches revel in those titles, and evangelicals go on blissfully unaware that "Pastor," as a title rather than a description, is equally forbidden.

These honorifics were unknown among third-century bishops. For example, Cyprian, the famed bishop of Carthage, wrote to Stephen the bishop of Rome in the 250's addressing him merely as brother ("Letters of Cyprian" 6 in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5). Cornelius, Stephen's predecessor, addressed Cyprian in the same way ("Letters of Cyprian" 45). Again, it is only after the bishops became wards of the state under Constantine that they began to embrace titles fit for governors and princes rather than those fit for Christian leaders.

Jesus once told the apostles that it is the Gentiles whose rulers exercise authority and lord over them. His brief proscription of this was, "It shall not be so among you" (Mark 10:43).

There is one other issue that came in at the fall of the Church, something we typically do not even consider as a possible fault.

Nominal Christians
Today it is a given that most churches are made up primarily of nominal Christians. An example might be the first church my wife and I attended as a married couple. The church had a roll of around 700 members, but only about 200 turned up on a Sunday morning. Far fewer attended Sunday night training union and the varied events on Wednesday nights.

Because of this web site, I often receive emails suggesting that the information on my own web site ought to lead me to join the Roman Catholic or one of the Orthodox Churches. Sometimes this happens in person as well. In person, I often respond with this question: "Does your local church consist primarily of people who exhort and encourage one another, bail each other out of financial troubles, and share their possessions as needed? Or is it more like the Greek Orthodox folk in the movie 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding'?"

Virtually every time, they look dejected, then honestly admit their church is more like 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding' than the church as described by Luke in Acts and by the early Christians.

I have shown already that the churches of the second and third century loved one another, shared their possessions, and as a group they lived lives of sufficient virtue that they could fearlessly boasted that their lesser members were more virtuous than the typical Roman. Let's look at one more passage from them.

A second- or third-century Christian about whom we know almost nothing wrote an account of a debate between a Roman and a Christian. We don't know whether the debate was real or fiction, but Minucius Felix, the author, describes Christians in this way:

If you wish to compare Christians with yourselves, then even if in some things our discipline is inferior, yet we shall be found much better than you. (The Octavius, Argument 5)

Felix went on to add, "From your numbers the prisons boil over, but there is no Christian there unless he is accused on account of his religion or has deserted it" (ibid.).

In 1 Corinthians 5, the apostle Paul tells us that we should strive to keep the church unleavened. We do this by "purg[ing] the evil person from among you" (v. 13, ESV). Who does this today?

I have several personal stories about how modern (evangelical) churches not only do not purge themselves, but they oppose those individuals who try. Baptist churches still give letters for members who transfer to another Baptist church. (I commend them for this practice.) A friend of mine was part of a church that gave a somewhat negative letter of transfer to a church in another city. The receiving church was furious, even though the letter was accurate, and they forced my friend's church to rewrite the letter.

Another friend was helping to plant a new church when he found out that one of the couples in the church was living together outside of marriage. He went to the other elders to discuss the best way to approach and talk to the couple. The other elders not only refused to talk to the couple, but forbid him to do so as well. It was considered "meddling."

In the pre-Constantine churches, purging the loaf was taken seriously. Tertullian, mentioned earlier, who wrote right around the year 200, described the heartbreak felt if a church had to separate a member:

With great gravity the work of judging is carried on among us, as befits those who feel assured they are in the sight of God; and you have the most notable example of judgment to come when anyone has sinned so grievously as to require his severance from us in prayer, in the congregation, and in all sacred interaction. (Tertullian, Apology, ch. 39)

This is why the early Christians were able to boast the things they boasted. They not only were willing to purge the leaven from the loaf as Paul commanded in 1 Corinthians 5, but they were also willing to take steps to prevent that judgment from happening:

We assemble to read our sacred writings ... With the sacred words we nourish our faith, we animate our hope, we make our confidence more steadfast, and no less than by the inculcation of God's precepts we confirm good habits. In the same place also exhortations are made, rebukes and sacred censures are administered. (ibid.)

This kind of exhortation of one another is prescribed in the New Testament well. The writer of Hebrews tells us to "consider how to provoke one another to love and good works" (10:24) and to "exhort one another daily, while it is called today" (3:12).

This kind of thing happens today, but not as a regular part of our church meetings. Who goes to a service expecting to be personally exhorted or worse, rebuked?

In my church, we do watch over one another. In general, "rebukes and sacred censures," as Tertullian called them, are conducted in private, not at a church meeting, but even that horrifies modern Christians. One email I received charged us with "prying into one another's lives in the name of accountability."

The fact is that rather than having to pry into one another's lives, we choose to live our lives openly, in the light, expecting the aid of our brothers and sisters when our zeal flags or when there is trouble in our marriage. People don't need to pry; we ask for help. Jesus once said that if your brother offends you and you can't work it out, you should get one or two others for help (Matt. 18:16). We do that even with our marriages, and it has proven to be one of the greatest gift of living in community. In a world where divorce is common, many more couples could use such simple, friendly, loving, and free aid in their marriages.

The evidence for the success of such interaction is seen in our children, some of whom have moved on to other places and other churches as they have grown up. These youth, after they leave, complain that they cannot find friends who even understand the depth of friendship they experienced growing up.

This kind of cleansing of the church, this kind of closeness in the church, and the boasting that went along with it in the early churches is lost. The Church became practically a public institution under Constantine and his successors. Being baptized as a child and going through the various rituals of the church became practically a requirement of citizenship rather than a result of real transformation by the Spirit of God.

Losing the ability and desire to have the pure loaf Paul called for in 1 Corinthians may be the most significant sign that the Church fell once the churches' leaders began to cooperate with the Empire's leaders. Not only did we lose the practice of purging the leaven from the local church, we lost even the desire.

A Solution?
When I was younger, I was certain if I just announced all these facts, the churches—at least the ones that claimed to follow the Bible alone—would see the problem and go to work on it. I am sad to say that I found out over the last 35 years just how naive I was.

If you are a shepherd of some sort, I hope that you will take regard for the sheep of God that may be in your flock and give them what the apostles and their early successors gave them. They gave them oversight, care, and trained them how to build one another up (Eph. 4:11-16). They separated the sheep from the goats and wolves and brought them into one flock where that work could be done well. In mercy, they evangelized the goats and wolves, but they did not allow them into the flock unless they came in repentance and submission. Should they prove by their deeds not to be sheep, they were severed from the flock of God "in prayer, in the congregation, and in all sacred interaction" (Tertullian, Apology, ch. 39).

If you are not a shepherd, then perhaps the most important thing you can share with those that are not doing the things Jesus taught us to do is that one day we will all be judged by our works. The details of that judgment are given in Matthew 25:31-46 (the "Judgment of the Sheep and the Goats"). If they have already believed and been baptized, then what they need is repentance and obedience to Jesus. James tells us at the very end of his letter that if we can get our erring brothers and sisters to repent, then we are saving a soul from death (Jam. 5:20). Jude calls it snatching them out of the fire (v. 23).

Because of the evangelicals confused misunderstanding (abuse?) of the phrase "faith alone," they tend to oppose exhortation to good works and obedience. Because of that, I feel it necessary to remind you here that good works are the very purpose of the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and to remind you that the Scriptures twice promise the Holy Spirit to those who obey Jesus (Acts 5:32; Heb. 5:9). In fact, let me give you one more Scripture, desperately needed in these present times:

The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people. (Tit. 3:8)

Again I remind you that the works I am talking about are the ones for which you will one day be judged. Love is obviously central to the New Testament, and so you will find that according to Jesus, your judgment will hinge entirely on how you took care of those who needed you (Matt. 25:31-46).

A Glimpse of Early Christianity

Polycarp was a direct disciple of the apostle John. When he was 80 years old, Polycarp stood before a Roman proconsul, condemned to die. The proconsul felt worry for the aged Polycarp and gave him repeated instructions on how he might avoid the punishment that was in store for him. Polycarp was unimpressed, to say the least.

Polycarp: Since you keep wasting your time urging me on ... and pretend not to know who and what I am, listen to me announce with boldness: I am a Christian! But if you want to learn what the teachings of Christianity are, appoint me a day, and you shall hear them.

This irritated the proconsul, who decided to apply a little pressure to the old man.

Proconsul: I have wild beasts at hand. I will throw you to them if you do not repent.

No effect.

Polycarp: Call them, then. We are not used to repenting of what is good in order to adopt what is evil.

That was enough for the proconsul. No more Mr. Nice Guy.

Proconsul: If you will not repent, I will have you burned with fire, since you have no regard for the wild beasts!

This threat was no better. The 86-year-old Polycarp was up for a face-to-face confrontation.

Polycarp: You threaten me with fire that burns for an hour, then goes out after a little while. You are ignorant, however, of the fire of the coming judgment and of eternal punishment, reserved for the ungodly. What are you waiting for? Bring out whatever you want.

When he spoke these things, and many others like them, he was filled with confidence and joy. His face was so full of grace that not only did it seem like he was not troubled by anything said to him, but the proconsul was astonished.

The proconsul could take any more. He turned Polycarp over to the stadium crowd, which Polycarp had insulted minutes earlier by pointing his finger around the stadium and announcing, "Away with the atheists!" Christians were considered atheists because they did not believe in the many gods of the Romans, but Polycarp identified the Romans as the atheists because they did not believe in the true God of the universe, the Lord Jesus. Polycarp told the proconsul that the crowd was not worthy to hear the teachings of Christianity. The crown, in their rage, rushed out of the stadium to gather wood from anywhere they could find it, and bring it back to the stadium to build a pyre. When they went to tie Polycarp to the pyre, he told them to leave him be as his God would enable him to stand still amidst the flames. Polycarp was burned at the stake.

How many Christians today do you know of who have this kind of character? If you threatened most western Christians with this sort of torture, they would soon be offering incense and paying tribute to avoid it. They would denounce the Lord Jesus in order to save their own lives. But the early Christians knew Who and what they believed, and they counted their own lives as nothing. Their character and strength taught others after them to have the same character and strength. Today's Christians are spiritually weak on any number of levels.

Now you have an idea of what early Christianity was like, and what biblical Christians were like in the face of trials, tribulation, persecution, and death. Do you have such a backbone? Or are the things of this present world more enticing to you?

Professor Dave Expires

Dave Farina, a.k.a. “Professor Dave Explains,” has some excellent videos debunking the Flat Earth Theory. While he understands some science, he erroneously thinks he understands all science—without bothering to think about it or even question it. Like a typical atheist, Dave impales facts on his conviction of dogma and sacrifices logic, reason, common sense, and critical thinking on his altar of scientism. Richard Feynman has several words for people like Dave:

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

“Since then I never pay attention to anything by ‘experts.’ I calculate everything myself.”

“Don’t pay attention to ‘authorities,’ think for yourself.”

“Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, ‘Is it reasonable?’”

“SCIENCE:
If you don’t make mistakes, you’re doing it wrong.
If you don’t correct those mistakes, you’re really doing it wrong.
If you can’t accept you’re mistaken, you’re not doing it at all.”

“Modern education:
Creating people who are smart enough to accurately repeat what they are told and follow the orders.
And dumb enough to think this makes them smarter than everyone else.”

“The real problem with the education system is that it tests memorization skills, not learning or intelligence.
The two major aspects that lack in modern education systems are education and system.”

“The problem is not people being uneducated.
The problem is that people are educated just enough to believe what they have been taught, and not educated enough to question anything from what they have been taught.”

“When your ‘education’ limits your imagination it’s called indoctrination. Those who cannot think for themselves are truly lost.
Education should be a rewarding experience which allows you to think, imagine, question, doubt and solve problems.”

“Education isn’t about the ability to remember and repeat, in which people study to pass exams, and teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything.
It is the ability to learn from experience, to think, solve problems, and use our knowledge to adapt to new situations.”

“You cannot get educated by this self-propagating system in which people study to pass exams, and teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything.
You learn something by doing it yourself, by asking questions, by thinking, and by experimenting.”

“The goal of teaching should not be to help the students learn how to memorize and spit out information under academic pressure.
The purpose of teaching is to inspire the desire for learning in them and make them able to think, understand, and question.”

“Never confuse education with intelligence. You can have a Ph.D. and still be an idiot.”

“When you are dead, you don’t know you are dead. It’s pain only for others.
It’s the same thing when you are stupid.”

“Be careful when you follow the masses. Sometimes the M is silent.”

Science is empirical and objective. It is testable, observable, and repeatable. If you cannot do any of that, if it begins and ends at the hypothesis, then it is not science! Science is not consensus, and consensus is not science—consensus is invoked where the science is not strong; science is not peer review, and peer review is not science—that is academia. Neither consensus nor peer review has anything to do with legitimate science.

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” ―Galileo Galilei

In the same vein that Dave challenged flat-Earthers, I challenged his perceptions. I issued him a number of questions regarding “Big Bang” and “Evolution” (that no scientist has been able to answer competently, coherently, logically, or honestly), as well as burdened him with a mountain of evidence that utterly obliterates his beliefs and the nonsense that he ignorantly spewed in his 1000th video, Everything You Need to Know (And Forget) About Vaccines.

The following articles consist of some of the information I burdened Dave with, challenging his misconceptions of truth and reality when it comes to medicine and so-called “vaccines”:

• The TRUTH About “Contagion”
• FACTS About Polio
• FACTS About Measles
• FACTS About the DPT “Vaccine”
• FACTS About Influenza/Common Cold
• FACTS About Smallpox
• FACTS About AIDS and “HIV”
• FACTS About “Viruses”
• FACTS About “Vaccines”
• FACTS About Autism

Here are the questions I posed to Dave concerning “Big Bang” and “Evolution”:

“...the observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It's then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.” —Alan Guth, Scientific American (May, 1984), 128.

“In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing.” —Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, General Science (1989), 362.

“Most astronomers believe that about 15 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded.” —Prentice Hall, General Science (1992), 61.

Let us use our brains—our critical thinking faculties and common sense—and ask some serious penetrating questions, shall we?

1. If all the dust and dirt in the universe came together and it formed a ball no bigger than a period on a page, what made it come together? Where did gravity come from?
2. How did this ball no bigger than a period on a page start spinning? Where did the energy come from?
3. As science teaches, when something falls off an object in motion, it continues spinning in the same direction until it encounters resistance. They explode outward. “Nothing means nothing,” remember? The further out they go, the further they are from each other. There is no resistance for them to encounter? How is it that we have planets and moons spinning backwards and travelling backwards?
4. If all the dust and dirt in the universe came together and it formed a ball no bigger than a period on a page, how did Earth become so large? How do we have such large planets and moons? Especially given the fact that when this period-sized ball of dirt exploded, the pieces would be even smaller. It is rather difficult to accumulate more dust and dirt when all the dust and dirt in the universe was only enough to create a period-sized ball. Where did the excess dust and dirt magically come from?
5. If Earth was a hot, molten ball, where did the heat come from? Where did enough heat come from to make it such? You are in the cold vacuum of space. Something the size of a period on a page, suddenly exploding and becoming even smaller, would cool off extremely fast in the cold vacuum of space.
6. From this hot, molten ball, where did the water come from to cool it off? How did it manage to create its own hydrologic cycle? How did it manage to create its own atmosphere? How did it manage to create its own weather? How did it manage to create its own oxygen, hydrogen, etc.?
7. Since only dust and dirt existed all those “billions” of years ago, from this hot, molten ball that somehow magically accumulated more dust and dirt, where did all our minerals and metals come from? Gold, silver, copper, bronze, etc.
8. From this hot, molten ball, where did life, even a one-celled organism, magically come from? Remember, you have a hot, molten ball that somehow magically got rained on in order to cool it off. How did all animal and vegetable come into existence? Basic biology teaches that everything reproduces after its own kind. You can have loss of information, such as a child being born without an arm or a leg; you can have mutated information, such as a child being born with an extra arm or leg; but you cannot have added information, such as a child being born with wings. The information that every plant and animal has is unique to itself. It can lose information during reproduction; it can have mutated information during reproduction; but it will never add new information during reproduction. The reason one type of dog can breed with another type of dog and the result be a dog, or one type of horse can breed with another type of horse and the result be a horse, is because they are the same kind of animal with the same ancestor. Bananas and dogs did not come from the same place. Humans did not come from chimpanzees. If we were the same, we could mate with each other and produce offspring, which we cannot!

Ask any self-professed scientist these questions and their typical answer is, “I don’t know.” The “Big Bang” and “Evolution” both defy the Laws of Thermodynamics, as well as several other laws of the universe. This is the nonsense we were taught in public school. This is the nonsense being taught to your children in public school. There is not one ounce of “science” behind this nonsense. It is 100% belief! I repeat: Real science is empirical. It is testable, observable, and repeatable. If you cannot do any of that to it, if it begins and ends at a hypothesis, then it is not science! Period!

Atheists attempt to mock Christians for their beliefs, but, honestly, whose beliefs are more worthy to be mocked? Dirt is eternal; dirt created everything; animal, vegetable, and mineral evolved from . . . a rock!  A rock magically created oxygen, hydrogen, etc. A rock magically created its own hydrologic cycle. A rock magically created animal, vegetable, and mineral. Hmm... Something wrong with this picture... Maybe having a functioning brain and understanding logic and common sense has skewed my understanding of reality.

While we are at it, here are some probing questions to show the utter ridiculousness of the theory of “Evolution”:

1. When, where, why, and how did single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two- and three-celled intermediates?)
2. When, where, why, and how did single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two- and three-celled intermediates?)
3. When, where, why, and how did single-celled animals evolve?
4. When, where, why, and how did fish change to amphibians?
5. When, where, why, and how did amphibians change to reptiles?
6. When, where, why, and how did reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?
7. When, where, why, how, and from what did whales evolve?
8. When, where, why, how, and from what did sea horses evolve?
9. When, where, why, how, and from what bats evolve?
10. When, where, why, how, and from what eyes evolve?
11. When, where, why, how, and from what ears evolve?
12. When, where, why, how, and from what hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
13. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
    1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
    2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
    3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
    4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
    5. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
    6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
    7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
    8. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
    9. The immune system or the need for it?
14. How did photosynthesis evolve?
15. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?

As anyone with critical thinking faculties and common sense can see, the “Big Bang” theory and the theory of “Evolution” are complete nonsense. There is zero “science” involved here. There is speculation, imagination, pseudo-science, non-science, and nonsense, but zero legitimate science based on the scientific method.

Atheists and Evolutionists, I challenge you to,

1. Give me an example of testable, observable, repeatable evidence of matter (dirt) creating DNA.
2. Give me an example of testable, observable, repeatable evidence of life magically appearing from a hot molten rock being rained upon.
3. Give me an example of testable, observable, repeatable evidence of one species (flamingo) transitioning into another species (elephant).

There is not one single transitional fossil in existence! Why? Evolution is not a fact. There is zero evidence to support Evolution. Atheists believe in Evolution by faith. Not by science. It takes more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe in God. Something has to be eternal. For the atheist, it is dirt; dirt created everything. For the Christian, it is God. Simple logic, common sense, and objective thought let you know which one of these is completely ludicrous.

I also challenged Dave on his false beliefs concerning gender and sex. Due to lack of critical thinking, he believes the two are separate things. I offered to provide him scans from various English dictionaries dating from the 1700s to at least 2010, showing that the two words are synonymous (a word Dave obviously does not understand), interchangeable with each other. I also offered to provide him the evidence showing that homosexuals know they are not born gay and that they have pursued the same agenda for the past 50 years to convince the public that they are and that they should be accepted as they are. Whether Dave wants to accept it or not, homosexuality and transgenderism are mental disorders and perverse behaviours.

The last thing I said to Dave after issuing my challenge was this:

If you wish to discuss anything I have shared with you, providing you can have a serious, mature, respectful, intelligent, rational, honest conversation, then I look forward to hearing from you. If you are merely going to engage in the typical Leftist tactics of denial, deflection, projection, censorship, “cancelling,” manipulation, smearing, gaslighting, jamming, framing, ad hominem, name calling, character assassination, and the use of fallacious arguments that have no basis in reality, then do not bother wasting either of our time.

When you see ad hominem attack, when you see someone going after the individual in order to circumvent what they are saying, in order to dodge and evade the issues (often by way of obfuscation, technicalities, ambiguous language, and equivocation), being unable to argue the main point and never providing a reasonable refutation or an intelligent counter-argument (merely presenting subjective opinions and irrational feelings), that is a person speaking by way of confession of intellectual bankruptcy.

Why did I say this? Because I am extremely familiar with people like Dave. They are a dime a dozen. This is their typical go-to behaviour and strategy when someone challenges their self-proclaimed intelligence. All “authorities,” “experts,” and “professors” (including "theologians" and "scholars") react this way because their fragile egos are easily threatened.

What did “Professor Dave Explains” do with my challenge? He blocked me! *LOL* Why? Because he knows he cannot answer my challenges, and he is not interested in the truth or conforming his beliefs with the facts. He would rather impale facts on his conviction of dogma and sacrifice logic, reason, common sense, and critical thinking on his altar of scientism.

Atheists like to think they are smarter than they actually are. They tend to think they are some sort of science guru without actually understanding what science is—especially Millennials and GenZ-ers. For the third time: Science is empirical and objective. It is testable, observable, and repeatable. If you cannot do any of that, if it begins and ends at the hypothesis, then it is not science! Science is not consensus, and consensus is not science; science is not peer review, and peer review is not science—that is academia. Neither consensus nor peer review has anything to do with legitimate science.

Dave’s 1000th video discusses a topic he has never bothered to research and educate himself on. If ignorance truly is bliss, by willfully choosing to ignore, deny, or reject the facts, atheists must be living in Paradise. Best of luck to them.

“What is science? People talk glibly about science; what is science? People coming out of University with a Master's Degree or a PhD, you take them into the field and they literally don’t believe anything unless it’s a peer-reviewed paper. It’s the only thing they accept. You say to them, ‘Let’s observe, let’s think, let’s discuss’; they don’t do it. ‘Is it in a peer-reviewed paper or not?’ That’s their view of science. I think it’s pathetic. Going into Universities as bright people, but coming out of them brain dead, not even knowing what science means. They think it means peer-reviewed papers, etc. No, that’s Academia, and if a paper’s peer-reviewed, it means everybody thought the same, therefore they approved it. An unintended consequence is that when new knowledge emerges, new scientific insights, they can never ever be peer-reviewed. So we’re blocking all new advances in science, that are big advances. If you look at the breakthroughs in science, almost always they don’t come from the center of that profession; they come from the fringe, people who see it differently. The finest candle makers in the world couldn’t even think of electric lights. They don’t come from within, they often come from outside the breaks. We’re going to kill ourselves because of stupidity.” —Allen Savory

An Indictment Against Spiritual Weakness

"We know more about the Bible today than at any period in history."

Really? How do you figure? Most of what we think we "know" is incorrect, especially that which is derived at by means of proof text methodology or eisegeted by means of the Western mindset. Even if we do know more about the Bible, our lives are more shallow and spiritually weak than at any other point in Christian history. That is a fact! A simple comparison of the lives of the early Christians (A.D. 30-300) with our lives should prompt us to drop to our knees in shame, conviction (possibly even condemnation), and repentance. Observe a few examples:

Justin the Martyr describing Christian love:

"We who used to value the acquisition of wealth and possessions more than anything else now bring what we have into a common fund and share it with anyone who needs it. We used to hate and destroy one another and refused to associate with people of another ethnicity or country. Now, because of Christ, we live together with such people and pray for our enemies."

Clement of Alexandria describing the person who has come to know God:

"He impoverishes himself out of love, so that he is certain he may never overlook a brother in need, especially if he knows he can bear poverty better than his brother. He likewise considers the pain of another as his own pain. And if he suffers any hardship because of having given out of his own poverty, he does not complain."

How many Christians do you know today who either do this or are willing to do this? "Christians" today have a "I worked for it, it's my money" individualistic mindset. This tragedy was brought to us by the Renaissance. The European and North American mindset is extremely selfish and individualistic, while the rest of the world, and the Bible world, are extremely collectivistic. A single example will prove the case: When the Philippian jailer believed, his entire family was baptized. The Greek says that he (singular) believed and that his family (plural) were baptized.

Read the book of Acts, how the Christians sold all their goods and shared with the Congregation so that all had all things in common. How many Christians do you see doing this today? How many Christians who no longer need their house because their children are grown are willing to give it up to families that are in need, or to sell it to them at a reasonable cost? I made my mind up quite some time ago—perhaps it was the moving of the Lord—that this is precisely what I would like to do. I have a desire to move just about anywhere else in the world where actual believers come together to help other believers, much like you see the Amish do. They all get together and build houses and barns and enjoy a feast together while fellowshipping.

Consider this attitude of the early Christians:

A pagan actor became a Christian, but he realized he had to change his employment because most plays encouraged immorality and were steeped in pagan idolatry. Furthermore, the theater sometimes purposefully turned boys into homosexuals so they could better play the roles of women on stage. Since this newly-converted actor had no other job skills, he considered establishing an acting school to teach drama to non-Christian students. However, he first submitted his idea to his congregation for their counsel.
The congregation told him that if acting was an immoral profession then it would be wrong to train others in it. Nevertheless, since this was a rather novel question, they wrote to Cyprian in Carthage for his thoughts. Cyprian agreed that a profession unfit for a Christian to practice was also unfit for him to teach, even if this was his sole means of support.
How many of us would be so concerned about righteousness that we would submit our employment decisions to our congregation? How many congregations today would be so concerned about offending God that they would take such an uncompromising position?
But that isn't the end of the story. Cyprian also told this neighbouring congregation that they should be willing to support the actor if he had not other means of earning a living— just as they supported orphans, widows, and other needy persons. Going further, he wrote, "If your congregation is financially unable to support him, he may move over to us and here receive whatever he needs for food and clothing." Cyprian and his congregation didn't even know this actor, yet they were willing to support him because he was a fellow believer. As one Christian told the Romans, "We love one another with a mutual love because we do not know how to hate." If Christians today made such a statement to the world, would the world believe it?

This is the kind of Christian love that I have been talking about for quite some time. When a believer from a different denomination is struggling, how many "Christians" from other denominations come to their aid or are willing to help? They will barely even lift a finger for someone in their own congregation unless that person is part of their own particular clique! Is this how we learned Christ? If Jesus wrote letters to our congregations today, how do you think they would read? I can guarantee that they would not be very flattering.

Modern-day "Christians" should promptly meditate on this and weep despairingly:

"When a devastating plague swept across the ancient world in the third century, Christians were the only ones who cared for the sick, which they did at the risk of contracting the plague themselves. Meanwhile, pagans were throwing infected members of their own families into the streets even before they died, in order to protect themselves from the disease."

This is one of the most telling examples of how shallow and spiritually weak Christian lives are today. A scam the likes of which we have never seen before, on a grand scale, engulfed the entire world and convinced them to do things they never would have done before, and that were contrary to their own planned measures, and what did we witness? "Christians" behaved in the exact same manner as we see recorded here concerning the pagans! That is an indictment in itself against modern "Christians." So-called "leaders" of so-called "churches" basically paid tribute to Caesar and closed their doors rather than attracting persecution, and their body of believers were content with this. Can you see the problem with our so-called professed faith? If these gene-altering bio-weapons falsely called "vaccines" were "the mark of the beast," how many "Christians" rushed out to get them, and continue to do so?

Even if we did know more about the Bible, we know less about walking in obedience. We tend to take Jesus' commands as mere suggestions and make excuses as to why we are not obeying. Do you honestly believe the early Christians were super Christians? That they could do things that we cannot? Sorry, but the problem is that your faith is shallow and weak, if it is even genuine to begin with. You have zero trust in God. You are a walking, talking double-minded and double-tongued hypocrite. You say one thing about your "faith" with your talk, but say a completely different thing with your walk.

"As to anyone who teaches principles to live by and molds the characters of others, I ask, "Is he not obligated himself to live by the principles he teaches?" If he himself does not live by them, his teaching is nullified. ...His student will answer him like this, "I cannot practice the things you teach, because they are impossible. You forbid me to be angry. You forbid me to covet. You forbid me to lust. And you forbid me to fear pain and death. This is totally contrary to nature; all living creatures are subject to these emotions. If you are so convinced that it is possible to live contrary to natural impulses, first let me see you practice the things you teach so I will know they are possible." ...
How will [the teacher] take away this excuse from the self-willed, unless he teaches them by his example, so they can see with their own eyes that the things he teaches are possible? For this very reason, no one obeys the teachings of the philosophers. Men prefer examples to words, because it is easy to speak—but difficult to act." —Lactantius

How many Christians do you witness today teaching you how to be a biblical Christian by way of their example? Do any of your so-called "leaders" live according to what you just witnessed above? Are they willing to stand in the way of the line of fire for you? What kind of example are they giving you? How to live lavishly among the heathen so you cannot tell them apart? Have you ever read any of the things the Romans wrote about the early Christians? How many Christians today do you think would fit their descriptions?

A Pagan Antagonist of Christians: "[Christians] despise the temples as houses of the dead. They reject the gods. They laugh at sacred things. Wretched, they pity our priests. Half-naked themselves, they despise honours and purple robes. What incredible audacity and foolishness! They are not afraid of present torments, but they fear those that are uncertain and future. While they do not fear to die for the present, they fear to die after death....
At least learn from your present situation, you wretched people, what actually awaits you after death. See, many of you—in fact, by your own admission, the majority of you—are in want, are cold, are hungry, and are labouring in hard work. Yet, your god allows it. He is either unwilling or unable to assist his people. So he is either weak or unjust.... Take notice! For you there are threats, punishments, tortures, and crosses.... Where is the god who is supposed to help you when you come back from the dead? He cannot even help you in this life! Do not the Romans without any help from your god, govern, rule over, and have the enjoyment of the whole world, including dominion over you yourselves?
In the meantime, living in suspense and anxiety, you abstain from respectable pleasures. you do not attend sporting events. You have no interest in public amusements. You reject the public banquets, and abhor the sacred games.... Thus, wretched as you are, you will neither rise from the dead, nor enjoy life in the meanwhile. So, if you have any wisdom or sense, stop prying into the heavens and the destinies and secrets of the world.... Persons who are unable to understand civil matters are certainly unable to discuss divine ones."

Western "Christians" think Christianity is Capitalist. I challenge any one of these professing "Christians" to read the words of the early Christians and their critics and then attempt to defend such a demonic belief. Christianity is social by its very existence. Read the first two quotes above and try and tell me any different. The Capitalist "Christian" will find his beliefs to be challenged and condemned by not only Scripture, but also the first three centuries of the Lord's Congregation. Anyone who thinks Christianity is Capitalist has a different gospel and a different God. If you would like to debate me on this, let's have at it. I will be waiting...

Covidian Cult Refuted - UPDATE

re: Covidian Cult Refuted

Well, well, well... would you look at that... I was right!!!

In the latter part of 2021 on my Facebook (Monday, January 3, 2022 on my MeWe), I shared the stats for the previous three years, which showed that from 2018 to 2020, the death rate was exactly identical at .76%, proving that there was never a "pandemic" during 2020. With the roll out of the so-called "vaccines," I guess-timated that the death rate for 2021 would be between .86% and .96%.

2021 World Population: 7,909,295,151

2021 All-cause Deaths: 69,250,000+

2021 Death Rate: .88%
(Even though the 69,250,000 all-cause mortality is rounded, whether the next four numbers were 1,111 or 9,999 would not matter as it will still calculate to .88%.)

All-cause mortality is the absolute best scientific medical data that we have. It has no agenda and is not biased. A death is a death. 2020's all-cause mortality was exactly identical to the previous two years at .76%. With the roll out of these so-called "vaccines," that are really gene-altering bio-weapons, 2021's all-cause mortality shot up to .88%! Tell me, all you Covidian Covidiot Vaxtard Cult clowns, what is the real pandemic?

Upsetting the Status Quo

The establishment fears people like me because we upset the status quo. By "establishment" I am speaking of the organized religious institutions falsely calling themselves "churches" under some semblance of "Christianity."

I am nobody, at least in the eyes of men. I am nothing special and have nothing special to offer. But, because I expose their deeds of darkness and challenge their power, positions, popularity, and pay checks, offered to them by their false religious systems, they attempt to shoot the messenger by hating me (a very un-Christ-like attitude) and fallaciously trying to label me a "heretic."

Because the truth is not on their side, and they are incapable of having a serious, mature, respectful, intelligent, rational, honest conversation concerning the issues I raise against their man-made traditions and proof-texted theological interpretations, they have to resort to denial, deflection, projection, manipulation, smearing, gaslighting, jamming, framing, ad hominem, name calling, character assassination, and the use of fallacious arguments that have no basis in reality. Because they have been exposed, and because they are unable to argue the main point and can never provide a reasonable refutation or an intelligent counter-argument, they have to go after my character in order to circumvent what I am saying, in order to dodge and evade the issues, which is merely a confession of intellectual bankruptcy on their part. In other words, they speak by way of the Devil.

Such people can hate me and attack me personally as much as they want. I will continue to love them as Jesus loved me, because that is what my Saviour taught me to do. As I have said before, I will not attempt to play the victim and falsely call it "persecution." People disagreeing with you or attacking your character is not "persecution." The people who pretend that it is and cry a foul betray their own ignorance. When they start beating you physically, nailing you to crosses, hanging you from trees, feeding you to animals, boiling you in oil, or any other means of torturing you because of your faith, then, and only then, can you claim that you are being persecuted.

Yes, I suppose when compared to their false religious systems I would be considered a "heretic," but when compared to the beliefs, practices, and traditions of the apostles and the early Christians (A.D. 70-300), these people are the real heretics. When you believe a lie, of course the truth will appear "heretical" to you. When you are insane, of course sane people will appear "heretical" to you. If you are an agoraphobic mysophobe (germaphobe), of course everyone else not constantly paranoid of bacteria will seem out of their mind to you. Observe the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses; they believe complete and utter nonsense (Mormon's believe Jesus is Lucifer's spiritual brother), and yet every other mainstream or evangelical denomination is considered a cult to them.

I am sorry if you do not have the character, integrity, honor, or fortitude to be able to acknowledge your wrong doctrines and beliefs and to humbly conform them, and yourself, to biblical truth. That is not my problem. You are the one who will stand before God and give account. For the past 20 years or so, my prayer has always been that regardless of how I was raised, regardless of what I was taught, and regardless of what I presently believe, that God would reveal His truth to me and help me to conform myself and my beliefs to that truth. We are to conform to Scripture; Scripture never conforms to us! It boggles my mind how so many Christians are afraid of admitting they were wrong and of changing themselves. Pride truly is the grandest of all sins.

As I read and study the early Christians and what they believed, I will no doubt write articles to refute some of my previous articles. At some point, I will likely also delete some of my previous articles that would be considered heresy by the early Christians, so that they will not hurt my brothers and sisters in the faith who are not as strong as I am and have not yet arrived at the same point as I have. Anyone who has followed this blog from the beginning, since 2010, can easily see how some of my beliefs have changed and matured over time. Those who are not familiar with me might be surprised to know that I was brought up under, and defended, Dispensational doctrines until just over 15 years ago. As I studied my Bible, their doctrines began to develop some severe holes. As such, I had to let them go and conform to Scripture.

My beliefs then began to align with Reformed doctrines. Most recently, having been reading the early Christians, I discovered that a lot of the "Reformed" beliefs actually originated with the Gnostics, which the early Christians rejected as heresy. Not only that, but several passages of Scripture contradict Calvinistic theology. Once again, I had to let them go and conform to Scripture.

As I have also said before, I am not saying that there are no true believers in these false religious systems, or that I am the only true Christian. I know for a fact that there are genuine believers in Christ Jesus who have been seduced and deceived by these organized religious institutions. People will foolishly ask, "If they're not from God, then why do they exist?" Yahweh uses a great many imperfect and erroneous things in order to accomplish His will. Including us. We could screw up a gospel encounter royally, and Yahweh can still use it for His glory.

If you truly know Christ Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, and your life reflects Him through obedience to His commands and holiness in living, and you are starving for genuine Christian fellowship, then please reach out to me. I would love to get to know you. As with the Colossians before me (and arguably the Ephesians, depending what you believe about this letter), I love all the saints, regardless of their denominational background. Feel free to contact me through my website: https://timothyklaver.com

As for all you "elders" falsely called, and all you sheeple who would blindly defend these "elders" to your own error, are you wiser than Yahweh? You are 1,900 years removed from the apostles, and yet you think you know more than they did? That your proof-texted theological interpretations ignoring context are correct? The early Christians (A.D. 70-300) were a few decades removed from the apostles, and yet you think they were ignorant? That they did not understand the faith, or Yahweh's word? The arrogance! A simple comparison of their lives with yours will reveal you to be spiritually weak and ignorant. They walked what they talked. You are afraid of persecution and have embraced a false doctrine that says you will be "raptured" before you ever have to endure persecution and the testing of your faith. The last two years served as an excellent example of the kind of professed faith you have and how you would fare under persecution. Governments told you to shut your doors and you tucked your tail and complied for fear of persecution. You essentially paid tribute to Caesar in order to avoid persecution. Your actions have spoken loud and clear for your "faith."

Sorry, but what the "church" has taught for the past 1,700 years compared to what the Lord's Congregation taught for the first 300 years, I will take the early Christians any day of the week. If you think you have "refined" doctrine for the past 1,700 years, your ignorance betrays you. I pray Yahweh grips your heart, removes the scales from your eyes, humbles your pride, and allows you to see and embrace His truth. If you insist on opposing Yahweh and attempting to defend your godless religious systems, then I wish you the best of luck. I will continue to love you and pray for you.

Yahweh did not give us church buildings. Yahweh did not give us a hierarchical priestly caste. Yahweh did not tell us to pay our "elders." The early Christians have spoken, and the two centuries following the life of Jesus and the apostles oppose such things. These things have their origin, and became entrenched, with Emperor Constantine. Everything about them, and about our "worship" services, have their origins in paganism. If you were not trying to find support for them from the Bible by engaging in proof text methodology, you would be able to see this clearly. I pray Yahweh helps you.

May the grace of Yahweh be on all who seek the truth and to be obedient to the words of Jesus.

Oblivious

In his latest letter (October 14, 2022), John MacArthur is absolutely correct in stating that "Man's pride and the love of his own ingenuity get in the way." In his arrogant pride, man believes that "after all the centuries" he has "refined doctrine" by his constant use of proof text methodology. It is just sad that MacArthur is not aware of his own "false approaches to truth" that "intrude on, confuse, and debilitate" the congregation.

As I exposed before, in the days of the early Congregation ("Church"), there was a religious group who strongly disputed the Congregation's stance on salvation and works. This religious group taught that man is totally depraved, that we are saved solely by grace, that works play no role in our salvation, and that we cannot lose our salvation once we obtain it. This religious group was labeled as heretics by the early Christians.

You might be thinking, "This group of 'heretics' were the real Christians while these 'orthodox' Christians were really heretics." However, such a conclusion is impossible. Who was this religious group?

The Gnostics!

If you think the Gnostics were "true Christians," observe what the apostle John said about them: "Many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist" (2 John 7).

If our evangelical doctrine of salvation is true, we are faced with the uncomfortable reality that this doctrine was first taught by "deceivers and antichrists" before it was taught by Luther, Calvin, and others. According to MacArthur's own beliefs, he would be considered a heretic by the early Christians. MacArthur believes man is totally depraved. MacArthur believes we are saved solely by grace. MacArthur believes that works play no role in our salvation. MacArthur believes that we cannot lose our salvation once we obtain it. MacArthur also believes in Jewish myths, such as found in the Dispensational proof texting of Scripture.

MacArthur is ignorant enough to believe that we, being 1,900 years removed from the lives of the apostles, teach doctrine that is the most accurate to the apostles, compared with the early Christians, who were within a few decades of their lives. Yet, a simple comparison of what he believes and teaches would render him a heretic according to their own beliefs and teachings. Is MacArthur so arrogant and proud as to claim that the early Christians had it wrong? That they were not as intelligent and "educated" as we are? Maybe MacArthur needs a re-education in what Jesus said: "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants" (Matt. 11:25).

With all his schooling, it is of little doubt that MacArthur thinks of himself as "wise and intelligent," and those without his high fallootin education as "ordinary and uneducated." It is extremely sad how God "has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and...the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong" (1 Cor. 1:27), and people like MacArthur blindly think the reverse. People like MacArthur have to attend years of schooling in order to become "wise and intelligent" concerning the Scriptures, and yet intellectual "babes" can understand matters of the kingdom better than cerebral academics.

We need to rid ourselves of the fallacious idea that former generations were nothing but ignorant hillbilly hicks that did not know anything and that we, because of our technological advancement, are somehow more intelligent than they were. Nine times out of ten when you compare past generations, they were more intelligent than we are today. We have forgotten everything they knew how to do. Can men, without machinery, build the pyramids today? Or any of the Incan architecture? Since we cannot do the things they once did, perhaps we should keep our mouths shut and humble ourselves before their accomplishments. The early Christians had a better grasp on the faith than "educated" Bible teachers like to give them credit for. To most modern preachers, the early Christians were nothing but ignorant bumpkins.

For anyone who is honest in the least, and bothers to pay attention to Christian history, it was the "wise and intelligent," the highly educated, who slowly corrupted and destroyed biblical Christianity. Augustine, Luther, and Calvin are just a handful of excellent examples. Anyone who disagrees with this is in denial, and they betray their own ignorance.

Why can more Christians not be like me? Regardless of how I was raised, what I was taught, or what I presently believe, I seek to conform myself entirely to the truth of God's Word. Most Christians, tragically, would rather bury their head in the sand and continue believing whatever they have been taught, regardless of whether there is a shred of truth behind it or not. They are afraid to admit they have been wrong and to correct their beliefs. We need to do better. We need to lose our pride, arrogance, and stubbornness, and gain humility and meekness. There is nothing wrong with admitting you have been wrong.

"It is a small and narrow mind that is afraid to change; it is a sign of greatness that one is prepared to admit at times that one has been mistaken, and that therefore you have had to change your position." ―David Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Biblical Congregational Meetings

Tertullian stated,

"I say that my gospel is the true one. Marcion [a leading Gnostic teacher] says that his is. I say that Marcion's gospel is adulterated. He says mine is. Now, how can we settle this stand-off, unless we use the principle of time. According to this principle, authority lies with the one who is prior in time. It's based on the elemental truth that corruption (of doctrine) lies with the one who is shown to have originated later in time. Since error is falsification of truth, truth must necessarily precede error."

Why do Christians today choose traditions that were first practiced 1,500 years or so after the deaths of the apostles over ones that were practiced within a few decades of their lives? Who necessarily speaks the truth of biblical faith? Who are you going to listen to? The Reformers, with their "reform" that sought to improve the existing Catholic institution, who were 1,500 years removed from the practices and traditions of the apostles and the early Christians? Modern preachers, with no clue what they are talking about while continually engaging in the proof text methodology, who are 1,900 years removed from the practices and traditions of the apostles and the early Christians? Or the early Christians themselves?

Since modern Christians refuse to pay attention to what God's Word has to say without engaging in proof text methodology, let us look to what the early Christians practiced:

CHRISTIAN ASSEMBLIES
"They continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers." Acts 2:42

"Let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together." Hebrews 10:25

"Every day, you should seek out the faces of the saints, by word examining them and going to exhort them, meditating how to save a soul by the word. Or else, by your hands, you should labor for the redemption of your sins. You shall not hesitate to give, nor murmur when you give." —Barnabas (c. 70-130, E)

"Every day, seek out the faces of the saints, so that you may be refreshed by their words." —Didache (c. 80-140, E)

"For when you assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed." —Ignatius (c. 105, E)

"Let your assembling together be of frequent occurrence." —Ignatius (c. 105, E)

"But after we have baptized the one who has been convinced and who has agreed to our teaching, we bring him to the place where those who are called brothers are assembled. There, we offer heartfelt prayers in common both for ourselves and for the baptized person—and for all others in every place—so that we may be counted worthy. . . . Having ended the prayers, we greet one another with a kiss. Then there is brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water." —Justin Martyr (c. 160, E)

"And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place. And the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs us and exhorts us to imitate these good things. Then we all rise together and pray. And, as we said before, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought. Then, the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability. And the people assent, saying "Amen." Then, [the Eucharist] is distributed to everyone, and everyone participates in [the bread and wine], over which thanks has been given. And a portion of it is sent by the deacons to those who are absent." —Justin Martyr (c. 160, E)

"Rusticus, the prefect, said, "Where do you assemble?" Justin Martyr replied, "Where each one chooses and is able. Do you imagine that we all meet in the very same place? . . . Then Rusticus, the prefect, said, "Tell me where you assemble, or into what place do you collect your followers?" Justin Martyr replied, "I live above one Martinus, at the Timiotinian Bath. And during the whole time . . . I am unaware of any other meeting than his."" —Martyrdom of the Holy Martyrs (c. 160, E)

"It is said that we should go to the sacrifices and prayers washed, clean, and bright. It is said that this external adornment and purification are practiced for a sign." —Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E)

"Pliny [a Roman official] found in the religious services nothing but meetings at early morning for singing hymns to Christ and God, and sealing home their way of life by a united pledge to be faithful to their religion, forbidding murder, adultery, dishonestly, and other crimes." —Tertullian (c. 197, W)

"We are a body knit together as such by a common religious profession, by unity of discipline, and by the bond of a common hope. We meet together as an assembly and congregation so that, offering up prayer to God with united force, we may wrestle with Him in our supplications. God delights in this "violence." We pray, too, for the emperors, for their ministers and for all in authority, for the welfare of the world, for the prevalence of peace, and for the delay of the final consummation. We assemble to read our sacred writings." —Tertullian (c. 197, W)

"We assemble together with the same quietness with which we live as individuals." —Mark Minucius Felix (c. 200, W)

The following passage was addressed to those who were afraid of attracting persecution:

"You say that the pagans are led to inquire about us—seeing that we assemble without order, and assemble at the same time, and flock in large numbers to the congregation. you are alarmed that we may awaken their anxieties." —Tertullian (c. 212, W)

"But you say, "How will we assemble together [if we do not pay tribute to avoid persecution]?" To be sure, just as the apostles also did—who were protected by faith, not by money. . . . Finally, if you cannot assemble by day, you have the night—the light of Christ luminous against its darkness. . . . Be content with a congregation of threes. It is better that you sometimes should not see the crowds [of other Christians], than to subject yourselves [to paying tribute]." —Tertullian (c. 212, W)

"[Spoken as a Rebuke:] "Moreover, the women assemble as if they were about to enter the bath. They press closely and treat God's house as if it were a fair. . . . You speak in an undisciplined manner, as if God were absent." —Commodianus (c. 240, W)

"First [the persecutors] drove us away. And although we were quite alone, pursued by everyone, and in danger of being killed, we kept our festival even at such a time. And every place that had been the scene of some of the continuing sufferings that befell any of us, it became a seat for our solemn assemblies—whether it was a field, desert, ship, inn, or prison." —Dionysius of Alexandria (c. 262, E)

CONGREGATIONAL BUILDINGS
"Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." . . . But He was speaking of the temple of His body." John 2:19, 21

"God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands." Acts 17:24

"Likewise greet the congregation that is in their house." Romans 16:5

"You are the temple of the living God." 2 Corinthians 6:16

"The Word, prohibiting all sacrifices and the building of temples, indicates that the Almighty is not contained in anything." —Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E)

"We refuse to build lifeless temples to the Giver of all life. . . . Our bodies are the temple of God. If anyone defiles the temple of God by lust or sin, he will himself be destroyed for acting impiously towards the true temple. Of all the temples spoken of in this sense, the best and most excellent was the pure and holy body of our Savior Jesus Christ. . . . He said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it again. This He said of the temple of His body." . . . When they reproach us for not deeming it necessary to worship the divine Being by raising lifeless temples, we set before them our temples." —Origen (c. 248, E)

"You say that we build no temples to [the gods] and do not worship their images. . . . Well, what greater honor or dignity could we ascribe to them than that we put them in the same position as the Head and Lord of the universe! . . . Do we honor Him with shrines and by building temples? —Arnobius (c. 305, E)

"Some were swift to slaughter [the Christians]. For example, there was a certain individual in Phrygia who burned a whole assembly of Christians, together with their place of meeting." —Lactantius (c. 304-313, W)

"[Emperor Daia] secretly procured addresses from different cities, requesting that no Christian congregation be built within their walls. . . . The function of those [Roman] officers was to make daily sacrifices to all of their gods and . . . to prevent Christians from erecting congregations." —Lactantius (c. 304-313, W)

"While it was yet hardly light, the [Roman] prefect, together with chief commanders . . . came to the congregation in Nicomedia. The gates having been forced open, they searched everywhere for an image of the Divinity. The books of the Holy Scriptures were found, and they were committed to the flames. The utensils and furniture of the congregation were abandoned to pillage." —Lactantius (c. 320, W)

"Constantius . . . permitted the demolition of congregations, which are mere walls and capable of being built up again. However, he preserved entire that true temple of God, which is the human body." —Lactantius (c. 320, W)

LOVE FEAST
"Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk." 1 Corinthians 11:20-21

"They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you." 2 Peter. 2:13

"These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear." Jude 12

"It is not lawful without the overseer either to baptize or to celebrate a love feast." —Ignatius (c. 105, E)

"Some, speaking with unbridled tongue, dare to apply the name agape to pitiful suppers, redolent of savor and sauces. . . . The supper is made for love, but the supper is not love." —Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E)

"The apostle, restraining those who transgress in their conduct at entertainments, says, "For everyone takes beforehand in eating his own supper. And one is hungry, and another drunk." —Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E)

"[The heretics] eagerly embrace that convivial couch of honor in the agape, falsely so called." —Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E)

"You [Romans] attack also our humble feasts on the grounds that they are extravagant as well as infamously wicked. you make it seem that the saying of Diogenes applies to us: "The people of Megara feast as though they were going to die tomorrow." . . . Yet, you make a great ado only about the modest supper room of the Christians. Our feast explains itself by its name. The Greeks call it agape, i.e., love. Whatever the meal costs, our outlay in the name of piety is gain. For we aid the needy with the good things of the feast. . . .
Before reclining, the participants first taste of prayer to God. Only as much is eaten as satisfies the cravings of hunger. Only as much is drunk as befits the chaste. . . . The participants talk as those who know that they Lord is one of their hearers. After washing the hands and the bringing in of lights, each is asked t stand forth and sing, as he can, a hymn to God—either one from the Holy Scriptures or one of his own composing. This is proof of the [temperate] measure of our drinking. Just as the feast began with prayer, so it is closed with prayer. We depart from the feast, not like troops of mischief-doers, . . . but as ones who have as much care for our modesty and chastity as though we had been at a school of virtue, rather than a banquet." —Tertullian (c. 205, W)

"[What unbelieving husband,] without some suspicion of his own, will dismiss her to attend that Lord's supper that they defame?" —Tertullian (c. 205, W)

"We practice sharing in our banquets, which are not only modest, but also sober. For we do not indulge in entertainments, nor do we prolong our feasts with wine. Rather, we temper our joyousness with seriousness, with chaste discourse, and with bodies even more chaste." Mark Minucius Felix (c. 200, W)

"In that last meal, which they call the free meal, they were partaking as as far as they could, not of a free supper, but of an agape." Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas (c. 205, W)

As you can see, our organized religious institutional buildings are useless, worthless, godless, and heretical. So too is our practice of gathering. If you believe our buildings are a part of "God's divine progressive order," then you betray your own ignorance. Our buildings have their origins rooted in paganism, being a "reform" of the Catholic institution. We kept their godless institution, tweaked some of the practices and traditions, and changed several of the beliefs (some for better, some for worse). If you dare to exegete our buildings and our "worship" services, you will discover just how much of them are rooted in paganism.

Up until the late 3rd century, the Lord's Congregation was united in their beliefs, practices, and traditions. Some errors started to creep in during this latter time, and more errors became entrenched under Emperor Constantine. The paganizing of Christianity that he accomplished, Catholicism continued for the next 1,100 years, and even to today. The Reformation never actually corrected anything. Reform seeks to improve the existing religious institution. If they wanted to change anything, they would have done like the Anabaptists who sought restitution, to return to the beliefs, practices, and traditions of the early Christians.

Modern "pastors" are afraid to address these facts because it would mean the loss of their position, power, and prestige. Which one of them is earnest to give up their authority? Which one of them is earnest to give up the pay check they never should have been receiving? These men are nothing more than hirelings. They do not actually care about Yahweh's flock. If they had to do what they do with only the bare necessities of life, they would quit. Do not kid yourself, they are in it for the money. Every. Single. One of them.

Every congregation in Scripture, and among the early Christians, was independent. No one ruled over a bunch of them with a hierarchical power structure the way we see in most denominations today. Only the non-local itinerant church planter had any say over them. The Galatian congregations had no sway over each other, let alone over the Corinthian congregation. Only Paul, and other non-local itinerant church planters he trained, had any sway over them. We need to return to the biblical standards.