My thoughts about modern evangelicalism:

My thoughts about modern evangelicalism:

I attended a men’s gathering last night where a speaker gave a testimony of not only his past sins but also a dreadful list of wrongs that were done to him when he was still a lad. I am fairly certain that even he didn’t wish to regurgitate them in such lurid detail. As a result, I felt like bathing when I got home. Let me be absolutely clear, we are all sinners. If we weren’t we would have no need of Christ. But here is why I found last night’s gathering both frustrating and uncomfortable. A blow-by-blow breakdown of a person's entire history of sin is not the biblical model for sharing a testimony, and it often does more harm than good in a church community.

When a testimony turns into an exhaustive, graphic list of past wrongs, it crosses the line from a celebration of grace into something sensational, distracting, and inappropriate for a gathering of the saints.

Where Modern Testimonies Go Wrong:

Glorifying the Wrong Entity: A hyper-detailed timeline accidentally forces the audience to focus on the shock value or complexity of the sin rather than the simplicity of God’s forgiveness. The sin becomes the "hero" of the story because it gets 90% of the airtime.

Violating Biblical Boundaries: The Apostle Paul explicitly warned that "it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret" (Ephesians 5:12). There is a vast difference between being honest about a struggle and offering an overshared, unedited diary of it.

Stumbling Blocks for Others: Hearing a meticulous list of specific sins can trigger others, plant intrusive thoughts, or create a toxic environment of comparison (where people feel their testimony isn't "dramatic enough" because they didn't commit the same list of wrongs).

The Healthy Alternative: "Appropriate Vulnerability"

Many committed Christians have asked exactly that question. Whether a service feels "shallow" is partly subjective, but there are some identifiable trends that help explain the reaction.

Why do virtually all modern evangelical meetings ignore the structure for gathering that Paul has laid out in his epistle written to the Corinthians?

1. The shift from hymnody to contemporary worship

Most older hymns were written to be sung by congregations without amplification. They typically had:

·       Strong, memorable melodies

·       Predictable harmonic movement

·       Multiple verses that developed an idea

·       Rich theological content

Examples like "Holy, Holy, Holy", "A Mighty Fortress", or "And Can It Be" tell a story, make doctrinal arguments, and contain musical tension and resolution.

Many contemporary worship songs are built differently. They often prioritise:

·       Simplicity

·       Immediate emotional accessibility

·       Repetition

·       Easy congregational participation

·       Compatibility with a modern band format

As a result, the melody is frequently secondary to the vocal style, atmosphere, and rhythm. The song may feel more like a musical backdrop for an experience than a tune that can stand on its own.

2. Modern worship is often written for the guitar, not the piano

Traditional hymn writers commonly composed at a keyboard, where harmonic complexity comes naturally.

Modern worship music is often written by guitarists using a relatively small number of open chords. This tends to produce:

·       Repetitive harmonic cycles

·       Narrow melodic ranges

·       Similar song structures

The famous I-V-VI-IV progression and its relatives appear constantly.

Consequently, many songs sound alike because they are built on nearly identical foundations.

3. The influence of popular music

Much evangelical worship since the 1990s has been influenced by pop, soft rock, ambient music, and later by bands such as Hillsong, Bethel, and Elevation.

In popular music, the "hook" often matters more than the melody's long-term durability. A song can succeed because of production, rhythm, and emotional delivery rather than because people can whistle the tune twenty years later.

Many classic hymns remain recognisable when sung a cappella. Quite a few modern worship songs lose much of their impact once the band, with guitar, bass, drums, and sound system are removed.

4. Experience often displaced participation

A criticism raised by thinking Christians is that worship has increasingly become something people watch rather than something they do.

Historically:

·       Congregation centred

·       Strong communal singing

·       Less performance emphasis

Modern model:

·       Stage centred

·       Professional musicians

·       Concert-style sound reinforcement

·       Emotional build-ups

When that happens, the congregation can become an audience. The music may feel emotionally powerful in the room yet leave little musical substance in memory afterwards.

5. Theology has become more individualistic

Many older hymns focused on:

·       God's attributes

·       Biblical narrative

·       Doctrine

·       Church history

·       Redemption

Many contemporary songs focus more on:

·       Our feelings

·       Our experiences

·       Our relationships

·       Our responses

Not all do, of course, but the tendency is noticeable. The result can feel thinner because the songs are expressing emotions about faith rather than teaching or exploring faith itself.

6. Why "there is no tune"

This is an interesting musical observation. In much contemporary worship music, the vocal line often resembles speech rhythms set to chords rather than a fully developed melody. The memorable element may be:

·       the groove,

·       the atmosphere,

·       the production,

·       the repeated phrase,

·       rather than the melody itself.

Compare the opening of "Amazing Grace" with many modern worship songs. Almost anyone can sing "Amazing Grace" from memory decades after hearing it. The melody carries the song. In much contemporary worship music, the accompaniment carries the song.

A historical irony

Many evangelicals of the nineteenth century complained that the newer gospel songs of their day were shallow compared with the older hymns. Then later generations regarded those same gospel songs as classics.

So, part of the reaction is generational. However, the specific criticism that modern worship music often lacks memorable melodic development, relies on repeated chord loops, and contains less theological density is not merely nostalgia. Professional church musicians, hymn scholars, worship leaders, and theologians have been making those same observations for years.

In short, when people say modern evangelical worship feels hollow, they are often reacting to three things at once: less theological depth, less melodic complexity, and a shift from congregational singing toward creating a particular emotional atmosphere. The feeling that "there is no tune" is usually a response to the fact that many contemporary worship songs are built around a chord progression and mood first, with melody serving a much smaller role than it did in traditional hymn writing.

This raises a criticism that has been made by many Christians across different traditions, and it centres not on the music but on the structure of the gathering itself.

The passage I am referring to is 1 Corinthians 14:26:

"When ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying."

Taken at face value, the meeting Paul describes appears highly participatory. Multiple members contribute. The gathering is not centred on a single speaker delivering a prepared sermon while everyone else listens.

That observation has led some movements, particularly the Plymouth Brethren, house church movements, and various "simple church" groups, to argue that the modern church service bears little resemblance to what is described in the New Testament. I thoroughly echo these sentiments which is why my wife and I have been forced to meet alone as any past fellowship with believers failed to follow Paul’s example.

Our argument is as follows:

• The New Testament assembly was participatory.
• Spiritual gifts were expected to function openly.
• Leadership existed, but elders shepherded rather than dominated the meeting.
• No evidence exists of a modern pastor conducting a scheduled service from a platform.
• The congregation itself was the active body of Christ.

From that perspective, the contemporary pattern of:

• one worship leader,
• one sermon giver,
• a rigid order of service,
• passive audience participation,

This format of gathering is more organizational rather than functioning as a Spiritually living organism. The real debate is not whether leadership existed. Nobody seriously denies that elders existed.

The real debate is whether leadership means:

A. Facilitating a gathering where many members contribute,

or

B. Conducting a gathering where one designated person does most of the speaking.

If you read 1 Corinthians 12-14 straight through, the emphasis does seem heavily weighted toward participation by many members. Paul repeatedly uses the image of the body where every member supplies something. The concern in chapter 14 is not getting more people involved. It is actually the opposite. So many people were contributing that Paul had to impose order:

"Let two or three prophets speak."

"If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace."

"The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets."

Those instructions only make sense if multiple people were expected to contribute regularly.

Historically, many scholars would agree that the earliest Christian gatherings were probably much more interactive and much smaller than the typical evangelical service today. Over the centuries, as churches grew larger, became institutionalised under Orthodoxies and Catholicism, and developed clergy structures, the service gradually became more centred on designated leaders. This has placed an intermediary between God and man other than Christ Himself!

So, my comparison is specifically between Paul's description in 1 Corinthians 14 and a contemporary evangelical service where hundreds of people sit facing a stage, it is understandable why I see a significant disconnect. The key question then becomes whether that disconnect represents a legitimate adaptation to larger congregations or a departure from the New Testament pattern itself. Christians have been debating that question for centuries. I think it is obvious where I stand in this disconnect between what Paul described as typical Church life” and the man-made structures of modern evangelicalism. How Paul commanded us to meet has been crushed under an organizational format that places manmade structures at the centre of Church meetings rather than the Holy Ghost!

The other thing I find particularly frustrating is that the entire Western zeitgeist is under an attack by the heresies of postmodernism and critical theories. Christian gatherings are failing to equip the Church to stand against these Gnostic heresies.

From a traditional Christian perspective, especially one grounded in Christian doctrine, there is an obvious tension:

·       Christianity claims objective truth.

·       Christianity claims historical revelation.

·       Christianity claims that God has spoken authoritatively.

·       Christianity claims that human nature is real and not infinitely malleable.

Christians should therefore see certain postmodern and critical-theory assumptions as Gnosticisms incompatible with core Christian doctrines. My frustration lies in the churches’ refusal to address them directly. Many evangelical churches devote substantial time to:

·       worship music,

·       personal encouragement,

·       practical life application,

·       family issues,

·       emotional and relational topics,

But without sound doctrine these things fall short of the Glory of God while spending comparatively little time equipping Christ’s Body to engage with:

·       philosophy,

·       epistemology,

·       competing worldviews,

·       secular ideologies,

·       intellectual history.

As a result, people may leave church knowing how to discuss their feelings but not how to answer fundamental questions such as:

·       What is truth?

·       How do we know what we know?

·       Does objective morality exist?

·       What is a human being?

·       Why is Christianity different from Gnosticism?

·       What assumptions underlie contemporary identity politics?

·       What does Scripture say about authority, justice, power, and nature?

Historically, Christians often invested heavily in these questions. The early church confronted:

·       Gnosticism,

·       Platonism,

·       pagan mystery religions,

·       various heresies concerning Christ and the Trinity.

The Reformers engaged:

·       scholasticism,

·       ecclesiastical authority,

·       Renaissance humanism.

In the twentieth century, Christian thinkers engaged:

·       Marxism,

·       nihilism,

·       existentialism,

·       logical positivism.

One could argue that every generation has had to train believers to recognise the dominant intellectual currents of its age in the light of the Truth of Christ.

I have made this comparison because I see modern ideologies as dividing humanity into categories of fake enlightenment and false consciousness or treating subjective awareness as more authoritative than objective reality.

My broader concern, however, is one that many pastors, theologians, and lay Christians leaders have expressed: if churches focus almost exclusively on personal inspiration and internal experience, they may produce believers who are not well equipped to analyse and respond to the major philosophical and cultural challenges of our time.

In this sense, I echo a concern found in the New Testament. Paul's letters are not merely devotional. He repeatedly warned believers about "every wind of doctrine", deceptive philosophies, false teachers, and arguments that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God. The assumption is that Christians need not only encouragement, but also intellectual and spiritual discernment.

May God save us from WOKE ideation!

 

 

How Carney's policies align with Agenda 2030

The UN 2030 Agenda includes goals on climate action, sustainable finance, clean energy, sustainable cities, reduced inequality, and public-private partnerships. Canada's own SDG reporting identifies climate action, clean energy, sustainable infrastructure, partnerships, and social programmes as core parts of its implementation of Agenda 2030. [canada.ca], [canada.ca]

Carney's critics point to several aspects of Carney's public record:

• Net-zero transition policies. Carney has repeatedly advocated moving economies towards net-zero emissions and integrating climate considerations into economic decision+-* `-making. As UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, he described net zero as a central economic objective. [un.org], [media.news...lumbia.edu]

• Climate-related financial disclosure. Carney helped promote climate-risk disclosure frameworks and has argued that climate risks should be measured and reported by major institutions. Critics view this as part of the ESG and sustainability governance architecture associated with Agenda 2030. [un.org], [cse-net.org]

• Sustainable finance. He was involved in initiatives such as the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), which seeks to align large pools of private capital with net-zero goals. Critics argue this represents large-scale coordination between governments, regulators, and financial institutions. [cse-net.org], [un.org]

• Public-private partnerships. Commentary on Carney's policy vision frequently references using public and private capital together to finance economic transition projects. Public-private partnerships are also highlighted within UN sustainable development frameworks. [cse-net.org], [canada.ca]

• Industrial decarbonisation and climate competitiveness. Carney has supported maintaining or strengthening industrial emissions-reduction mechanisms and broader transition policies aimed at reaching net-zero targets. [clearbluemarkets.com], [sustainableviews.com]

Why Carney's critics say he is "managing decline"

People making this argument generally reason as follows:

1. Higher energy costs Critics believe aggressive decarbonisation policies raise energy, transportation, and production costs, reducing competitiveness relative to countries with lower regulatory burdens.

2. Constraints on resource development Canada is rich in oil, gas, mining, and other natural resources. Critics argue that stronger climate policies can limit development of sectors that historically generated significant income and investment.

3. Financial-sector influence Because Carney has a background in central banking, global finance, climate finance, and international institutions, some critics believe economic decisions will increasingly be shaped by financial and regulatory priorities rather than market demand. [un.org], [cse-net.org]

4. Preference for managed economic transition Critics argue that rapid restructuring towards a lower-carbon economy risks sacrificing existing industries and jobs before replacement industries are fully established.

5. Global governance concerns Some opponents view alignment with UN goals, international climate agreements, and global financial frameworks as transferring influence away from purely national decision-making. Carney's involvement with UN climate-finance initiatives is often cited in support of this concern. [un.org], [media.news...lumbia.edu]

What can be demonstrated?

The evidence clearly shows that Carney has been strongly associated with:

• net-zero policies,

• climate finance,

• ESG-related disclosure frameworks,

• international climate initiatives,

• sustainable-investment strategies,

• public-private financing of economic transition. [cse-net.org], [un.org], [clearbluemarkets.com]

What the evidence does not by itself prove is that he intends to "manage Canada's decline". That is an interpretation made by critics based on their view that these policies will weaken Canada's economy. The evidence supports the existence of the policies and goals; whether they constitute deliberate decline is a separate judgement.

The Core Thesis:

Carney's critics argue that Mark Carney represents a form of "technocratic global governance" in which financial institutions, regulators, international organisations, and governments are coordinated around climate and sustainability objectives that closely overlap with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They point to his own public statements, his UN roles, and his work in climate finance as evidence.

The argument is not that Agenda 2030 is hidden. Rather, critics say it is being implemented openly through financial, regulatory, and industrial policy.

Element 1: Direct Association with UN Climate Initiatives

One of the strongest factual connections is that Mark Carney served as UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance. In that role, he promoted mobilisation of private capital toward climate-transition and net-zero objectives.

Critics argue:

Agenda 2030 places climate action among its principal goals.

Carney spent years helping design financial mechanisms intended to accelerate climate-transition policies.

Therefore, his political programme naturally aligns with major Agenda 2030 objectives.

Element 2: Financial System as the Main Lever

A recurring theme in Carney's speeches is that climate concerns should become embedded within financial decision-making.

He has argued for:

• climate-risk disclosure,

• mandatory reporting,

• net-zero investment strategies,

• alignment of capital markets with climate goals.

Critics claim this is more significant than legislation because:

• banks determine lending,

• pension funds determine investment,

• insurers determine risk pricing.

If those institutions adopt common sustainability standards, critics argue that entire sectors can be reshaped without direct government orders.

Element 3: ESG as a Governance Mechanism

Carney was involved in promoting climate-related disclosure frameworks and helped advance systems that evaluate climate-related corporate risks.

The critical interpretation is:

• ESG metrics become de facto requirements.

• Access to capital increasingly depends upon ESG performance.

• Economic behaviour is guided through financial incentives and restrictions rather than democratic debate.

• Critics therefore see ESG as a governance tool rather than merely a reporting tool.

Element 4: Net Zero as an Organising Principle

Carney has frequently described the transition to net zero as a major economic objective and opportunity.

Critics counter that:

• net-zero targets require large-scale intervention,

• energy choices become politically driven,

• sectors such as oil and gas face structural pressure which disallows access to abundant and cheap energy.

They argue this transforms economic planning from market-led development into goal-directed development.

Element 5: Public-Private Partnerships

Agenda 2030 explicitly includes partnerships among governments, corporations, financial institutions, and civil society.

Commentary regarding Carney's policy approach frequently highlights public-private financing of economic transition projects.

Critics say this creates:

• concentrated decision-making,

• influence for large financial actors,

• reduced influence for ordinary market participants.

Whether that criticism forms a major part of the argument.

The "Managed Decline" Argument

The strongest version of the "managed decline" claim usually has five steps:

Step 1: Canada's comparative advantage is resource development:

• oil,

• gas,

• mining,

• forestry,

• agriculture.

Step 2: Net-zero policies increase costs and regulatory burdens on those sectors.

Step 3: Investment shifts toward politically favoured sectors through subsidies, regulations, disclosure requirements, and transition programmes.

Step 4: Traditional industries are weakened before replacement industries become equally productive.

Step 5: Economic growth slows while Canada's relative position declines.

Critics therefore conclude that policymakers are knowingly accepting lower growth in exchange for delusional climate objectives.

That line of reasoning is what leads some opponents to use the phrase "managed decline".

Why Carney's critics Focus on Carney Specifically

Many politicians support climate policies. Critics focus particularly on Mark Carney because he brings together several roles rarely found in one person:

• Governor of the Bank of Canada,

• Governor of the Bank of England,

• UN climate envoy,

• climate-finance advocate,

• promoter of net-zero investment frameworks.

Because of that combination, critics see him as one of the most influential architects of the global climate-finance movement rather than simply another politician discussing emissions reductions.

The Strongest Factual Claim That Can Be Made:

The strongest claim directly supported by available evidence is:

Mark Carney has spent years advocating climate-focused financial regulation, net-zero investment strategies, climate-risk disclosure, and public-private mobilisation of capital, and these goals substantially overlap with major objectives contained in the UN's 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals.

A different and stronger claim, namely that he is intentionally trying to reduce Canada's prosperity or deliberately manage national decline since only someone who is utterly malicious would have so successfully and deliberately pursued the impractical ideological lunacy of Canada's carefully orchestrated decline initially as an adviser to Justin Trudeau and now as Prime Minister for these past ten years!

My concerted opinion about Carney:

A pox be upon him and his household, for every aspect of his orchestrated reign of socio-economic tyranny leads me to only one conclusion. Carney is ushering in a new age of authoritarian global governance where he intends to sit at the pinnacle of a cabal of illiberal ideologically possessed tyrants.

Why many of our political leaders support various forms of totalizing or authoritarian government?

 

Why do so many of our political leaders support various forms of totalizing or authoritarian government?

Why is Collectivism creating such odd bedfellows such as gay rights activists supporting Islam when it would happily murder homosexuals in their bed?

Why are these governments universally rejecting free market capitalism for “stake holder capitalism” and a Green Economy that is far from green and far from successful in creating a stable economy?

I haven’t written and recorded a vlog in quite some time. Anne-Siri and I have moved to Niagara into a new house, which at our age was not an easy task. However, the home is lovely, and we are grateful for it hoping that it will become a centre for challenging Christian discussions, and a place of fellowship where our brothers and sisters will be edified. So, despite the issues around the move and getting settled, I have had a great deal of time to listen to the progress of political discourse across the confusion of what I will call “the Babylonian divide”. We are witnessing a globalist attempt to reconstruct the Tower of Babel. Namely the attempt to construct a global system which will rule mankind under one authoritarian umbrella. Therefore, I have been paying close attention to how this frightening development has been affecting religious discourse.

It is the latter issue which has given me grave concern. I am seeing a revival of high churchianity being presented as the solution to Postmodernism and Cultural Marxism. But WOKE has found a welcome home in the Roman Catholic Church. The former Pope was as WOKE as King Charles who now calls himself the “Defender of the Faiths”, which logically implies that he no longer defends Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life. The King is now claiming that all faiths have equal merit. This is perhaps the best example of Postmodern Cultural Relativism imaginable. It is interesting to note that all major denominations have fallen into this error by repudiating the very nature of Christ and His salvation.

Nothing of what I am about to share ought to surprise anyone. I have used readily available sources to write this. In this vlog I address how and why authoritarianism invariably expands and does so globally. Humanity has always struggled between two opposing desires. The first is based upon self-reliance, Christian morality, individual accountability and autonomy, while the second is built upon surrendering oneself to a social collectivist enterprise where the individual exists only to serve the State or Caliphate. Collectivism can be defined as the result of our innate tribal nature becoming parasitized against our best interests. This former of parasitization will always happen in the name of safety and looking after the public good while the former in its highest and best form will be the manifestation of a true Christian life. The latter has given birth to Nazism, Fascism, Socialism, Communism, WOKE Marxism, Postmodernism, Cultural Marxism, and certainly Islamism. It is only the former which has given us Free Markets, the Rule of Law, Parliamentary representation in government, and Constitutionalism which recognizes that the government cannot make man free. It reminds the State to recognize that true freedom is our God given inheritance.

Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Conflation is not allowed in a court of law because it undermines the fundamental right to a fair trial by creating confusion and distorting the truth. Yet both conservatives and socialists do it. 

Yet i just heard alt right media man Bet-David of Valuetainment conflate Canadians being annoyed over Trump attempting to rename a great lake with the CBC telling its paid agitators not to call 911 a terrorist attack. Obviously that is indeed ridiculous but here is my point, the two issues have nothing to do with one another. This is a perfect example of conflating two separate issues to persuade folk to come to false conclusions.

In legal terms, conflation occurs when two or more distinct concepts, pieces of evidence, laws, or individuals are mistakenly treated as the same thing.

Why Conflation is Prohibited

Violates Due Process: The law requires clear, distinct proof for every specific element of a crime or civil claim.
Misleads the Jury: Merging separate facts can create unfair prejudice, leading a jury to convict based on emotion rather than distinct evidence.
Dilutes the Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" for each specific charge, not a generalized idea of wrongdoing.
Prevents Accurate Cross-Examination: Defense attorneys cannot properly challenge evidence if the prosecution blurs different events or timelines together.
Creates Bad Legal Precedent: Judicial rulings must be based on precise statutory definitions to ensure the law is applied consistently in future cases.

Collectivism of necessity demands that all submit to a global enterprise that reaches unto heaven. It is the metaphorical fulfilment of the story of the Tower of Babel. It seeks to enslave mankind in a totalizing system where conversion is forced and submission demanded. Today two great globalizing systems are cooperating to enslave humanity. Islam and Neo-Marxism are united as odd bedfellows to usurp what is left of the vision which made the West possible. But as an antidote I am watching a system that was totalizing in its own right being offered as the solution to our present cultural and socioeconomic dilemma.

So, can High Churchianity save the West for it was once the totalizing enterprise that had held the West in its own form of absolutism?

Pope Francis was Pope from 2013 to his death in 2025. Many conservative Catholics accused him of promoting ideas they described as "woke," especially through his emphasis on inclusion, migration, environmental issues, interreligious dialogue, and a more pastoral approach toward LGBTQ people. However, Francis repeatedly maintained that he was not changing core Catholic doctrine. For example, he did not change the Church's teachings on abortion, same-sex marriage, the male priesthood, or sexual morality, though he often spoke in a less confrontational tone and allowed certain pastoral practices that critics saw as departures from tradition.

Common criticisms from traditionalist Catholics included:

LGBTQ issues: Francis allowed blessings for people in same-sex relationships under certain conditions, while insisting this was not equivalent to marriage. Critics argued this created confusion about traditional teaching.

Migration and social justice: He strongly emphasized welcoming migrants and addressing inequality, causes sometimes associated with progressive politics.

Climate change and environmental stewardship: His teaching in Laudato Si' was praised by progressives and criticized by some conservatives.

Synodality: He promoted broader consultation within the Church, which some traditionalists feared could weaken doctrinal clarity.

As for the current Pope Leo XIV, available reporting suggests that he has largely presented himself as being in continuity with Francis on social concerns while also emphasizing doctrinal continuity and respect for tradition. Sources describe him as supporting pro-life teaching, criticizing gender ideology, defending Catholic tradition, and viewing reform as something that must remain rooted in existing doctrine rather than a rejection of it.

We are at a spiritual crossroads for the following reasons:

·       Postmodernism has made it impossible to know what is true versus what is false

·       The apostate churches insist that the traditions of man trump the veracity of Scripture

·       They have perverted the nature of Christ' Body since the Church is fundamentally an organism NOT an organization!

What concerns me about Roman and other High Church expressions of Christianity:

·       They have replaced the true nature of the Body of Christ with manmade unscriptural traditions

·       They fail to recognize that tradition must not outweigh the teachings of Scripture

·       Both reject the clear pattern for church fellowship laid out in the Bible

·       Both have created a special class of Christian where priests and ordained ministers act as intermediaries between God and man

·       Both ignore the universality of believers where all are kings and priests unto God

·       They thereby have denied the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice by attempting to re-crucify Christ over and over in the mass and confessional box rather than recognizing that He died for our sins once and for all

·       It is blasphemy for anyone to claim that they have the power to absolve us of sin since this is the free gift of Christ Jesus accomplished once and for all time when He offered Himself up as the sacrifice and sufficiency to pay for our transgressions. To receive His grace the only thing one must do is to repent of sin while placing one’s faith in Christ and then to be physically baptized into fellowship with God and other believers

What did most Protestant reformers believe regarding the Roman Catholic Church? Why have modern Evangelicals forgotten their teachings?

Virtually all major Protestant reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries identified the papacy or the office of the pope with the biblical Antichrist.

Instead of pointing to a single individual person, the reformers typically viewed the papal system itself as the fulfillment of the "man of sin" or "antichrist" described in scriptures like 2 Thessalonians 2 and the Book of Revelation.

Key Reformers and Their Views:

·       Martin Luther: Concluded that the papacy was the seat of the true Antichrist after studying biblical prophecy and facing excommunication.

·       John Calvin: Wrote that the pope sits in the temple of God and presides over a regime that attempts to usurp divine authority.

·       John Knox: Boldly preached that the Roman pontiff was the specific "man of sin" mentioned by the Apostle Paul.

·       Philip Melanchthon & Thomas Cranmer: Both supported the identification of the pope as an enemy of Christ and incorporated these polemical stances into foundational Protestant teaching.

·       Confessions of Faith: Major historical documents like the Lutheran Smalcald Articles and the Reformed Westminster Confession of Faith formally codified this perspective into their respective church doctrines.

The Historical Context:

This viewpoint—known as the Historicist interpretation of prophecy—was not entirely new to the 1500s. Pre-reformers and medieval groups like the Waldensians, John Wycliffe, and the Hussites had previously used similar rhetoric to protest papal corruption and political power.

Since they could prove that the office of the antichrist was fulfilled exegetically, why have their spiritual descendants not merely rejected the Reformers’ teachings but replaced that with doctrines promoted by Jesuits who were enemies of Protestantism to counter the reformers concerted beliefs?

Autonomous, Indigenous, and Local:

These are the characteristics of New Testament Church life. What did Paul have to say about division based on sectarianism?

What does Paul have to say to the church at Corinth about sectarian division in Christ’s Body?

1 1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

4 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;

5 That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;

6 Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:

7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:

8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

There are therefore only two division permitted by Divinely Inspired Scriptures!

One is based upon geography and the other upon time. I am separated by the church in another local by geography and I am separated by the brethren who lived in the past and will live in the future by time. These are the only two divisions permitted to exist in Christ’s own Body for how can Christ be divided? Indeed, His Body is one and indivisible!

What was the nature of gathering in the New Testament and how does it differ from Church gatherings today?

Here I will permit Paul to minister to you so that you can measure his words to compare them to church life today.

1 Corinthians  King James Version

²⁶ How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

⁴⁰ Let all things be done decently and in order.

My conclusions:

Paul’s instruction for what may be referred to as the “normal Christian life” in no way, shape, or form represents or matches what is being offered to Christians in most church gatherings today. This includes all the major and most fervent Evangelical denominations. The fact that they exist as organizations which divide believers along sectarian and doctrinal lines denies the universality and oneness of the Body of Christ. How can such a fallen thing resist the steady march of social collectivism and globalist tyranny when we are attempting to deny the very nature of Christ and the unity of His own Body? What I have written here many men died so that we could know the truth of it.

Thomas Cranmer, who was the Archbishop of Canterbury was a key architect of the English Reformation. He was executed by burning at the stake in Oxford on 21 March 1556 during the reign of the Catholic Queen Mary I. He had ben tortured for his faith and signed a recantation of His faith in pure unadulterated Christianity. When he was burnt at the stake, he held out the hand which had signed the recantation crying out, "This hand hath offended."!

Cranmer had been imprisoned and tried for heresy after Queen Mary had restored Roman Catholicism. Although he signed recantations while in prison after being tortured, he publicly withdrew them before his execution to die as a Protestant martyr in the eyes of later Anglicans and Protestants.

How can Europe’s first totalizing globalizing enterprise, namely the Roman Catholic Church be the solution for Neo-Marxist secular globalism which is in deep in bed with global Islamic Jihad?

Roman Catholicism murdered my righteous ancestors for their simple faith in the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice alone. The Church of Rome has martyred believers for teaching a purer form of Christianity without the unscriptural and superstitions traditions of Rome.

Rome cannot save us only the finished work of Christ’s death and resurrection can!

Global collectivism denies the God given nature of mankind while Roman Catholicism denies the nature of Christ’s sacrifice.

It is time to resurrect the Normal Christian life!