I disagree that the churches “failed” the covid test because I don’t believe they could have passed it. If I ask a second grader to take an exam I’ve written for college students, it would be ludicrous to say the second-grader failed the exam. If I leap out the window, I do not fail to fly because flying is something I am constitutionally incapable of doing. The churches are constitutionally incapable of defying the State and this has been the case for more than two-hundred years. The reason is simple. The State laughs up its sleeve if any churchman squeaks that he holds the keys of heaven.
The above comes from a comment JM Smith left on a post by Richard cocks. I respect JM Smith and find value in his Orthosphere blogging. He reads here and occasionally leaves comments, the vast majority of which add new insights and dimensions to my scribblings. Although we have never met, our online interactions and correspondence prompt me to regard him as a friend.
Having said that, I must vociferously disagree with JM here. My issue is not with JM personally, but with the rather widespread view among Christians that the churches did not fail the birdemic test because they were constitutionally incapable of doing so. Consitutionally is an interesting word choice because it can apply to legal considerations or matters of composition and form. Anyway, I left the following reply to JM’s comment:
Passing the covid test would require the churches to openly admit that they are slaves to the state and had no choice in the matter. They could have then repented of their involvement in that demonic disaster frankly, openly, and explicitly.
Most did the exact opposite by actively, willingly, and enthusiastically supporting, promulgating, endorsing, and enforcing the state’s coercion, tyranny, and lies. I can’t think of any major church that has acknowledged any wrongdoing, let alone taken any sort of step toward repentance (there may be some out there, but I haven’t heard of them).
Christians can be slaves and remain Christian, but it requires a) acknowledging that one is indeed a slave to worldly forces, and b) repenting actions one is forced to do against one’s will.
That’s where churches and many individual Christians failed the test.
I’ll make this very simple. I am a mortal man. This makes it "constitutionally" impossible for me to live a sinless life. However, I am also a Christian and being a Christian makes it constitutionally and, more significantly, spiritually possible for me to acknowledge sin as sin and repent my participation in it.
As Dr. Charlton has repeated ad nauseam, the biggest obstacle for Christians is not sin but the refusal to acknowledge sin as sin and repent.
What then, is repentance? I turn — yet again — to Wm James Tychonievich:
The unrepentant are those who make excuses for themselves, who deny that their sins are sins and are therefore unwilling to give them up. Willingness is all; the flesh is weak, but the spirit must be willing.
Daily repentance does not mean daily groveling for forgiveness like a beaten dog; it means reminding oneself what is good and what is evil, what is of God and what is not, and then going on with life, confident in the knowledge that "he that believeth is not condemned."
And yes, of course, we should try to be virtuous and to sin less, but in the end, no such projects can really succeed in this present life.
They are not what repentance is, and they are not that on which salvation depends.
The churches and many individual Christians failed the birdemic test because they proved themselves constitutionally and spiritually incapable of repentance – incapable of discerning what is good and what is evil, what is of God and what is not.
And as I have expressed here before, those who do not repent will eventually relent.
Note added: JM followed up my comment with the following:
I suppose the churches could have closed up shop more grudgingly, but I am not sure this should have counted as a pass. I’d make a distinction between coopted institutions and enslaved individuals since a coopted institution has necessarily sold its soul. An individual can surrender control over the operations of his body while retaining possession of his soul, but an coopted institution is nothing more than the operations of its body. A church that serves Leviathan is just a fully-owned subsidiary of Leviathan. Unlike the slave, it cannot separate what it wills from what it does.
I agree with JM here, but this agreement requires the acknowledgment that churches that serve Leviathan are fully-owned subsidiaries of Leviathan that have sold their souls, which draws into question what, precisely, they are "willing." Much food for thought.
The above comes from a comment JM Smith left on a post by Richard cocks. I respect JM Smith and find value in his Orthosphere blogging. He reads here and occasionally leaves comments, the vast majority of which add new insights and dimensions to my scribblings. Although we have never met, our online interactions and correspondence prompt me to regard him as a friend.
Having said that, I must vociferously disagree with JM here. My issue is not with JM personally, but with the rather widespread view among Christians that the churches did not fail the birdemic test because they were constitutionally incapable of doing so. Consitutionally is an interesting word choice because it can apply to legal considerations or matters of composition and form. Anyway, I left the following reply to JM’s comment:
Passing the covid test would require the churches to openly admit that they are slaves to the state and had no choice in the matter. They could have then repented of their involvement in that demonic disaster frankly, openly, and explicitly.
Most did the exact opposite by actively, willingly, and enthusiastically supporting, promulgating, endorsing, and enforcing the state’s coercion, tyranny, and lies. I can’t think of any major church that has acknowledged any wrongdoing, let alone taken any sort of step toward repentance (there may be some out there, but I haven’t heard of them).
Christians can be slaves and remain Christian, but it requires a) acknowledging that one is indeed a slave to worldly forces, and b) repenting actions one is forced to do against one’s will.
That’s where churches and many individual Christians failed the test.
I’ll make this very simple. I am a mortal man. This makes it "constitutionally" impossible for me to live a sinless life. However, I am also a Christian and being a Christian makes it constitutionally and, more significantly, spiritually possible for me to acknowledge sin as sin and repent my participation in it.
As Dr. Charlton has repeated ad nauseam, the biggest obstacle for Christians is not sin but the refusal to acknowledge sin as sin and repent.
What then, is repentance? I turn — yet again — to Wm James Tychonievich:
The unrepentant are those who make excuses for themselves, who deny that their sins are sins and are therefore unwilling to give them up. Willingness is all; the flesh is weak, but the spirit must be willing.
Daily repentance does not mean daily groveling for forgiveness like a beaten dog; it means reminding oneself what is good and what is evil, what is of God and what is not, and then going on with life, confident in the knowledge that "he that believeth is not condemned."
And yes, of course, we should try to be virtuous and to sin less, but in the end, no such projects can really succeed in this present life.
They are not what repentance is, and they are not that on which salvation depends.
The churches and many individual Christians failed the birdemic test because they proved themselves constitutionally and spiritually incapable of repentance – incapable of discerning what is good and what is evil, what is of God and what is not.
And as I have expressed here before, those who do not repent will eventually relent.
Note added: JM followed up my comment with the following:
I suppose the churches could have closed up shop more grudgingly, but I am not sure this should have counted as a pass. I’d make a distinction between coopted institutions and enslaved individuals since a coopted institution has necessarily sold its soul. An individual can surrender control over the operations of his body while retaining possession of his soul, but an coopted institution is nothing more than the operations of its body. A church that serves Leviathan is just a fully-owned subsidiary of Leviathan. Unlike the slave, it cannot separate what it wills from what it does.
I agree with JM here, but this agreement requires the acknowledgment that churches that serve Leviathan are fully-owned subsidiaries of Leviathan that have sold their souls, which draws into question what, precisely, they are "willing." Much food for thought.
RSS Feed
