Category: Uncategorized

HC 30; Jesus the Alone Savior

Question 30: Do such then believe in Jesus the only Savior, who seek their salvation and welfare in saints, in themselves, or anywhere else?

As we continue through our examining of the Heidelberg Catechism we are reminded here of what has been said previously. Previously, we said that one purpose of the Catechism was to distinguish Reformed thought from other expressions that were either barely Christian or not Christian at all. This question and answer provides one example.

Clearly here the Catechizers have Roman Catholicism in their sites. Rome taught then and still teaches that Jesus is not the only Savior because Rome taught then and teaches now that praying to Mary and the saints is appropriate.

Scripture teaches that Jesus is the alone mediator between God and man.

For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus… I Timothy 2:5

When prayers are offered up to saints, the saints become what this passage denies and that is mediators between God and man. The catechism takes this error very seriously and insists that people who pray to the saints, however well intended they may be, are not in point of fact trusting Jesus Christ to be their only savior. The implication here is that people who do not trust Jesus Christ to be their only savior do not have Jesus as their savior at all. This question and answer reads out of the Christian faith Roman Catholics who really believe in the doctrine of praying to the saints.

This is the answer the HC gives;

Answer: They do not; for though they boast of Him in words, yet in deeds they deny Jesus the only deliverer and Savior;3 for one of these two things must be true, that either Jesus is not a complete Savior or that they, who by a true faith receive this Savior, must find all things in Him necessary to their salvation.4

HC 30 explicitly teaches that “they do not believe in Jesus the only Savior, who seek their salvation and welfare in saints, in themselves, or anywhere else?”

Succinctly put, such people must be born again. Succinctly put, the Jesus such people believe in is not the Jesus of the Bible. Succinctly put, even though these people doubtless affirm the Apostles creed even reciting it, they are not in Christ. They are investing a different meaning into the words of the AC; “And in Jesus Christ His only son.” HC 30 is teaching that despite how much the word “Jesus” is on their lips, their deeds of praying to the saints denies the Jesus of the Bible. Here the HC is teaching that if we try to add anything to the finished work of Jesus Christ for our salvation, we have taken to ourselves a Jesus who is no Jesus.

We should add here this also casts off all those who believe in Libertarian free will. All those who believe that the death of Jesus for us must be combined with our “dead in sin will” to choose Christ are outside of Christ. This is so because when it is taught that our “dead in sin will” must choose Christ then we have a doctrine of Christ plus our Libertarian free will choosing Christ. This is a seeking of salvation in themselves.

Because Jesus is our only Savior and Deliverer, His people must be content with His alone provided salvation. Jesus alone will save or He will not save at all.

3 1 Cor. 1:13, 31, Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Gal. 5:4, Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Roman Catholics and Arminians alike cannot glory in the Lord alone. They must glory in the Lord plus the saints, or they must glory in the Lord plus themselves as it was their will in choosing Jesus and not Jesus alone. This Jesus plus their decision contrasts them from those who Jesus also died for that didn’t choose Jesus.

Again, the Jesus of the Bible is the alone savior or we are not saved. This is what HC 30 is insisting upon;

for one of these two things must be true, that either Jesus is not a complete Savior or that they, who by a true faith receive this Savior, must find all things in Him necessary to their salvation.4

We see with this answer and question the centrality of a very particularly defined Jesus. It is important to note that there are as many Jesus’ as there are various expressions of Christianity but only the paedo covenant Reformed faith gives one the Jesus of the Bible who can alone save. We must find in that Biblical Jesus all things necessary to our salvation. Christ alone is necessary and sufficient to being saved. There is no other Jesus under heaven who alone can save but the Jesus sat forth in the Reformed Creeds and Confessions.

“Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12

who (Jesus) being the brightness of His (the Father’s) glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high… Hebrews 1:1-3

who (Jesus) does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. ” Hebrews 7:2

Friends of Rightly Ordered Loves = Pariah / Friends of Disordered Loves = Defenders of the Faith

So… let me get this straight;

And please correct me where I’m wrong because it is kind of murky.
John Little Bradley and Robert Alistair and Mrs. Alistair (Annie Sue) — three participants who were instrumental in the new Dreyfuss affair are, through their relationship with the organization MereOrthodoxy,  supporters of and close friends with one former Queen of Spain –who by the way is or was from the island of Lesbo, and who wrote at least one fiction book describing lesbian, er, umm…. joint intimacy.

A blurb marketing the former Queen of Spain’s book;

Louise has nothing. Lavinia has everything. After a chance encounter, the two spiral into an intimate, intense, and possibly toxic friendship. A Talented Mr. Ripley for the digital age, this seductive story takes a classic tale of obsession and makes it irresistibly new.

And here are a couple reviews of the same book.

“Diabolical…A wicked original …

—Janet Maslin, The New York Times 

“Sharp as a shard of broken mirror…a formidable burlesque by  the former Queen of Spain ….
   
—New York Times Book Review

So John, Robert and Anne Sue, defenders of Christendom against the interloping presence of a dreaded “Kinist” are themselves supporters of and friends with a current or former citizen of the island of Lesbo — working together with a woman who has written rather descriptive books about the intimacy of two naked women getting it on together?

Also, it seems that Robert Alistair (one of the Dreyfuss affair conspirators) cohosts Mere Fidelity with 3 other chaps, including one . It seems that Lee Matthews is on the advisory committee for Revoice…a sodomite organization to help same sex attracted people feel welcome in the church.

Is all this right … is that the reality?

Cuz, I want to make sure and get this right. I don’t want to be guilty of any wild accusations. If this chronicling of hypocrisy on the part of John Little Bradley and team Alistair is false I want to find out so I can stop this from spreading.

However, we can remain glad that Robert Allistair, John Little Bradley, and company rid our modern day Dreyfuss from the visible church even if their intimate associations with dysfunctional people makes them questionable members of the visible church.

Blessing the Name of Achord While Extending a Fie Upon the Enemies of Dr. Achord

I don’t personally know Dr. Achord. I have profited greatly from his Anthology “Who is My Neighbor” co-edited with my good friend Darrell Dow. I have listened to him on his Ars-Politica podcast. I have seen him interviewed. And now I have read his explanation of what happened to this good and godly man in experiencing cancel culture as levied by those considered to be “pillars in the Church.”

This one cuts kind of close. As the readers here know, I was the target of a huge doxxing and cancel culture effort at the beginning of 2020. This was on the heels of a mighty struggle against the ecclesiastical structure that I was at the time associated with (and yet not really a part of) at the end of 2018. I don’t mind saying that those 18 months took the wind out of my sail. At the time I didn’t think I was going to survive that travail. All of it raked on my soul and frankly unmanned me. Only God’s mercy and grace brought me through. So, I know personally and up close what Dr. Thomas Achord may be going through.

Today Dr. Achord provided his side of the story in this matter here;

View at Medium.com

The reading of the above reveals that Thomas is a man of character. I can guarantee you that I would not be so generous as he is being.

And here Dr. Stephen Wolfe provides an explanation of this outrage;

Now, one’s temperature begins to rise when one realizes that those “Christian” men responsible for this Achord doxxing are not going to be held responsible in this life. This is one of those cases that we entrust that the guilty will get their comeuppance in that great and final day. God will make all accounts right.

I am going to mention here that some responsibility has to be laid at the feet of the Institution that allowed themselves to be stampeded so as to “resign” Dr. Thomas Achord. Dr. Achord seeking to pour oil on the waters bows out with grace. However, I must say that it seems it is the same kind of men who are in charge of our Institutions as who are out there doing the doxxing. Could not these men at the Institution in question and who agreed to  Achord’s “resignation” at least waited until the smoke of battle had cleared to assess what had really happened?

Another thing to consider is how weary I am with the “point and splutter” technique that remains so successful among our wussified culture. The whole thing is akin to a bunch of Jr. High girls screaming about a mouse loose in the lunch-room. The analogy is especially apt since those doing the doxxing are indeed acting like Jr. High girls. If they were men they would demand a duel or try to bring the man up on charges in some Church court. Instead they scream like little girls. Disgust is too mild of a word for what I feel for these effeminate creepers. It is the same way I felt about those who hid behind their media empire when blackening my name.

Today has been a somewhat hard day for me because all that has happened to Dr. Achord brought back to me the hard years of 2018-2020. I have finally arrived at the point that Thomas is already at and that is the reason he has my admiration. He got there much quicker than I did.

However, while we as Christian men seek to take these kinds of things in stride and with a sanctified aplomb we must also at the same time pray imprecatory prayers against the kind of wicked wicked men who would go to these ends to do the ruinous to god-fearing men. While we pray that they may know the joy of conversion, we at the same time pray that if they refuse to bend the knee that God would utterly destroy them.

If you want to do a good work you can go here to help support the Achord family until Thomas and his growing family gets back on his/their feet;

https://www.givesendgo.com/G9HF1?sharemsg=display&fbclid=IwAR0hEhJcGv7bZjbBS5DWyjBsuqWno7aBIQmj47wGtfYnYv9gUw6HEdKXEB8

Love of Faith … Love of Place … Love of Fathers

“Our country is ourselves. It is our villages, our altars, our graves, all that our fathers loved before us. Our country is our land, our faith, our King… But their country (Those of the French Revolution) — what is it? Do you understand? Do you? … they have it in their brains; we have it under our feet… Theirs is as old as the Devil, this world that they call new and that they wish to found in the absence of God…. They say we are slaves of the ancient superstitions; it makes us laugh! But in the face of these demons who rise up again century after century, we are youth, gentlemen. We are the youth of God, the youth of fidelity! And this youth will preserve, for its own and its children, true humanity and liberty of soul.”

Francois-Athanase Charette
Royalist during French Revolution

Leader of the Peasants of the French district of Machecoul
Charette would later forfeit his own life opposing the Revolution.

Notice here that what Charette is giving us is the difference between those who hate Nationalism, opting instead for some kind of vision of a “propositional nation” — a nation as Charette puts it; “that is only in their brains.” This is how Charette analyzed the French Revolution. It was a matter of those who hated God and who embraced the idea of France as an idea vis-a-vis those who loved their faith, their home, their fathers, and their land.

Charette understood that his enemy wanted to re-make the world, and further that they wanted to remake it absent any notion of God and absent any respect for past Christian traditions, past bonds of faith and family, and any past sense of belonging to a place.

Charette said this enemy rises century after century and so they do. Charette faced them in Danton, Robespierre, St. Just, Fouquier-Tinville and Desmoulins. After the French Revolution they arose again in the European Revolutions of 1848, in the US Yankee Armies of 1861-1877, the Bolshevik Revolution of 1918, the Communist Revolution in China in 1949, and elsewhere since 1789. We face them today in the NWO/Great Reset/Deep State. We face them in Michigan in Whitmer, Benson, and Nessel. We face them in the Washington in just about every elected and appointed office.

We can never defeat this enemy of Christ and His people if we do not understand where the lines are drawn. We have to understand that those who would embrace propositional nationhood are doing the devil’s work even if they shout constantly; “Lord, Lord, have we not done great things in your name?”

The hour is late. We need to understand the foundational issues. The haters of Christ go after Christ via the backdoor of attacking place, home, faith, and the honored Christian traditions of the storied past.

Charette was right. The CREC’s war on Kinism with its allegiance to place, home, faith and the honored Christian traditions of the storied past is wrong.