There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. —Soren Kierkegaard. "…truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it. That is why truth does not yield to opinion, fashion, numbers, office, or sincerity–it is simply true and that is the end of it" – Os Guinness, Time for Truth, pg.39. “He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” – Blaise Pascal. "There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily" – George Washington letter to Edmund Randolph — 1795. We live in a “post-truth” world. According to the dictionary, “post-truth” means, “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Simply put, we now live in a culture that seems to value experience and emotion more than truth. Truth will never go away no matter how hard one might wish. Going beyond the MSM idealogical opinion/bias and their low information tabloid reality show news with a distractional superficial focus on entertainment, sensationalism, emotionalism and activist reporting – this blogs goal is to, in some small way, put a plug in the broken dam of truth and save as many as possible from the consequences—temporal and eternal. "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." – George Orwell “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Soren Kierkegaard
Ed Litton, Redemption Church tell conflicting stories on deleted sermons
It might be time for Ed Litton and Redemption Church to compare notes and get their stories straight. Right now, they have told two different, contradictory stories about why the church hid hundreds of Ed Litton’s sermons.
According to the Washington Times, “Mr. Litton said Redemption Church had removed dozens of his old sermons from its website because of a transition in web hosting and to conserve disk space, stating the older messages remain available on YouTube.”
This is filled with false information.
The older messages were hidden YouTube. In fact, no message prior to February 2020 appears to be viewable on YouTube. At first, the church hid over 143 videos. Currently, the church is hiding 85 videos on YouTube.
Plus, Litton’s statement is in direct conflict with the church’s statement to Baptist Press.
According to BP, “By the action of the leadership at Redemption Church we have taken down sermon series prior to 2020 because people were going through sermons in an attempt to discredit and malign our pastor,” the statement from the elders said. “It is our highest priority to care for and shepherd our church.”
Now Ed Litton’s statement is in direct contradiction to the official statement from the Church.
They both cannot be true.
Either, the church hid the sermons to protect Ed Litton from marauding bands of Internet sleuths attempting “to discredit and malign” Ed Litton or it was a web server and storage issue.
So, which is it?
Also, the older messages were not available on YouTube. YouTube was the scene of much of the sermon hiding.
It would be safe to say Ed Litton lied to the Washington Times.
And does the fact that Ed Litton’s comment sound more like Bill Clinton start to worry Southern Baptist Elites?
How many lies will be enough for SBC Elites do the right thing and force Ed Litton to resign?
(Marsha West – Christian Research Network) Thousands of people, including many Christians, have tuned in to watch the series The Chosen. The series is about Jesus Christ and His disciples, both before and after their ministry began. The Chosen has been a great success and as a result another season is in the offing. In her piece The Chosen and The Shift, Ingrid McCullough warns that it’s not just a show:
Mr. Jenkins is involved in writing study guides and devotionals that go along with his portrayal of Christ and His followers. Churches and small groups will be watching episodes of The Chosen and using the accompanying materials for the sake of spiritual growth. He argues that The Chosen doesn’t replace Scripture but He does claim that God is the one behind it, wanting to use the series to bring people closer to Christ. This same line of reasoning is used by the LDS to promote the Book of Mormon…
And herein lies the problem and the reason for this article. My chief concern is that most people don’t realize that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints a.k.a Mormonism, is involved in producing the series. And that should give Christians pause.
There are a whole host of pseudo-Christian cults around the globe. One of the most well-known cults is Mormonism. No doubt some will find my assertion that they are caught up in a cult humorous, while others may find it disturbing that I would even suggest such a thing. However, as a Christian I’m not called to be nice; I’m called to speak the truth in love; likewise, I’m called to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3).
Truth
Anyone who claims to be a Christian but chooses to deny fundamental Christian doctrine and blatantly manipulates the scriptures to fit their own narrative is not a true follower of Jesus Christ. From the Church’s perspective, which is what really matters, a true believer will not deviate from the historic, orthodox teachings derived from Sacred Scripture and confirmed through the creeds (what Christians believe) and confessions (what Christians publicly confess). The creeds and confessions clarify what Christians believe and why they believe it. Creeds and confessions throw light on the essentials of the Christian faith, whereas pseudo-Christian cults deny the essentials of the faith.
Not surprisingly, the Mormons have had to defend their spurious beliefs ever since founding prophet, Joseph Smith, reported that an angel named Moroni visited him on several occasions beginning in 1823. According to Mark Ashurst-McGee, Smith alleged that Moroni “showed him the location of an ancient scriptural record akin to the Bible, which was inscribed on metal tablets that looked like gold. After four years, Moroni allowed Smith to recover these ‘golden plates’ and translate their characters into English. It was from Smith’s published translation—the Book of Mormon—that members of the fledgling church became known as ‘Mormons.’”
What do we know about Joseph Smith’s visitor? There are “several different accounts of the attributes of this so-called angel Moroni. Some described him to be a Spanish conquistador type of fellow, with a slit throat, and blood draining from the gaping wound. Still others, reported Smith told them Moroni was originally a toad who morphed itself into a salamander which eventually ended up as the angel of light, Moroni.” The Anti-Mormon Blog reveals that “Smith was only too eager in sharing Moroni’s message that Smith’s name would be known for both good, and evil. It’s as if he proudly wore it as a badge of honor.”
According to Mormon theology, Moroni came into existence as a human being. Nowhere does the Bible say that angels began as humans. Not surprisingly, Mormon beliefs contradict the clear teaching of Scripture on angels.
Is this information concerning Joseph Smith, the angel Moroni, and the supposed golden tablets important? You bet it is. Mormons are not and cannot be true Christians for the simple reason that their view of the essentials of the Christian faith do not reflect historic orthodox Christianity – not even close! What they believe about God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, the Atonement and Salvation, is not only unbiblical, it is pure fiction! And speaking of salvation, LDS Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 188 states that there is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. So, it is easy to understand why I labeled The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints a pseudo-Christian cult.
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 1 John 4:1
Dallas Jenkins And The Mormon’s Counterfeit Jesus
According to Ingrid McCullough:
Mr. Jenkins claims that he felt God speaking to him 3-4 times in his life. He claimed he felt God “laying on his heart” that “in several years The Chosen was going to be what people thought of when they pictured the disciples.”
More…
I felt like God was saying that ‘this will be the definitive portrayal of My people and this is what people are going to think of around the world when they think of My people. And I’m not going to let you screw it up.’
“I felt like God was laying on my heart…” “I felt like God was saying…” The question we need to ask ourselves is, what if he was not hearing from God but rather a demon? How could Mr. Jenkins possibly know for certain that it was Almighty God he was hearing from?
Does God speak directly to His people? Does He speak to a believer’s heart? Or…..does God speak to believers through His Word? If you wish to know what the Bible actually teaches on hearing God’s voice outside the scriptures, I invite you to watch a video of Justin Peters and Voddie Baucham teaching on what has become a very controversial subject.
Dallas Jenkins’ claim that God said that He’s not going to let him “screw it up,” was not from God. We know this because Dallas actually did screw it up and very early on at that. How? By partnering with a pseudo-Christian cult. Unbeknownst to most people, he hired VidAngel to distribute The Chosen. VidAngel is an LDS owned enterprise. The LDS religion is an enemy of the Cross. Why? Because Mormons have a different Jesus. Theirs is not the Jesus of Sacred Scripture. Most everyone knows this. So how could the man who was supposedly told by God that He wouldn’t let him “screw it up” not know that Mormons reject the Jesus of the Bible?
Dallas Jenkins is clearly confused because during an interview he remarked: “We love the same Jesus…I’ll sink or swim on that statement.’”
According to Mormon Doctrine subtitled “A Compendium of the Gospel” page 163, Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both. To identify the Lord Jesus Christ and Satan as “spirit brothers” is blasphemy.
One Mormon leader said the following when asked what he believes about Jesus:
In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ.’ ‘No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak’” (LDS Church News, week ending June 20, 1998, p.7)
Saying that he would “sink or swim on that statement” was a rather bold assertion for Dallas Jenkins to make. One can only conclude that he believes Christians and Mormons love the same Jesus. Even Mormons don’t believe that for a moment. As referenced above, Mormons absolutely do not believe in the same Jesus as biblical Christians do. By making that statement, any credibility Jenkins had sank like the Titanic.
In her article, Ingrid McCullough revealed that, “Many Christians have expressed concern with Mr. Jenkins partnership with the LDS church. Yet, he brushes off these concerns as irrelevant. Partnering with a cult that endeavors to be seen as Christian is dangerous.”
Dallas Locks Horns With Dissenters
Bible teacher, author and blogger Michelle Lesley wrote a review of The Chosen that’s published on her site. At the end of the review are several comments. As I scrolled down the page, I noticed that Michelle replied to some of these comments but what caught my eye was a commenter by the name of “Dallas Jenkins.” Seeing that name was a surprise! The Chosen producer read Michelle’s review and stayed to respond to comments. One commenter, Susan Raborn, expressed concern over his decision to use VidAngel to distribute his film. Following is his reply:
VidAngel is not a “Mormon company” any more than Disney is a “Jewish company.” The fact that their owner happens to be a Mormon is immaterial to the content on their service. 2. They are the distributors of The Chosen. Unlike with Netflix or NBC or Amazon or whatever (all owned by non-believers, by the way), who would have control of the content if they financed it, VidAngel does not have control over the content of The Chosen. The Kendrick Brothers’ movies are financed and distributed by Sony, a company owned by non-believers/atheists, and there’s nothing wrong with that. What matters is the content of the show and those writing it. 3. This video addresses the issue of who is involved with The Chosen and is essentially our “statement of faith”: (Video on the site)
Susan Raborn: To partner with a Catholic priest who teaches and professes a false religion that damns its adherents to hell with a false gospel of works righteousness is the continued dangerous ecumenical blindness that has watered down the gospel and weakened the church. It’s the sort of thing that leads to Catholics believing that a false gospel is the same as the true gospel. It’s the kind of thing that makes the ministry more difficult and much harder for those of us contending for truth, for the gospel, sharing truth with Catholics. While we get hammered, thrown out of families, and persecuted, our names and character maligned and destroyed, those holding that Catholicism is a valid Christian religion are walking arm in arm into the one world religion easing into the apostate church.
Dallas Jenkins: Except we didn’t “partner” with a Catholic priest. Shouldn’t the show speak for itself?
Susan Raborn: Depends on your definition of partnering. This from CBN: “Very early in the production process, Jenkins saw the critical need and value of having an ecumenical group of pastors, professors, and theologians to dissect and analyze each episode of the series for theological accuracy and cultural relevance. Among that group are Rabbi Sobel, Father David Guffey, a Catholic priest, and Dr. Doug Huffman, an evangelical college professor who specializes in Old and New Testament.
At this point Michelle asked them to finish their conversation via email and they complied.
On 7/12/20 Michelle added an update to her review to thank a reader who brought to her attention a troubling interview on a Mormon YouTube channel where he remarked that he believes Mormonism and Catholicism are Christianity. A concerned Michelle commented:
Dallas seems to believe that Mormonism and Catholicism are both Christianity.” [I’ll address this issue below.] It is one thing to use the products and services of a non-Christian [Mormon owned] company. It is another matter to personally believe, as a Christian, that false religions are Christianity and that adherents of those religions are brothers and sisters in Christ. If these revelations of Dallas’ beliefs prevent you from watching The Chosen, that is certainly understandable, and I would encourage you not to sin against your conscience by watching it.
Is Uniting With Wolves A Beautiful Thing?
On a recent podcast, Pastor Gabriel Hughes of When We Understand The Text (WWUTT), mentioned that a few years ago he wrote a review of a film directed by Dallas Jenkins, The Resurrection of Gavin Stone. (See the podcast link below) Jenkins was upset by Hughes’ negative review and contacted him to let him know he was deeply offended. Hughes discussed what happened during their email exchange and went on to say that in his view, Jenkins “didn’t understand the Church let alone the gospel…he clearly didn’t understand the gospel at all.” As such “No one’s going to be changed by seeing this flick.” Even though Hughes pointed to Scripture to make his case, Jenkins’ mind was not changed. Hughes then moved to his topic, The Chosen. He played portions of an interview Jenkins did with David Snell, a Mormon, and interrupted to correct Jenkins’ theology. Here’s an excerpt from that clip:
One of the most interesting things about this whole project has been my relationship with different denominational or faith traditions that I didn’t have before. I’ve learned so much more about the LDS community than I thought I knew. That goes for the Catholic community.”
Hughes stops the interview and says reproachfully, “He defends an entire religion that adds to the Bible. This is another gospel.” He then quotes Galatians 1:8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” He then points out that “[Mormons] believe in another Jesus. A literal offspring of heavenly father and heavenly mother. An exalted man, a created being. Jenkins defends this!” Hughes plays another clip where we hear Jenkins say, “It’s a beautiful thing to see that we can agree on the stories of Christ. You’ve got Catholics and Jews and Mormons and Evangelicals – we’re all loving the same show and this show is about Jesus. Maybe, just maybe we love the same Jesus.”
Hughes stops the interview and laments “I don’t know if he’s ever known the gospel.” Later he reminds us that “There is no possible way to portray in film and TV, or anywhere else, the holiness of Christ in his humanity. The perfection that Christ was, even in His incarnation, there would be no way to depict that…. Jesus was not just like us. No film will ever be able to capture the perfection of Christ.”
Amen to that.
Should You Watch The Chosen?
There is no harm in asking valid questions before investing your time watching eight episodes of The Chosen, starting with: Who is Dallas Jenkins and why should I believe the picture he is painting of the Lord Jesus and his disciples is biblical?
If you recall, Dallas Jenkins stated that he believes Christians and Mormons love the same Jesus. Clearly he’s confused….or something. What is true, and provably so, is that the Jesus of the Bible is not the fictitious Jesus Mormon founder Joseph Smith hatched in his fertile imagination.
For professing Christians this is an issue of discernment. Bible believers must become Bereans (Acts 17:11). What this means is that before you watch a “Bible” movie, go to a play, or read a book, consider checking out the writer/producer’s “credentials”. Where did he/she attend seminary or Bible college? Is the writer conservative or liberal? Along these lines Ingrid McCullough has some relevant thoughts that are worthy of consideration:
In Video 1, Mr. Jenkins peddles his evangelical street creds….He explains that he has been part of a conservative bible-believing background his whole life and was a Bible major in college. But does the fact that he was raised in Christian culture and was a Bible major in college make him more reliable when it comes to rightly dividing the Word of God? No. It does not. Mr. Jenkins repeatedly says in interviews and social media posts that he holds to orthodox Christian teaching. However, nowhere does he post a clear statement of faith, confessional statement, or guiding creed. We have to take him at his word. Video 1 is labeled as his statement of faith, but, in no way was it a typical statement of faith. After watching it, we know nothing of his actual stance on the primary doctrines of the faith. We do, however, have an understanding of the show’s values.
Mr. Jenkins and his wife have positioned themselves as Bible teachers. Through collaboration with other people, they now write and sell several devotionals, Bible study guides, and other material that correspond to the show. As such, their theology matters. Their ability to rightly handle the Word of God matters. Yet, in one sponsored ad, Mr. Jenkins promoted his Bible study guide as a tool to “explore the scriptural context that augments your viewing experience.”
This is completely backward! If, as Mr. Jenkins has claimed, Scripture, not The Chosen, is our authority, why is it that it is Scripture that augments the show and not the other way around? Not that it is much better the other way around, theologically speaking. But Mr. Jenkins has shown in this statement his true view of Scripture and that it is there to augment his show, his vision, his Jesus. (Source)
Sage Advice
Recently I watched a video of R.C. Sproul teaching on the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 7:13-14 where the Lord Jesus says the following:
Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to eternal life, and those who find it are few.
There is a gate to life (heaven), which is narrow and a gate to destruction (hell) which is wide. The gate for sinners is wide and stands open. The gate to eternal life is narrow.
During his teaching, R.C. emphasized that followers of Jesus Christ must strive to enter through the narrow gate. “The gate is easy that leads to destruction and those who enter are doomed. This is not my opinion,” he stresses. “It is the teaching of the Lord Jesus.” He went on to say, and I’m paraphrasing, that those who go through the narrow gate are few and that the vast majority of human beings are on their way to hell and if they died tonight they’d arrive in hell and cry out, “Lord, Lord didn’t we do these things in your name…?” And Jesus would say to them “Leave, you workers of inequity! You are not known by me in a redemptive way, so I don’t hear you knocking at my door.” Then R.C. makes his final point: “What if you’re deceiving yourself about the state of your soul?” Some people will be devastated, he says. They will be sobbing, “Oh no please, have mercy on me.” Others will not be weeping, they’ll be gnashing their teeth, complaining “How dare you put me here!” With a serious expression on the timeworn face of a man who had severe breathing difficulties, R.C. stated; “I wouldn’t believe in hell if Jesus hadn’t taught on it.”
In the closing words of his lecture, R.C addressed his audience with urgency (From my notes):
True Christians are sons and daughters of the King. We don’t have to worry about how strong the world is. All we have to know is who the King is. Jesus Christ will determine the destiny of people….are you numbered among the few or the many?
I’ll close with a verse all Bible believing Christians should be familiar with:
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God. 1 Cor 614-15
NEW YORK CITY, NY—Some critics are raising concerns over election integrity after early results from the NYC mayoral election showed Biden winning by eighty million votes.
“Yeah, something about that seems… off,” said local man Joseph Joey. “Are we sure all those election people really know what they’re doing, or that they’re not all corrupt and stuff?” The FBI is now investigating Joey after his far, far-right insurrectionist comments questioning the sanctity of America’s holy elections.
According to sources, Biden won the mayoral race after election officials accidentally counted the 80 million Biden ballots they had stashed away in a special secret place reserved for extra Biden ballots. They have apologized for the unfortunate error.
“We are working hard to sort this out, and hope to have this all fixed soon,” said NYC Election Official Tony Palermo. “In the meantime, um, please just try to remember who you voted for—just in case.”
The Need for Integrity in Church Leaders Psalm 26:11; Proverbs 10:9; 1 Timothy 3:8; Titus 2:7
Do not let your deeds belie your words; lest when you speak in church someone may mentally reply, “Why do you not practice what you preach? Here is a lover of dainties turned censor! His stomach is full and he reads us a sermon on fasting. As well might a robber accuse others of covetousness.”
JEROME
Ritzema, E. (2013). 300 Quotations for Preachers from the Early Church. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
Our Never-Failing Passport John 14:13–14; Hebrews 4:16
The name of Jesus is a never-failing passport to our prayers. In that name a man may draw near to God with boldness, and ask with confidence. God has engaged to hear him. Think of this. Is not this encouragement?
J. C. RYLE
Ritzema, E., & Vince, E. (Eds.). (2013). 300 quotations for preachers from the Modern church. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
2:12 Paul declared that with the reception of the Spirit … from God, a person understands that “Christ and him crucified” (v. 2) is actually the highest wisdom.[1]
2:12spirit of the world God’s Spirit is not like the spirit of people or anything that can be comprehended, computed, or reasoned in this world (compare 1:20; 2:6). While God’s work is eternal, everything of this world is temporal—including current rulers and evil spiritual beings.
Spirit who is from God The Holy Spirit.
freely given Refers to God’s gracious gift of salvation, which believers can comprehend because of the Spirit (compare Rom 6:23). It therefore describes the content of God’s revealed wisdom and thus refers to Christ Himself (see note on 1 Cor 1:24).[2]
2:12the Spirit who is from God. Both the substance and the verbal expression of the apostles’ witness to Christ are from God.[3]
2:12 we have received … given to us. The “we” and “us” refer to the apostles and other writers of the Word of God. The means was inspiration (see notes on 2Ti 3:16; 2Pe 1:20, 21), by which God freely gave the gift of His Word. It was this process of inspiration that turned the spiritual thoughts into spiritual words (v. 13) to give life (cf. Mt 4:4).[4]
2:12 — Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
God does not want us to guess about what lies ahead for us; that’s why He has told us a great deal in His Word about our future and why He has given us His Spirit, to help us understand what He has revealed.[5]
2:12. Paul and others have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God. All believers have received the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation (Rom 8:9). Because of this, the believer might know the things that have been freely given to them by God. For a small minority of believers in the first century, like some of the apostles and those under their authority, the Spirit revealed the content of God’s Word (2 Pet 1:20–21). For all other believers, the Spirit helps them interpret God’s Word and make meaningful application. This latter work of the Spirit is called illumination.[6]
2:12 The we of verse 12 refers to the writers of the NT, although it is equally true of all the Bible writers. Since the apostles and prophets had received the Holy Spirit, He was able to share with them the deep truths of God. That is what the apostle means when he says in this verse: “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.” Apart from the Spirit who is from God, the apostles could never have received the divine truths of which Paul is speaking and which are preserved for us in the NT.[7]
2:12. It was for that purpose, in part, that the Spirit who is from God came (John 16:13), not just to some Christians but to all (1 Cor. 12:13).[8]
2:12. The importance of Paul’s analogy becomes clear in his affirmation that he and the Corinthian believers had not come to Christ under the influence of the spirit of the world. No mere earthly wisdom brought the Corinthians to the gospel of Christ. The Spirit who is from God did this for them. The Spirit of God comes upon all who believe in Christ (Rom. 8:9) and reveals to them the mind of God.
For what purpose does the Spirit of God come to those who believe? He comes in order that they may understand what God has freely given. Christians cannot understand the wonder of all they have received from God by observing things with their natural eyes. God freely gives the salvation that culminates in their blessings with Christ in the new heavens and new earth. The Holy Spirit enables them to see the wonder of this gift as well as the wisdom that leads to it.[9]
2:12 “the spirit of the world” This is a third connotation of the term kosmos (world), human society organized and functioning without God. Today we would call it “atheistic humanism” (cf. v. 6), also called “spirit of slavery” in Rom. 8:15.
It is certainly true that in their fallen and temporal state even believers cannot fully, exhaustively know God, but can know and understand everything needed for salvation and godly living through the revelation of the Father, the person and work of the Son, and the illumination of the Spirit. Because we cannot know everything is no excuse not to embrace the clear truths of the Bible and walk in them.
It is also crucial that believers acknowledge that God’s wisdom has been “freely given” (cf. Rom. 8:32). It is a gift of God which He desires to give to all humans made in His image (cf. Gen. 1:26–27), but who now through rebellion are estranged from Him. It is not the result of human intelligence, social standing, or ingenuity, but God’s love and mercy through Christ’s work and the Spirit’s agency. Since Christ, ignorance is willful! The Holy Spirit brings light, truth, and salvation. The spirit of this world brings darkness, deception, and death.[10]
12. Now we have received not the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may know the things freely given to us by God.
a. “Now we have received.” In the previous verse, Paul spoke in generalities that involved man’s spirit. But here he specifies the Corinthians and himself by using the plural personal pronoun we. This pronoun takes the first place in the Greek sentence and so receives emphasis. With this inclusive pronoun, Paul has come to the heart of the paragraph on God’s Spirit versus man’s spirit. He offers the comforting assurance that we have received the Spirit, whom God has given us.
b. “Not the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God.” The negative clause not the spirit of the world has been interpreted in various ways:
it describes the rulers of the world who crucified Jesus (v. 8);
it denotes evil that has established its own rules and objectives (see 2 Cor. 4:4; 1 John 4:4; 5:19);
it is equivalent to the wisdom of this world (1:20);
it is the spirit in man that is worldly.
We say that the spirit of the world is the spirit that makes the world secular. From the time Adam and Eve fell into sin, the spirit of this world has revealed itself in opposition to God’s Spirit: for example, in the lawlessness prior to the flood, in the building of the tower of Babel, and in the false teachers who sought to destroy the church in apostolic days (2 Peter 2; 1 John 4:1–3; Jude 4–19). It is the spirit that rules a person in whom God’s Spirit does not live. It is a power that determines “all the thinking and doing of men, which places itself over against the Spirit who is of God.”
By contrast, as Paul expresses in eloquent Greek, believers have received the Spirit that proceeds from God (see John 15:26; Gal. 4:6). God’s Spirit comes to the believers from a sphere other than this world and conveys knowledge of God, creation, redemption, and restoration. Since Pentecost, God’s Spirit dwells in the hearts of all believers (6:19).
c. “That we may know the things freely given to us by God.” Why does God grant us the gift of his Spirit? The answer is that we may know innately the things that pertain to our salvation. The Spirit teaches us the treasures we have in Christ Jesus, whom God handed over to die on a cross so that we have eternal life (1 John 5:13). If God delivered up his Son, he certainly will graciously give us in him all things (Rom. 8:32). Believers appropriate the gift of salvation through the work of the Holy Spirit. They realize through faith that in Christ sin and guilt have been removed from them, that God is reconciled to them, and that the way to heaven has been opened for them.[11]
12. The reason why believers know divine wisdom is now explained: they have received the Holy Spirit who discloses the things of God to them. We stands here for all believers, and those who believe have received … the Spirit who is from God. The mark of believers is that they have ‘received’ the Spirit, and elsewhere Paul speaks of the inception of the Christian life as receiving (lambanō) the Spirit (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 3:2, 14). Indeed, the mark of being a Christian is the presence of the Spirit in one’s life (Rom. 8:9). When Paul speaks of not receiving the spirit of the world, the reference could be to demonic beings, but it is more likely rhetorical, as in the phrases ‘spirit of slavery’ (Rom. 8:15, csb) and ‘spirit of fear’ (2 Tim. 1:7, csb). The purpose of the gift of the Spirit is that believers should understand what God has granted in his grace to them. Believers do indeed possess wisdom, but the wisdom they enjoy cannot be ascribed to their own intellects or to their gifts. It is granted to them by the Holy Spirit; thus the wisdom they have is not discovered by them but revealed to them by the Spirit.[12]
12. Once again an emphatic we contrasts Christians with ‘wise’ heathen. Whatever be the case with others, we are led by God’s Spirit. Some understand the spirit of the world to mean Satan, and this would give an excellent sense. However, Satan does not seem to be referred to in just this way (though ‘the prince of this world’, John 12:31, comes near to it, and cf. Eph. 2:2). Further, it goes beyond what is required by the context. Throughout this passage Paul is opposing a ‘wisdom’ that is not satanic but human. It seems that we should accept some such meaning as ‘the spirit of human wisdom’, ‘the temper of this world’ (Lenski, ‘It is what makes the world “world” ’). Believers have not received the spirit of worldly wisdom. In passing we notice that the word for world here is kosmos, ‘the ordered universe’, not aiōn, ‘age’ (as in vv. 7–8), which means the world in its temporal aspect.
We who are Christ’s have received the Spirit who is from God (cf. Gal. 3:2), and this brings the assurance that we have real knowledge. The Christian’s certainty is a certainty of faith, but that does not make it any the less a certainty. He has understanding of what God has freely given us.[13]
12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world. He heightens by contrast the certainty of which he had made mention. “The Spirit of revelation,” says he, “which we have received, is not of the world, so as to be merely creeping upon the ground, so as to be subject to vanity, or be in suspense, or vary or fluctuate, or hold us in doubt and perplexity. On the contrary, it is from God, and hence it is above all heavens, of solid and unvarying truth, and placed above all risk of doubt.”
It is a passage that is most abundantly clear, for refuting that diabolical doctrine of the Sophists as to a constant hesitancy on the part of believers. For they require all believers to be in doubt, whether they are in the grace of God or not, and allow of no assurance of salvation, but what hangs on moral or probable conjecture. In this, however, they overthrow faith in two respects: for first they would have us be in doubt, whether we are in a state of grace, and then afterwards they suggest a second occasion of doubt—as to final perseverance. Here, however, the Apostle declares in general terms, that the elect have the Spirit given them, by whose testimony they are assured that they have been adopted to the hope of eternal salvation. Undoubtedly, if they would maintain their doctrine, they must of necessity either take away the Spirit of God from the elect, or make even the Spirit himself subject to uncertainty. Both of these things are openly at variance with Paul’s doctrine. Hence we may know the nature of faith to be this, that conscience has from the Holy Spirit a sure testimony of the good-will of God towards it, so that, resting upon this, it does not hesitate to invoke God as a Father. Thus Paul lifts up our faith above the world, that it may look down with lofty disdain upon all the pride of the flesh; for otherwise it will be always timid and wavering, because we see how boldly human ingenuity exalts itself, the haughtiness of which requires to be trodden under foot by the sons of God through means of an opposing haughtiness of heroical magnanimity.
That we may know the things that are given us by Christ. The word know is made use of to express more fully the assurance of confidence. Let us observe, however, that it is not acquired in a natural way, and is not attained by the mental capacity, but depends entirely on the revelation of the Spirit. The things that he makes mention of as given by Christ are the blessings that we obtain through his death and resurrection—that being reconciled to God, and having obtained remission of sins, we know that we have been adopted to the hope of eternal life, and that, being sanctified by the Spirit of regeneration, we are made new creatures, that we may live to God. In Ephes. 1:18, he says what amounts to the same thing—“That ye may know what is the hope of your calling.”[14]
2:12the Spirit who is from God … what God has freely given us. God was deliberate in granting his Spirit. Although the church used the language of the Spirit, it seemed to have lost sight of why God sent his Spirit. God gave his Spirit not as a reward to the “wise” but to enable all believers to comprehend the magnitude of God’s gift through Christ. Those who are truly spiritual are those whose lives evidence that they have grasped God’s wisdom.[15]
12 With this sentence and the next we come to the heart of things, the central issue in the entire paragraph. The argument began with the assertion that Paul does indeed speak wisdom among the “grown-ups” of God’s people. That wisdom in fact is not esoteric knowledge of deeper truths about God; rather it is simply God’s own plan for saving his people. As such it is contrasted to “wisdom” of the leaders of the present age, who cannot know God’s wisdom because it is the “secret, hidden” wisdom that was/is destined for, and finally revealed to, those who love God. That revelation has been given by the Spirit, who alone knows the inner secrets of God, and whom, as this verse now affirms, “we have received.” Since “like is known by like,” the Spirit, who alone knows the thoughts of God, becomes the link on the human side for our knowing the thoughts of God.
As before (vv. 6–9) Paul makes this point once again by way of antithesis to those of the present age. He is forever reminding the Corinthians that they belong to a different world order, a different age, and therefore must not do as they are now doing—pursue or think in terms of merely human sophia. In receiving the Spirit,287 it was not “the spirit of the world” that “we have received.” If this were made to walk on all fours, it could be seen as unusual language. But Paul’s point is simple. He is not suggesting that there is a “spirit” of the world comparable to the Holy Spirit, nor is he referring to demonic “spirits.” He is rather saying something about the Holy Spirit. The Spirit whom we have received is not “of this world”; rather, the divine Pneuma is “the Spirit who is from God.” The implication, of course, is that, since the Corinthian believers have the Holy Spirit, who is not of this world, they should desist thinking like this world.
The final clause of the sentence picks up the main concern of all that has preceded (esp. vv. 6 and 10) and thereby gives the reason, spoken to in this context, for Paul’s and their having received the Spirit, namely, “that we may understand what God has freely given us.” This latter phrase in particular picks up the motif “what God has prepared for those who love him” (v. 9) and gives us a clear glimpse into the content of the wisdom that God has revealed to his people by the Spirit. The verb Paul uses here (charizomai) seems to be a deliberate allusion to the “grace” (charis) of God, or the “gift” (charisma) of salvation (as in Rom. 6:23); it appears here in the neuter plural (“what things have been freely bestowed”) because it is reflecting the preceding neuter plurals (v. 9). Therefore, this language seems determinative that Paul, in talking about God’s wisdom in this passage, is referring to salvation through the Crucified One (as in 1:23–24; 2:2). And God’s people are to “understand” that precisely because they have received the Spirit.[16]
12 The amazing thing is that such communication is indeed possible! For when one becomes a believer in Jesus, that person receives the Holy Spirit as a gift (see Ac 2:38; Ro 8:9b, 14–15). This is what Paul now reminds the Corinthians of—that believers have “received … the Spirit who is from God.” This reality enables us to understand the foregoing about how, through the cross and resurrection of Christ, the powers of this age are coming to nothing. Those, however, who have not received God’s Spirit—those who are still caught up in the “spirit of the world”—do not understand this “secret wisdom” (v. 7).
With this message, of course, the apostle is able to address on the deepest level possible those among the Corinthians who loved the sophisticated rhetoric and wisdom of the world. If that is the level on which they desire to operate, says Paul, they will miss out on the full meaning of Jesus Christ, the purpose of his coming into the world, the salvation he has to offer, and the many gifts he has to offer. “What God has freely given” is actually a passive participle of the verb charizomai (GK 5919), with God as the expressed agent (called a “divine passive”; cf. NASB, “the things freely given to us by God”). It denotes in the broadest way possible all communication of teachings and gifts from God to us.[17]
[1] Tomlinson, F. A. (2017). 1 Corinthians. In E. A. Blum & T. Wax (Eds.), CSB Study Bible: Notes (p. 1814). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.
[2] Barry, J. D., Mangum, D., Brown, D. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Ritzema, E., … Bomar, D. (2012, 2016). Faithlife Study Bible (1 Co 2:12). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
[3] Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (p. 2194). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
[8] Lowery, D. K. (1985). 1 Corinthians. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 2, p. 510). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
[9] Pratt, R. L., Jr. (2000). I & II Corinthians (Vol. 7, pp. 36–37). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
[15] Vang, P. (2014). 1 Corinthians. (M. L. Strauss, Ed.) (p. 36). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
[16] Fee, G. D. (2014). The First Epistle to the Corinthians. (N. B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, G. D. Fee, & J. B. Green, Eds.) (Revised Edition, pp. 120–121). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
[17] Verbrugge, V. D. (2008). 1 Corinthians. In T. Longman III &. Garland, David E. (Ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans–Galatians (Revised Edition) (Vol. 11, p. 279). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
In his book, The Patient Ferment of the Early Church, Alan Kreider makes the case that the substantial growth of Christianity from the resurrection of Christ through the 300’s was tied to the church’s emphasis on the patient ethical formation of believers. According to Kreider, there was no grand strategy of cultural influence nor any attempt to accommodate the worship service of the church to make outsiders feel more comfortable. Instead, the primary focus of church leadership was to see the habitus (habitual behavior) of Christ followers formed so they were noticeably distinct in their moods, affections, and actions from their neighbors.
He says, “The sources rarely indicate that the early Christians grew in number because they won arguments; instead they grew because their habitual behavior (rooted in patience) was distinctive and intriguing…When challenged about their ideas, Christians pointed to their actions. They believed that their habitus, their embodied behavior was eloquent. Their behavior said what they believed; it was an enactment of their message.”[i]
You will often hear our moment in history compared to the cultural climate in which the early church grew. While the early church was pre-Christendom, it seems we are rather quickly heading into a post-Christendom era. We can no longer claim to be the religious majority nor expect Christian ideas to be met with much other than scorn in the public sphere. If we are treading the same historical path as our early church brothers and sisters, perhaps we should learn from the way they walked.
Their walk was aimed at seeing those born and raised in a pagan culture—with pagan reflexes, desires, and dispositions—completely rewired to be people with Christ-like reactions, loves, and temperaments. It was not only about affirming the right points of doctrine, although one who desired baptism would typically be catechized for several years before entering the baptismal water.
Instead, the early church was so effective because they focused their time and energy on the renovation of hearts, which then bore fruit as they shone brightly in the world.
With all the problems to speak of in the current evangelical church, it is likely that this failure to cultivate a distinctly Christian way of life strikes at the heart of our witness in the world. As J. Daryl Charles put it, “In many evangelical circles, to speak of virtue, of moral formation or of social ethics is to elicit a look of bewilderment from the listener, as if he or she has been addressed in some foreign language.”[ii]
If we are to retrieve the early church emphasis on moral formation and solidify our witness in the world, I believe we need to turn our attention to two often neglected yet vitally important areas of Christian ethics.
WHI Classic: On the last edition of the White Horse Inn, the hosts discussed the problems associated with a “try it, you’ll like it” approach to the Christian faith. But does the Christian faith make a practical difference in a person’s life? Should converts to Christianity expect to experience real transformation? How should we think about remaining sin? Will Christians continue to struggle with habitual sins, or is that possibly a sign that they are not really true believers? The hosts tackle these questions and more on this edition of the program (originally aired11-27-11).
2 Kings 17:7 – The first violation listed as cause for God’s judgment was the violation of the first commandment. Later in 2 Kings 17:10 we see the violation of the second commandment. Yet God still in His mercy sent prophets to warn them (2 Kings 17:13).
2 Kings 17:32-33 – Today we have a similar situation. People show the formalities of reverence to the LORD by paying a visit to mark His birth or His death, but He is placed on their heart’s shelf amongst other gods. People pick and choose the parts they like, and mix in a fair amount of hedonism, idolatry, and other practices into a diversified religious experience.
2 Kings 18:5-6 – How is this for a testimony of faithfulness? Can it be said of you that you “clave” to the LORD?
2 Kings 18:9 – We are now at 722 BC, one of the key dates in Israelite history, the fall of the Northern Kingdom.
Acts 20:9 – While your guide has fallen into a deep sleep in church, thankfully he has never fallen from the third floor.
Acts 20:18 – Speaking of a testimony of obedience, consider Paul’s: “serving the LORD with all humility… and with many tears.”
Acts 20:28 – Paul’s charge to the elders of Ephesus: guard the flock. They are not your flock, they are the flock of the Holy Ghost, a valuable flock, purchased with the very blood of Jesus Christ.
Acts 20:29 – Too many today are falling into ancient heresies like Gnosticism or its modern variations. We need to remember that heresy came quickly after the Gospel.
Psalm 148:1 – Count the number of ways we can praise the LORD!
Proverbs 18:7 – Does your mouth lead you to your destruction?
Share how reading thru the Bible has been a blessing to you! E-mail us at 2018bible@vcyamerica.org or call and leave a message at 414-885-5370.
1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. Hebrews 1:1-4 (NASB)
The Church in the early part of the 21st Century is very sick. This sickness has not happened all at once. Instead, it is the result of centuries of compromise after compromise on the part of Christian leaders and their followers to adapt the Gospel and the Church doctrines to conform to what men want. That process is called “Pragmatism.” As a result, the Church has lost its savor….
It is no longer salty. The countries in Europe where the Reformers restored the Gospel at the cost of untold numbers of martyrs would not now be considered Christian at all.
In the United States, the visible Church still has some influence in politics and society, but is that what the Church is supposed to be about? The segment of the American Church that would consider itself evangelical has become so doctrinally shallow that most of the members as well as their leadership have no idea what they really believe. If they are confronted with the Arminain/Semi-Pelagian vs. Calvinism debate they would be clueless about what each side believes and does not believe. In fact, they are so spiritually shallow, they don’t understand why it is important to know what you believe and why you believe it. View article →
When we think properly about the benefits we have in Christ, we’re protecting our minds with the helmet of salvation. That’s why it’s so important to understand the Gospel. Hear more about how Jesus works on our behalf, on Truth For Life with Alistair Begg. Listen…
This is a remarkable conversation with the historian Niall Ferguson on the need for Christianity, along with some fascinating reflections on the journeys of other public intellectuals like Roger Scruton, Douglas Murray, Tom Holland and Jordan Peterson. (There are echoes too of Matthew Parris’s Times column on Saturday, in which he argued that human rights are neither fundamental nor unalienable without a Christian foundation.) I was struck by this line in particular: “Viewing Western civilisation with its Christian soul cut out, many are now willing to say: ‘We need Christ.’ What they are unable, thus far, to say, is: ‘I need Christ.'” Have a look:
“I was brought up an atheist—I didn’t become one,” [Ferugson] said. “I regard atheism as the religious faith I happened to be brought up in. It is, of course, as much a faith as Christianity or Islam—and I have the Calvinist brand, because my parents left the Church of Scotland. I was brought up, essentially, in a Calvinist ethical framework but with no God. This had its benefits—I was encouraged to think in a very critical way about religion and also about science, but I’ve come to see as a historian that you can’t base a society on that. Indeed, atheism, particularly in its militant forms, is really a very dangerous metaphysical framework for a society.”
“I know I can’t achieve religious faith,” he went on, “but I do think we should go to church. We don’t have, I don’t think, an evolved ethical system. I don’t buy the idea that evolution alone gets us to be moral. It can modify behaviour, but there’s just too much evidence that in the raw, when the constraints of civilisation fall away, we behave in the most savage way to one another. I’m a big believer that with the inherited wisdom of a two-millennia old religion, we’ve got a pretty good framework to work with.”
For one of the most prominent historians in the world—himself an agnostic—to say that we should go to church is rather startling, but Ferguson’s sentiments also appear to be part of a growing trend. The late philosopher Sir Roger Scruton began attending church himself despite struggling with belief, regularly playing the organ at All Saints’ in Garsdon. His secular friends say his faith remained cultural; other friends were not so sure. What we do know is that he thought Christianity was in many ways the soul of Western civilisation, and that the uniquely Christian concept of forgiveness was utterly indispensable to its survival.
Scruton’s friend Douglas Murray, the conservative writer who was raised in the Church before leaving it as an adult, has occasionally referred to himself as a “Christian atheist.” In a recent discussion with theologian N.T. Wright, he described himself as “an uncomfortable agnostic who recognises the virtues and the values the Christian faith has brought,” and noted that he is actually irritated by the way the Church of England is fleeing from its inheritance, “giving up its jewels” such as “the King James Bible and The Book of Common Prayer” in exchange for progressive pieties. “My fear is that the Church is not doing what so many of us on the outside want it to do, which is preaching its gospel, asserting its truths and its claims,” he said. “When one sees it falling into all the latest tropes one thinks well, that’s another thing gone, just like absolutely everything else in the era. I’m a disappointed non-adherent.”
Murray believes that Christianity is essential because secularists have been thus far totally incapable of creating an ethic of equality that matches the concept that all human beings are created in the image of God. In a column in The Spectator, he noted that post-Christian society has three options. The first is to abandon the idea that all human life is precious. “Another is to work furiously to nail down an atheist version of the sanctity of the individual.” And if that doesn’t work? “Then there is only one other place to go. Which is back to faith, whether we like it or not.” On a recent podcast, he was more blunt: “The sanctity of human life is a Judeo-Christian notion which might very easily not survive [the disappearance of] Judeo-Christian civilisation.”
Historian Tom Holland’s magnificent Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World, published in 2019, makes a similar case. For years, Holland—an agnostic—wrote compelling histories of the ancient Greeks and Romans, but he observed that their societies were rife with casual, socially-accepted cruelty towards the weak, rape, and sexual abuse towards the massive slave class as an unquestioned way of life, and the mass extermination of enemies as a matter of course. These peoples and their ethics, Hollands writes, seemed utterly foreign to him.
It was Christianity, Holland concluded, that changed all that in a revolution so complete that even critiques of Christianity must borrow precepts from Christianity to do so. (Without Christianity, he writes, “no one would have gotten woke.”) He defended this thesis brilliantly in a debate on the subject “Did Christianity give us our human values?” with atheist philosopher A.C. Grayling, who seemed actively irritated by the idea. Not so long ago, unbelievers like the late Christopher Hitchens claimed that “religion poisons everything”—a sentiment that appears to be retreating as we advance further into the post-Christian era.
Hitchens frequently claimed to be not an atheist, but an “anti-theist”—he didn’t believe in God, and he was glad that he did not. It is fascinating to see intellectuals come forward with precisely the opposite sentiment—they do not believe, but they somehow want to believe. The psychologist Jordan Peterson, who speaks about Christianity often, is a good example of this. Discussing the historicity of the Christian story with Jonathan Pageau, he said, fighting back tears: “I probably believe that, but I’m amazed at my own belief and I don’t understand that.”
He went on: “In some sense, I believe it’s undeniable. You know, we have narrative sense of the world. For me that’s been the world of morality, that’s the world that tells us how to act. It’s real, we treat it like it’s real. It’s not the objective world, but the narrative and the objective world touch. And the ultimate example of that in principle is supposed to be Christ. But I don’t know what to do with that – it seems to me to be oddly plausible. But I still don’t know what to make of it. Partly because it’s too terrifying a reality to fully believe. I don’t even know what would happen to you if you fully believed it.”
Not so long ago, the atheists who retreated to their Darwinian towers and bricked themselves up to fire arrows at the faithful wanted to be there. Their intellectual silos were a refuge from faith because they didn’t want Christianity to be true. They hated it and thought we’d be better off without it. Like Hitchens, they were thrilled to find arguments that permitted them to reject it. Increasingly, some intellectuals from across the disciplines—history, literature, psychology, philosophy—are gazing out of what was once a refuge and wishing that, some how, they could believe it. They have understood that Christianity is both indispensable and beautiful, but their intellectual constraints prevent many of them from embracing it as true.
Viewing Western civilisation with its Christian soul cut out, many are now willing to say: “We need Christ.” What they are unable, thus far, to say, is: “I need Christ.” But the political must become personal. Peterson appears to understand that—and is awestruck by the reality of it.
For now, historians like Niall Ferguson recognise that Christianity is a fundamental bulwark of the fragile civilisation we inhabit. “I think the notion that we can deal with these arrows of outrageous fortune without some kind of established and time-honoured set of consolations is almost certainly wrong,” he told me. “I’m one of these people who didn’t come to atheism by choice, and I’ve almost come out of it on the basis of historical study. The biggest disasters that we likely face are actually related to totalitarianism, because that’s the lesson of the 20th century. Pandemics killed a lot of people in the 20th century, but totalitarianism killed more.
“It disturbs me that in so many ways, totalitarianism is gaining ground today,” Ferguson said. “Totalitarianism was bad for many reasons, and one of the manifestations of its badness was its attack on religion. When I see totalitarianism gaining ground not only in China but in subtle ways in our own society, that seems to be the disaster we really need to ward off. Why am I a conservative and not just a classical liberal? Because classical liberalism won’t stop wokeism and totalitarianism. It’s not strong enough. Ultimately, we need the inherited ideas of a civilisation and defences against that particular form of disaster.”
The survival of Christianity is essential for the survival of the West. The bad news is that this realisation comes when the day is far spent. The Good News is simpler. “Christendom has had a series of revolutions and in each of them Christianity has died,” G.K. Chesterton wrote in The Everlasting Man. “Christianity has died many times and risen again; for it had a God who knew the way out of the grave.”
…and how they have been trying to obscure facts that indicate SARS-CoV-2 is a manmade virus that originated in a lab.
I have previously interviewed Latham a few times. He is the publisher of Independent Science News, a website that provides critical commentary on food, agriculture and biotechnology. It’s part of the Bioscience Resource Project, an educational nonprofit public interest group co-founded by Latham and Allison Wilson, Ph.D., that provides independent research and analysis of genetic engineering and its risks.
Latham points out that there are currently no data to suggest a natural zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2. On the other hand, there’s plenty of evidence and data suggesting the virus was genetically manipulated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China. Much of the related research was done by a scientist called Shi Zheng-Li, Ph.D.
The pandemic virus industrial complex is an interlocking set of corporations and other institutions who feed off and support each other with goods and services in a self-reinforcing way. ~ Jonathan Latham, Ph.D.
He goes on to summarize the Mojiang miners passage theory. This theory postulates that the virus evolved inside the bodies of six miners who became ill with a suspected novel coronavirus infection in 2012. Some of the miners were sick for several weeks — a sufficient amount of time for the virus to mutate, Latham believes.
Accused by Fox’s Tucker Carlson of snooping through his emails, the National Security Agency insisted the host is not “an intelligence target” in a carefully worded reply that was blasted by critics as deliberately vague.
The spy agency took to Twitter on Tuesday to respond to Carlson’s charges that he was surveilled – made during a segment of his show the night prior – calling the allegations“untrue.”
“Tucker Carlson has never been an intelligence target of the agency and the NSA has never had any plans to try to take his program off the air,”it said, adding that it has a“foreign intelligence mission”and is prohibited from spying on American citizens barring explicit authorization.
The agency did not elaborate, however, on whether such authorization was issued with respect to Carlson, or if any of the cable news host’s associates might have been monitored instead, leaving room for speculation.
The response mirrored earlier comments from White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, who told reporters on Tuesday that the NSA“focuses on foreign threats,”brushing away Carlson’s claims while directing further questions to the agency itself.
On Monday, Carlson said that a government whistleblower had approached his team with evidence of illicit NSA spying, claiming the insider provided details about his personal communications that could only have been gleaned from his texts and emails. He added that the organization sought to leak that information in an effort to have his show pulled off the air.
The host followed up on the charges during a segment on Tuesday night, rebuffing the NSA’s public response and stating that he also spoke with the agency directly.
“Just minutes before air tonight, the NSA sent us an infuriatingly dishonest formal statement, an entire paragraph of lies written purely for the benefit of the intel community’s lackeys at CNN and MSNBC – all those people they hire with their titles on the screen,”Carlson said.
While Carlson noted that he tried to contact NSA Director Paul Nakasone, he said he could not get through. He was eventually able to reach lower-level officials, but said they declined to answer his questions directly.
“Orwellian does not begin to describe the experience,”Carlson said of his exchange with the agency, adding that the officials“refused to say”whether they had spied on his communications.
The message was clear: ‘We can do whatever we want. We can read your personal texts, we can read your personal emails, we can send veiled threats your way to brush you back if we don’t like your politics. We can do anything.’
Tucker Carlson responds to the NSA:
“We made a very straightforward claim: NSA has read my private emails without my permission… Tonight’s statement from the NSA does not deny that instead it comes with this non-sequitur: Tucker Carlson has never been an intel target.”pic.twitter.com/gGiP4HNtxw
Other observers also weighed in online, some deeming the NSA’s statement evasive, suggesting the intel agency’s wording left the door open for some form of surveillance on the Fox host, whether direct or indirect.
“Don’t know whether NSA is *specifically* spying on Carlson, but this statement is worthless,”said former Republican Representative Justin Amash.“[First], it denies a compound allegation re ‘monitoring’ *and* taking [Carlson’s] show off air. [Second], it says he’s not a ‘target,’ which is a term of art. Real danger is so-called ‘incidental collection.’”
Don’t know whether NSA is *specifically* spying on Carlson, but this statement is worthless. 1st, it denies a compound allegation re “monitoring” *and* taking show off air. 2nd, it says he’s not a “target,” which is a term of art. Real danger is so-called “incidental collection.”pic.twitter.com/xfKP5DGdML
Classic non-denial denial. Notice they say “never a target”, no “plans” to remove from the air, and that they legally may not “target” such a person. What they do NOT say is that they are not intercepting his communications. In other words, they are.https://t.co/juUXXrgtnC
Journalist Glenn Greenwald – a major NSA critic who helped to publish amassive troveof the agency’s documents leaked in 2013 by contractor Edward Snowden – took corporate media outlets to task for their coverage of the controversy. He slammed“CNN and NBC personalities who never heard of ‘incidental’ collection,”referring to a practice by which intelligence agencies can collect information on American citizens indirectly, so long as their primary target is based abroad.
A major scandal at the time, the Snowden leak revealed the NSA had engaged in illegal mass surveillance of Americans, as well as foreign allies, for years on end, despite repeat denials from US officials.
Even some of those skeptical about Carlson’s accusations asked for a more direct response from the NSA, apparently deeming its statement too vague. Other critics remained unconvinced about the pundit’s charges, however, saying they“require more evidence”and have not been substantiated beyond Carlson’s claim of a still-unnamed whistleblower.
I tend to doubt the NSA is collecting Tucker Carlson’s info but…I need to hear them say “we are not collecting his info, even incidentally or pursuant to some other target”
If NSA is reviewing Carlson’s private emails, that is a serious matter indeed.
Which is why it appears even his peers at the network require more evidence than him saying so on an opinion-driven show that Fox’s own lawyers have defended this way…https://t.co/6pDQs4wtZmhttps://t.co/aZfYZeeGyd
Former MSNBC pundit and fervent Fox critic Keith Olbermann took some extra poetic license with the NSA statement, calling it“obvious”proof that Carlson was in contact with a“foreign entity trying to harm the USA.”
BREAKING:@TuckerCarlsonclaims@NSAis reading his emails. NSA promptly denies…he or any American is a target.
Somehow Tucker doesn’t see the obvious: the NSA believes he’s emailing with a FOREIGN ENTITY TRYING TO HARM THE USA!
“Orwellian does not begin to describe the experience, it was like living in China. But we should get used to it.”
Tuesday night on his primetime show on Fox News, Tucker Carlson slammed the Biden administration for a phone call he had with the NSA and the statement the agency issued claiming that Tucker Carlson was never the target of an NSA investigations in response toallegations that the agency was spying on the Fox News host.
“Then, just minutes before air tonight,the NSA sent us an infuriatingly dishonest formal statement, an entire paragraph of lies written purely for the benefit of the intel community’s lackeys at CNN and MSNBC, all those people they hire with the titles on the screen. They also tweeted out a few minutes ago. Now, last night on this show, we made a very straightforward claim: NSA has read my private emails without my permission, period. That’s what we said. Tonight’s statement from the NSA does not deny that.”
Carlson added, “Instead, it comes with this non sequitur, in part, quote, ‘Tucker Carlson has never been an intelligence target of the agency.’ Okay, glad to know. But the question remains, did the Biden administration read my personal emails? That’s the question that we asked directly to NSA officials when we spoke to them about 20 minutes ago in a very heated conversation. Did you read my emails? And again, they refuse to say, again and again. And then they refused even to explain why they couldn’t answer that simple question. ‘We can’t tell you and we won’t tell you why we can’t tell you.’ My emails.”
Tucker Carlson discusses being spied on by the NSA: “Orwellian does not begin to describe the experience. It was like living in China. But we should get used to it.”pic.twitter.com/DRHod559kp
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial)June 30, 2021
The host continued, “And the message is clear. We can do whatever we want. We can read your personal texts, we can read your personal emails, we can send veiled threats your way to brush you back if we don’t like your politics, we can do anything. We are our own country. And there’s literally nothing you can do about it. We’re in charge, you’re not.”
Carlson concluded the segment by saying, “Orwellian does not begin to describe the experience, it was like living in China. But we should get used to it. Now that the Biden administration has classified tens of millions of patriotic Americans, the kind who served in the military and fly flags in front of their homes, as potential domestic terrorists white supremacist saboteurs, we’re gonna see a whole lot more of this kind of thing. A whole lot more.”
Earlier in the day, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, while aboard Air Force One,responded to Carlson’s accusationsby dodging a reporter’s question on the matter. “Well, the NSA … is an entity that focuses on foreign threats and individuals who are trying, attempting to do us harm on foreign soil. So, that is their purview. But beyond that, I would point you to the intelligence community.”
Monday night, Carlson made the accusation against the NSA and the Biden administration during his show and said a whistleblower at the agency contacted the show and provided information they could have only gotten if they were monitoring his communications.
“Yesterday we heard from a whistleblower within the US government who reached out to warn us that the NSA, the National Security Agency, is monitoring our electronic communications and is planning to leak them in an attempt to take this show off the air. The whistleblower, who is in a position to know, repeated back to us information about a story that we are working on that could have only come directly from my texts and emails. There’s no other possible source for that information, period.”
“The NSA captured that information without our knowledge and did it for political reasons,” Carlson said. “The Biden administration is spying on us. We have confirmed that. This morning we filed a FOIA request — Freedom of Information Act request — asking for all information that the NSA and other agencies have gathered about this show. We did it mostly as a formality. We’ve also contacted the press office of both NSA and the FBI.”
As part of a media campaign touting President Joe Biden’s ‘success’ against Covid-19, Democrats are telling Americans to be thankful they can actually see friends and family or attend a ballgame on Fourth of July.
As Americans gear up to celebrate their country’s Independence Day, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has decided now is the perfect time to remind everyone of all the good the Biden administration has done.
Part of this campaign is a cringey ad released on Tuesday declaring that“America’s coming back.”
Set to the tune of John Legend’s ‘In America,’ the ad informs us that there is more to“celebrate”this year besides just the founding of one’s country.
“This year, there’s more to celebrate. The freedom to hug a grandchild. To see a baseball game in person. To come back together again. America, leading the world out of the global pandemic with honesty and compassion,”a narrator tells us as footage of people getting vaccinated and smiling at gatherings plays.
It’s a bit disconcerting that Democrats believe that on a holiday meant to celebrate freedom and independence, Americans should somehow be grateful that they suddenly have been given the ‘right’ to see family and friends or do something as simple as seeing a ballgame in person.
Even if one agreed with the more extreme lockdown measures taken by many states, having the“freedom”to see whom you want or to attend gatherings shouldn’t have to be “celebrated.” These are basic freedoms that should require no thanks be given to anyone. The DNC appears to believe the current administration deserves all the praise, though, as the commercial flashes images of Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris hard at work and promotes the US government’s supposed“honesty and compassion”in“leading the world”during the pandemic.
In addition to the 60-second spot, the DNC is also launching an Ice Cream Truck Tour – the president’s favorite dessert is ice cream – that will go across the East Coast starting on Wednesday and end in Washington at the National Mall on the Fourth of July.
“Shots in arms, checks in banks, jobs coming back and scoops in hand,”the message on the truck will read, according to NBC News.
They’ll similarly be flying banners out of planes in states including Florida and Wisconsin with the message:“America’s back together thanks to Biden and Democrats.”
White House officials will also be traveling across the country to presumably receive their thanks in person, including the president, who will attend a rally in Traverse City, Michigan on July 3.
DNC Chairman Jaime Harrison said during a Mondayvirtualfundraiser – celebrate that ‘new normal!’ – that Democrats are“working overtime”to tell the world about the Biden administration’s “success.”
“We’re doing this all more aggressively than ever before,”he said.
Biden has been in office for six months and, however one feels about his performance, the fact that his biggest supporters feel the need to work“overtime”to“aggressively”sell us on his success – even going so far as to tie those questionable successes to a national holiday – should be alarming.
Biden hasn’t even met his own standard of success when it comes to Covid, with the US set to fall short of the president’s goal of having 70% of US adults receive at least one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine by the Fourth of July holiday. Add to this the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and health advisers such as Dr. Anthony Fauci have been attracting more and more pushback as they ease their Covid-19 rhetoric and seemingly flip-flop on issues such asmaskingand theoriginsof the virus because ‘the science changed,’ and you have six months with not a lot to show except for the fact that the big bad Tweeter-in-Chief is gone.
Democrats are not working“overtime”to educate the world on Biden’s successes. They are working“overtime”to rebrand his administration – which includes a retcon apparently erasing Donald Trump from the pandemic – with ice cream and a media blitz using an American holiday to tell us we should be grateful to be ‘allowed’ to exercise the most basic of human freedoms. We are being told the new“honest and compassionate”administration somehow deserves thanks, right along next to those who boldly approved and signed the Declaration of Independence.
The Founding Fathers and Declaration of Independence deserve recognition for acting as the very foundation of this country and of the rights Americans enjoy, while the current administration wants a pat on the back for telling you it’s suddenly okay again to hug your relatives or spend your hard-earned money at a ballgame.
On NewsWatch AM June 29th: transgender issues & young people become a flash point in the culture wars: Supreme Court rejects Virginia’s appeal on ban on transgender bathrooms, giving win to student who sued his school for discrimination…
When we think properly about the benefits we have in Christ, we’re protecting our minds with the helmet of salvation. That’s why it’s so important to understand the Gospel. Hear more about how Jesus works on our behalf, on Truth For Life with Alistair Begg.
Truth2Freedom's Blog 