(Originally posted July 2020) Let us start out this post with the father of the Canadian health care system:
“Back in the 1960s, (Claude) Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.
The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: “the father of Quebec medicare.” Even this title seems modest; Castonguay’s work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.”
Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in “crisis.”
“We thought we could resolve the system’s problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it,” says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: “We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice.”
(Just Updated)
Why can’t America’s healthcare system be more like Canada’s? Here’s a better question: why would you want it to be? French-Canadian entrepreneur Alain Lambert has first-hand experience with both Canada’s and America’s healthcare systems, and he offers some cautionary tales. Canadian-style healthcare might not be as good for your health as you think.
This next short video is by filmmaker Stuart Browning, who provides a cautionary lesson about a politicized health care system where politicians and bureaucrats determine medical priorities. See more at Dr. Brownings (dated) SITE.
Stossel: Government-run health care may mean waiting in line for care. (ABC News blocked this from playing on my site, so here is my RUMBLE edition):
Claude Castonguay, the father of the Canadian Health Care system, and a model adopted by the NHS in Britain, has said his model is failing:
Just yesterday, I wrote about how unpopular the British healthcare system has become. Today comes news that the man largely responsible for Canada’s conversion to a single-payer health care system has admitted the system’s failure:
“Back in the 1960s, (Claude) Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.
The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: “the father of Quebec medicare.” Even this title seems modest; Castonguay’s work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.”
Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in “crisis.”
“We thought we could resolve the system’s problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it,” says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: “We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice.”
As more and more nations throughout the world seek to infuse more private, market-based solutions into their government-controlled healthcare systems, for some reason lefties in this country want to make the same mistake that countries like Canada made decades ago…
One person eventually wrote a book about their experience, noting in a CITY JOURNAL article:
…I was once a believer in socialized medicine. I don’t want to overstate my case: growing up in Canada, I didn’t spend much time contemplating the nuances of health economics. I wanted to get into medical school—my mind brimmed with statistics on MCAT scores and admissions rates, not health spending. But as a Canadian, I had soaked up three things from my environment: a love of ice hockey; an ability to convert Celsius into Fahrenheit in my head; and the belief that government-run health care was truly compassionate. What I knew about American health care was unappealing: high expenses and lots of uninsured people. When HillaryCare shook Washington, I remember thinking that the Clintonistas were right.
My health-care prejudices crumbled not in the classroom but on the way to one. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute. Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic—with a three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks….
One of David Gratzer’s books opened my eyes to what was going on up in Canada and gave me ammunition to respond to silly liberal emotive arguments. The book is “Code Blue: Reviving Canada’s Health Care System.” But, many people believe the Michael Moore’s of the World:
Some More Videos
Obamacare, Trumpcare, Ryancare, Berniecare. Doesn’t matter what you call it, when you hand over control of healthcare to the Government through a single-payer, universal system: it sucks. Allow me, someone who grew up with socialized medicine in Montreal, Canada, explain why.
Government-controlled health care in Canada is “great unless you need it.” Ralph Weber, a Canadian medical refugee, explains why he and his family got the medical care they needed, not in Canada, but in the United States. Is Canada style waiting lists and rationing headed south, with the passage of ObamaCare?
This is another video I wish to save and it comes from CATO Institute. See more here “featuring Stuart Browning with a critique of SiCKO“. I believe the longer video is gone — sad. See more at Dr. Brownings (dated) site.
While the preacher I listened to had a lot of other verses showing the weakness of Bibles using the Wescott & Hort works verses the Textus Receptus and Masoretic texts…
Westcott and Hort were not orthodox Christians. They were 19th-century theologians and Bible scholars who held non-orthodox beliefs, including skepticism towards the authority of the Bible and various heretical views. Their work, particularly in textual criticism, has been criticized for its departure from traditional Christian doctrines, and they are often associated with movements that reject the King James Version of the Bible. (more at the end of this post in the APPENDIX)
John 3:13 sealed the deal for me. Since having my Christian Standard Bible (CSB) I hadn’t used that verse yet with a J-Dub (Jehovah’s Witness). But if I had, the power and strength of that verse would have been missing — as well as me scratching my head from memory why I went to that verse in real time in a witnessing situation. Horrible.
I will first show the popular Bible versions verse oj John 3:13, then the three that rely on the Textus Receptus and Masoretic texts, followed by Henry Morris’ comment on it:
No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven—the Son of Man. (CSB)
And no one has ever gone up to heaven except the Son of Man, who came down from heaven.” (GNT)
No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man* has come down from heaven. (NLT)
No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. (ESV)
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. (NIV 2011)
No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. (NASB 1995)
No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven—the Son of Man. (NET)
Now the real verse!
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (KJV)
No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. (NKJV)
No one has ascended to heaven except He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man who is in heaven. (MEV)
Here is the comment from the Defender’s Study Bible (Henry Morris)
3:13ascended up to heaven.This is an emphatic claim to deity, as Christ here refers to Proverbs 30:4, and appropriates it as applying uniquely to Himself, thus claiming to be the only begotten Son of God. Not even David had yet “ascended into the heavens” (Ac 2:34). But Jesus had descended from heaven (note also 3:31), and would soon ascend back to heaven (20:17). Even now (by virtue of the indissoluble union of the triune Godhead), He was still “in heaven.”
My next Bible will be the NKJV.
“…by virtue of the indissoluble union of the triune Godhead), He was still ‘in heaven’.”
AMEN!
This was the deal breaker for other versions.
I wish the Modern English Version (MEV) had the options I want: not a study Bible, wide margins for my own notes, and cross-references with a goatskin cover and nothing on the cover graphic wise. The cover being free of graphics allows a wider audience to want to buy the Bible.
The MEV would be my preferred version, here are a couple comparisons:
Gen. 4:1
Adam had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived, gave birth to Cain and said, “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord.” (MEV)
Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the Lord.” (NKJV)
Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord.” (ESV)
Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the Lord, I have brought forth a man.” (NIV)
1 Pet. 1:1-2
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the refugees scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification by the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied. (MEV)
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance. (NIV)
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied. (NKJV)
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. (ESV)
Westcott and Hort were men who did not believe in many orthodox doctrines, especially in regards to the authority and preservation of the Scriptures. Hort said in a letter: The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible;[2] Hort differed greatly with orthodox Christianity in regards to the authority of the Bible in the life of the Christian.
Westcott and Hort not only did not believe in orthodox views in regards to the authority of the Bible, they also despised the traditional Bible that had been used since the early days of the church. Hort said regarding the traditional Bible (Received Text): I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus.[3] The villainous textus Receptus? This is the person whom modern Christians trust to have reconstructed the Greek text of their Bibles? Hort continued: Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late manuscripts.; it is a blessing there are such early ones.[4] Calling the traditional and historic Bibles “vile” shows the low view these two men had for Scripture.
In addition to the authority of the Scriptures, Westcott and Hort denied many other orthodox Christian doctrines. In regards to the literal creation, Westcott wrote: No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history — I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did.[5] Westcott and Hort were evolutionists who denied the Genesis account of creation.
Hort was not someone who believed in the biblical doctrines of salvation. He even called the substitutionary atonement of Christ “immoral.” Hort writes: I entirely agree…with what you there say on the atonement, having for many years believed that ‘the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself’ is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit.[6]
Westcott also did not believe in biblical salvation, but he did teach the false doctrine of universal salvation. He wrote in his commentary of Hebrews 2:8-9, “The fruit of His work is universal.”[7] Is it true that all people will be saved? No, only those that trust in Christ will be saved. Westcott also taught other heretical views regarding salvation. He wrote in his commentary of John 15:8, “a Christian never ‘is’ but always ‘is becoming’ a Christian.“[8] The teaching that a Christian can never be sure of his salvation is heresy and false doctrine (1 John 5:12-13).
Westcott denied the reality of Heaven. He wrote in his commentary of John 1:18, “The ‘bosom of the Father’ (like heaven) is a state and not a place.“[9] The Bible teaches that heaven is most definitely a place. Jesus said that He would prepare a “place” for us, not a “state” (John 14:2). Westcott’s view of the doctrine of heaven was very heretical.
Many other examples could be given regarding the many heresies of Westcott and Hort. Entire books have been written that analyze their writings which clearly reveal their heretical views. The examples given here should be sufficient to show that Christians are foolish to trust these men (or anyone for that matter) to change the Bible that most Christians had used since the early days of the church.
The Occult Activities of Westcott and Hort
In addition to their many doctrinal heresies, strong evidence exists from the writings of both Westcott and Hort that they were involved in occult activities during the time they prepared their Greek New Testament. These serious accusations are made with very strong evidence from the letters of both men. The evidence that is about to be presented shows the satanic influence on the two men that changed the text of almost all modern translations.
Hort wrote in a letter: Westcott…and I have started a society for the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to believe that such things really exist…Westcott is drawing up a schedule of questions…our own temporary name is the Ghostly Guild.[10] Dr. Sorenson notes that this occult activity club was organized by Westcott and Hort at Cambridge University the same year in which they began their work on their Greek text. They continued to participate in this club for a period of ten years.[11]
Today the “Ghostly Guild” is listed in The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology as an occult organization in which its members related personal experiences with ghosts.[12] The club investigated supernatural activities centered around “beings of the unseen world” manifesting themselves in “extraordinary ways.” The “Ghostly Circular” drawn up by Mr. Westcott himself says the following: The interest and importance of a serious and earnest inquiry into the nature of the phenomena which are vaguely called ‘supernatural’ will scarcely be questioned. Many persons believe that all such apparently mysterious occurrences are due either to purely natural causes, or to delusions of the mind or senses, or to willful deception. But there are many others who believe it possible that the beings of the unseen world may manifest themselves to us in extraordinary ways.[13] The reference to these “beings of the unseen world” that “manifest themselves to us in extraordinary ways” are possibly a reference to seances. Westcott then goes on to request that anyone having testimony of supernatural occurrences submit a written form to the guild for further investigation.
Westcott’s son also wrote of his father’s devotion to these occult activities: He (Westcott) devoted himself with ardor during his last year at Cambridge, to two new societies. One of these was the “Ghostly Guild,” which numbered amongst its members A. Barry, E. W. Benson, H. Bradshaw, the Hon. A. Gordon, F.J. A. Hort, H. Laurd, and C.B. Scott, was established for the investigation of all supernatural appearances and effects. Westcott took a leading part in their proceedings, and their inquiry circular was originally drawn up by him.[14] His son later quotes his father as having “faith in Spiritualism.”[15]
Hort, who was also involved in this occultic club, wrote of the alarm that would be raised by Christians who would later buy their Greek text if they found out about their occult activities. Hort wrote: Also—but this may be cowardice—I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms.[16] Yes Mr. Hort, your occult activities that took place at the same time you worked on your Greek text do indeed raise alarms.
In Westcott’s Life and letters, another occult club is mentioned that was organized by Westcott called “Hermes.” This club met weekly.[17] Dr. Sorenson quotes a secular book tracing occult societies. The book (The Founders of Psychical Research, pages 90-91) cites a letter between members of Westcott’s club and refers to a homosexual relationship between members. The source quotes a letter from a club member as saying that homosexuality was not rare among the men in the club. While there is no evidence that Westcott and Hort themselves participated in homosexual activities, they were members and founders of a club in which it frequently did.[18] One thing seems to be clear, while these two men were preparing their Greek text, they were being influenced by demonic spirits by means of their occult activities.
Today, supporters of the Critical Text position lift up Westcott and Hort as fine Christian gentlemen who gave the world a better Bible. The truth is that these men were heretics who dabbled in occult activities. They despised the traditional and historical Bible, rejected many orthodox Christian doctrines, and produced a corrupt Greek text that the devil has used to deceive billions. The Bible warns of these deceptions in 1 Timothy 4:1, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;” I conclude this article with this bold, but yet very true statement, the modern Critical Text Bibles are full of corruptions that came from the influence of the devil himself. The battle for the integrity and purity of the Word of God is most assuredly a spiritual battle.
I wanted to share a couple videos of a longer interview of Dr. Flowers by Chadd Wright. BTW, Chadd and Leighton are both very sweet men… they model how to interact on contentious issues.
Is Provisionism Man-Centered or Christ-Centered? w/ Chadd Wright
Former Navy SEAL Chadd Wright sits down with Dr. Leighton Flowers to unpack one of the most common accusations against Provisionists: Is Provisionism man-centered?
God’s Sovereignty and Human Freedom—Can Both Be True?
What does it mean for God to be sovereign? Does He allow human freedom without compromising His rule? In today’s conversation, Dr. Leighton flowers and Chadd Wright explore whether God can truly be sovereign and humans still genuinely free.
Here is the original video that Got Chadd Wright to bring Dr. Leighton on:
Joe Rogan is Calvinized instead of Evangelized
Chadd Wright joins Joe Rogan, who hosts the most popular podcast in US, to talk about his life and his faith. Chadd does well to talk boldly about his faith, but unfortunately he shares Calvinism rather than Biblical truth. Let’s Discuss!
And here is the 3-hour interview via Chadd Wright’s YouTube Channel:
Ep. 465 Soteriology 101 w/ Dr. Leighton Flowers
Join Chadd as he sits down with Dr. Leighton Flowers for a great conversation centered around soteriology.
Ephesians 1:1-6 – Plain Talk on Election, Foreknowledge, and Predestination
One comment reflected my view as well:
Excellent! God does not arbitrarily select some to go to hell. That is a wicked teaching contrary to The Scriptures and character and nature of God whose desire is that none would perish.
“We have a moral obligation to end this madness, and the state has no constitutional mandate to shape a child’s moral or psychological identity against parental direction. As the Court has recognized, the child is not the mere creature of the state. Each child, every child is a creature of a loving God made in his image and entrusted to parents, charged with the high duty and invested with the fundamental right to love, care for, and form that precious child. Parents form conscience and character; the state’s role is to assist and not replace. Secret transitions invert that core truth, and they violate parents’ fundamental constitutional rights.”
[…]
“Parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest because they are vital to a child’s well-being, healthy development, and the stability of families. The law defers to fit parents’ judgment, because parents are best positioned to know their child’s needs and to provide the stable, nurturing environment that a child requires to flourish.”
[…]
“Secret policies convert exceptional cases into universal rules, and they replace evidence-based protection with ideology, and it is causing great, great harm.”
[…]
“No one is stopping the parents from raising their child as they wish; they can talk to their child, they can issue instructions to their child. They can, and many of these parents did seek outside psychological help for their child… It’s a question of what the state can do to the parents, which is very little; those parents were not required to use the Social Security number, nor are these parents required to submit to their child’s preference of pronouns, but that very much differs from the right to dictate to the state how it must behave.”
[…]
“As this is a therapeutic intervention, who is transing the child? The child isn’t doing it, the school is doing it! The school is changing their names on the records, and then changing them when they go home. The school is saying to use the male bathrooms. It is the school that is actively engaging in this transition.”
[…]
“The school is in no case saying use a particular bathroom… the most the school is doing is asking the child… I have not seen cases in which the dynamic isn’t the school saying, ‘What would you, the child, like? What would you, the child, like as a name? What would you, the child, like as a pronoun? What would you, the child, like as a bathroom?’ That’s very different from being marched into a bathroom or addressed by a name.”
No to the groypers. No to cowards like Tucker Carlson, who normalize their trash. No to those who champion them. No to demoralization. No to bigotry and anti-meritocratic horseshit. No to anti-Americanism. No.
No to the groypers.
No to cowards like Tucker Carlson, who normalize their trash.
No to those who champion them.
No to demoralization.
No to bigotry and anti-meritocratic horseshit.
No to anti-Americanism.
No. pic.twitter.com/71TModtGWq
Candace Owens has made shifting and contradictory claims about Charlie Kirk’s death — from alleging he was blackmailed over Israel, to calling the investigation a “federal operation,” to now suggesting the accused gunman was framed, that Israel killed him, to people in TPUSA betraying him. What started as “just asking questions” has turned into a mix of conspiracy, denial, and backpedaling. (I love this woman’s work. Check out her YouTube Channel for more)
FACT CHECKING CANDACE OWENS’ LIES
Christian Zionists have become the primary target of the “new right” not because we are irrelevant but because we are the last firewall against the new antisemitism. Luke sits down with Heather Johnston, Founder and President of JH Israel and USIEA, whose 25 years working directly inside the U.S.-Israel relationship gives her a unique vantage point on this shift. They break down why voices like Tucker Carlson are suddenly hostile toward the Christians who refuse to abandon Israel, and what this moment demands from us.
This is one of the best shorter dealing with Candace:
The Candace Situation Gets MUCH WORSE
UPDATE: As noted at 9:14, this was filmed before last night’s screenshots. From what’s visible so far, they may show private frustration, but they do not substantiate the strongest claims (e.g., TPUSA/Israel involvement, shooter framed, audit as motive). I’ll update a “Claims & Receipts” status in my comment in the video for anything else that’s verified. If enough new information is authenticated and it changes things, I’ll do a follow-up. Candace Owens has spent the last month making explosive claims about Charlie Kirk’s assassination, from billionaires and Israel to federal coverups. But hardly any of the receipts have surfaced. This video examines what she’s said, what the evidence actually shows, and the real damage that rumors can cause.
0:00- Intro 0:43- Why People Are Mad 1:18- Claim 1: Bibi’s Letter 2:42- Claim 2: Bill Ackman’s Intervention 4:01- Claim 3: The Shooter Was Framed 4:47- Claim 4: The Text messages Were Fake 7:55- Claim 5: TPUSA in on it? 9:56- Her Journalism Mistakes 13:02- The Fallout
1) Israel was founded by “Frankists” (“masquerading as Jews”).
You say: “The nation of Israel was established by some Frankists. . ..”
I taught Jewish history at Brooklyn College, and never heard or read such a thing. And even if there were any truth to it, it in no way explains the founding of Israel. For two thousand years, as part of daily ritual prayers, Jews prayed three times a day to be able to return to their homeland, Israel. That, plus the world witnessing what happens when Jews have no homeland — centuries of pogroms, massacres, and expulsions (which inspired Theodor Herzl to organize the Jews’ return to Israel — “Zionism” — in the late nineteenth century) culminating in the Holocaust — is what led to the reestablishment of the Jewish state. That Herzl came from the same general region as did Jacob Frank, who predated Herzl by about 150 years — a region with millions of Jews who were not Frankists — and therefore must have been a Frankist, seems like a pretty big leap.
2) Alleged “Frankists,” who were in fact ethnic Jews, were responsible for missing, and presumably murdered, Christian children around Passover time.
You say: “Catholics and Christians were going missing on Passover, then they would find bodies across Europe, and they were able to trace them back to Jews . . . . They weren’t Jews, OK? It was the Frankists, and just as Leo Frank killed Mary Phagan on Passover back in 1913 or 1914 — [it was done] on Passover for a reason. The Frankist cult, which masquerades behind Jews, still participates in this shit to this day. Why would you want, as a small nation that is the size of New Jersey, the pedophiles to flee there?”
Therefore, Israel was founded to be a haven for pedophiles — who, furthermore, engage in slaughtering Christians as part of a satanic ritual.
That is as close to the medieval libel of Jews — as butchers of Christian children to use their blood for baking Passover matzo — as I have heard in my lifetime. You mock the idea that this is another blood libel. But that is what it is. And given how many Jews were massacred, often tortured to death, because of it, Jews have good reason to loathe it.
You cite and deem as credible the two modern instances of the blood libel against Jews:
“Most people don’t know. They think that the nation of Israel was established because of World War II. No. There was a lot going on leading up to that. Learn about the Damascus Affair of 1840. Learn about what happened to Eszter Solymosi in Austria in 1880. There were Christians who kept on going missing on holidays and the entire Christian world rose up and began publicizing, trying to point to what they believed to be a satanic cult. Of course, all of that’s been erased. Most Christians don’t know this.”
In 1840, in Damascus, Syrian Jews were charged with butchering Capuchin friar Thomas, an Italian monk living in Damascus. The Capuchins in Damascus spread the charge, which resulted in 63 Jewish children being abducted from their families to force the families to divulge the location of the friar’s blood. And a Jewish barber named Solomon Negrin was arbitrarily arrested and tortured until a “confession” was extorted from him. Under torture Negrin said that seven Jews killed the monk in the house of David Harari. The seven men were subsequently arrested and also tortured. Two of them died under torture.
The other blood libel you cite as credible took place in Austria-Hungary in 1882. Jews were accused of murdering and beheading a 14-year-old Catholic girl named Eszter Solymosi. A girl’s body was found on the bank of the Tisza River, but though the body was dressed in Eszter’s clothes, it was not Eszter. And if it was, it proved the charges to be libelous — there was no injury to her neck.
Nevertheless, members of the local Jewish community were accused of having killed Eszter for ritual purposes, as it happened right before Passover. Jews, according to the centuries-old charge, use Christians’ blood to bake Matzo, the unleavened Passover bread.
Eventually, after 15 months of investigation, the Hungarian Highest Court (Kúria), in a unanimous verdict, acquitted of all the accused.
You repeat this libel of anti-Christian crimes committed by Jews in another podcast: “There’s a lot behind my refusal, my absolute refusal, to bend the knee to Israel, as many American politicians have done. There’s too much I’ve learned about their [Israel’s? Jews’?] history, about what was done to Christians, which they’re alleging now is blood libel — that none of that’s real, it didn’t happen. ..”
It didn’t happen, and repeating it does terrible harm. It is painful for me to know that the Candace I have known would say such things.
Candace Owens Has Drunk the Antisemitic Kool-Aid Dr. Brown interacts with her latest, disturbing comments, then speaks with author Jeff Myers about his important new book, Should Christians Support Israel? Seeking a Biblical Worldview in an Impossible Situation
Dr. Brown Interacts with Candace Owens and Piers Morgan Dr. Brown weighs in on this recent discussion on antisemitism, charges of genocide, and more, then answers your Jewish-related questions.
… According to Owens, Leo Frank killed Mary Phagan during Passover (in 1913) for these same nefarious, bloody purposes. (Apparently, he must have been a Frankist too, since his last name was Frank!) And, she states firmly, “this Frankist cult, which is masquerading behind Jews, still participates in this s— to this day.”
We will soon find out that it is these fake Jews who helped found Israel, which is why, she tells us, Israel is a sanctuary state for pedophiles. Surely, nothing antisemitic here! And surely, we shouldn’t stumble over the fact that most legal scholars believe that Leo Frank was falsely accused and wrongly convicted of the crime. Tragically, he was dragged from jail by an angry mob and lynched. But not to worry. After all, Frank was a Jew, right?
Owens claims that “the nation of Israel may have been established by some Frankists,” which is why “Zionists defend pedophiles and criminals.” But of course! How did we miss that? Yes, we are told, this is why Israel allows “pedophiles from America to flee and receive protection from their state.” (BTW, Owens jokes that she will punch you in the face if you dare say that Israel is our ally. They are anything but an ally and friend. All clear?)
What is Owens’s proof about the founding of Israel? “It is looking like Theodor Herzl’s family” came from the exact same area in Moravia and Bohemia “where the Frankist cult was founded.” And while Owens says “maybe” about her theory, she has read “a ton of books” and is quite sure about it. She also informs us that Herzl said that he didn’t care how many Jews had to die in order to establish the Jewish state. How did all the Herzl scholars miss this?
And why quibble over the fact that the Frankist cult originated primarily in Podolia, which is in modern-day Ukraine. After all, Ukraine, Moravia, and Bohemia are all in Europe, right? That’s pretty close! And, at some point in time, some Frankists were located in the same country where Herzl was born. So, obviously, he himself was a Frankist sex pervert, and as the founder of Israel, that explains why the Jewish state is a sanctuary for pedophiles.Candace is on a roll! And since no one questions whether Herzl was Jewish, it appears that the Frankists masquerading as Jews were Jews after all. Got it!
As for the fact that the Frankists had largely disappeared by the time of Herzl’s birth, again, why split hairs over things like chronology and history and dates and facts? Owens has a theory!
Not only so, but Owens wants us to know that Israel was involved in the assassination of JFK. It was a Mossad job!
But no one dared speak about these things. That’s because America is being held hostage by a foreign country — Israel! And so she fearlessly proclaims, “We are an occupied nation!”
But it gets darker still. Owens informs us that the first Jewish Supreme Court justice, Louis Brandeis, was a Frankist. Don’t believe her? She has an ironclad answer: “Look it up!”
Unfortunately, not even my AI bots could figure out where this nonsensical and diabolical theory came from, with AI Claude pointing out that:1. “The Frankist movement was primarily active in the 18th century, while Brandeis lived in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.”2. “Brandeis was known for his strong ethical standards and progressive reforms, which seem at odds with what is known about Frankist beliefs and practices.” 3. “There are no reputable historical sources that suggest Brandeis had any connection to Frankism.” (These are just some of the points Claude raised, which also noted, “This myth might have originated from anti-Semitic conspiracy theories …”)
But Owens has still more to say. She alleges that “every person who speaks about Israel has to basically say a statement like, ‘I don’t want to get killed.’” Yes, of course! No one in America or abroad would dare say anything negative about Israel or the Jewish people for fear of being killed by the Israelis. And if anything happens to her? “Blame the Zionists, like 1,000%, blame the Zionists …”
Thankfully, she provides an “easy litmus test” by which you can judge “any commentator.” If they don’t condemn Israel’s defense of pedophiles and acknowledge that Louis Brandeis was a Frankist, then they, too, are evil, psychopathic Zionists.
Sarcasm aside, Owens is peddling some really sick, terribly dangerous stuff, given her popularity and influence. ….
This next entry has such a good defining of the issue:
Tom Bilyeu: You’re not worried that she’s going full conspiracy?
Question to Tom: What is full conspiracy?
Tom Bilyeu:Let’s define it.
[ADAPTED]
They don’t have an internal map for how to judge whether something is plausible or merely intriguing. I think that Candace is seeing patterns where they don’t exist. There’s a big difference for me between somebody like Joe Rogan, who enjoys conspiracies, but feels very tethered to reality; and somebody like Alex Jones, who, even though he really does find a lot of this early stuff. If you watch his channel, literally every day is World War III, and everything is a conspiracy.
Candice has sort of marched her way out of the journalist box that I had in my mind, over into the icy patterns where patterns don’t exist, conspiracy theory box. I worry that she isn’t using an internal rubric with which to anchor herself to say, “okay, these things probably aren’t true.” She can make a wild claim and produce receipts [if you watch the first video in my post, you see here receipts are weak], but then another person can come along with receipts that counter it.
I have got that internal metric by which I judge things, and so I make my decisions based on that. It feels like Candace has lost that, or maybe never has, but she doesn’t have anything that she comes back to — and says: “like I say, I know better than to trust myself 100%. So, I think I have all the receipts. I still don’t trust myself 100%.” She trusts herself 1,000%. And I cannot figure out how life has taught anybody that that’s the right thing to judge things by.
Candace Owens just went hyper viral for her take on what happened to Charlie Kirk, but Tom isn’t convinced she’s seeing the full picture.
In this clip, Tom breaks down the fine line between truth-seeking and conspiracy, and why so many creators, even smart ones, risk drifting into dangerous territory when the algorithms reward outrage over evidence.
From Alex Jones to Joe Rogan, and now Candace Owens, Tom unpacks how good intentions can get lost in the noise, and what happens when confidence replaces critical thinking.
In this clip:
Why Candace Owens’ viral take raised red flags The psychology behind “seeing patterns that aren’t there” What it really means to think from first principles Why Tom says “truth” is often lost in the constellation of content
Watch until the end, where Tom explains how to avoid getting trapped in echo chambers and why it’s still possible to seek truth online without losing your balance.
At the 8-minute mark there is a question to the LOUDER w/CROWDER SHOW
What can we say to the people who listen to Candace and believe her, it feels like talking to a leftist at this point and I’m not sure how we can break through to them.
Candace…
Candace Owens has officially jumped the shark. Pushing a baseless conspiracy that the “feds” or even the administration killed Charlie Kirk.
(Jump to update if you wish) Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, gives a brief 10 minute overview of Ephesians 1 from a Traditional/Provisionist perspective as in contrast with the typical Calvinistic reading.
Pages 132-138 of pastor Ronnie W. Rogers’ book, Does God Love All or Some: Comparing Biblical Extensivism and Calvinism’s Exclusivism. This is chapter 20, titled:
A Better Gospel!
THE GOOD NEWS ACCORDING to Calvinism is to be proclaimed to everyone everywhere, but it is not good news for everyone who hears. I believe the gospel according to Jesus presents a better gospel.
To many, it appears Calvinists, Arminians, Molinists, and Traditionalists (the last three I refer to, broadly speaking, as Extensivists) all believe the same thing about the gospel while merely differing on tertiaries. Consequently, they quite understandably retort, “Why all of this divisive bickering; let us just preach the gospel.” I wholeheartedly agree that we can all communicate the gospel message so that anyone and everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Consequently, we should do so and applaud all endeavors at such. I also believe both Extensivists and Calvinists can be evangelistic.
However, I do think it is incumbent upon Christians to make clear that even though these things are true, the differences between Calvinists’ and Extensivists’ perspectives regarding salvation do in fact influence the evangelistic and missionary endeavor. This influence is even determinative of what one can and cannot say to a lost and hell-bound individual and world when we communicate the gospel. These differences are not tertiary as some claim, for they do in fact change the raison d’être (reason for being or existence) of the gospel, the purpose for sharing the gospel, the language used in communicating the gospel, and the nature of our passion derived from the gospel. These dissimilarities are substantial. So much so they actually and unavoidably define the missiology of the church; accordingly, they are not tertiary. Our differences even affect our understanding of arguably the most well-known, lucid, humbling, and awe-inspiring verse regarding the gospel and mission of evangelizing (John 3:16).
John Piper asked the question, “What message would missionaries rather take than the message: Be glad in God! Rejoice in God! Sing for joy in God! . . . God loves to exalt himself by showing mercy to sinners.”[1]My answer to this question is the truth that when someone hears this glorious message that same someone has a chance, by the grace and mercy of God, to receive the truth of the message by faith. Further, without opportunity for all sinners to accept, Piper’s message should be changed to say, “Some can be glad in God if he predestined you” or “God loves to exalt himself by showing mercy to some sinners.” This rephrasing of his statement is not a mischaracterization of Calvinism, but rather it is the actual message of Calvinism, and everyone who understands Calvinism knows it. Unfortunately, it is popularly and ubiquitously stated in the manner cited by Piper (or similarly opaque phrases) that shield most from yet another disquieting reality of Calvinism. I would greatly appreciate Calvinists’ due diligence to speak in such a way that all can be reminded of this reality (as some Calvinists are very careful to do). Any suggestion this distinction is tertiary is baffling indeed.
Some like John Owen postulate a covenant of redemption which limits the atonement to the elect. David Allen gives several problems with Owen’s belief in the Covenant of Redemption. For example, “no such covenant within the Godhead is revealed in Scripture. . . . This shifts the focus from God’s revealed will in Scripture to a focus on God’s secret will in eternity.”[2]
The two irreconcilable approaches to understanding the presentation of the gospel can be seen in these brief synopses. Extensivists affirm that salvation is entirely a work of God because he has provided everything necessary, even the gift of faith, by which every sinner can by faith receive the salvation of the Lord.[3] The offer of salvation is unconditional, whereas the experience of salvation by an individual is conditioned upon grace-enabled faith (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38). Many verses attest to the accuracy of this understanding of salvation. Man’s part in salvation is seen repeatedly in the book of Acts, e.g., Acts 2:37–41; 3:19–26; 7:51; 8:6–14, 22–23, 36–37; 9:35, 42; 10:34–35, 43; 11:21; 13:8–13, 38–41, 46–47; 14:1; 15:19; 16:30–34; 17:2–4, 11–12, 17, 30–31; 18:4–8, 19, 27–28; 19:8–9, 18; 20:21; 22:18; 26:17–20; 28:23–24. The epistles teach the same (Rom 5:1; Gal 3:26; Eph 2:8–9; Heb 11:6). In addition, God gave repentance as a grace gift (Acts 5:31; 11:18).[4]
In contrast, Calvinism generally argues the new birth precedes faith.[5] Piper asserts, “The native hardness of our hearts makes us unwilling and unable to turn from sin and trust the Savior. Therefore, conversion involves a miracle of new birth. This new birth precedes and enables faith andrepentance. Nevertheless, faith and repentance are our acts. We are accountable to do them . . . God grants us the inclination we need.”[6] The Synod of Dort says, “Men are chosen to faith . . . therefore election is the fountain of every saving good; from which proceed faith.”[7] R.C. Sproul declares, “We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order to believe.”[8]
Such explanation creates an abstractness in Calvinism’s understanding of the gospel, which results in a concomitant chilling unfriendliness of the good news when shared one-on-one. It is one thing to say God loves Africa and desires the gospel to go there, or that he desires for Africans to be saved. It is quite another for the missionary to look into the eyes of a lost and perishing African and say God loves you and desires you to receive the good news of the gospel, which is the friendliness of the gospel in Scripture. The former has an abstract quality about it that the latter does not have (like the difference between saying I love Africans and then really loving the one who moves in next door). A Calvinist can say, “Believe in Jesus for the remission of sins,” but there is a secret aloofness embedded in the invitation for the vast majority of individuals who hear the gospel; an aloofness the Calvinist is very aware of and staunchly committed to.
Further, this abstract quality of Calvinism is the provenance of the good faith offer, which is reflective of Calvinism’s different understanding of the gospel. I for one find neither this abstraction, with its secret indifference for the majority of individuals who hear the gospel, nor the suggestion of such a concept as a good faith offer in the scriptural presentations of the gospel. This abstract quality transforms the simple straightforward gospel as seen in Scripture from being exoteric (available to all) into an esoteric gospel (only available to some). The exoteric gospel of Scripture calls upon every individual with whom we share to receive the gospel and gives every indication that he should and can believe. It is authentically and dependably what it appears to be, the good news of God’s love and compassion offered to all who hear.
In contrast, the esoteric gospel according to Calvinism says everyone should come, but the secret is that while God has told Calvinists to tell all the lost to come, be forgiven, and flee the wrath to come, the inner circle— Calvinists—know it has pleased God to exclude a host of individuals with whom the Calvinist presents this message. This means if one is to be consistent with Calvinism, the gospel must be protectingly presented so that the hearer believes God loves him and truly desires for him to be delivered from the fiery cauldron of God’s eternal fury; something no Calvinist can say to any particular individual unless God inspires him to intuit that the lost man to whom he is witnessing is one of God’s elect. If God gives such enlightenment it behooves the Calvinist to share such glorious news with the individual, or so it would seem.
According to Calvinism, the gospel is good news for some, but inherent in their understanding of the gospel is that for most with whom they speak it is the ghastliest horror one could ever imagine (whether a sinner desires to believe or not does nothing to palliate this point). That being the case, one may rightly question the righteous legitimacy of indiscriminately declaring a gospel so construed that, in any way, intimates it is for all who hear because it is emphatically not; something every knowledgeable Calvinist knows. To wit, if a Calvinist shares the gospel in such a way so that all those who hear believe God loves them and desires for them to repent and be saved by faith in Jesus, the Calvinist has been true to Scripture but not to Calvinism. One must genuinely ask, is there not a point when a good faith offer is transmogrified into an ungodly deception? Calvinists can avoid this point by determinedly shunning any semblance of offering, via precisely chosen guarded language, what the Calvinist is convinced does not exist. Or is the concept of a good faith offer an unchallengeable and un-fillable reservoir for storing gospel secrets of Calvinism? I am simply asking Calvinists to be clear in presenting what they so resolutely believe to be the whole good news, and I do not think that is too much to ask.
David Allen, referring to 2 Corinthians 5:19–20, says, “Here we have God himself offering salvation to all. But how can he do this according to limited atonement since there is no provision for the salvation of the non-elect in the death of Christ? Furthermore, how can God make this offer with integrity? It seems difficult to suppose he can. Without belief in the universal saving will of God and a universal extent in Christ’s sin-bearing, there can be no well-meant offer of salvation from God to the non-elect who hear the gospel call.”[9]
Extensivists follow the scriptural pattern of presenting the good news as good news for everyone who hears because, by God’s loving grace, they should and can believe. If they choose to reject, which they do not have to do, they will forfeit being adopted as a child of God and succumb to a sinner’s just deserts. This is based upon a clear, simple, and straight-forward reading of the clearest presentations of the gospel and the declared nature of God. Calvinism’s understanding of the gospel disallows any meaningfully eternal difference in the gospel if they simply said, “God hates you and has a terrible plan for you because the elect will get saved and the non-elect will not.” For Calvinists to respond that they are sharing the gospel out of obedience is not a solution to the problem I pose but rather it is symptomatic of it. Further, for a Calvinist to rely upon such an idea as a good faith offer does nothing to absolve God from intentionally obscuring his real plan.
In contrast to Calvinism, Jesus clearly warned those to whom he spoke to repent, with every indication they should and could, which warning he issued repeatedly (Matt 4:17; 11:20–21; Luke 5:32; 15:7; 24:47). The same can be said for the Apostles (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:22; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20). If Christ knew some of them could not repent because they were not the elect, his warning seems disingenuous and misleading. Some Calvinists will say Jesus was making a “good faith offer” (if there is such an idea) because as a man, he did not know who the elect were.
As an example of Jesus not knowing certain things, in his humanity, they reference Jesus saying “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Matt 24:36). Of course, we all recognize as a human, Christ did not know certain things. However, this explicit statement of not knowing does not seem to justify the good faith offer since he gives every indication of speaking as forthrightly in presenting the gospel as he did regarding his second coming, consistent with the way things really are. There is really something to believe, he really as a human did not know the hour, which it seems all could choose to believe. There is no pretense. When he said he did not know, he really did not know, and they could believe what he said. They need not be cryptographically savvy.
Further, Calvinists’ reliance upon this example assumes they are justified in presenting something so that those who hear believe they can act on it when Calvinists know they cannot. That seems to be an illegitimate deduction. Clarification of the way things really are would only take a moment when Calvinists present the gospel according to Calvinism. I do not accept leaving the listener believing he is receiving a good offer when he is really hearing only a good faith offer to be noble evangelism. Unless one is a Calvinist who needs to justify the extra-biblical concept of the good faith offer, I doubt one would be able to mine it from this passage on the second coming. There is a crucial difference between Jesus not knowing certain things due to his role as a servant and his speaking forthrightly things that are either misleading or not true—do not correspond fully to reality. Moreover, Jesus stated he did not know the hour of his coming, but he never says nor even hints that he does not know the gospel.
Additionally, there are problems with assuming Jesus’s words were in any way misleading or ill-informed. First, Jesus would have to have forgotten all about unconditional election and selective regeneration. This seems unlikely since, as part of the Trinity, he would have had to help devise the plan of unconditional election, which would at least make his “good faith offer” a little less good than such an offer from your everyday Calvinist. While he did not know the hour of the second coming, he did know there was a second coming; to wit as a servant, he lacked precise knowledge of the event’s time not of the event, which he detailed in Matt 24–25. Second, and more problematic for the Calvinist, is that Jesus said he always did the will of the Father (John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; 17:4) and spoke not of his own initiative but what the Father wanted him to speak (John 3:11, 34; 5:19; 7:16; 8:26, 28, 38; 12:49–50; 14:10, 24, 31; 17:8). Furthermore, the Holy Spirit was upon Jesus filling him without measure (Isa 61:1; Matt 12:18; Luke 3:22; 4:1, 14; John 3:34; Acts 10:38).
Consequently, even if Jesus did not know, the Father and the Holy Spirit did know; therefore, the Calvinist doctrine of selective regeneration makes the Trinity complicitous in this misrepresentation. The obvious truth is that Jesus commanded them to repent because he was not willing that any would perish and desired that all would come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9); something God has grace-enabled everyone who hears the truth to do.
The gospel according to Calvinism is the gospel that is commanded to be preached to all, presented as available to all with an urgency that it be received by all, and yet cannot be received by all who hear the message; even though its universal availability is the obvious inference any listener would draw based upon most Calvinists’ carefully guarded presentation of the gospel (guarding the divulgence of the secret limitations of the gospel according to Calvinism). In reality, the doctrine of selective regeneration preceding faith dictates the gospel—good news— is really not good news at all because it cannot be received by anyone who just hears the good news, and this unavailability is just as true for the elect as the non-elect.
Reception of the Calvinistic gospel is divinely limited to the selectively regenerated; therefore, the primary good news of Calvinism is not the gospel, but rather that some to whom they speak are on the secret list of those who have been selected for regeneration, which results in receiving the good news — the gospel. That is to say, according to Calvinism, the gospel is not the good news to be received by all or any listener, but rather a description of the benefits that will be bestowed upon those on the secret list of the unconditionally elect. Simply put, the gospel according to Scripture is a better gospel than the gospel according to Calvinism.
NOTES
Piper, Let the Nations Be Glad, 33.
Allen, The Extent of the Atonement, 217.
Spiritual faith is the ability to trust what God has said and is a gift given by God in creation as are all the endowments of man. It is also a gift in the sense that God restores the ability to exercise spiritually restorative faith as a sinner through the provision of grace enablements (John 12:35–36). It is not a gift in the Calvinist sense of being resultant of God’s irresistible grace upon the unconditionally elect, understood to be so in part by a misreading of Eph 2:8.
Repentance and faith are inseparable. Repentance focuses upon turning from sin, whereas faith focuses upon turning in trust to the Savior. Repentance is neither a predetermined irresistible work of God upon the unconditionally elect only, nor is it merely a humanly derived act. Rather, the ability to repent is given to all by God through grace enablements and is required by God for salvation.
See my answer to Calvinists’ argument for only a logical relationship between faith and regeneration in Appendix 4.
Piper, Desiring God, 62.
Canons of Dort, First Head of Doctrine, article 9.
Sproul, Chosen by God, 72–73.
Allen, The Extent of the Atonement, 786.
Dr. Leighton Flowers explains a Traditional Southern Baptist perspective of Eph. 2:8-9:
Yes, faith is a gift from God, but the point of contention between the Traditionalist and the Calvinist is whether it is a gift that is given irresistibly (or effectually).
Traditionalists affirm God enables (or grant) faith by means of His Word (the gospel), but we disagree that God effectually causes some people to believe the gospel while leaving others in a morally hopeless condition from birth.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (ESV)
What is “This”?
The main question is: What does this refer to? “This” is a demonstrative pronoun. Paul is demonstrating that something, this thing, is a gift. He’s pointing at something he just said in the previous phrase, “For by grace you have been saved through faith”, and he saying “this thing is a gift”. But what is Paul referring to as a gift? To help answer this question, let’s repeat this passage with the Greek word, gender, and number displayed:
For by grace [charis, feminine, singular] you have been saved [sesosmenoi, masculine, singular] through faith [pistis, feminine, singular]. And this [toutō, neuter, singular] is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
There are six possible interpretations for the gift. Based on the grammatical structure of the verse (seen above), four interpretations will be ruled out. They will be ruled out because ancient Greek authors used the gender and number of pronouns to make it clear to their reader which noun the pronoun is referring to. Here are the six possibilities:
1: The gift is “by grace you have been saved through faith” 2: The gift is “by grace you have been saved” 3: The gift is “been saved through faith”
4: The gift is only grace
5: The gift is only salvation
6: The gift is only faith
You’ll notice that the pronoun “this” [toutō, neuter, singular] does not match a single one of the previous nouns in question; neither “grace”, nor “saved”, nor “faith”. If Paul wanted to say only one of those was the gift, then all he would have had to do was match the gender and number of “this” with that noun. But he chose to make it match none of them. So the gift can’t be only the grace, nor only the salvation, nor only the faith.
Even though it’s not possible, interpretation six, that only faith is the gift, is often argued because faith is the last thing referenced. Most who quote Ephesians 2:8-9 to claim that ‘faith is a gift’ are arguing from this position. This seems like a natural interpretation to English readers because…that’s how we would denote which noun to which the pronoun refers. The problem is: Paul didn’t write in English. Piper, as well as many other scholars, correctly understand that this interpretation is impossible due to the grammatical formatting of the Greek.
In Greek, pronouns must agree with their antecedent in gender and number. English somewhat does this with pronouns like “he” and “she” but other pronouns like “they” and “it” are more difficult to determine. No so in Greek. All pronouns in Greek have gender and number, and they must always agree in gender and number to the noun they are pointing to, whether it is masculine, feminine, or neuter.
In the verse, “this” is neuter, meaning that it must connect two genders: Feminine, masculine, or neuter. Faith is a feminine word. The word “this” would need to be written as feminine for it to refer to faith. While interpretation 6 is quoted often, it can safely be ruled out. Interpretations 5 & 6 can be ruled out for the same mismatched gender problem. The remaining three interpretations are discussed by Piper and will be analyzed in the arguments below.
[….]
Why Didn’t Paul Just Say The Thing?
If Paul was concerned about anybody thinking that faith is something that you’re supposed to do, he would have simply written ‘faith is a gift’ somewhere in one of his many letters. Since Paul never wrote this, we cannot exegetically assume that this was his motivation. Paul could have said “these” to mean all three individually or he could have just added a sentence somewhere that clarified it. Claiming that this is what Paul was thinking or worried about is unsupported by any of his work.
Paul Wrote About Faith, Grace, Works, and Boasting Elsewhere
In order to make any claims about the motivations of Paul in regards to faith and boasting, we must take a close look at the other passages were Paul addresses these issues. As a matter of fact, several years before writing his letter to Ephesus, Paul wrote the letter to the Romans. In chapter 3 & 4, Paul goes into great detail about the relationship between salvation, grace, faith, works, and boasting. Since these chapters are much more explicit than Ephesians 2:8-9, we must incorporate them into our interpretation. Here are some snippets of his writings, but go read these chapters for yourselves and then read Ephesians 2:8-9.
“the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith . . . It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law“ (Romans 3:24-25 ESV)
“What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness. Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness”
“For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all”
“No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.”” (Romans 4 ESV)
Paul makes it extremely clear that his concern for boasting lies in who is the justifier of our salvation, who powers it, who does the work. Paul spends all of this time communicating that promise must “rest on grace” and that this is accomplished only through faith as the means. If we are the justifier through works, then God is not glorified. Nowhere in the long exposition of Romans does Paul say that ‘faith is a gift’. Paul invalidates Piper’s argument by saying that our boasting from being justified by faith “is excluded.By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law”. Using Piper’s own reasoning, Paul could have easily said “Boasting is excluded because faith is a gift”. But instead he says “Boasting is excluded because of faith” . Faith is non-meritorious and is not worthy of boasting. No one can exegetically claim that faith is a work. If faith is not worthy of boasting because it is not a work, where is Paul’s concern that we ‘create faith’? Why does Paul say that “Abraham believed God”? This seems like the perfect place to drop this supposed additional information about faith being effectually given or that you are unable to put faith in God. Nowhere in the entire Bible does it say that man is unable to believe, repent, or put their faith in God unless effectually given faith. This concept has to be read into the text. If putting faith in God is boast worthy, why didn’t Paul address it as clearly as he addresses faith not being a work?
Does faith rob God of his glory? Romans 4 says no. Abraham “grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God”. The text doesn’t say God made Abraham grow strong in faith. Instead, the text gives Abraham credit for his faith. If this was a concern of Paul’s in the slightest, why would Paul write it this way? Paul clearly writes that salvation through faith gives God all of the glory. Where is Paul’s concern? Piper’s argument that faith somehow takes glory from God is an attempt to turn faith into a work. One can only boast if it is under the law of works. Assuming that Paul holds this concern is completely unfounded by his work.
Bibliotheca Sacra BSAC 122:487 (July 1965): 248–253. (PDF HERE)
Most Calvinistic commentators believe that the gift of Ephesians 2:8 is saving faith rather than salvation: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8–9). This interpretation leads some to a hyper-Calvinistic doctrine of faith, which in turn leads to an unscriptural plan of salvation.
For example, Shedd says: “The Calvinist maintains that faith is wholly from God, being one of the effects of regeneration.”1This results in a strange plan of salvation. Because the sinner cannot believe, he is instructed to perform the following duties: 1. Read and hear the divine Word. 2. Give serious application of the mind to the truth. 3. Pray for the gift of the Holy Spirit for conviction and regeneration.2
Thus an unscriptural doctrine of total depravity leads to an unscriptural and inconsistent plan of salvation. Doubtless the sinner is “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1b). If this means that regeneration must precede faith, then it must also mean that regeneration must precede all three of the pious duties Shedd outlines for the lost. A doctrine of total depravity that excludes the possibility of faith must also exclude the possibilities of “hearing the word,” “giving serious application to divine truth,” and “praying for the Holy Spirit for conviction and regeneration.” The extreme Calvinist deals with a rather lively spiritual corpse after all. If the corpse has enough vitality to read the Word, and heed the message, and pray for conviction, perhaps it can also believe. Incidentally, it would seem evident that the person who would pray earnestly for conviction must already be under a deep state of conviction.
Arthur W. Pink agrees with Shedd. He says the sinner is to “ask God … to bestow upon him the gifts of repentance and faith.”3
Berkhof’s position is similar: “This faith is not first of all an activity of man, but a potentiality wrought by God in the heart of the sinner. The seed of faith is implanted in man in regeneration.”4
The tragedy of this position is that it perverts the gospel. The good news becomes only a hopeful possibility. The sinner is wrongly instructed to beg for that which God is already beseeching him to receive (2 Cor. 5:20). He is given no assurance that his prayer will be answered. He is really being told that the condition of salvation is prayer instead of faith.
The one verse which seems to teach that saving faith is the gift of God is Ephesians 2:8. But a careful study of this verse and its context shows clearly that it is salvation which is the gift of God. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary gives this explanation: “The word that refers not to grace or to faith, but to the whole act of salvation.”5This is also the interpretation of Calvin, Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, Eadie, and others. The Greek text favors this meaning because the relative pronoun that (τοῦτο) is neuter while the word faith (πίστις) is feminine. In addition the whole context, especially verse 9, makes clear that the issue is salvation by grace opposed to the ever-present error of salvation by works. The same conclusion is reached by the grammarian J. Harold Greenlee.6
Sir Robert Anderson’s footnote on Ephesians 2:8 is well stated: “Eph. 2:8. ‘The gift of God’ here is salvation by grace through faith. Not the faith itself. ‘This is precluded,’ as Alford remarks, ‘by the manifestly parallel clauses “not of yourself,” and “not of works,” the latter of which would be irrelevant as asserted of faith.’ It is still more definitely precluded, he might have added, by the character of the passage. It is given to us to believe on Christ, just in the same sense in which it is given to some ‘also to suffer for His sake’ (Phil. 1:29). But the statement in Ephesians is doctrinal, and in that sense the assertion that faith is a gift, or indeed that it is a distinct entity at all, is sheer error. This matter is sometimes represented as though God gave faith to the sinner first, and then, on the sinner’s bringing Him the faith, went on and gave him salvation! Just as though a baker, refusing to supply empty-handed applicants, should first dispense to each the price of a loaf, and then, in return for the money from his own till, serve out the bread! To answer fully such a vagary as this would be to rewrite the foregoing chapter. Suffice it, therefore, to point out that to read the text as though faith were the gift, is to destroy not only the meaning of verse 9, but the force of the whole passage.”7
There are those who agree that Ephesians 2:8 does not prove that saving faith is the gift of God, but they believe the doctrine is taught by other passages, such as: Acts 5:31; 11:18; Phil. 1:29; 3:9; Romans 12:3; 2 Peter 1:1; 2 Timothy 2:25; and John 6:44–45. A careful look at these verses yields no proof that faith or repentance, as a synonym for faith, are special gifts of God.
“Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31). If repentance in this verse refers to a special gift for salvation, then all Israel would be saved. It is evident that the reference is to God’s general offer of repentance, which most of the Jews rejected. The same explanation applies to Acts 11:18 where the Gentiles are in view.
“For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake” (Phil. 1:29). Sir Robert Anderson’s comment on this verse has been noted: “It is given to us to believe on Christ, just in the same sense in which it is given to some ‘also to suffer for his sake.’ ”8
“And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith” (Phil. 3:9). It would be a strange and strained interpretation of this verse to make “the faith of Christ” refer to a gift of faith from Christ, which Paul then exercised as his own in order to receive the righteousness of God. The ASV renders the phrase “through faith in Christ.” Even if the AV rendering is accepted, the expression clearly refers to the gospel as centered in Christ, and not to the manner in which Paul obtained his personal faith.
“For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith” (Rom. 12:3). The novice in Bible study would recognize that this section of Romans deals with the exercise of faith with the gifts for service (cf. Rom. 12:6) and has nothing to do with saving faith.
“Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:1). Here Peter states that believers have “obtained” their faith, but he does not say how it was obtained. To use such a verse to prove that saving faith is a special gift of God is only to show how desperate the advocates of this theory are for Scriptural proof.
“In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth” (2 Tim. 2:25). The gift of repentance of this verse is clearly to recover members of the church out of the snare of Satan, and has nothing to do with saving faith. Even this gift is not an unqualified sovereign bestowal because it is dependent on the instruction of Timothy and the co-operation of the one ensnared, as the context (vs. 26) indicates.
“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me” (John 6:44–45). It should be noted, first of all, that these verses do not say that saving faith is the gift of God. This is an assumption based on other assumptions. The method of obtaining faith is by hearing and learning of the Father. This is in harmony with Romans 10:17. Later the Lord explained his strong statement by the simple proposition that some could not come to him because of their unbelief (vss. 64–65), not because they did not receive a gift of faith. Some could not believe because they were interested in free bread and board, but not in the true bread from heaven. The sovereignty of God in salvation is a profound mystery that has its place in theology, but it need not be invoked to explain a problem which the Lord Himself explains in a far simpler way. The moral state of the enemies of Christ precluded their coming to the Father or Christ. The same situation is seen and clearly explained in John 5:44: “How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?”
In the Bible there is no clear and dogmatic statement that saving faith is a gift of God. On the other hand, the Bible clearly states the way in which faith is obtained: “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). The Scriptures speak of saving faith as “thy faith” (Luke 7:50), “his faith” (Rom. 4:5), and “their faith” (Matt. 9:2); but never as the faith of God.”
It can be agreed that saving faith is the gift of God in the broad sense in which all things come from God (1 Cor. 4:7; Rom. 11:35, 36). However, this is entirely different from the position that an unsaved person cannot believe until he first receives a special gift of faith from God. Such a doctrine is opposed by the “whosover” passages of the Bible, and by passages which beseech the sinner to be saved (i.e., John 3:16; 2 Cor. 5:20).
But it is argued that if the sinner has sufficient ability to hear the Word of God and be saved, then salvation is by works, or partly by works. Not at all! “Faith is no more than an activity of reception contributing nothing to that which it receives.”9
Machen, himself a Calvinist, agrees emphatically that faith is not a kind of good work: “The faith of man, rightly conceived, can never stand in opposition to the completeness with which salvation depends upon God: it can never mean that man does part while God merely does the rest; for the simple reason that faith consists not in doing something but in receiving something.”10
A gift from a good man to a beggar does not cease to be a gift because the beggar stretches forth his hand to receive it.
On the other hand, it is the hyper-Calvinist who is open to the charge of teaching salvation by works. Prayer is doing something, and the man who prays hard and gets saved could justly believe that he had made his contribution to the plan of salvation. Those who deny the sinner the ability to believe end by imputing to him the impossible and unscriptural ability to find God through pious works.
Calvin did teach that faith is a gift of God, but his conclusion was not based on Ephesians 2:8. Contrary to popular opinion, Arminius also believed that justifying faith is the gift of God. He said: “Faith is the effect of God illuminating the mind and sealing the heart, and it is his mere gift.”11However, he believed that God bestows sufficient grace upon all men to believe if they will. Thus he held a position in harmony with a sincere proclamation of the gospel to all men. But did not both Calvin and Arminius go beyond the authority of the Bible in teaching that saving faith is a special gift of God?
Many passages, and whole books of the New Testament, are written to prove salvation is a gift of God and not the reward of good works. But where are the passages to prove saving faith is the gift of God? Is not this theory a deduction from the doctrine of election rather than an induction from the teaching of the Word?
NOTES
1 W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, p. 472.
* After soldiers returned from ‘the war to end all wars,’ prohibition brought turmoil, but the economy boomed. A seemingly indestructible country complacently stood at the threshold of the Great Depression. And it came about in those days that Dallas Theological Seminary—first known as the Evangelical Theological College—had its birth. And at the end of the first academic cycle, the first student to graduate—a young man named Roy L. Aldrich—crossed the stage to receive his degree. (More Here)
I posted this on my Facebook (to the right) and TONY B made the following comment:
That’s not even a little bit true. The Lord rebuke you for, brother in Christ, for equating everyone on “the Left” as atheists. People vote Democrat or Republican for a variety of reasons, economic, social, political, etc. Most Christians aren’t even aware of the news item your meme mentions; are they atheists also? I voted Independent and Republican my entire life until Trump came along because I took the book of James seriously. Did you know the Bible says to mark those who cause division? Have you considered that you may have crossed the line into political idolatry? Respectfully, no man can serve two masters; whose words and methods do your words reflect?
Firstly, TONY B ascribed to me something not in the graphic nor anything I said. It reminded me of Dick Durbin doing the same when Bret Baier mentioned the DNC removing God from the platform.
… Secular members were asked to identify their political persuasion, with 29 percent selecting “Democratic” and 36 percent selecting “progressive/liberal.” While that totals 65 percent, 21 percent selected Independent. On the flip side, only 1 percent identified as Republicans, with 3 percent selecting “Socialist/Marxist” and 3 percent selecting “Green.”
As the Democrat Party lurches more Leftward in their positions, on writer comments on why it may be this way (I will emphasize) – Washington Examiner Archived:
… Given the values and beliefs held dearest by the Democratic Party, it is hard not to agree. Radicals have gradually pushed it further left, which has also been shifting the goalposts of society in a more secular direction ever since the Progressive Era of the late 19th century.
The Democratic Party has fully embraced feminism and its natural descendent, the LGBT movement. Both have propagated the idea that men and women are indistinguishable. This justifies the party’s attempts to mix and match the roles of the two sexes in society. They are opposed to the Christian idea that man and woman were made distinct from yet complementary to one another.
By destroying marriage and the distinctions of the sexes, the party helped craft sexual activity into a vital expression of choice and liberation. These are the party values over the Christian practices of restraint and modesty. It has removed the incentives to abstain from sex and promoted perverse sexual behavior. In doing so, it has helped to normalize sexual depravity.
The idol of abortion also affirms the desire of the Democratic Party to exempt society from taking responsibility for its actions. By dehumanizing children as “parasites” and framing abortion as a right, the party encourages people to blame others for their decisions to have sex. This is despite Christians asserting that all life is sacred and formed by God upon conception.
Intersectionality has had a similar effect. The party has adopted a caste system based on what someone is or claims to be rather than who someone is or what they have done. This places those deemed “victims” over those deemed “oppressors,” while Christians view all humans as made with equal value by God.
All of this derives from one source: pride. The Democratic Party lives and breathes on its prioritization of the self. …
So while all Democrats or Democrat voters are not “atheists” or God haters, neither are a majority of Muslims Jihadists. In a short, spliced up version of the must watch OG video, Raheel Raza discusses the non-violent aspect s of the Muslim faith that support the inner circle of Jihadists. Whether knowingly [intending to] or not.
The same can be said of moderate to even blue-dog Democrats (almost non left in the Party, BTW). Dave Rubin, once of the Young Turks, has for years noted how Bill Maher is evolving, but, all the stuff he complains about on the Left is empowered by who he votes for.
So Bill would be in that outer ring. And when Tony votes Democrat, he is as well. Tony may be “pro-life,” believe in the historicity of Christianity and all the benefits that the Judeo-Christian worldview offers, etc. But all that s shown to not be in fact what he believes when he puts a ticket in for Democrats. (Related video, related post to the Prager vs. Maher thingy.)
And remember, we are talking about the base of the parties. Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell — even though libertarians, always voted Republican. Because that is where their ideas had the most power and influence … at the root to affect the larger party. And here we are, small government freshman class of GOP and thinkers. Trump has gotten more small government ideas into mainstream and legislation [de-legislation] than Reagan ever did. Awesome.
And concern about killing Christians and the martyrdom in the world of Christians almost fully resides on the right. Why? Because we are packed full of Christians. Or those professing such. More than the atheist Left.
This is an old post, many links that were fruitful in 2012 are now dead ends… ~UPDATED TODAY 10/29/2025 – MEDIA AND PICS~
Most violence happens by those pushing a leftist ideal. Conservative violence is almost unheard of! Why? There is a goal of a perfect world being created in the here-and-now, and this naturally leads to organizations that encourage protest and violence. The most recent example of this are the Cleveland Bridge Bombers. The first player in this group of douche-bags looking to hurt and maim people and property is Brandon L. Baxter. On his FaceBook he has quite a few organization listed that he likes.
….Facebook profile, he lists his political views as “anarcho-communist,” and lists “#OccupyCleveland” as his employment.
A gang of anarchists arrested for allegedly plotting to blow up a Cleveland, Ohio bridge also talked about attacking an upcoming NATO summit in Chicago and this summer’s Republican National Convention in Florida, according to authorities. (ABC)
also, in his “liked” section just a few organizations he apparently endorses:
