COUNTER REFORMATION: AN INTRODUCTION

Amplify’d from continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com

COUNTER REFORMATION: AN INTRODUCTION

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Counter-Reformation

Counter-Reformation

Catholic reaction, an ecclesiastical and political movement in Europe in the mid 16th to 17th century that was led by the papacy and that was directed against the Reformation, with the aim of restoring the position lost by Catholicism in several countries during the first half of the 16th century. In essence the Counter-Reformation was one of the manifestations of feudal reaction (embracing not only the economic and political spheres but the ideological as well), the religious form of the “counterattack” of feudal forces attempting to strengthen the feudal system at a time when it had already begun to disintegrate. The Inquisition, monastic orders, and the Roman curia were the chief instruments of the Counter-Reformation. The Inquisition, reorganized in 1542 into one of the congregations of the Roman curia and placed under the direct authority of the pope, unleashed in the Catholic countries a struggle against progressive ideas, freethinking, science, and all manifestations of Reformation thought (popular movements in the Reformation were persecuted with particular force). G. Bruno and G. Vanini were burned at the stake, and T. Campanella, Galileo, and many other progressive thinkers were subjected to persecution. The Jesuit Order, created in 1534—40, took the most active part in the Counter-Reformation. With the help of the Jesuits and other forces of Catholic reaction the papacy succeeded at the Council of Trent (1545–63) in obtaining, in particular, recognition of the unconditional authority of the pope in matters of faith, introduction of a strict ecclesiastical censorship, publication of the Index of Forbidden Books, and other measures. The resolutions of the council became something of a program for the Counter-Reformation. The Trent Profession of Faith was adopted, which all ecclesiastics had to sign; any deviation from it was considered heresy and persecuted. During the Counter-Reformation there were created in Rome a number of educational establishments for the special training of Catholic clergymen, who were sent, above all, to the countries that were the arena for the most intense struggle between the forces of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation (such as Germany, the Netherlands). During the Counter-Reformation the Jesuits seized control of many universities, which in turn became instruments of Catholic reaction. Among the church figures who most zealously waged the Counter-Reformation were Popes Paul III, Paul IV (Cardinal Carafa prior to his election as pope), and Pius IV, as well as Cardinal Carlo Borromeo and the Jesuit P. Canisius. The Counter-Reformation was not only the work of institutions of the Catholic Church. It was also energetically waged by the secular powers of several countries, including the Hapsburgs in Spain and the so-called Holy Roman Empire, Maximillian of Bavaria, and Sigismund III Vasa in Poland. Supporters of the Reformation were subjected to state persecution; special government edicts were issued that demanded the return of Protestants to the “bosom of the Catholic Church” under the threat of high fines, expulsion from the country, or even execution. One of the manifestations of the Counter-Reformation was the struggle for the return of lands lost by Catholics during the carrying out of the Reformation (publication of the Edict of Restitution of 1629 by Ferdinand II, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire). Under the banner of the Counter-Reformation, Spain waged its struggle against the Dutch bourgeois revolution of the 16th century, and the Hapsburgs suppressed the liberation movement of their subjugated peoples and struggled for the realization of the idea of the creation of a “universal Christian empire” (as during the Thirty Years' War of 1618–48). Having brought together the forces of feudal reaction, the Counter-Reformation to a certain extent strengthened the position of the papacy and the Catholic Church (having restored Catholicism and suppressed Reformation movements in several countries) and temporarily retarded the onset of the forces of the new, bourgeois society. REFERENCES Mikhnevich, D. E. Ocherki po istorii katolicheskoi reaktsii (lezuity). Moscow, 1953. Lozinskii, S. G. Istoriia papstva. Moscow, 1961. Brandi, K. Deutsche Reformation und Gegenreformation. Vol. 2: ”Gegenreformation und Religionskriege.” Leipzig, 1930. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition (1970-1979). © 2010 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Read more at continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/jh1r

COUNTER REFORMATION Original European Theater

Amplify’d from continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com

COUNTER REFORMATION Original European Theater

About 1560

About 1618

About 2010

Wlodimir Ledochowski- Mission, Motivation, Geopolitical Chessboard

http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2007/06/wlodimir-vladimir-ledochowski-mission.html Read more at continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/jh1x

COUNTER REFORMATION OVERVIEW

Amplify’d from continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com

COUNTER REFORMATION OVERVIEW

Introduction

Original European Theater Countries Country Leaders Prologue- Historical Occurrances Rome's Reaction- buring of heretics as Tyndale and establishing the Jesuit Order Read more at continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/jh1n

Internet Access Is Not a ‘Civil Right’

Amplify’d from www.cnsnews.com

Internet Access Is Not a ‘Civil Right’

By Michelle Malkin

When bureaucrats talk about increasing our "access" to x, y or z, what they're really talking about is increasing exponentially their control over our lives. As it is with the government health care takeover, so it is with the newly approved government plan to "increase" Internet "access." Call it Webcare.

By a vote of 3-2, the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday adopted a controversial scheme to ensure "net neutrality" by turning unaccountable Democratic appointees into meddling online traffic cops. The panel will devise convoluted rules governing Internet service providers, bandwidth use, content, prices and even disclosure details on Internet speeds.

The "neutrality" is brazenly undermined by preferential treatment toward wireless broadband networks. Moreover, the FCC's scheme is widely opposed by Congress -- and has already been rejected once in the courts. Demonized industry critics have warned that the regulations will stifle innovation and result in less access, not more.

Sound familiar? The parallels with health care are striking. The architects of Obamacare promised to provide Americans more access to health insurance -- and cast their agenda as a fundamental universal entitlement.

In fact, it was a pretext for creating a gargantuan federal bureaucracy with the power to tax, redistribute and regulate the private health insurance market to death -- and replace it with a centrally planned government system overseen by politically driven code enforcers dictating everything from annual coverage limits to administrative expenditures to the makeup of the medical workforce. The costly, onerous and selectively applied law has resulted in less access, not more.

Undaunted promoters of Obama FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's "open Internet" plan to expand regulatory authority over the Internet have couched their online power grab in the rhetoric of civil rights. On Monday, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps proclaimed: "Universal access to broadband needs to be seen as a civil right ... (though) not many people have talked about it that way." Opposing the government Internet takeover blueprint, in other words, is tantamount to supporting segregation. Cunning propaganda, that.

"Broadband is becoming a basic necessity," civil rights activist Benjamin Hooks added. And earlier this month, fellow FCC panelist Mignon Clyburn, daughter of Congressional Black Caucus leader and Number Three House Democrat James Clyburn of South Carolina, declared that free (read: taxpayer-subsidized) access to the Internet is not only a civil right for every "nappy-headed child" in America, but is essential to their self-esteem. Every minority child, she said, "deserves to be not only connected, but to be proud of who he or she is."

Calling them "nappy-headed" is a rather questionable way of boosting their pride, but never mind that.

Face it: A high-speed connection is no more an essential civil right than 3G cell phone service or a Netflix account. Increasing competition and restoring academic excellence in abysmal public schools is far more of an imperative to minority children than handing them iPads. Once again, Democrats are using children as human shields to provide useful cover for not so noble political goals.

The "net neutrality" mob -- funded by billionaire George Soros and other left-wing think tanks and nonprofits -- has openly advertised its radical, speech-squelching agenda in its crusade for "media justice." Social justice is the redistribution of wealth and economic "rights." Media justice is the redistribution of free speech and other First Amendment rights.

The meetings of the universal broadband set are littered with Marxist-tinged rants about "disenfranchisement" and "empowerment." They've targeted conservative opponents on talk radio, cable TV and the Internet as purveyors of "hate" who need to be managed or censored. Democratic FCC panelists have dutifully echoed their concerns about concentration of corporate media power.

As the Ford Foundation-funded Media Justice Fund, which lobbied for universal broadband, put it: This is a movement "grounded in the belief that social and economic justice will not be realized without the equitable redistribution and control of media and communication technologies."

For progressives who cloak their ambitions in the mantle of "fairness," it's all about control. It's always about control. Read more at www.cnsnews.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/jh1j

Keep the FCC Out of the Internet

Amplify’d from www.cnsnews.com

Keep the FCC Out of the Internet

By Terence P. Jeffrey

When the Obama administration first went to the Supreme Court in March 2009 to explain its understanding of the First Amendment, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart said the administration believed the government could prohibit a corporation from bouncing a book off a satellite into someone's Kindle if that communication took place within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election and if the book included words advocating the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.

"Your position is that under the Constitution, the advertising for this book or the sale for the book itself could be prohibited within ... the 60/30-day period?" asked Justice Anthony Kennedy.

"If the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy," said Stewart.

"And I suppose," said Kennedy, "it could even -- is it the Kindle where you can read a book? I take it that's from a satellite. So the existing statute would probably prohibit that under your view?"

"Well, the statute applies to cable, satellite and broadcast communications," said Stewart.

"Just to make it clear," said Kennedy, "it's the government's position that under the statute, if this Kindle device where you can read a book which is campaign advocacy, within the 60/30-day period, if it comes from a satellite ... it can be prohibited under the Constitution and perhaps under this statute?

"It can't be prohibited, but a corporation could be barred from using its general treasury funds to publish the book and could be required ... to raise funds to publish the book using its PAC," said Stewart.

In other words, the Obama administration believes it can bar a publisher from electronically selling a book via satellite, cable or broadcast media in an election year if the book advocates throwing someone out of Congress or the White House.

To electronically publish such a book in Barack Obama's America, a publishing house would need to start a political action committee and get political contributors to donate money to fund the operation. No capitalism would be allowed in the business of publishing books that call for the defeat of federal officeholders.

As Stewart dug deeper into his explanation of the administration's understanding of the First Amendment, he was eventually interrupted by the ever-sardonic Justice Antonin Scalia.

"I'm a little disoriented here, Mr. Stewart," said Scalia. "We are dealing with a constitutional provision, are we not, the one that I remember which says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press? That's what we're interpreting here?

"That's correct," said Stewart.

In this case -- Citizens United v. FEC -- a 5-4 Supreme Court ruled against the administration, which sought to enforce a rule that said a corporation could not sell a pay-per-view movie to a cable television customer if the movie mentioned a candidate in an election season.

"The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech," Chief Justice John Roberts correctly observed in his concurring opinion in the case.

On Tuesday, led by Obama-appointed Chairman Julius Genachowski, the Federal Communications Commission for the first time issued regulations that would arrogate to the FCC the authority to regulate Internet traffic. The regulations come as wolves in sheeps' clothing, purporting to protect consumers from big businesses that would restrict their access to the Web.

But there are two problems with what the FCC is doing: Congress has never given it authority to regulate Internet traffic, and if it is allowed to usurp that authority it will eventually use it to restrict freedom of speech.

When Congress created the Federal Radio Commission in 1927, then converted it into the Federal Communications Commission in 1934, it expressly denied this agency the authority to control speech on the radio.

Henry Bellows, one of the original FRC commissioners, accurately explained its authority in a speech to the League of Women Voters in the year the agency was born.

"Very rightly, Congress has held that the broadcaster shall not be subject to governmental dictation as to the character of the material he sends out, the Federal Radio Commission under present law cannot and will not interfere with any broadcaster's right to control and censor his own programs," said Bellows.

"In that matter, his relations are not with the government, not with the commission, but with you," said Bellows. "It is for you, the listeners, not for us, to censor his programs. It is for you to tell him when he is rendering, or failing to render, real service to the public, and you may be sure that he will listen to your voices."

Thirteen years later, in 1940, in reviewing the broadcast license of the Yankee Network for the Massachusetts radio station WAAB, the FCC ruled that radio stations were forbidden from advocating.

"A truly free radio cannot be used to advocate the causes of the licensee," said the FCC in that case. "It cannot be used to support the candidacies of his friends. It cannot be devoted to the support of principles he happens to regard most favorably. In brief, the broadcaster cannot be an advocate."

What happened between 1927 and 1940? Did Congress increase the authority of federal radio commissioners? No. An all-Democratic government had come into power and had held it for eight years. 1940 was yet another election year, and freedom of speech was not a priority for the incumbent party. Read more at www.cnsnews.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/jh1f

U.N. Passes Religious ‘Defamation’ Resolution Sponsored by Islamic Nations, But Support Dwindles

Amplify’d from www.cnsnews.com

U.N. Passes Religious ‘Defamation’ Resolution Sponsored by Islamic Nations, But Support Dwindles

By Patrick Goodenough

(Update: Adds details of countries that shifted positions this year, plus reaction from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom)

Flags of member nations flying at United Nations headquarters in New York City. (U.N. Photo by Araujo Pinto)

(CNSNews.com) – For the sixth consecutive year, the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday passed a controversial resolution on religious “defamation” sponsored by Islamic nations, but this time, the measure passed by a mere 12 votes.

Lobbying by a broad range of religious freedom and other groups has steadily eroded the vote tally for the resolution each year since 2006, but outright defeat of the measure sponsored by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) remains elusive.

Tuesday’s vote in the 192-member General Assembly passed by 79 votes to 67, with 40 abstentions.

A comparison of voting records provides an indication of which countries were successfully lobbied since last year, when the vote passed 80-61, with 42 abstentions.

The six additional “no” votes in 2010 came from Barbados (which voted for the resolution last year); Argentina, Bahamas, Fiji and Zambia (all of which abstained last year); and the Solomon Islands (which did not vote last year).

One country, Dominica, voted for the OIC resolution in 2009 and abstained this year. Haiti moved the other way, abstaining last year and voting for the measure in 2010.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an independent statutory body that advises the executive and legislative branches, welcomed the continued decline in support for the “defamation” resolution.

“Each year, more and more countries are recognizing that laws allegedly protecting religions from ‘defamation’ or criticism actually increase intolerance and human rights violations, instead of reducing these problems,” USCIRF chairman Leonard Leo said Wednesday.

“This resolution seeks to divide the international community, rather than building consensus on ways to promote fundamental freedoms,” he added. “Religious intolerance is best fought through efforts to encourage respect for every individual’s human rights, not through national or international anti-blasphemy laws.”

Earlier this month a petition opposing the resolution, signed by 428,856 people from more than 70 countries, was handed to senior U.N. officials in New York City.

It was organized by the Christian religious freedom organization Open Doors USA, which said that the resolution “criminalizes speech and actions deemed to be against a religion.”

Although the OIC argues that the bill promotes tolerance and protects religious freedom, Open Doors said, “it does the exact opposite for Christians, other religious minorities and even Muslims who do not adhere to government-approved versions of Islam. In effect, the resolution is an international blasphemy law.”

The 56-country OIC says that Islam, its teachings and prophet Mohammed are being maligned through prejudice, ignorance or fear.

The OIC’s “Islamophobia Observatory” issues annual reports highlighting incidents such as the Mohammed newspaper cartoons, threats to burn copies of the Qur’an, the alleged profiling of Muslim passengers at airports in the West, and last month’s vote in Oklahoma to amend the state’s constitution to bar judges from considering Islamic law in Oklahoma courts.

OIC inserts ‘Judeophobia, Christianophobia’ into text

The OIC has introduced its religious “defamation” resolution at the General Assembly every year since 2005, and at the U.N.’s top human rights body every year since 1999, when Pakistan introduced it for the first time. It has passed in both forums every time, although with ever-dwindling support.

The 2006 and 2007 General Assembly resolutions passed by a 57-vote margin. That dropped to 33 in 2008, to 19 last year, and now down to 12.

In an attempt to stem that erosion of support, Islamic governments this time made changes to the text, including inserting the words “Islamophobia, Judeophobia and Christianophobia.” In previous versions Islam was the only religion referred to be name.

Among other changes, a mention of the 9/11 al-Qaeda terrorist assault on the U.S. was removed. (Earlier versions had referred to discrimination against “Muslim minorities following the events of 11 September 2001.”)

Also, the latest text minimized the use of the provocative term “defamation,” exchanging it in many instances with the word “vilification.”  The formal title of the resolution remained unchanged: “Combating Defamation of Religions.”

Also retained in the text was a sentence expressing “deep concern … that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.”

The run-up to this year’s vote saw attention drawn to a case in Pakistan involving a Christian woman on death row after being convicted of “blaspheming” Mohammed.

Asia Bibi was indicted under Pakistan’s notorious blasphemy laws, which makes insults aimed at Mohammed and the Qur’an crimes punishable by death.

Bibi is appealing her sentence, but the government and legal system are under pressure from Islamists angered by the notion that she may be acquitted or pardoned. One cleric has offered a reward to anyone who kills her.

Reacting to Tuesday’s U.N. vote, the New York-based advocacy group Human Rights First said Bibi’s case was not unique.

“There are scores of cases that provide ample warning of the dangers of enacting a global blasphemy law, which is what this U.N. resolution seeks to do,” it said.

A recent Human Rights First report documented more than 50 cases in 15 countries “where the enforcement of blasphemy laws have resulted in death sentences and long prison terms as well as arbitrary detentions, and have sparked assaults, murders, and mob attacks.”

Tad Stahnke of Human Rights First said Tuesday’s U.N. vote affirms the dwindling support for the religious “defamation” concept.

It was nonetheless “unfortunate for both individuals at risk whose rights will surely be violated under the guise of prohibiting ‘defamation of religions,’ as well as for the standards of international norms on freedom of expression,” he said.

Tuesday’s U.N. meetings did not take place in the usual General Assembly building, which was evacuated because of noxious odors caused by sewage problems attributed to unusually high tides in the East River. The session was moved to a temporary building nearby. Read more at www.cnsnews.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/jh15

Judge Orders Federal Government to Pay $2.5M in Wiretapping Case

Amplify’d from www.cnsnews.com

Judge Orders Federal Government to Pay $2.5M in Wiretapping Case

By Paul Elias, Associated Press

San Francisco (AP) - A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the U.S. government to pay more than $2.5 million in attorney fees and damages after he concluded investigators wiretapped the phones of a suspected terrorist organization without a warrant.

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker said the attorneys for the Ashland, Ore., chapter of the now-defunct Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation should receive $2.5 million for waging its nearly five-year legal challenge to the Bush administration's so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program.

Walker also awarded $20,400 each to Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoor, two of the foundation's Washington D.C.-based lawyers. They had their phone conversations with Al-Haramain principals monitored, the judge said.

"The system worked," Ghafoor said. "And we really hope that the government lets this stand and writes it off as a bad program from a previous administration.."

Earlier this year the judge found that investigators illegally intercepted the electronic communications without warrants. Government lawyers have refused throughout the litigation to disclose whether investigators eavesdropped, "although the fact of such surveillance is not in doubt," the judge concluded.

The Department of Justice lawyer who defended the program in court for the Bush administration and then the Obama administration, Anthony J. Coppolino, didn't return a phone call late Tuesday.

The judge refused to award any punitive damages, saying the investigators didn't act in bad faith in following the guidelines of the controversial program exposed by the New York Times in 2005.

"The record shows that the government had reason to believe that Al-Haramain supported acts of terrorism and that critical intelligence could be obtained by monitoring Al-Haramain," the judge said.

The Treasury Department froze the assets of the Ashland chapter and declared it a "specially designated global terrorist" on Sept. 9, 2004. Treasury officials believe the Ashland chapter delivered $150,000 overseas to "support terrorist activities by the Chechen mujahideen," the judge concluded.

Pete Seda was convicted in October of tax fraud and conspiracy for helping another official of Al-Haramain smuggle the $150,000 out of the U.S. to Saudi Arabia in 2000. Seda's lawyers are preparing an appeal.

The eavesdropping was initially discovered when Treasury Department officials mistakenly turned over a document to Al-Haramain lawyers that appeared to be a top-secret call log.

Even though lawyers were ordered to give back the document and not rely on it in the lawsuit, they were still able to convince Walker with other evidence that they were warrantless wiretap targets.

Generally, government investigators are required to obtain search warrants signed by judges to eavesdrop on domestic phone calls, e-mail traffic and other electronic communications. But Bush authorized the surveillance program shortly after 9/11, allowing the National Security Agency to bypass the courts and intercept electronic communications believed connected to al-Qaida.

Bush ended the program in January 2007. Read more at www.cnsnews.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/jh0z

Screening the Credit History of Job Applicants Is Discriminatory, EEOC Says

Amplify’d from www.cnsnews.com

Screening the Credit History of Job Applicants Is Discriminatory, EEOC Says

By Sam Hananel, Associated Press

(AP) - Federal authorities on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against Kaplan Higher Education Corp. for allegedly discriminating against black job applicants by screening the credit history of potential employees.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says the practice of rejecting job seekers based on their credit history has a discriminatory impact on some racial and ethnic groups. The lawsuit alleges that Kaplan's practice is not job-related or justified by business necessity.

The lawsuit seeks lost wages, benefits and offers of employment for people who were not hired because of the company's credit history screening procedures.

Kaplan spokeswoman Michele Pore said the company has a diverse work force and does not discriminate. She said the company conducts background checks on all potential employees, including checking credit histories of applicants whose duties would include financial matters.

The EEOC said it tried to reach a voluntary settlement with Kaplan before filing the lawsuit in federal district court in Cleveland.

Kaplan is a unit of Washington Post Co. Read more at www.cnsnews.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/jh0w

The Virgin Mary was an embodiment and symbol of the pure and true church, unlike the Scarlet Harlot (Catholic Church) which is defiled and impure with their pagan practices and traditions of men!

Amplify’d from www.albertmohler.com

Must We Believe the Virgin Birth?

In one of his columns for The New York Times, Nicholas Kristof once pointed to belief in the Virgin Birth as evidence that conservative Christians are “less intellectual.” Are we saddled with an untenable doctrine? Is belief in the Virgin Birth really necessary?

Kristof is absolutely aghast that so many Americans believe in the Virgin Birth. “The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time,” he explains, and the percentage of Americans who believe in the Virgin Birth “actually rose five points in the latest poll.” Yikes! Is this evidence of secular backsliding?

“The Virgin Mary is an interesting prism through which to examine America’s emphasis on faith,” Kristof argues, “because most Biblical scholars regard the evidence for the Virgin Birth … as so shaky that it pretty much has to be a leap of faith.” Here’s a little hint: Anytime you hear a claim about what “most Biblical scholars” believe, check on just who these illustrious scholars really are. In Kristof’s case, he is only concerned about liberal scholars like Hans Kung, whose credentials as a Catholic theologian were revoked by the Vatican.

The list of what Hans Kung does not believe would fill a book [just look at his books!], and citing him as an authority in this area betrays Kristof’s determination to stack the evidence, or his utter ignorance that many theologians and biblical scholars vehemently disagree with Kung. Kung is the anti-Catholic’s favorite Catholic, and that is the real reason he is so loved by the liberal media.

Kristof also cites “the great Yale historian and theologian” Jaroslav Pelikan as an authority against the Virgin Birth, but this is both unfair and untenable. In Mary Through the Centuries, Pelikan does not reject the Virgin Birth, but does trace the development of the doctrine.

What are we to do with the Virgin Birth? The doctrine was among the first to be questioned and then rejected after the rise of historical criticism and the undermining of biblical authority that inevitably followed. Critics claimed that since the doctrine is taught in “only” two of the four Gospels, it must be elective. The Apostle Paul, they argued, did not mention it in his sermons in Acts, so he must not have believed it. Besides, the liberal critics argued, the doctrine is just so supernatural. Modern heretics like retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong argue that the doctrine was just evidence of the early church’s over-claiming of Christ’s deity. It is, Spong tells us, the “entrance myth” to go with the resurrection, the “exit myth.” If only Spong were a myth.

Now, even some revisionist evangelicals claim that belief in the Virgin Birth is unnecessary. The meaning of the miracle is enduring, they argue, but the historical truth of the doctrine is not really important.

Must one believe in the Virgin Birth to be a Christian? This is not a hard question to answer. It is conceivable that someone might come to Christ and trust Christ as Savior without yet learning that the Bible teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. A new believer is not yet aware of the full structure of Christian truth. The real question is this: Can a Christian, once aware of the Bible’s teaching, reject the Virgin Birth? The answer must be no.

Nicholas Kristof pointed to his grandfather as a “devout” Presbyterian elder who believed that the Virgin Birth is a “pious legend.” Follow his example, Kristof encourages, and join the modern age. But we must face the hard fact that Kristof’s grandfather denied the faith. This is a very strange and perverse definition of “devout.”

Matthew tells us that before Mary and Joseph “came together,” Mary “was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.” [Matthew 1:18] This, Matthew explains, fulfilled what Isaiah promised: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name ‘Immanuel,’ which translated means ‘God with Us’.” [Matthew 1:23, Isaiah 7:14]

Luke provides even greater detail, revealing that Mary was visited by an angel who explained that she, though a virgin, would bear the divine child: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy child shall be called the Son of God.” [Luke 1:35]

Even if the Virgin Birth was taught by only one biblical passage, that would be sufficient to obligate all Christians to the belief. We have no right to weigh the relative truthfulness of biblical teachings by their repetition in Scripture. We cannot claim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and then turn around and cast suspicion on its teaching.

Millard Erickson states this well: “If we do not hold to the virgin birth despite the fact that the Bible asserts it, then we have compromised the authority of the Bible and there is in principle no reason why we should hold to its other teachings. Thus, rejecting the virgin birth has implications reaching far beyond the doctrine itself.”

Implications, indeed. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, who was His father? There is no answer that will leave the Gospel intact. The Virgin Birth explains how Christ could be both God and man, how He was without sin, and that the entire work of salvation is God’s gracious act. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, He had a human father. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, the Bible teaches a lie.

Carl F. H. Henry, the dean of evangelical theologians, argues that the Virgin Birth is the “essential, historical indication of the Incarnation, bearing not only an analogy to the divine and human natures of the Incarnate, but also bringing out the nature, purpose, and bearing of this work of God to salvation.” Well said, and well believed.

Nicholas Kristof and his secularist friends may find belief in the Virgin Birth to be evidence of intellectual backwardness among American Christians. But this is the faith of the Church, established in God’s perfect Word, and cherished by the true Church throughout the ages. Kristof’s grandfather, we are told, believed that the Virgin Birth is a “pious legend.” The fact that he could hold such beliefs and serve as an elder in his church is evidence of that church’s doctrinal and spiritual laxity — or worse. Those who deny the Virgin Birth affirm other doctrines only by force of whim, for they have already surrendered the authority of Scripture. They have undermined Christ’s nature and nullified the incarnation.

This much we know: All those who find salvation will be saved by the atoning work of Jesus the Christ — the virgin-born Savior. Anything less than this is just not Christianity, whatever it may call itself. A true Christian will not deny the Virgin Birth.

Originally posted December 8, 2006. Reprinted by request.

Related Posts Must We Believe the Virgin Birth? Must We Believe the Virgin Birth? Must We Believe the Virgin Birth? The Doctrine of the Virgin Birth Under Attack–Again Can a Christian Deny the Virgin Birth? Read more at www.albertmohler.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/jh0l

Amplify’d from gawker.com

Do You Recognize the Guy With the Suitcase Stuffed With a Woman's Body?

Were you walking down East 114th Street in New York City Tuesday night? Did you pass a guy with a big roller suitcase? Because, uh, the police want to talk to you. Since the suitcase maybe had a body inside.

At around 12:15 a.m. on Wednesday, a man rifling through garbage cans on 114th and First Avenue found a suitcase. He opened it, and, surprise, "a leg sprung out," according to the New York Post. The 28-year-old victim, an unidentified woman, appears to have died from "neck compression," and the death is considered a homicide.

They've got a lead, though! This video, which shows a man lugging a suitcase down 114th Street "mere moments" before the body was found. (If you recognize the guy, call 800-577-TIPS.) Post commenters, as always, are hot on the trail, and have narrowed the suspects down to former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and "[one] of those ganster Italian thugs who was owed money."

[NYP]

Send an email to Max Read, the author of this post, at max@gawker.com. Read more at gawker.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/jgzw

Amplify’d from www.wnd.com

Town taxes Christians for listening to sermons

'Driveway fee' assessed against churches based on number of seats in worship centers

THE POWER TO DESTROY

By Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily

First Baptist in Mission, Kan.

Christians who attend worship services in a suburb of Kansas City will have to ante up for new thousand-dollar city "fees" that are being assessed against their churches based on the number of seats in their sanctuaries.

That's if the scheme announced recently by officials in Mission, Kan., survives a court challenge that has been filed by the Alliance Defense Fund.

"No one should be taxing church attendance, but that's what this tax does: It punishes churches based on their attendance," said Erik Stanley, a senior legal counsel for the organization.

"Cleverly disguising a tax as a fee is just another way to penalize churches and other nonprofit organizations and charities by subverting their tax exemptions so the government can collect more money," he said. "This driveway tax is simply outrageous. Will we soon be seeing a 'sidewalk tax' based on the number of people who walk to church?"

It was in August when the city council in Mission created Ordinance 1332 for a "Transportation Utility Fee." The law requiress that owners of all property within city limits with improvements such as buildings or landscaping pay a fee, "which functions as an additional property tax."

According to ADF, the ordinance itself specifies that owners of properties that are tax exempt under state law, such as churches, charities and nonprofit ministries, still must pay.

For churches, the tax is based on an assumption about the number of vehicle trips.

"Single family homes are assessed a fixed rate of $72 per year while 5.8 total weekly vehicle trips are estimated per worship facility seat to calculate the tax amount for churches," ADF said.

Its lawsuit, filed Monday in district court in Johnson County, is on behalf of First Baptist Church of Mission and the Archdiocese of Kansas City.

St. Pius Catholic Church

The Baptist church, billed nearly $1,000, and the Catholic diocese, billed some $1,700, agreed to take the lead in the battle over the new assessments on behalf of the town's churches.

City officials declined to respond to a WND request for comment.

But ADF said the "driveway tax" is the same as other assessments that were imposed in Idaho and Florida but struck down by the supreme courts in those states.

"The government should not attempt to disguise taxes as 'fees' in order to eliminate property tax exemptions, when that money could be better spent by churches in caring for the poor. It makes little sense to extract greater tribute from churches and charities when lost services mean a shift of the burden to the government anyway. Not only is this scheme unlawful, it's fiscally nonsensical," Stanley said.

According to ADF, "Churches are exempt from taxes for good reason. First, they provide essential services to the poor and disadvantaged in the community. If they did not provide these services, the government would be left to provide them. Second, churches are active in shaping virtuous citizens who contribute positively and help maintain a healthy society. Without the work of the churches, the government is unable to benefit from this intangible, but important spiritual work that churches perform. The government should view churches as an essential partner in society and not tax them, thereby removing funds from them that can be better used in fulfilling the religious mission of the church."

Mission is a suburban area near Kansas City. Read more at www.wnd.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/jgyy

GOP leaders demand laws be constitutional

URL:  http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=242569

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/jgyq