Babylon and Fundamentalism

March 2, 2000

We have a great discussion on this edition but it was almost entirely from the e-groups forum. To have a quick time discussion like this reminds me of the fun we had when I was able to have the mailing list open. There were a few responses directed to the list, which follow next and then I have also added the e-group discussion. I have edited out parts of them from the e-group, like the personal bandying stuff but if you have been following them, you will understand why, and not all of the posts were pertinent to the immediate discussion at hand. And I may have them in the wrong order because they were detached.

We are discussing Babylon and I left it to you and the Lord to come up with the discussion. Religious Babylon may not be that easy to identify, but for sure, they will be the ones that stand in favor of the nature of the Beast and will be the ones that are in the direct confusion of incompatible doctrine. They will also be the ones that oppose the five-fold the most in the restoration and puts us on the defensive according to their own pride, exalted positions in the flesh, prejudicial doctrines and lack of love, acceptance and unity. And they will be the ones that support the right wing insanity that exploits, dominates and oppresses the meek, oppose the social gospel and think that liberality is evil.

As to fundamentalism, there are fundamentals of the faith that should not be rejected outright but this is not what we are talking about. We are to go beyond the fundamentals and learn of the deeper things of God. We are not to be carried away with every wind of doctrine and we are to leave the milk of the word and take meat. When fundamentalism that could be called fundamentalism first appeared about a hundred years ago, it was to stand up for the fundamentals of the faith and the inerrancy of the scriptures. What is understood to be false is the extreme fundamentalism that now uses the Bible as a legalistic tool to supplant the authority of the Holy Spirit, deny God in history and deny the free operation of spiritual gifts. If we want to use the term fundamentalist in these extremes, we may do so because the majority of the fundamentalists have taken it to this extreme and ignorance has taken the place of knowledge because of it. We do not reject the authority of the scriptures, nor the inspiration however we believe that the Bible is not subject to a private fundamentalist interpretation but subject to the authority of the Holy Ghost and the scriptures together. The real shame is that fundamentalism could have been the right way to go but the fundamentalists have corrupted it and made it into an intolerant tool of bigoted false doctrine and ignorance.

Some common fundamentalist traps to quench the spirit and foster ignorance are:

If the Bible is silent on any matter of doctrine, we must also be silent.
The scriptures alone are the only authority for faith and doctrine.
Since the New Testament has been completed, knowledge has ceased and God does not speak to us in history.
The Bible is the only book we need to study Christianity.
If you deny fundamentalism, you deny the Bible.
Fundamentalism is the only right way in Christianity, everything else is secular.
If you believe in revelation knowledge, you are a gnostic.
If you believe in revelation as a valid spiritual authority, you are new age.
Faith in the Bible takes precedence over reason.

We could come up with a lot more but let's go on. The next items of discussion I think is to offer up to the whole list the things that we have discussed here. More than ever I think that anyone interested in participating in the discussions should join the e-group. There is a link farther on down when the e-group discussion begins where you can sign up or just to look it over. We have been discussing Babylonian confusion of incompatible doctrine whether we realize it or not. We may want to discuss the political and economic aspects of Babylon also, but let's see how it goes from here. And go ahead an e-mail me anything you want.


Psalm 137 verse 1 By the rivers of Babylon,there we sat down,yea we wept,when we remembered Zion. 2. We hanged our harps under the willows in the midst therof. 3. For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song,and they that wasted us required of us mirth,saying Sing us one of the songs of Zion. 4. How shall we sing the Lord"s song in a strange land?

Ancient Babylon:`I don't know if you are like me but if i travel anywhere,it seems like getting there is half the fun,after a few days there,the newness wears off and i'm ready to come home,but picture being in captivity,that which you were so accustomed to no longer,is at your discretion,no longer are you allowed to make decisions,which were once taken for granted,even the most simple things,you have to ask for permission to do,people who you loved you no longer see,and you wonder where they may be.The constant mocking of the enemy,makes some want to throw a pity-party,but yet four young men make the decision,that they will not allow,gloom and doom to be the order of the day.The image of gold that king Nebuchadnezzar set up in the plain of Dura,in the province of Babylon,was not going to make them turn their backs on God.Imagine an event greater than all the Super Bowls,World Series,Presidential inagurations,and all crowd gathering events, combined.While Daniel is most likely,out handling business affairs, his three friends are faced with a decision of do as everybody else does,or face the consequences. Daniel 3:4 Then a herald cried aloud,To (you) it is commanded,O peoples,nations,and tongues. Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast,that the image of the beast,should both speak,and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. Daniel 3:5 That at what time ye hear the sound of the hornet,flute,harp, sackbut,psaltery, dulcimer,and all kinds of music,ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up. 6. And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. 7. Therefore at that time,when (all the people) heard the sound of the cornet,flute,harp,sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of musick(all the people) the nations,and the languages,fell down,and worshipped,the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. The child of God stands out today,like the three Hebrew children did,when they did not bow,They could have said,hey,we'll just act like we"re tying our shoe latchets,when everyone falls down, or maybe we can just act like we"re praying while bowing like everyone else is,but they would have none of it-false religion,they knew that they were there for a reason,and it was not to sell out,just as we should know that we are here for a reason, their faith that God would deliver them,not only delivered themselves,but many others,because for sure it they had not of been, the wolves would have demanded more blood.We don't know that sound, and we are not going to dance to the all kinds of musick.Ephesians :4:4 That we be henceforth no more children,tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine,by the sleight of men,and cunning craftiness,whereby they lie in wait to deceive.If ever there was a time to pray,this is it,for in the greatest of security,lies many hidden dangers,before the captivity,Israel"s attitude was that it can never happen to us,do not we have the priest,and the prophet among us? Today, it's prophesy smooth things,blessings,prosperity, material posessions,etc,and not thus saith the Lord,or Lord what wilt thou have me to do,not my will,but thy will be done.I pray God will send those who have the courage to stand in the gap, who will blow the trumpet-now sounding,knowing that the sword is upon the land,to awake our sleeping world and nation.Jay,i witnessed to a man the other night whom,doctors told him that he may, not have more than a week to live,we know that God is able to heal him,and many are praying for him,but i am asking you personally,to pray for this man because i know that you can get a prayer through,i won"t give out his name,but nevertheless, please pray for him.He is a christian man.


I have been a minister for some thirteen years now, and i recently,came to the Latter-Rain discussion group,the information that is here is a absolute God- send in the fact,that it is continually,backed up by being scripture-based.The bondage and captivity, of religious-jargon,seeks to keep us in the shackles of self-righteous,what"s in it for me,i know the Lord better than you do,mentality,which so divides us perpetually.There is such a strong calling of God on the lives of many today,Isaiah 30:21 And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying,This is the way,walk ye in it,when ye turn,to the right hand,and whenye turn to the left.John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice and i know them,and they follow me.Revelation 4:1 After this i looked, and,behold, a door was opened in heaven,and the first voice which i heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me,which said,Come up hither,and i will shew thee things which must be hereafter.In ancient, Babylonian captivity,revelation from God,telling future events,is what gave people the hope,and faith,to continue on.1st Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy,whereunto ye do well that ye take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place,until the day star arise in your hearts. The horrors of the dark-ages pale in comparison, with that which is yet to be revealed,sin will be judged to the fullest,no matter who likes it or not.

But yet,there is a captivity,that we so desire,Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith,When he ascended upon high,he led captivity,captive,and gave gifts unto men.A taking away of that which Babylon,past or present has no right to put it's Satan-inspired hands on.I laugh, and smile, even though it is not funny in the least sense,but that which i have read on the latter-rain,site shows me why the Lord,his prophets,disciples,apostles,were continually, reproached,persecuted,killed, mocked, scorned,abused,and so much more,because the real truth,will not be received,because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved. Micah 2:12,I will surely assemble,O Jacob,al of thee, I will surely gather the remnant of Israel:I will put them together as the sheep of Bozrah,as the flock in the midst of their fold:they shall make great noise,by resaon of the multitude of men. 13. The breaker is come up before them:they have broken up,and passed through the gate,and are gone out by it:and their king shall pass before them, and the Lord on the head of them.Let me not take this passage out of context,but let it be known that we are all under this gathering process of the Lord, in the sense of being brought out of Babylon the Great.


To Jay=thanks for letting me know you got my e mail=on the matter of Babylon there are to me two ways of looking at any subject.One we see thru the eyes of flesh the other thru the eyes of the spirit.Babylon in fact is and has always been a real place.It is the center point of the devils handy work on earth. Just like God has his holy city the devil has his unholy city If studied out you only need to look at Iraq and it's capital to see the worldly city rebuilt But to me the real Babylon is a state of spirit and of the mind instead of a place on earth For to me all things of God are to be looked at thru the eyes of His spirit(not by power=not by might =but by His spirit)If we are to accept His word is of the spirit then should we also accept that what it says has it's final meaning in the spirit. I wonder if sometimes that the devil works on us to see the natural world that will one day be burned away instead of looking at God and His kingom that shall last forever.So to me anyway Babylon is formed in each of our lives by the act of not obeying God,His word,and His spirit.For the kingdom of God is within us and to allow anything else in is to allow a state of Babylon within us.So thank you for allowing me the right to state my view point.I would like very much to go futher in this round table discussion and would gladly love to hear other views for we are all of one body but each part is as different as it is the same. with the love of Christ your new found brother James S.

The following discussion began with an excellent article that Don gave us concerning Pentecost, trinity and the Holy Spirit, written by an evangelical some years ago during the time that there was a mass exodus from the traditional churches into the charismatic movement. I thought it was even older than that because the writer spoke of modernism instead of post-modernism but it was just the age of the writer and even though he gave an accurate view of the Holy Spirit, it was written to quench the Holy Spirit in God's influence in the church to accept all the charisms. To see the original article, go take a look at the forum February 25th.

The comments that follow are all from the e-groups forum that sprang from this original article and have much to do with the original request for discussion of the identification of religious Babylon.

The view of the trinity is something that we should positively agree upon as here stated. We know the JW and Mormon version that says there is no trinity because Jesus is not divine but there is another extreme which has been getting a lot of attention and that is the "Oneness" doctrine. Correct me if I am wrong but in this view, the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are all one. [I said this wrong and corrected myself later]

Here we have two extremes. They are both wrong. One thing that I have noticed however that I have never seen a JW or Mormon actually filled with the spirit due to a baptism of the Holy Ghost. I have see oneness groups that manifest the Holy Ghost in their services. In fact I can fellowship with them in one spirit until they find out that I do not accept their views. I can fellowship with JW's and Mormons in love but not in spirit. I can fellowship with oneness people in spirit but not in love because they reject me. This is something I wish that I could explain but I cannot, it is a mystery to me. There can be no unity with either group and us because either side will ultimately come against us and certainly deny the truth of the matter and try to take others into their delusions. As to the trinity question, the evangelicals are absolutely right and the oneness people and JW's are absolutely wrong. This is an issue where we can righteously come out with the heresy tag.

Lehman Strauss in his article is doing a study on Acts 2 but unless I missed it does not even mention Acts 2:38: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Ignoring it like he has done is one thing but mis-interpreting it is worse. The Oneness people seem to have use this verse to build on their whole doctrine in baptizing in Jesus name. Now I have already taught that I believe in the baptism of Jesus name because all the apostles did it that way and I must teach in obedience but it must not be taught to the exclusion of ones salvation because of it. Those that teach that you cannot receive the Holy Ghost or worse that you cannot be even saved unless baptized in Jesus' name are taking this to the letter and not the spirit. Many of us are baptized in the Holy Ghost without being baptized in water first, much less in Jesus name. It is the same old story, they are so filled with pride in doing what they think is the right way that they will go to the extremes of thinking that it is the only way to go and to hell with the rest of us. That is a devilish legalism to be sure, they are striving to get into the kingdom by their own merits and not upon the dependence of the Holy Ghost. Now we have two extremes on this issue, the one extreme of ignoring the question completely of Jesus' name (the sin of omission) and the other extreme who mis-uses the truth to cause division and strife (the sin of commission). Both extremes (the evangelicals and the oneness Pentecostals) think they are right. Again they are both wrong.

The writer of this article does have the truth of the Holy Spirit and can use it to allow the Lord to effect salvation in others. You can recognize the anointing of truth in him and he is right on concerning the feasts. He may be writing of a Pentecostal experience but he is in no means Pentecostal. We already know in this group that God has given us a variety of gifts. Mr. Strauss may in fact be in the ministry of teaching and accept pastors and evangelists but he would not accept the five-fold ministry because if he denies the gift of tongues being for today then he will also deny the gifts of prophecy and apostleship. The article sounds like it was written 50 years or 75 years ago. I wonder, Don if you know when it was written. Evangelicals generally haven't preached against the Modernists for many years. A person with this type of anointing might just write differently today. Anyway, this is what he wrote:

"The gift of tongues was the first of the Pentecostal effects and the first to disappear. The phenomenon of tongues was not permanently instituted, but it was designed for temporary purposes. today we do not need them; they were needed at the commencement."

As long as the evangelicals or any group deny the power and validity of any of the gifts of the Holy Spirit or of the members of the body of Christ, they will not be part of what we are doing. We could invite them but you know that they will only oppose us as they have been, they are all alone in their own little unity and that the truth ends with them. Not only was Acts 2:38 ignored concerning the name of Jesus but the gift of the Holy Spirit was not mentioned either. Verse 37 was mentioned and then a little about repentance and then he skipped over it, that was it. He talks about the power of the Holy Spirit and sounds like he may have experienced part of it. They are so close to full gospel but always hold back. I cannot tell you why unless it is the same old story again of pride getting in the way. They have had the dominating influence for so long that they will not accept what we have to say, it is as simple as that. It interferes with their sphere of influence.

Thanks for offering this, these things that I mentioned that were incomplete are only a small part of what was a real good article. Evangelicals have the Holy Ghost but in small measure, they deny the baptism which is complete immersion. And they have the trinity right, that is of course very important. To get out of Babylon does not mean that you leave the church, just the confusion.


I hate responding to my own letter but I need to clear up what I felt was incomplete in what I said about the oneness people and the trinity. As I was reading my own post I noticed in mentioning the oneness doctrine the erroneous view that it was "the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are all one."

What I meant was that the oneness view is that they are all one person with Jesus only. Jesus is the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, this is where the error lies. The truth is that they are one but revealed in three persons like the author of the article states. Again correct me if I am wrong (I just did) but the oneness people think that there are not three persons in one but only one and that is Jesus. I have not studied with them but I think they get this from the idea that if Jesus says that we are to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost and the response was in the name of Jesus that this proves that Jesus is the name of the Father and the Holy Ghost also. In other words, the Son was not just with the Father at creation, He was the Father and so on. I would suppose that they would not be able to affirm the Nicene or Athenasius creed and would deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. I guess this would be hard enough to understand if it is so hard for me to even explain it but the whole thing just doesn't make sense to me. They probably would use my ignorance as the reason that I am such a heretic for believing the trinitarian view. No matter.


Yes it is definitely true that the Oneness people (like JWs and Calvinists) cannot affirm the Creed of Nicaea which says 'We believe in one God, father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible. And in one lord, Jesus Christ, the son of God, begotten from the father, only-begotten, that is from the being of the father, God from God, light from light, true God from True God, begotten not made, one in being with the father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those on the earth, who because of us human beings and because of our salvation descended, became enfleshed, became human, suffered and rose on the third day, ascending to the heavens, coming to judge the living and dead. And in the Holy Spirit.' Nor can they affirm the Scriptures which speak of the Word being with God before time, that He is existed in the form of God and thought it not robbery to be equal with God, or that He is existed with the Father and shared His glory before the world was. It would seem to me that they deny the Father and the Son, for which John the Apostle anathematized people.


On extreme fundamentalism:


...a perfect example of extreme fundamentalism. Unless you can come up with chapter and verse on any subject, it is as if the terms should not even be discussed. Orthodoxy is a term that is used in the church a lot, it may be in the dictionary but that it is not in the Bible does not make it any less of a valid subject with anyone except an extreme legalist to the letter that cannot accept any truth apart from the Bible, thinks that the spirit can not give us any truth that is not mentioned in the Bible, that valid Christian tradition that God has taught, creeds and church history have no place in religious discussion. It is the attitude that since God has spoken to us in scripture that it is no longer necessary for us to think. It was taught with the Calvinists, it is taught from the fundamentalist pulpits today and it is something that I have taught against. It has no place in our forums except for discussion and has no part in what we are doing in the restorative process. It is to be cast out as evil and definitely part of the Babylon confusion......

My opinion is that revival cannot be achieved by following the scriptures alone, it begins in the heart with a stronger relationship to Jesus, not the Bible. We would not know of the early church without the scriptures, but before the New Testament was written, the church existed apart from them and was spiritually alive, filled with the truth that we are to be restored to and with a vitality that we must have if we are to be revived. They did not follow the scriptures alone, they followed the spirit of the risen Jesus and gives us a supreme example of how we should conduct ourselves today and that is not in the letter but the spirit.......

It was the same mistake that Luther made with his sola scriptura doctrine and I go on record as disagreeing with him on it. Luther was not perfect just as we are not perfect, he made mistakes and this was his biggest one. His other gigantic mistake was to take the sacrament out of marriage and I will also go on record against Luther's teaching on that. The reason given that the sacrament of marriage was taken out was because it wasn't in the Bible, this is the idiocy of the sola scriptura doctrine that God could not have even taught us by His spirit to hold marriage as a sacred rite. That's ridiculous, but that is where you are coming from with sola scriptura and in our generation it has led to free sex starting in the sixties from the Lutheran Scandinavian countries of Europe. I have said it over and over that we must humble ourselves and get rid of our pre-conceived notions before we can come to one accord. We must be taught by the spirit and the scriptures, not just the scriptures as the "sole authority." There can be no other way than this for us or we will quench the spirit and lose our anointing. I stand firm on it and I pray that God will strengthen me even further to hold on to this truth. We want no exegesis apart from the Holy Ghost nor do we need it. Frankly, I believe that I speak for the rest of us on this in agreement.


......... it was the creed of Nicaea that i quoted (including the famous 'same being' or 'one substance' however you want to translate it) and not the Apostles Creed. and yeah it is not scripture but i personally think it sums up the teaching of scripture, and insofar as it reflects the word of God I am happy to quote it, though not as an authority. I never said that the JW's or Calvinists are Oneness, just that they in like manner deny the teaching expressed in the Creed of Nicaea, though for different reasons. Calvin said that the teaching of this creed was the babble of a bunch of fanatics......... most Reformed Calvinists do not accept 'once saved always saved' and reject it as dispensational error. They teach the perseverance of the saints (accept some modern quasi calvinists who don't know the difference). Jay all I can say is I have a hard time accepting Oneness people as Christians simply because John the Apostle said 'Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either' and it seems to me that salvation is upon the basis of believing in Jesus as the Son of God, which it seems to me Oneness people do not do. Maybe I am wrong.


A lot of fundamentalists have replaced Jesus with the Bible (a book they don't even understand cos revelation only comes from relationship with God). For the record I do not believe you can understand Scripture apart from the revelation of the Holy Spirit, but I do believe that for the spiritually minded person who knows how revelation operates, that there are a lot of keys to understanding buried in history which can illuminate the spiritual truth to us, though it is not like the Scriptures which are the pure, living and powerful words of God which are to be food for our spirit man and a foundation for life in the Spirit.


Hi Dean et al,

Right on, thank you. The word of God is living and powerful, and still exists today in the Rhema. This is why there was no conclusion to the book of Acts, it continued with church history and we can still find God teaching us through His Holy Spirit here and now. The authority of the Jesus of now and throughout history is just as valid as it was when He was alive and when the New Testament was completed. The Bible is not a dead letter, it is alive and its inspiration still continues.

.............The problem that I had was the point that you made about Calvinists denying the Nicene creed. I should have said question rather than problem because it amazed me if that is so. Is that true? I mentioned the Oneness on one side of the trinity and the JW's on the other extreme but I had no idea that Calvinists would deny the creed itself. I know that to exalt the letter above the revelation of God will kill the spirit but this is just too fantastic to me. Even if it is true, it is hard for me to believe that subsequent Calvinists have carried on in this tradition. If anyone would deny the creed, he would deny the truth behind the creed. I believe that this truth came through the Holy Spirit even if it was written by man. Has God suddenly taken away His spirit from us that we can not come up with the truths that would clarify the things that are not completely clear to us? These people would say that you must believe in the Bible alone for these truths and if it is not in the Bible, you must be silent on the matter. But to deny the creed completely because of it? It just seems to fantastic for me. It is still true that we know in part and we prophesy in part and that is from the authority of the Holy Spirit and us down here who can draw upon spiritual charisms to bear witness with each other and with God. Remember when we discussed "the perfect has come" and the fundamentalists who believe that spiritual gifts died since the New Testament was completed? Same thing. Again the only problem that I had with it is that it just seems so absurd. At any rate, I believe that the Calvinists have done untold damage to the church because of this type of fundamentalism and legalism but to think that they would be so far gone as to deny the Nicene creed because of the Bible alone position puts them in the same heretical position that I think the oneness and JW's are. This is new for me. The Lord is revealing Babylon to us this week but there is more work to do. There is still the chance that they can get out of Babylon but I still do not believe that the Lord will let them have a part of the restoration unless that happens first. The Nicene creed is definitely part of the plumb line and from the spirit of God, not the spirit of man and a true authority because of the truth involved in the nature of Christ.



I appreciate your spirit on this list, thank you for allowing scriptural challenges to posts...

Others have challenged me on issues using Gods' Word and I am better for it. We must have Gods' Word, in spirit and truth, to judge teachings, etc. Otherwise, we might as well be just another PC club, where the 'nice guys' are in charge, and only the intolerant are not tolerated, which seems contradictory somehow. I personally don't call myself a fundamentalist, but I do believe that the Bible is the source of our truth, as it is applied to our lives by the Holy Spirit. I am concerned that some would throw out the baby with the bathwater and start to despise biblical standards. Jesus was very reverent and spoke of fulfilling all of Gods' Words, He did not in any way denigrate the truth of the scriptures or seek to bypass anything in them, even the things which brought Him suffering. There are people who are legalists, but that is more a spiritual problem, which they must deal with. To say that all who would hold us to biblical revealed truth are religious and fundamentalists is just not accurate. Praise God for those who have met the Living Word, Jesus Christ and had His Holy Spirit to apply it in all things, they will speak the Words of Life as Jesus did. Sometimes Jesus had to be stern and firm, but He never violated Gods' standards of love and mercy. Sometimes mercy will tell us something we dont want to hear, just as a doctor might have to tell us we need an operation because of a life threatening condition. We may be saddened by the words, but we would never call him a 'medical fundamentalist' and accuse him of being legalist. This is how I look at the wise application of Gods' Word to our lives and teachings, we need to be a little more objective, and not take it so personally. That is how I try to live, and I am growing in the ability to receive correction given in love, and even some that is not given in love :0) Praying we all can value truth above comfort,


Thanks for your response Jay. The Calvinists reject the creed of Nicaea, not because it is a man made creed (they love anything man made) but because of the truth it expresses. In particular Calvinists do not believe that Jesus is 'God from God, Light from Light, and Very God from Very God'. They do not understand Jesus to be the Son of God in the sense of 'God from God' which is what the early church believed, but rather believe that the term 'Son' simply refers to the personal relationship they share. Hence they deny the eternal generation of the Son from the Father. They believe that Jesus is God of himself and not God from the Father and that the Father is not the fount of deity which is what the historic church has always held. Hence they also deny any form of subordination of the Son to the Father. Now I am not judge, but it seems to me that the Calvinists come dangerously close to denying that Jesus is the Son of God, since they deny that he is 'God from God'. Arminius accused the Calvinist of Sebellianism, which is another word for modalism. So did the Jesuit Petavius who wrote a classic work called 'The Trinity'. So did the 17th century Anglican Bishop George Bull, who wrote the 3 volume 'Defense of the Creed of Nicaea' which was received widely and quoted approvingly by among others J H Newman. I gave a quote from Arminius and went more into it in my emails on Calvinism that were passed on to the group. If any one is interested in getting the hard facts on quotes from Calvinistic theologians like the pharisee B B Warfield and people who disagreed with them like Arminius, then feel free to email me at As far as I know the only Calvinistic group to reject Calvins' heterodox views on the Trinity, which deny the eternal generation of the Son, are the Gospel Standards, who are a strict group of Baptist (and not Reformed) hyper calvinists who don't believe it is right to offer the gospel to sinners because only God knows who the elect are.


In all fairness to the 'fundamentalists' who are not legalists or abusers, I thought we should read this article on 'postmodern thought'. An amazing thing I have witnessed in my short years of life is that for every deception there is a radical group who will come forward to fight that deception.

Just looking at them alone, they would look like rabid overbearing legalists, but when you look at the deception they are fighting, it is easier to understand why they are so extreme. I have known 'fundamentalists' who are very loving and have the spirit of Jesus Christ, it is sad that the ones who are the most vocal are usually the 'pharisees'. But we know what Jesus said about them, 'you cross land and sea to make one disciple, and make them twice the son of hell that you are.' With a desire for balance on truth, Hannah article on postmodern thought: 'Thus, under the banner of inclusiveness postmodern thinkers actually include all but one group-- those of us who are committed to biblical authority. According to postmodernists, fundamentalists are those who believe religious teachings are true or false, not just within their own paradigm, but over all paradigms. "Fundamentalists" view religious truth as objectively true, and therefore subject to rational scrutiny. Evangelicals certainly fall within this circle because we believe that if something is true, its opposite cannot be true at the same time, regardless of what paradigm a person holds.'

These are good discussions, I see we are getting into some ultimate truth here. This is how I see Gods' Provision of His Written Word... Just as in the Ten Commandments, when God says 'Do Not' do these 10 things, what He is actually saying is, (in my interpretation)... Do whatever is in love, but just dont do these 10 things, which is really freeing to us, as His people. The same principle applies to using the Bible to prove truth, it is not to say that if something is not in the Bible it is false, but to say this... If something does not disagree or contradict scripture, it is allowable. When we read the Word of God with an open mind and heart, we will see many instances of God showing respect to the faith of the individual conscience. In such areas as eating meat sacrificed to idols, what days to worship on, whether to marry or not, and other such life style issues. Also, what helps me to keep the balance on these issues, are two truths in Gods' Word; First, 'Whatsoever is not of faith is sin', which deals with our conscience before God personally. Second, 'To him who knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin', this also deals with our 'light' from God on His Word and His Way of doing things. In our Spirits, quickened by the Holy Spirit, we will know if He wants us to do something and we will be grieved until we do that act of obedience. Likewise, if our conscience, enlivened by the Holy Spirit causes us to doubt the righteousness of an action, we would be in sin to pursue that. To summarize, when I see the Bible as the truth of God, it is freeing; if something does not contradict Gods Truth, it is allowable, by individual conscience, and we should not try to apply our own personal conscience to others. This is the cause of much abuse in the 'fundamentalist' camp, those who have 'scruples' or a personal conscience on an issue will try to force others to act as they act. This is really an antichrist spirit, which would replace the individual's reliance on the leading of the Holy Spirit with a manmade set of rules and regulations. The pharisees were like that, and Jesus said to them "you search the scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life, but these are they which testify of me". Therefore, Jesus Christ has the pre eminence and all Biblical interpretation must be according to His Holy Spirit, or it becomes demonic and worse than heathenism, as our sister has spoken. Thanks for letting me share on this,


On Hermeneutics or however you spell it....I would recommend people read Rick Joyners section on this in 'The Journey Begins' because it is excellent. Personally I think that while there are many principles of interpretation that can help keep us on the right track, that hermeneutical systems are the enemy of the move of God. They box and confine God. Systematic theologies are anti -Bible because the word says 'which things we speak, NOT in the words which MAN'S WISDOM TEACHES but in words which the Holy Spirit teaches'. Theologians who know nothing of life in the Spirit and spiritual revelation have found in the Bible a book they can manipulate for their own ends - religious politics! You look at any revival...who resisted Jesus and the apostles? the learned rabbinical Pharisees. Who resisted Finney? the Princeton theologians. Who resists the Pentecostal movement? the Calvinists and the fundamentalists. These people are presumptuous because they trust in their own intellect and reasoning as an authority for establishing doctrine, and reject us who rely upon the spirit of wisdom and revelation. The scriptures are written in such a way that no philosophical system of mans devising can consistently be thrust upon it. these people have to wrest the scriptures and try to make them fit. Often when people claim to only base teaching on scripture they are actually setting you up to dismiss everything you have ever heard and been taught in order to try to thrust a system of man's learning on you which was invented by them and has no place in the history of the church. If people had more of a historical foundation they wouldn't be such easy prey for Calvinism and such like. Nothing from history is authoritative, but i have come to believe that there is safety in knowing that there is a witness to what i believe in a previous age which in many ways was closer to the apostolic teaching. However if we see something clearly from scripture than we have to go by that. Regarding the teaching of the Creed of Nicaea, the calvinists and the JWs both reject the teaching expressed by it. Calvin denied that Jesus is 'light from light' and 'God from God' and was called a heretic for it (by Jesuits, High Church Anglicans and even Arminius). The JWs also go off on this, saying that the Son is a created being (a doctrine called Arianism). i think the creed pretty much put into a few words what is fundamental biblical teaching regarding the deity of Christ, and if somebody does not hold to it than i would have to seriously question where they stand. not because they reject a man made creed but because the teaching in it is basically the fundamental teaching of the bible regarding our Lord as the Son of God. I mean when defining the oneness i could have just said some stuff from the bible myself but why when the creed has done it for me. honour where honour is is a good creed! I think Jay made a really good point when he said that the apostolic church didn't even have the scriptures as we have them. But they had the revelation contained in it! And they had divine life!


Dean, I need to tell you and the others that I can only love, admire and respect a man that can say exactly what I believe better than I can say it myself. I love you all and I sure love hearing the truth. Here are some comments on what you have said.

hermeneutical systems are the enemy of the move of God. They box and > > confine God. Systematic theologies are anti -Bible because the word > > says 'which things we speak, NOT in the words which MAN'S WISDOM > > TEACHES but in words which the Holy Spirit teaches'.

I don't know if hermeneutical systems are quite this bad but you are right. Like I mentioned before, I studied hermeneutics years ago and frankly I liked it. For us, we should discuss in dialectic. There is a place for it but just like fundamentalism, it is grossly inadequate for a true interpretation of scripture unless there is a free expression of our faith to allow for spiritual guidance. As you say there are principles of interpretation that can keep us on track but to make rigid systems in our faith and beliefs is above any other definition, legalism. What it does not do is to allow the free operation of the Holy Spirit in our lives and we must give Him complete freedom if we are to get rid of anything that would quench the spirit. Jesus came against rules and established the law of love. We are told to search the scriptures for the testimony of Jesus. Jesus is the final authority, the scriptures are the record of that authority and just as authoritative. The word of the Lord in our hearts should surely bear witness to the truth of the scriptures, never contradict it, the final authority still rests with the Godhead as to interpretation and to its source. We would not have the scriptures if it were not for the true spiritual authority. We cannot exalt the Word of God above God Himself. This is why we are given spiritual gifts - to bear witness with each other in regards to spiritual truth and why fundamentalists are not able to exercise them, they only have the scriptures and deny the power of the true spiritual authority, at least in part. It leads to the traditions of men, like the sola scriptura doctrine, and has led the church into the Babylonian captivity that I believe that the Lord is trying to teach us about this week and that these legalistic fundamentalist things are trying to reach God without His true authority.

Who resists the Pentecostal movement? the

> > Calvinists and the fundamentalists. These people are presumptuous > > because they trust in their own intellect and reasoning as an > > authority > > for establishing doctrine, and reject us who rely upon the spirit of > > > > wisdom and revelation.

Here it is, who can come against that except for the same people who come against us. I believe that this is truth, not because he has given it to us but because it is God's truth that He has taught us from the beginning. Especially today as the five-fold has been firmly established, it is nothing less than restoration. These people that we are discussing who disagree, are exposing themselves as the church of Babylon. The ministry of the five-fold is to bring this message in unity to the world so that others can get out of the great harlot. But we must do it in love and humility and that takes discipline and seeking God's grace.

If people had more of a historical foundation they wouldn't

> > be > > such easy prey for Calvinism and such like.

Really important, folks. The fundamentalists will try to tell you that church history is not important, that all you need is the Bible. What they mean is all you need is their interpretation of the Bible exclusive of what God has taught others throughout history. I did not invent the term Puritan Ignorance, it is a term given them throughout their history because of this very thing. Without history, we would not even know of the mistakes that the church has made in the last two thousand years and we would not know what God has been teaching us all this time to be able to correct them. Probably the worst I have heard is the ignorant attitude of "where the Bible is silent, we should also be silent," This makes no allowance for the Holy Spirit to reveal truth to us since the first century and denies the power. This is what makes Calvin such a false teacher, by rejecting the living God of History and accepting only the past God of the Bible, he purposely set the church back and rejected any truth that God had taught us for fifteen hundred years. And do not think that he was relying on the New Testament for inspiration either, he based his theology on Old Testament legalism and set up more rules to follow, just like the Pharisees did. This is the danger of conservative thinking in that it holds people back by not allowing God the freedom to progress the church and helping us grow in the faith, in the spirit and in grace.

> > Regarding the teaching of the Creed of Nicaea

Anyone who rejects the truth of this creed has no idea what God can teach us through his spirit, has only a false spiritual basis and if they will not repent and accept the truth, should be cast out as enemies of God. To the saved ones who say that they have the spirit and reject the creed are either in total ignorance or outright apostates, reject the Holy Spirit and to teach others the same brings them under the strictest condemnation and judgment. Saint John felt the same way about heretics in his condemnation of Cerinthus, that is from history, not the Biblical record. It is just as true as if it was written in red letters, no more, no less.


In fairness to the scriptures, I think it is important to understand the origin of the word "hermeneutics." It is actually a Greek word written in the scriptures. While the leading of the Holy Spirit is very essential in understanding scriptures, I think it is important to apply a few principles of hermeneutics:
1. Scripture must be taken in context; to negate this principle is to allow all manner of false teaching.
2. Scripture is the best interpreter of scripture; in other words, use corresponding texts which agree in subject matter to interpret scripture.
3. Consider the manners and customs of the day when interpreting scripture (eg - "greet one another with a holy kiss" has application as a greeting in eastern culture, but would not necessarily be appropriate as a greeting in our country the way it is in the east)
4. Refer to the original texts of Hebrew and Greek whenever possible; this helps give a clearer understanding as to the meaning of a word, as opposed to possible translator bias. Hermeneutics are merely principles which help us be true to the scripture's intended meaning, and must be used in conjunction with the leading of God's Spirit to understand the revelation contained therein. There are many principles of hermeneutics, one of which is:
5. Pray for continued revelation from God when studying scripture. The Author knows best how to interpret His own word. Here are some credible definitions for the Greek word "hermeneuo" found in scripture:
"interpret" = 1329 diermeneuo (dee-er-main-yoo'-o); from 1223 and 2059; to explain thoroughly, by implication, to translate: KJV– expound, interpret (-ation).

A. Verbs.
1. hermeneuo ^2059^, (cf. Hermes, the Greek name of the pagan god Mercury, who was regarded as the messenger of the gods), denotes "to explain, interpret" (Eng., "hermeneutics"), and is used of explaining the meaning of words in a different language, (in some mss.), see No. 3; <9:7> ("Siloam," interpreted as "sent"); (Melchizedec, "by interpretation," lit., "being interpreted," King of righteousness).#
2. diermeneuo ^1329^, a strengthened form of No. 1 (dia, "through," used intensively), signifies "to interpret fully, to explain." In , it is used of Christ in interpreting to the two on the way to Emmaus "in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself," RV, "interpreted" (KJV, "expounded"); in , it is rendered "is by interpretation," lit., "being interpreted" (of Tabitha, as meaning Dorcas); in <1 Cor. 12:30> and <14:5,13, 27>, it is used with reference to the temporary gift of tongues in the churches; this gift was inferior in character to that of prophesying unless he who spoke in a "tongue" interpreted his words, <14:5>; he was, indeed, to pray that he might interpret, ; only two, or at the most three, were to use the gift in a gathering, and that "in turn" (RV); one was to interpret; in the absence of an interpreter, the gift was not to be exercised, . See EXPOUND.#
3. methermeneuo ^3177^, "to change or translate from one language to another (meto, implying change, and No. 1), to interpret," is always used in the passive voice in the NT, "being interpreted," of interpreting the names, Immanuel, ;Golgotha, ; Barnabas, ; in , of Elymas, the verb is rendered "is... by interpretation," lit., "is interpreted"; it is used of interpreting or translating sentences in ; in the best mss., (Rabbi, interpreted as "Master"); (Messiah, interpreted as "Christ"); see No. 1.#
B. Nouns.
1. hermeneia (or- ia) ^2058^, akin to A, No. 1, is used in <1 Cor. 12:10; 14:26> (see A, No. 2).#
2. epilusis ^1955^, from epiluo, "to loose, solve, explain," denotes "a solution, explanation," lit., "a release" (epi, "up," luo, "to loose"), <2 Pet. 1:20>, "(of private) interpretation"; i. e., the writers of Scripture did not put their own construction upon the "Godbreathed" words they wrote.# Note: For "hard of interpretation," , RV,see UTTER, Note (1).
(INTERPRETER) diermeneutes ^1328^, lit., "a thorough interpreter" (cf. A, No. 2), is used in <1 Cor. 14:28> (some mss. have hermeneutes).# (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words) (Copyright (C) 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

What perplexes me is that Christians would be so intent on judging one another regarding this issue. After all, we are exhorted in scripture to love even our enemies: love your enemies (NAS)
Matt 5:43-48 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on {the} evil and {the} good, and sends rain on {the} righteous and {the} unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more {than others} Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (NAS)

Luke 6:27 "But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you." (NAS) Luke 6:35 "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil {men.}" (NAS)

Rom 12:17-21 Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath {of God,} for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. "But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (NAS)

I would also like to comment on the creeds. If there is truth in them which agrees with scripture, that truth is valid. However, not all of that which is in the creeds is scriptural. Here is an example from the introduction of the Athanasian Creed:

"Whosoever will be saved; before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith; which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."

Must we believe in the Catholic faith to be "saved?" This is how the Athanasian Creed opens up. It was the very foundation for Catholocism. Must we believe in this creed as truth, "whole?" The creed states that unless you believe the "whole" and "undefiled" you shall perish "everlastingly." Do you believe this? I do not. I believe in Jesus Christ for my salvation, not the keeping of the "whole" of a catholic creed:

John 3:16-18 16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." 17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him. 18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (NAS)

May we strive to lift up Jesus Christ, and Him alone, as our redemption. If we lift up Jesus, He will draw men unto Himself:

John 3:14-15
14 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15 that whoever believes may in Him have eternal life. (NAS)

Praise to God Almighty through His son Jesus Christ! God bless my friends. If we keep Jesus as the focal point, we won't deviate from the truth.


Thanks Craig,

Hermeneutics is a good study but must be used with wisdom. If it is done in a spiritual sense like you say, it is good, if done as legalistic rules to the letter it is bad. I mentioned before that I liked it but again, it could be destructive to an extreme fundamentalist.

As to being catholic, that is a word that has been misunderstood for centuries. There is a catholic with a small "c" and there is a Catholic with an upper case "C". Big difference, you are speaking of the Capital C. The Roman church made the mistake of applying the word to only themselves to the exclusion of other Christian groups. The Athenasian creed was written at a time when the church was a unified body and the word catholic meant something entirely different. It was misused by the Roman Catholics and misunderstood by the Protestants.

The term catholic is from the Greek, signifying universal or general, all-embracing and whole. The word catholic comprises the World Wide Church and includes the justified and the sanctified. The Body of Christ is called catholic because it is the whole visible and spiritual church throughout all time. The word only gradually came into circulation at the end of the first century, the earliest known usage is from the letter to Smyrna from Saint Ignatius: "Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church." In this context catholic would come to mean both universal and orthodox.

At the point of history when puritan exclusiveness came to the fore, the synthesis of catholicity was broken and the word took on new meaning. The word catholic soon applied only to those who maintained the apostolic creeds, ministry, sacraments, and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. Until Vatican II, the Roman church would preserve the misnomer by excluding those from fellowship outside of Roman influence and applying the term to them only (the Anglicans and Methodists however have always been catholic). Those who hold allegiance to the bishop of Rome have no rightful monopoly of the word catholic. The puritan use of the word has been so corrupted today by all the churches as to suggest one is either Catholic or Christian, a mistaken contradiction in terms and confusing to Christians desiring unity and dialogue in love.

Thomas Aquinas allowed that love is due to all mankind. A catechetical instruction of Saint Thomas was that the church is catholic, which is universal; it is universal in place, because it is worldwide. John Wesley told us to "Go first, and learn the first elements of the gospel of Christ, and then learn to be of a truly catholic spirit." Emerson writes that "the evolution of a highly destined society must be moral; it must run in the grooves of the celestial wheels. It must be catholic."

The person who is truly catholic is the one who gives his heart to all who is right with the Lord. A person of catholic spirit is one with Jesus' church and is firmly grounded in love. Unity will not come without the catholic spirit of acceptance and overt catholic action towards universal ends. If we are truly a part of the restored church that will prepare to be wedded to the Lamb, it will be that part of the catholic church that accepts us all with the catholic spirit of love. Jay.

Dear Craig

I think maybe it might be helpful to talk a little more on the subject of hermenuetics, in order to clear up some confusion. First we have to distinguish between principles of interpretation, methods of interpretation and systems of interpretation. Yes, there are many principles of biblical interpretation which are helpful. What I am against is man-made systems of philosophical reasoning which are thrust onto the scriptures, like for example 'covenant theology'. They are out of harmony with both the spirit and letter of the scriptures, contrary to the word of God which tells us to 'hold fast the FORM or PATTERN OF SOUND WORDS.' These systems of men's interpretation have been used historically to bring people into bondage. We are directly warned against philosophy. God works by revelation not man made reasoning. See 1 Corinthians chapters 1 to 3. Principles of interpretation are useful in order to keep us from error. But we do not operate according to the basic principles of this world. Man's wisdom crucified the Son of God. It is God's wisdom which we enter into through humility and life in the Spirit, that we want. 'but the natural/soulish man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, neither can he receive them because they are spiritually discerned.' There are many methods of interpretation, and I believe that they all have merit. The two major methods are the literal method and the allegorical method. Because God's Word is true on many different levels I think there are merits in both, as they are used guided by the Spirit. Regarding creeds, I do not particularly like the Athanasian creed, but to be fair I think you have misunderstand it's meaning. By the catholic faith, it is not referring to the Roman Catholic faith. All it is saying is that if you do not hold to orthodox teaching regarding the deity of Christ and the trinity, that you will not be saved. In other words it is directed at heretical groups.


Latter Rain Discussion Archives

The Lord has given us the grace to reconcile the children to their Fathers

As One Body

  • We prepare for the Marriage Supper of the Lamb
  • Harvest the Fruit of the Latter Rain
  • Follow Him as the Army of the Lord into His Glory

Help To Prepare A Holy Bride!

Issue Oriented Discussion Newsletter

Index | Search This Site | Aristide.Org | The Latter Rain | Babylon the Great | The Kingdom | The Nicolaitans | Jezebel
The Baptism With the Holy Ghost | The Grand Delusion | World Trade Org | Liberation Theology | Jay Atkinson | Alphabetical Index