If you are redirecting here from 95.9 Christian radio—so that you can access the footnotes and sources and can click a Scriptural verse to be taken to its text (with optional reading in multiple translations)—simply click to begin and then slide to “25” minutes on the timestamp.
TWELVE SABBATHS IN THE PURITAN PULPIT, Prologue[1]
To the Philistines (on) Nextdoor[2]
a public response to the attack made by the Left, the Progressive, and the Woke to silence the Church, and who would rewrite the Word of God so that ruin would be brought upon the nation founded as “One Nation, Under God”
Given on the Sabbath of Mayflower Departure, 6 September 2026 by the
REVEREND DR. THOMAS SOVIK
To the Establishing Consistory[3] of The First Puritan Assembly of Columbus OH
[ADVERT]
Today is a difficult day for the Church.
And we who call ourselves Christians ought . be ashamed,
for it is we ourselves who have allowed the Church . to fall . into its current state,
allowing our Guardian priests and ministers to sit idly on the curbstone—now too afraid to preach against the sin not only in our streets but even in the aisles of our churches,
and with we ourselves being guilty, of the same.
And it leaves us this morning to ask how it is that the Christian ought . respond when the world seeks its darkness,
and whilst Satan attempts to silence the Christian at every opportunity.
*
Yet God is faithful to His Word and provides for us—even in times of adversity—the . opportunity to stand against the hypocrisy of the Philistines
in a time when we are yet able to speak of our freedoms of religion and speech ↓
except—(now cries the Left)—as these may apply to the Christian,
and we call out to that Christian who might still wish to reside in a nation founded as . “One Nation, Under God”
and inviting him or her to join us . on this journey,
a journey that had its beginning with our Brethren aboard the Mayflower—
departing Plymouth England this very day some 406 years ago to make their perilous journey across the sea,
and so to bring Christ, to the New World.[4]
[LEAD]
After posting a simple invitation on Nextdoor[5] for our neighbors to visit First Puritan and to sit before a pulpit that would faithfully preach the Word of God—as . it .is . found within the Word of God,
rather than before a more-contemporary pulpit preaching the revisionist interpretations of the Christian Left, “Progressive” Christianity, and . “Woke” Christianity,
outrage erupted in the community,
and we now find ourselves . engaged with the Enemies of Christ.
Perhaps this outrage came from the need to silence the church, because the Left is so afraid of what “might” be said in the pulpit.
Or perhaps it came merely as the sanctimonious outrage of spoiled children with too many participation trophies,
children who actually believe they are saving the world with their keystrokes but children who fail to comprehend that no one of substance is taking their empty-headed drivel as serious theological criticism.
For whatever the reason, more than several even of our Consistory[6] admitted that they had, in fact, been hesitant to post . any online response in defense of God,
such was the depth of the vitriol, animus, and . threat of violence.
And their hesitancy was well-founded, given the Left’s penchant for violence and assassination toward anyone who would disagree with the new gospel of the Left.
Such hesitancy for the Christian to speak for God is understandable; such have become our neighbors, “the church,” and indeed “the nation” that once was . “One Nation, Under God.”
What is not however understandable to me is why God would call an ag-ed dinosaur out of retirement to return to the pulpit.
Perhaps it is because we live in a time when so many . will not—or feel that they cannot—speak openly of their faith.
Or perhaps it is merely because I have so much heaven yet to gain whilst having so little . of the earthly . yet to lose.
Whichever the case, in response to the recent attack upon the church I offer that which allows me to address the matter with some . small degree of authority
yet with an authority I suspect is far greater than the collective authority of our local Philistines.
I will . however—because such might be seen as self-honoring pride—reserve that résumé for the online text of this morning’s lesson and have the TOTS[7] strike the words from the audio recording.
But to address the criticisms of the recent outrage I must ask for your indulgence of time, as I must offer a double-edged . rebuttal to the double-edged attack upon First Puritan—both theological . and political.
After then, after using the bulk of the morning to address the accusations of the Philistines and their manipulations of the Word of God,
I will end with a deliberate challenge to the Woke Progressive, the dullard, the disinterested, and . the damned,
calling them to a public debate . of those things which they so falsely claim are . found in the Word of God.
So perhaps this morning’s lesson will be one as was preached in former times,
when God was to be taken seriously,
and when the Guardians of the Word of God spoke with authority, and without the concern of upsetting the sinner.
[Omitted from the audio portion of today’s message]
- I was awarded a Ph.D. in historical research and critical analysis for my work on the Protestant Reformation that predated Martin Luther by 102 years,
- I’ve published two religious works from 16th-century Czech, translating these prior to there being any dictionary or grammar in that language, and the same with a third religious work from 15th-century Latin hexameter,
- in total I’ve published seven books and have contract with Thomas-Nelson—the Bible publishers—to double that number,
- have a bookshelf of publications in peer-reviewed journals,
- took minor orders before the age of 18 and, after time in Catholic seminary and a separation from the Church, was ordained as a minister in the Reformed tradition,
- served in military service as Master Chaplain to both Catholics and Protestants,
- taught Church history whilst serving both as Chair of the Department and as Dean of the College (subsequently retiring as professor emeritus),
- served as an evaluator for international grant-funding in the areas of philosophy, ethics, and religion . studies,
- have had the privilege of three preaching tours in Europe, giving 97 presentations in five countries,
- am regularly called as a visiting minister to preach on the topic of forgiveness and reconciliation after the disunion of the marriage Covenant, having now delivered 53 lessons in eight states
(and I should be pleased to visit your pulpit—of whichever denomination—if you are in want of a circuit preacher to spell your own . overworked minister for a weekend,
- I have just completed 260 podcasts[8] through the Christian radio station here in Columbus,
(lessons that received over one million hits . nationally,
and, here we are. Again.
On prime-time Sunday afternoon.
*
Now whilst I invite the opinion of anyone who has the necessary background and Christian maturity to offer a cogent criticism of my words
(but, at the same time, I shan’t be drawn into a debate over words . which I’ve not yet spoken
and—more important—
welcome the wisdom of he . who has so perfectly sounded the Word of God that I should be convinced of his understanding,
I am disappointed that these of the neighborhood would bring forward their cheap criticism behind the veil of internet . anonymity,
masquerading as religious crusaders of that internet in which there is none—”no, not one” (Romans 3:10-12, Psalm 14:3, Psalm 53:3[9])—not one from Joel[10] to Jesus—who is not to be branded the heretic.
[EXPOSITION 1, of Calvinism]
Firstly, it is a theological argument of the self-righteous dullard that the Calvinist is not a Christian;
Secondly, it is an overreach of one ignorant of world history,
and ignorant particularly of church history,
to argue that the Calvinists were—and are—somehow “heretical” Christians ↓
and that the Calvinist minister here at First Puritan ought . conform himself more closely to what’s actually written in the Word of God.
*
Despite what has been argued in . abject ignorance, “Calvinism” is neither a religion nor even a denomination.
As did Luther with the Lutherans, John Calvin preached against naming any such movement after . “John Calvin,”
And you would have known that, had you bothered to look.
*
The term “Calvinism” merely defines the soteriology[11] of just one group within a much larger community of Christian believers that extends beyond the Calvinists
(and which is particular not only to the Calvinists of the Reformed church but to the . Particular, or “Reformed,” Baptists, and to many Presbyterians, and many others.
Although this particular soteriology may be only partially comprehensible to mere mortals, it is, nevertheless, a Scripturally based window into the Mind of God that explains how we get “from here to there”—
a soteriology no less but no more humanly “provable” than the soteriologies of other denominations
but one to be publicly disparaged by torch and pitchfork as you argue about something of which you know so little.
For every 300 “evidences” in Scripture that any one group can offer to prove their interpretation of how, precisely, men of all times were . and will be saved through the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross
so, too, the others,
(including the Calvinists of the Reformed Church, Baptists, and the Presbyterians
can offer 300 verses to support alternative suppositions into the Mind of God.
The argument, at this level, is not such a significant matter as whether or not we are saved by the blood of Christ
but an argument of its nonessential mechanics,
which then leads to division within the Body of Christ because no religion or denomination
(outside of your own, of course,
can be acceptable.
*
In any case I say it to you bluntly that it’s a stupid argument.
There was never a universal consensus of what it meant to be a “Calvinist” … … nor was there a need—
because no one was striving to be a . “Calvinist”
(although we might take on such a label as a shorthand method of identifying]the Christian who leans toward this one particular soteriology within a much-larger theology
but not necessarily the theology of the Reformed Church.
*
Calvin taught that the goal of “Calvinism” was to become a Christian … … and not … … that one ought . become a . “Calvinist.”
And you would have known that also … … had you made the effort, to look.
[EXPOSITION 2, of the Calvinist Heretic]
Now to the second matter—of the Calvinists being “heretical” Christians:
The Calvinists were the hardest faction with the faction of hardcore Catholics who, after 1534[12], became “Anglicans”—
former Catholics who stood against the heresy that had corrupted the Church of Rome
and who stood against that corruption at a time when religious zealots were still chopping off the heads of those in the other camp.
And, in historical hindsight, were I to criticize these . “Calvinists”—
(many of whom evolved into “Puritans,”
(as in the “First Puritan Assembly of Columbus,”
it would be to observe that their overly rigid attention to the Word of God
may have sometimes led . them to “throw the baby out with the bath water” (which we’ll discuss in a later lesson[13]),
which then led many of the former Catholic now “Protest”-ants to choose the halfway—
to remain “Anglican”
(which many today view as “Catholic light” for the lack of making the full commitment.
*
But the hardest core of these “Protest”-ing Catholics
were then mocked and persecuted—
by both the Catholics and the Anglicans for being “Puritans,”
for seeking a “pure”-er—or “pure”.i.tan—reading of the Word of God ↓
(this is where the label originates,
and they were likewise mocked as “Precision”-ists”—for seeking a “precise” reading of Scripture.
*
And if there were any heretics in the group to be burned at the stake
(a “method of conversion” used by the Catholics but never embraced by the Puritans,[14]
these heretics would not have been from within the group, but from outside this circle of ultra-conservative Christians who would be, in fact, largely responsible for the King James translation of the Word of God ↓
(which, I suspect, is the very pew Bible that’s being used in whichever church you are attending[15] if you are a Baptist, a Presbytertian, → Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Pentecostal, or other
and something that could have been known by a mere watching of the History Channel.
*
Unfortunately—and as we will see in our coming lessons—many of today’s Christians,
(just as it was . with many Christians in the former times,
don’t want a pure and precise—or a “puritan,” or “precisionist”—reading of the Word of God.
They don’t want a pure and precise reading of the Word of God because they’re comfortable, in their . sin
And although they expect to be called to . salvation, they don’t want to be called . to the change that is necessary . for that salvation.
Instead, and in particular the Left—
(those advocating this new “Progressive” Christianity or “Woke” Christianity
would simply rather change the Bible.
And I’ll prove it to you in how—
(when we come to our lessons on the various translations of the Bible—
their arguments will simply omit words and verses from the Word of God.
And I’ll prove it to you in how its words, written by the hand of the Holy Spirit, will be offered in “new-and-better” translations so that a revised Word of God can match the Left’s desired outcomes:
the general overlook of pre-marital sex, gay sex, abortion, adultery, unlawful divorce and unlawful re-marriage, and so on
and a New World Order with the forced re-distribution of wealth, open borders, Socialism, Communism, and the complete removal of a God from a nation . “One Nation, Under God.”
[CALL 1, to the Philistine]
But, speaking now directly to the Philistines and their companions:
after having received your public criticism that the Calvinists and the Puritans are somehow “not right with God,”
and having received your delusional arguments that Jesus was for the forced redistribution of wealth and for open borders and for a host of other cravings,
and having wasted my time arguing that . “Jesus was brown,”
(as if our church-opening announcement made any mention of a blond-haired . blue-eyed Scandinavian Jesus,
and that a non-Woke Gospel is a Gospel of “white privilege,”
and that “brown people” and others don’t want a Gospel written by the Hand of a European colonial-capitalist white God,
[pause]
well … … congratulations!
You’ve exposed yourself as nothing more than . an ignorant tool of the political Left using the Word of God to further a non-biblical[16] social agenda,
and you have well-earned the label of, “useful idiot.”[17]
Wear it proudly.
Proclaim it loudly from the rooftop so that all may know
what little effort you’ve made to sound the depths of human history and comparative religion before taking to social media to mobilize the other idiots of the village to shovel the Devil’s . mischief.
[pause]
*
In the essentials of Christian faith and conduct:
Our Statement of Faith and Practice shows that we are in complete union and agreement with our fellow, Scriptural Protestants.
And you would have known that, as well … … had you made the effort to look.
And had you made that effort I have no doubt that you would have found that we are in union and agreement with the Statement of Faith professed by your own denomination,
with which I doubt you’re familiar and by which I suspect you’d be surprised
(as . would most Christians attending whichever church but without ever having considered the theology of that particular denomination.
In the non-essentials, and in cases where Scripture is open to interpretation, it’s true that we lean toward a more conservative reading of the Word—
(a more “puritan,” or “precisionist,” reading of the Word,
but we relish the academic argument with our Christian Brothers and Sisters.
And in our differences and in matters of day-to-day practice, we defer to love and charity.
*
Although it may be a difficult swallow, your “heretic”. Calvinist is very likely more of a Bible-thumping Christian than you’ll probably find in the church to which you yourself may have been drawn,
(quite likely for the pretty music and the hot pockets than for the theology that’s being served.
And the bottom line in all of this is you’re invited to sit with us at First Puritan whilst still attending your building of choice
because the goal—here—at First Puritan, is not to turn you into a Calvinist, but to help you to become—in the uppermost tier—a better Christian of whichever denomination,
and to do so by challenging you to think about what it means to be—in your second tier of choice—that “better-Christian” Baptist, or “better-Christian” Presbyterian, or Lutheran or Methodist or even “Catholic.”
And to argue against “just this”—
because you have so completely and perfectly sounded the Mind of God that you could not possibly be in error to the level that you would keep others from searching the Scriptures daily—is nothing short of blasphemy,
which then proves that you truly are one of Lenin’s useful idiots,
willing to follow,
but not willing to come along to
[search] the scriptures daily, whether those things were so (Acts 17:11).
[CALL 2, to the minister]
And who better to call to
[search] the scriptures daily, whether those things were so
than so many of today’s priests and ministers,
those who are supposed to lead souls to salvation yet who hide behind their preaching of “animals two-by-two,”
too afraid to confront either the inflexible Left on the street corner or the lukewarm Christian sitting in the pew
for fear of offending the Leftist by what the Word of God does and does not say
or of offending the lukewarm Christian with the news that he is in no way “entitled” either to “the free stuff” or to salvation.
Unfortunately, our ministry’s lack of attention to its duty—to what it is supposed to be doing—resonates throughout the world in all of its corners.
When was the last time you preached the hard lesson of sin,
without any excuse or ambiguity and with a clear distinction between what is permitted by God and what is forbidden by God?
When was the last time that you brought those in the pew to tears?
*
If you will not or cannot speak for God I suggest you might better occupy yourself with a more suitable pastime than hiding behind the falsehood that there is to be a separation of Church and State,
using that falsehood to justify your . timidity in speaking against the spiritual cancers that infect our society,
various cancers that will—by your silence—go unrecognized by the patient[18]and lead members of your congregation to hell.
*
How is it that you fail to preach that which is commanded by God and that which is forbidden by God as
she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness. (Proverbs 30:20),
allowing she[19] the whore[20] who is unlawfully divorced and unlawfully re-married (1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Romans 7:3, Matthew 19:9)[21]
to come hand-in-hand before your pulpit with a man who is not her first husband (John 4:16-18) and to sit without the Christian fear and trembling that you would be so “impolite” as to call her to conviction
whilst knowing full well—from the Word of God—that if she or her new spouse would die in this condition
neither can be forgiven at The Judgment.
Nor her parents!
if they supported the unlawful disunion of the marriage Covenant or the unlawful remarriage to the one who now takes what is not his to take, given by one who has no right to give (Matthew 18:6-7).
And althewhile you allow these?
by your silence?
to sit so comfortably in your sleep-pens as they approach eternal death at The Judgment?
*
And yet you have time to waste?
carrying a big sign through the streets of Babylon and marching for a bowl of vegetable soup in some twisted form of “social justice”
but not so much in carrying the big sign that would call the sinner in your own assembly to conviction of their sin:
she who has murdered the life in her womb,
the adultress[22] who has unlawfully divorced and then who has compounded her sin by re-marrying into an unlawful relationship,
or the he or she or whomever in the alphabet of the LGBTQLMNOP who has been given by God to his own devices … … and to damnation (Romans 1:18-32).
No, not these—as these sins would be too “politically incorrect”—
too “inconvenient” to preach upon,
too “old-fashioned” to be any longer considered as sins.
And thus you show,
by your silence and by your toleration of the sin within your own house
that you have lost the right to stand . in that pulpit
as Guardian of the Word of God and Defender of the Faith.
Shame on you.
*
No, thou Pharisee:
If thou wouldst wear the costume of collar or Geneva robe or otherwise to stand in the pulpit
your job is to preach Christ and Christ everywhere and Christ always—
preaching Christ, as . He . is . found in Scripture.
*
Your people have time for nothing beyond this.
Your call from God is not to make excuses for sin whilst you wear an armband, carry a placard, and block the street so that you might bring others from the situation into which God—
(for His own good pleasure and purpose
has placed them
so that you might create for them a more perfect earthly home.
Your responsibility is to be a Guardian of the Word of God and a Defender of the Word of God and to preach that Word of God as . it . is . written by the Hand of God
no matter how “unpopular,”
no matter how much you or others . “don’t like it,”
no matter how different . you or others think . it ought . to be,
and no matter how much those sitting in the pew or on the street corner don’t want to hear, what they . need to hear.
Speak to me not of your pious work for the Lord, you viper of the street corner and of the pulpit (Matthew 12:34, Matthew 23:33),
preaching now “some other god” to the social crusader or the god of the “happy-family club” to the sinner sitting before you on the Sabbath,
preaching to those who now
walketh . . . in the counsel of the ungodly
[your . counsel of the ungodly] (Psalm 1:1),
as you sit idly by on the curbstone,
watching the parade of sinners . march to damnation.
[APPLICATION, of a forced redistribution of wealth]
Now before any would argue that the pulpit is not to be “preaching politics”
(a falsehood to which you’ve been brainwashed—either earlier, by the civil government[23]—or later, by the Socialist)
I point out to you what is historical truth:
Firstly, that our Constitution does not call for a separation of Church and State
(this assertion is . simply . not . true.
Secondly, that—in the earlier days of our . “One Nation, Under God”—the pulpit was required—by law— to preach on politics at the time of elections,[24] and
Thirdly, that this preaching
(or at least my preaching on the cancers within our society
is not an attempt to sway your vote . for or against any one candidate or another or to sway your vote for or against any issue
but, rather
my preaching—as is to be your preaching—is to stand against the misappropriation of the Word of God for social change and to justify that change by the justification of sin.
And I should say this again and again thricely if any in the Left had ears to hear but they will not hear because they don’t want to hear,
because what the Left, the Progressive, and the Woke fear so much is that their misappropriation of the Word of God
would be brought to light and would expose their Falsehood.
*
So let us now turn to just two political misappropriations of the Gospel—the forced reassignment of wealth, and open borders.
No matter how difficult it may be for you to stomach in this age of entitlement,
it is a fact, straightaway from the Word of God, that Christ did not die on the cross to guarantee you’re handed the packet of honey mustard to go with your chicken nuggets
because you somehow “deserve” that little sauce pak as one of your “basic human rights.”
Nor did Christ bestow upon the mob the authority to command the forced redistribution of wealth to guarantee that any would receive that sauce packet as deserv-ed “free stuff.”
Christ taught just the opposite.
*
You didn’t earn it.
There is nothing in God or nature that says that you deserve it
(neither “it” nor salvation … … as so many of our current pulpits would have us believe.
But you want it.
And if these others will not freely give to you that which is not yours to possess
you’re willing to take it, by any means necessary,
even if it would mean rewriting the rules of the chessboard.
And as a relevant aside I point out that this is very much like the matter of unlawful divorce and unlawful remarriage in our society:
I want it
but, if God will not allow it,
“to hell with God.
“I’ll simply move to a different denomination, or to a different church building, or to a different pastor who will allow me to have it … … my way.
(Very Henry VIII, I might add.[25]
*
Saving the sins of adultery and of unlawful divorce and unlawful remarriage and the sins of the alphabet for a different morning let us move, once again,
(as always we should
to Scripture,
and, by the example of Scripture,
dispel the call that the rich ought . give their “fair share” to the poor.
*
Moses wrote it out for us as early as in the Book of Deuteronomy:
For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land (Deuteronomy 15:11).
Note that
Thou shalt . open . thine hand.
[pause]
*
Now it is true that God has commanded
Thou shalt open thine hand
for the poor
but the hand to be opened is your hand,
and that which is to be given is to be given by you.
You, “personally.”
From your hand.
God has not given the Socialist permission to pry the nickel out of my hand.
And yet the Left cries
(when speaking of this “someone else” who is required to give,
(the “someone else” who, for example, might own a building but who may not be able or willing to provide free housing for the undeserv-ed:
“Kill them. Kill those motherf—ers. Murder those motherf—ers in the street. Let the street soak in their f—ing . red . capitalist blood.”
These are the words of Hasan Piker—today’s face of the Democratic Socialist Party … … the Left …. … the Progressive … … and the Woke … … taken from one of his April 2018 podcasts. It’s easily accessible online. You might want to listen.
This is the Left’s solution for housing the poor and the illegal alien but without the mention of “what comes next.”
And what does, inevitably, come “next”?
What comes next is that if you are not in line with the Nazi goose-stepping of the Socialist and the Progressive,
and if the Left wants something . that you own,
Mr. Piker and El-Sayed and Bernie and AOC and even the supposed “moderate” Democrats are willing to take it by any means necessary:
by half-baked arguments with false references to God and goodness,
by appealing to your “Christian charity,” to which they themselves feel not bound,
or by public shaming,
or by threatening you,
or by putting you and your family at risk by disclosing your personal information online so that others can participate in the harassment and in closing down your right of free speech
(with the surprised and innocent lips of the Socialist and the Progressive arguing
(“well, it’s not my fault if “someone else” destroys your reputation,
(“or ruins your career,
[pause]
(“or even if that same someone, kills you … … Charlie,
as they give themselves permission to do whatever it takes to achieve their end—
which in fact is no end at all because they have no workable plan to make it “better,” only the plan to become powerful enough so that no one can stop them when they make it worse.
*
This is how it is in a Socialist state and how it must be in a Socialist state so that “the State” can remain a Socialist state.
It is a lesson of history, repeated over and over again.
And had you yet again made the effort to look,
before taking to the street with your standard-issue billboard and your buttered croissant,
you would have seen that history clearly demonstrates that Marxist promises are never—and can never—be realized.
*
If *I* am not able to convince you of the folly of wanting the “free stuff” that’s . stacked in the garage of someone else,
German Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemöller[26] warned you nearly a century ago:
when the government runs out of other people’s money to provide the free stuff,
and when it runs out of Jews to blame, and from whom to take—
Mr. Piker—along with his second cousin Abdul El-Sayed, Michigan Democatic Senate candidate as well as the rest of the Democrats—will come, tomorrow, for the free stuff when they feel you no longer deserve “the free stuff.”
I refer you to Mr. El-Sayed comments related to breast-cancer research—
that it receives a disproportionate share of public funding because breast cancer may be a matter of “societal power and privilege.”
(Read his comments for yourself. “The Pink Ribbon Lobby and Everyone Else.” I’ll put it in the footnotes.
And if, today . you argue: “Well, it could never get that bad”—
it’s because the indoctrination of the Left has turned your brain into a melon ball.
Tell it to the tens of millions who have been murdered en masse in Russia, China, North Korea, Czechoslovakia, → Poland, Hungary, Romania, East Germany, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela and on and on and on again ↓
now dead,
first embracing the promise of . “the free stuff”
but only later finding that
(once the rich have been reduced in their wealth
you have become a member of the nouveau riche,
the new . aristocrat,
the new robber-baron,
the new . evil . Capitalist,
(the Capitalist … … with the toaster oven.
And now you will have to pay for the free stuff to which those others have been promised they’re entitled.
*
Mr. Piker and the Democrats would impose a mandatory tax upon the rich so that you and these other people would, in their eyes, “pay their . fair . share”
(nevermind that Bernie, Nancy, Elizabeth, and Hakeem are all themselves millionaires
(hiding behind their wealth to make themselves as middle-class Americans,
(as is, by the way, this Hasan Piker—
(the Mr. Piker “face of the Democratic party” who said that America deserved 9/11,
(the avowed Jew-hater who said that it doesn’t matter if Hamas raped Israeli women because (and I quote his justification) “the Palestinian resistance is not perfect,”
(the guy who has said that speaking out against the adoption of Sharia law is, “white privilege”
(and who is that very same guy who has—
(if you are not willing to provide housing for the poor,
(called for the “street [to] soak in [your] f—ing . red . capitalist blood.”
And just his week Mr. Piker suggested that the Middle East would be a much quieter place if Iran had a nuclear weapon.
And it sounds so good, doesn’t it?
But here again we see the pinch of leaven[27] introduced into the homer[28] of truth that it makes the falsehood look “sensible”—“sort of, reasonable.”
Indeed, if Iran did have a nuclear weapon the entire world would be a quieter place,
but it would be a quieter place because we’d all be dead and radioactive for the next 10,000 years.
And these are the people who hope to lead your country.
[pause]
Mr. Piker’s statements have been in public for nearly a decade but—from the Democratic party—we heard … … “crickets” of objection,
until more rational people have just recently begun to pay attention,
after the damage has already been done.
*
Friend, you ought . consider that,
in the “big tent of the Democrat,”
in the “big tent of the Democratic Socialist,”
(a.k.a. in the “big tent of the Communist,”
it never ends well,
as even Mr. Piker himself came recently to realize at the hands of his Democrat friends—
that it’s an overnight switcheroo for yesterday’s hero to be disavowed by those who just yesterday were clapping like trained seals to receive his bless-ed endorsement,
and with their public distancing from Mr. Piker coming only after Mr. Piker had outlived his usefulness.
Joe Biden experienced the same, didn’t he?
on Thursday, head of the party, leader of the most powerful nation on earth, and an intellectual wizard in full command of his senses;
but by the weekend—after it became clear to the public that he couldn’t walk up a flight of stairs or spell his name—he couldn’t be found even on anyone’s B-list.
*
But this is how we roll in the “big tent”:
You’re welcome … … until you stop chanting our slogans.
You’re welcome … … until you get out of step with us.
You’re welcome … … until you’re no longer one of the “useful idiots.”
And you’re even welcome to be the face of the party until we’ve taken everything from you that’s useful to us.
You’re the hero … … until you become a liability.
[pause]
You’re the hero … … until we need the Levitical scapegoat[29] to provide the distraction from what we’re really about.
[pause]
And then we’ll destroy you.
(Or, if you won’t go away quietly, we’ll simply kill you.
*
Now although we recognize that there are evils in the world that are truer evils than that of a sauce packet absent from a cardboard box of cardboard nuggets, we must acknowledge that the downfall begins . “here,”
recognizing that the Socialist and the Progressive—
who look so good on paper and whose arguments, well—at first blush—seem so reasonable,
have made their arguments to look so reasonable by their having tossed a bit of leaven into the good of giving to the poor,
re-writing the Word of God,
changing
Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother,
to
If thou hast become wealthy with a second home in New York City, Zohran Mamdani shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother.
*
And although we hope that the Christian would address the many evils in the world—often doing so by his giving
(as a resultant consequence of having become that Christian,[30]
God demands that the giving is to be done—not by those others around you—but by you . yourself.
*
And for any who would still argue that it is the rich who ought . be required to give
(simply because they already have “more than they need”
whilst the poorest are relieved of the obligation, I again point to Scripture—
to the story of the poorest widow giving her last mite (Mark 12:41-44, Luke 21:1-4)
(you might read it for yourself if you’re not familiar.
And you see it doesn’t matter how much or how little; do you think that God needs your money to accomplish His will?
God is watching your willingness to give. He’s not interested in how much you can collect from someone else, and He’s certainly not interested in the blood-gift that you would take from someone else.
Perhaps you ought go back and consider the “strange fire” that Nadab and Abihu brought before the Lord (Leviticus 10:1-2) as yet another unhappy ending for people playing word games with the Almighty.
*
I point the accusing finger at you, Philistine, rich or poor as you may be,
and ask if you are contributing, your . “fair share,”
a “fair share” that is a tenth of your take-home income to the relief of the downtrodden,[31]
taking the money you have set aside for your family’s upcoming vacation or for simple food on the table and contributing it—
beyond . what you are already paying in taxes,
for the welfare of the poor ↓
(that’s how it works with the tithe,
(giving to Caesar what’s owed to Caesar
(and then giving to God, what’s owed to God.
Philistine, bring forward your tax return from this past year to show that you have contributed that 10% which is demanded by God,
demanded specifically for the care of the Levites and for the care of the poor
(who the hypocrite claims to love so dearly,
[pause]
or sit down, and shut up.
*
In buying into this non-biblical “social justice” nonsense,
of playing “holier than thou,”
of playing Robin Hood by taking from the rich and giving to the poor
and in placing a non-Biblical obligation upon others,
you betray God in the eighth of His Commandments,
(Thou shalt not steal, in case you’ve forgotten,
a Commandment you have set aside . in deference to the demanding cry of the Left, the Progressive, and the Woke
and which is—by the way—the very highway upon which we get to “Communism.”
*
And so,
whether priest, minister, lay Christian, social warrior, → Leftist, Progressive, Woke, useful idiot, or lukewarm Christian,
if this is your Christianity, you are no more a Christian than a coconut dressed in the t-shirt of an activist,
wearing the paper hat of the Christian,
taking the Word of God, and the Name of the Lord,
to justify your actions.
And for this, surely, you will be called to account at The Judgment.
*
Although we may not be so privileged as to know the Mind of God in the matter of the poor or in other matters
or even to know if it be His will that this once-great nation under God will be gathered to return to her former self,
(either through spiritual awakening or through its renewal by force,
(or if it be His will that she will fall as the New Babylon she has become,
our responsibility—whether as Guardian of the Word of God or as the simplest of the Christian—is to preserve the Word of God as . it . is written in the Word of God.
[pause]
*
And even if the non-Christian God-hating atheist would call us to give what he considers to be “our fair share,”
(elsewise he would accuse the Christian of callousness toward the poor and of being “un-American,”
I recall clearly
(because I went to school at a time when school was about education and not indoctrination,
that our Declaration of Independence guarantees us the rights of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
The pursuit of happiness,
not (as the newly introduced leaven would have us]believe),
the guarantee of “happiness,”
and certainly not the guarantee of happiness for one by forcibly taking it from another—the very definition of Communism.
If you want the little sauce pak of honey mustard you must pursue it … … by working for it.
And you must work for it without the assurance of actually getting it.
*
It is a fundamental Law of Nature—
(and I argue of the particular human nature of today’s lazy and entitled,
that “an object at rest remains at rest.”[32]
It is Sir Issac Newton’s first rule of motion,
and in this first rule of motion Mr. Newton warned us against enabling those who would not work for the sauce packet yet who would be given the sauce packet without their deserve or effort,
warning us that these will always remain at rest and will always be dependent on handouts,
warning us that this is the very method by which Communism initially attracts and then controls the masses.
[pause]
*
And whether you would not work—or do work and yet do not achieve the sauce packet—it still remains
that God does not—in any way—say that you “deserve” that sauce packet,
and that God does not—in any way—say that you can take that sauce packet from the hand of someone else.
*
Let us finish this first point—of the misappropriation of another’s fortune—by addressing the “deserve” that you don’t deserve,
because you’ve obviously forgotten that God gave you 10 of 10 Commandments,
the last of which is, “Thou . shalt . not . covet.”
It is not yours to seek after
thy neighbour’s house
thy neighbour’s wife [this being yet another argument against adultery and unlawful re-marriage],
nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s (Exodus 20:17).
Note that God clearly says that these things are “thy neighbor’s” … … not, “yours.”
Call it what you will in your self-righteousness but to argue the contrary is to argue for me arriving at your house on our coming Tuesday and taking the toaster oven out of your kitchen,
“because I don’t have one,
but I want one.”
Is it now “unfair” … … when what’s to be taken is your toaster oven?
*
It’s only in the most primitive world of the animal
(or the Socialist,
(into which we have arguably devolved,
that you could justify taking a toaster oven from someone else simply because it would allow you to put a crispy edge on your Hot Pockets,[33]
with the taker now being nothing more than the largest wolf in the pack,
stealing the crunchy rabbit from the smaller wolf,
(the wolf who did the actual work of chasing down that rabbit,
(and having done the actual work of earning that rabbit.
*
Ah, but what better way is there to draw out the bile and bitterness and the disregard of absolutes by the Socialist than by tossing a cheeseburger before a pack of wolves
where—in the big tent of the Left, the Progressive, and the Woke,
the moral code is “situational.”
I want it. Therefore, “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine.”
*
Offer free stuff (sounds good),
as the intermediate step—slowly grow a nation of lazy and intellectually impaired welfare babies,
arrive, finally, at a Communist state in which not only have the welfare babies been conditioned to get the free stuff but now have no other way of getting their stuff absent the hand of the government—
a government that will now tell them what to do, how to think, and how to raise their children.
*
And to ensure that the plan will evolve in “just this way,” your children are already being taught by American Federation of Teachers that “the State” is the supreme authority over the child … … not the parent,
which is the step leading to the manner by which all Nazi, Socialist, and Communist governments have remained in power.
Have we not seen the lessening of parental rights as we move toward “state-educated” and “state-owned” children—as claimed by both Joe Biden and Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers, with parents blocked from discussing or even being made aware of what is being taught in the schools whilst the parents are branded as “domestic terrorists” should they dare question “the state” that removes God from our society?
Do you wonder why your kids are growing up to be (a) stupid and (b) little Commies?
It’s because the focus of the public school is no longer on teaching but on raising a generation to march for
- universal healthcare,
- universal childcare.
- subsidized housing for public workers,
- sanctuary-style protection for illegal aliens,
- shielding abortion and gender-affirming care,
- protecting LGBTQ students from a forced outing to parents,
- forcing teachers to use the student’s choice of pronouns,
- celebrating the Communist holidays,
- permitting faculty and students to leave school for “days of protests,” and
- the defeat of the SAVE act.
I’ll put it in the footnotes[34] so that you might, for yourself,
[search] their [platform] daily, whether those things were so.
[pause]
*
Communism:
Let it begin with anonymous criticism on Nextdoor
(it’s such a small thing, isn’t it?
move up a notch by doxing those with whom we disagree so that dissenting thought would be silenced,
let it mature into a society where your own kids, your friends, and your neighbors will rat you out the moment you are not aligned with the . global ideology.
Are we there yet?
I suggest that we are.
[APPLICATION 2, of open borders]
Now to Mr. Piker and to Bernie, Nancy, Elizabeth, Hakeem, and Randi Weingarten and to all of the other bleeding hearts of our society I make this same argument—against the “I deserve”— and apply it to those who would illegally enter the country
as if they have a basic human right—a “deserve”—to illegally cross the border into the United States.
Although we might agree that these—even as non-citizens—ought . be given the Christian charity to pursue that happiness,
this is not—in any way—a basic human right nor is it something that they “deserve.”
Once again let us turn to the Word of God for guidance.
Did the Great Apostle Paul not teach that we are to . obey our civil leaders, even when we may personally disagree?
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves (Romans 1:1-2).
Translation: Because God has ordained that these are to rule over us in the civil world, they—unless they command us behave contrary to the Law God[35]—are to be obeyed,
and they are to be obeyed even if their actions—for the good pleasure and purpose of God—would bring about the deportation of your neighbor (here illegally)
or even the downfall of the nation.
His will be done, I remind you … … not, your will,
Or do Paul’s words apply only when the law is going in the direction we “prefer” it would go?
(Sort of like our current society of lukewarm Christians.
*
Agree with our civil leaders or not, they have made . civil laws governing immigration.
And whilst it may be our Christian duty to welcome and care for those in need, those coming must come according . to condition … … according, to civil law.
“Legally.”
*
Christmas will soon be upon us when we’ll be reminded that, during the reign of Caesar Augustus, Joseph tossed his pregnant wife on a donkey and
(in obedience to the law,
returned to his proper place to register for the census,
(although I’ll resist—for the moment—going down the too-obvious rabbit hole of how today’s Democrat would welcome the illegal alien for the purpose of boosting his census count,
so that the Democratic machine could receive its un–lawful share of money from the government.
Joseph and Mary—although living in Nazareth—traveled to Bethlehem . not simply so that the Messianic prophecy in Micah 5:2 would be fulfilled but to register as citizens of Judea,
being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”
to show that they were
(dare I say it aloud?
legal residents.
[pause]
And, they had to do it “in person,”
without … … the mail-in ballot.
*
I suggest to those who would argue for the Biblical justification for open borders that you begin your study of the matter—to which you’ve obviously given so little thought previously—by using your Concordance to pursue the concept of “stranger in a foreign land,”
asking yourself how one could be a stranger in a foreign land if there were open borders.
The Bible is full of such talk of nations, and borders, and foreign lands, and of the righteousness thereof,
speaking so many times of so many being a “sojourner in a foreign land”—
a temporary resident of that foreign land,
a sojourner who was without the “deserve” of simply walking in and sitting down at the table.
My concordance points to 73 verses where the sojourner—or one of the derivatives of that legal status—is addressed.
73 times.
So it’s a bit more than absurd that the Left would assign a new “Biblical” definition to “sojourner” with a new . God-given inalienable “right” of illegal trespass after the matter has been addressed 73 times over in the Word of God.
Look at that word “inalienable,” with “alien” at its center. It means something that is in-capable—not capable—of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another.
It doesn’t mean that the Left gets to transfer an inalienable, non-transferable right to whomever they wish.
This is the exact opposite of the definition of, “inalienable.”
[pause]
*
Ah, but the Sunday-school scholar would now deflect so that the argument would go in a different direction,
“but what about those sanctuary cities of the Old Testament … … those Biblical ‘cities of refuge’?”[36]
“Do not these provide justification for sanctuary cities, outside the reach of the immigration officer?[37]
Answer: No.
The legal process for entry into a city of refuge—
a legal process to be done before one could be awarded asylum within the walls,
required that one first had to present himself to the Elders at the city gate to make his case.
And Officer Jedediah—
working for the local chapter of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
had not only every legal right but the obligation to take the trespasser by the collar to drag him out of the city,
removing that trespasser, who could not yet be considered to be “under the jurisdiction of”
because he was doing things “illegally,”
“out of order,”
having not stopped at the border to fill out the paperwork.
*
The Bible gives us this same teaching also in its reverse, doesn’t it?
At Easter we’ll recall the events preceding the crucifixion, and that Pontius Pilate—rule follower and guardian of the law—sent Jesus to Herod Antipas for judgment (Luke 23:7-15).
Now it might be true that Pilate had simply hoped to avoid responsibility in the whole matter by conveniently bypassing the overarching, very-Roman principle of every creature in the known world being subject to Rome—
we might also argue that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod because Jesus was a Galilean and it was Herod who had jurisdiction over Galilee—
meaning that Jesus was—
(now watch this,
“subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
*
And as the final gust of wind up the skirt to blow these arguments for open borders and birthright citizenship to the wayside is to recognize that this
“subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is from the opening to the 14th amendment to our Constitution.
You get the free stuff—in this case “citizenship”—if you are born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
(this is what our Supreme Court has just ruled, albeit contrary to the interpretation sought by the current administration in the White House.[38]
But—if you cross the border illegally and are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”
you get sent back to Pontius Pilate (or, in this case, to Immigration Enforcement,
for crucifixion (or, in this case, for a much-less painful deportation back to your country of origin).
*
But the Socialist and the Progressive would have it both ways:
arguing for the award of citizenship to a newborn . born on our soil—now considered to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”
but also arguing for the award of citizenship to a sojourner in a foreign land who is here il-legally and who is not . “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Good Lord. Even the people who crucified Jesus were more about Biblical principle, private property, closed borders, and election integrity than is today’s Socialist and Progressive “Christian”
for whom both the Word of God and logical argument are anathema.
*
“Walk right in, sit right down.”
It was recorded by “Cannon’s Jug Stompers” in 1929.[39]
It’s a song.
It is not a national policy for unvetted . immigration,
it is not a Biblical justification for open borders,
and it is certainly not a Biblical justification
that would require those who do have the citizenship to support those who have come illegally for the advantage,
coming—illegally—for “the free stuff.”
[CLOSE]
The Philistines of the neighborhood have levied their attack,
shouting that the good minister needs to “read his Bible” so I might understand the Biblical justification for the forced appropriation of wealth (theft), for open borders (trespass), and to know about “white Jesus.”
Unfortunately for those Philistines and their companion Pharisees, I actually have read the Bible.
And in truth I’m annoyed that I should have even found the need to respond to this nonsense—
arguing against the forced re-distribution of wealth and against open borders and about white Jesus
all as the outcome of our church’s simple announcement that I should be preaching the Word of God as . it . is . found in the Word of God,
(with this outrage, I suspect, attributable to an . unconscious realization that the arguments of the Left, the Progressive, and the Woke are not only ill-conceived and illogical but are in clear and direct opposition to the Word of God,
and that their followers follow only because they’ve been raised to be intellectual zombies for the purpose of being employed as “useful idiots.”
And so we’ve seen firsthand (haven’t we?)—on Nextdoor—the Socialist and the Progressive and the child of the participation trophy needing to defend himself by playing pre-emptive whack-a-mole with anyone who would expose their ignorance and hypocrisy by speaking Truth to the face of Falsehood.[40]
*
And what is the bottom line in all of this?
the take-away?
the point?
I addressed this just a moment ago.
It is not that I should use the pulpit to sway your vote to one candidate or issue rather than to the other
or to the good idea or the bad idea,
but to stand against the misappropriation of the Word of God for political and social ambition.
Argue as you please for the sins of abortion or for unlawful divorce or for the forced re-direction of wealth → or for open borders, sanctuary cities, universal healthcare, the Green New Deal, “Save the Whales, or for whatever else you wish
and then vote as you wish.
Vote to be a card-carrying atheist Communist cuddling up with a wild badger if you believe that this is the way the country ought go ↓
(it’s a free country and you can think whatever you wish no matter however dumb it may be.
But I will not—cannot—stand aside to allow you to rewrite the Word of God for your own purpose and then allow you to argue your case with the misleading Roman imprimatur[41] of an ink stamp that you ordered on Amazon Prime
and to thus claim,
“I’m a god-disbelieving gay Communist because God says so.”
God has said a lot of things in His “Thou shalt” and “Thou shalt not.”
This stuff ain’t it.
Let’s get with the program.
God’s program.
[THE CHALLENGE]
Now as it may relate to the pulpit at First Puritan and to the Left’s call to peace, love, and understanding,[42]
(which Scripture warns is not attainable,
Christian “charity” does not lie in the toleration of false ideas or in the tacit promotion of unbiblical outcomes brought about by unbiblical means,
a toleration that would lead the minister to approach the Gates of Heaven with his boots soaked in the blood of those he did not—first and foremost and last to the end—attempt to save.
*
We do not win the Devil’s siege by hiding behind the walls of our church-castle,
peering out . through the arrow slits,
hoping they’ve . “gone away,”
hoping that . they’ll . “leave us alone” so that we may practice our religion in peace.
Nor do we win the confrontation by running . from the confrontation.
We win the confrontation by taking the fight to the Enemy.
And so now let us see if you’re willing to belly-up to the bar or if the rest of us ought . see you
(and I suggest accurately
as just one more in the line of . unhappy and . ill-educated cupcakes re-shoveling . revisionist half-truth . to the goats,
half.-truth … … soaked in the sin of some new-and-better Word of God after we’ve tossed the old Word of God to the gutter as if it were yesterday’s wet newspaper.
*
I am a Youngstown boy from the dinosaur era of the “rough-and-tumble,”
(ask your grandfather what that means.
You’ve thrown the first punch as a promoter of heresy and Biblical revision,
you have attacked the church as its enemy,
and your bad manners have been exceeded only by your bad manners[43] and your childish desire to be “right” in your own eyes (Proverbs 26:12).
Now, let’s see if you can go the distance.
*
If you are so sure of your public accusations—
that what will be preached at First Puritan is “hurtful, and divisive” and, “not according to the Word of God”
and that its minister ought … … “read his Bible,”
(by which I assume you mean not the King James translation—which has been considered, for the past 415 years, to be the most accurate translation of the Word of God,
and that I should accept your select verses out of their Biblical, historical, and linguistic context so that these may prove your “new-and-better” re-interpretation of the objective moral code found in the black-and-white of Scripture,
see your pastor . and ask him to schedule a debate for us to speak before the congregation of your church—Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, LGBTQ, Woke-Jesus liberal or whichever.
Let us take off the gloves and let us take it out to the schoolyard, just as we did during the Reformation and during the First and Second Awakenings.[44]
Publicly.
I shall speak for God and you can speak for … … well, for “whomever.”
And … … so that there is no misunderstanding applied to the words of the KJV brought about by “new-and-better translations” that would give either of us the opportunity to later declare, “that’s not at all what I meant,”
let us have our debate about the church in the language of the church,
in Latin—
(which of course was the universal language of the church and of academics from the Middle Ages until the end of the 18th century.
As you’ve claimed to be so well-educated in these matters of church and scholarship, surely you have at least a working facility with the language of church and scholars and—with the aid of a dictionary, if necessary—you would have no objection in the both of us being forced to say what we actually mean—
without new-and-better translations offered to provide new-and better justifications for the new-and-better Communist paradise.
[pause]
I suggest you bring a box of Kleenex, because you’re going need it.
*
Now whilst such a challenge to falsehood may sound a bit unkind and “unchristian-like”
it can be easily shown that this is how, “precisely,” the Devil would keep the Christian in check,
content that none would speak for God
with the Devil now standing at the door to the henhouse.
Well I argue that the Devil is already . in the henhouse and that he is in the henhouse because the Guardians standing at the door had not the courage to keep the Devil from entering in the first place.
And now that he has entered,
we’re called to dress ourselves in the armor of God (Ephesians 6:13-17) and called to stand for God,
taking a stout tree-branch of the Mighty Oak to administer a stiff rap upon the snout . of the Devil and his Leftists, the Progressives, and the Woke so that great things may still come from our small our beginnings[45] (Psalm 92:12-14).
*
Now to skillfully protect his wiles the Devil would immediately take us to the Old Testament to remind us that Nehemiah didn’t respond to criticism,
that Nehemiah remained focused on the wall,
and that he wouldn’t be distracted by Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arab (Nehemiah 2:19 and following),
and he would take us to the New Testament, to remind us that Jesus taught us to turn that other cheek (Matthew 5:38-40).
But the Devil would not so readily remind us that the history of the Old Testament is one of God regularly destroying entire nations—including children and infants and dogs and kitty cats—for the blasphemy of even a few,
or of destroying nations, simply . to clear the land for new inhabitants
(clearing the land, I point out, without God doing any of this squishy “land acknowledgement” that now precedes any gathering of Democrats:
“’stole your land. Sorry ‘bout that. Not gettin’ it back, but have a nice day.”
*
And the Devil would not so readily remind us of the punishment upon Nadab and Abihu for offering that “strange fire” ↓
or upon Uzzah … … simply for putting out his arm so that he wouldn’t be crushed by an Ark falling off an oxcart (2 Samuel 6:6-7, 1 Chronicles 13:9-10).
Nor would the Devil remind us that, in the New Testament,
Jesus rebuked the spirits and demons.
And that He never walked away from an opportunity to discredit the accusations and the false teachings of the Pharisees,
mocking them,
publicly,
and that He fashioned a whip of cords and drove the money-changers out of the temple (John 2:15),
and that He knocked a gaggle of Roman soldiers to the ground in the Garden of Gethsemane with but a mere two words (John 18:6)[46] ↓
and then hurled a lightning bolt to bring down a Jew-hunter . out of his saddle[47] to get his attention (Acts 9:3-4, Acts 22:6-7, Acts 26:12-14).
*
And—in this same manner
the Devil—by the mid-part of our last century—led our pulpits to begin preaching the grammatical subject of a Scriptural verse whilst omitting the predicate half of the verse—
preaching that God is a God of infinite love and infinite forgiveness (true)
but without preaching that this very same God is also a God of infinite Law, wrath, Judgment, and punishment (also and equally true).
And I argue that this preaching of only the “happy part” of the message is what explains—“precisely”—how the Devil not only entered the henhouse but was actually welcomed into the henhouse so that he could eat the chickens
(one of which, Loved One … … is now . “you.”
*
And the Devil continues in our current time
as a roaring lion, [walking] about, seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8)
by way of Progressive and Woke pulpits preaching this same “half- the-message” of the Gospel
and by rewriting those parts of the Gospel that may be distasteful.
But distasteful to whom?
Distasteful to the fallen who wish to remain fallen
(which ought . not come as a surprise to anyone.
*
Oh how we want to believe the self-serving foolishness . ringing in so many of today’s pulpits—
teaching that God is an all-loving and all-forgiving God who would never consign His children to eternal horrors,
that the Bible is a book of moral codes that may have worked well-enough “back then,” but is now a book that has become hopelessly outdated
and that we have need of a “new-and-improved” version of God’s plan,
[pause]
that we’re called always to be “kind,”
(well that pinch of leaven sounds innocent enough, doesn’t it?—when it would be convenient for the Christian to “turn the other cheek” rather than punching the Leftist in the nose,
that we’re called to be “ecumenical,”
that we ought . “go along to get along,”
absurdly claiming that we are all welcome in the “big tent” of Almighty God and His Socialists—
(but a big “welcoming” tent in which the Law of God is to be shouted down with imbecilic argument and threats of violence if not with violence itself
(and a tent in which sin is not only justified … … but promoted,
(a tent in which we’re entitled to re-define sin
(or merely redefine sin out of its existence
so that all roads can now lead to Heaven.
*
So says Mr. James Tallarico, Democratic Socialist running to represent the State of Texas in the U.S. Senate
(forever promoting himself as a student of the Presbyterian seminary and a man of God,
who has declared that there are six genders,
that white skin is analogous to wearing the white hood of the KKK or waving a Confederate flag,
that the event of Jesus clearing the temple of money-lenders is analogous to Marxists clearing the land of Capitalists,
that people can equally be led to Heaven by Christ … … or by Allah … … or along other paths,
and that baby Jesus would have been “just fine” had he been aborted on the way to Bethlehem.
Mixing his pinch of leaven into the flour of the Gospel to change “just-a-bit” of the story
(but not so much of the story that you would dismiss the possibility outright,
Mr. Tallarico teaches that Mary, the very Mother of God—
because she had consented to give birth to Jesus
could have equally chosen to abort baby Jesus
as her “woman’s right to choose.”
Well this is not at all how *I* remember the story—which ends with Mary telling the Archangel Gabriel, in complete subservience
be it unto me according to thy word (Luke 1:38).
But what else ought . we expect from a Socialist who would shade the truth to make what is partially true now digestible for the masses, who regularly backtracks on what he’s just said, and who—in appealing to the masses—will say anything necessary to advance the cause.
[pause]
No, Mr. Tallarico,
all roads do not lead to Heaven.
All roads, lead to hell.
All roads … … except that . one (John 14:6).
[pause]
And it is a road on which God says what He means … … and means, what He says.
*
And so, leaving our friends in Texas to vote as they will,
and given that Mr. Tallarico has assured us that barbecue is on the menu although, at the same time, is running a political campaign under the banner of “no-meat, save the animals,”
(the ultimate sacrilege in Texas,
I have every confidence that men with big hats and boots and their wives and mothers with big hair and a .38 in the Sunday purse will vote with at least some allegiance to God,
even if would mean not getting “the free stuff.”
And I have every confidence that Jimmy—at The Judgment—will be surprised to find himself standing with the goats (Matthew 25:31-34 followed by Matthew 25:41),
wearing the paper hat of the Christian yet having failed in his own “comin’ to Jesus” by way of, well, his other and equally valid path to Jesus.
*
But, returning to the more local and immediate matter of a public debate with the Philistines and Pharisees of the neighborhood—
rather than pontificating “today” about what you don’t know about Calvinism (or about Christ, for that matter … … or the Bible),
based on what nonsense you’ve read,
written either by someone who is so convinced of his own correctness that he couldn’t possibly be in error
or written by an imbecile
(likely the same,
nonsense written by someone who has so little interest in discovering what we mean by “the big words”[48]
or about what God means by any of His big words,
I invite you to come to argue about what I do say rather than coming to argue about something that I might say at some unknown moment in the future and which we don’t . believe,
and I invite you to come to argue what the Devil would prefer the Word of God say in disguise what the Word of God does say
so that the awakening tree-branch . of Truth may be stoutly applied to your thick skull.
I invite you to “belly up to the bar” and to show the depth of your ignorance,
or
(if God would bless you with ears to hear (Matthew 11:15, Matthew 13:9),
to sit down to unlearn the lies you’ve been fed by the Deceiver.
[APOLOGIA]
Brother,
absent the tree-branch or the lightning bolt on the road to Damascus but having yet said so much to get your attention
I suggest that we resolve our differences . as Christians
(if you truly are the good Christian that you so publicly profess to be.
If you are the good Christian you profess to be,
let us follow in the footsteps of Charles Spurgeon[49] (Matthew 18:15)—
the English “Particular” Baptist (which is to say a “Calvinist” and who wrote a defense of Calvinism[50]
and who is today known amongst the Protestants as the “Prince of Preachers”—
the greatest of the 19th-century preachers who taught that . so often the best way to call a soul to Christ is by way of a ham sandwich.[51]
The study of Scripture and the commentaries of godly men, and the exchanges in which iron sharpens iron (Proverbs 27:17), will always unearth . treasures and falsehoods we haven’t noticed beforehand.
And because there is no honor in pride
(only an abundance of vanity,
I ask that I may receive your indulgence until I myself can come to be better informed,
(or until I can convince you, of . your own error.
*
And so I look forward to meeting with any of my fellow Christians or Catholics[51] who would speak for God … … speaking from . the Word of God.
Come, and let us discuss whatever the matter over coffee,
coming together as the Christians we’re called to be,
teaching, correcting, and sharpening one another
so we might help one another on the road to salvation.
*
Brother,
if you are of moderate disposition: simply bring your Bible.
If, however, you are a Woke Progressive of immoderate disposition: bring your Bible and your tax return
and—in the meantime—I’ll prepare a list of things that you
can bring in the trunk of your car so that
(if you are not the hypocrite I allege,
we can move these things from the trunk of your car to the trunk of my car
as my … … “free stuff,”
because I want it. ↓
No.
Because I deserve it.
[POSTSCRIPT]
Christians and seekers of moderate disposition
as well as Philistines and Pharisees of immoderate disposition,
are invited to send their thoughts and comments or questions—
of whatever theological or practical nature,
and I will look forward to useful and productive discussion.
But we shan’t respond further to anonymous online trolls who have not the courage to come forth—with Bible in hand and with cogent argument in head—to argue for what they say they believe is written . in the Word of God.
Perhaps it is.
So let us both have the courage to look, and to find out.
[END]
[1] Although written from a Calvinist (Particular Baptist, Presbyterian) perspective, the ordinary minister is free—for the glory of God—to copy, modify, and re-publish whatever portions of these prayers, stories, anecdotes, sermons, and footnotes for his own preaching without awarding credit to the author, and furthermore is free to conform the text to accommodate his own denomination’s perspective on my words. I have no interest in argument and I suspect that, when we’re dead, we will both learn that we had some parts of our theological understanding correct and some parts of its parts in error. In any case, my sermons are poor examples of what “could” have been preached, and it is a poor minister indeed who would not cry over the less-than-perfect preaching that came from his pulpit and who would not hope that the next minister would do better.
As these lessons are delivered on a particular day, it may be that particular examples may not be relevant. Yet the church will always be beset with troubles and trouble-makers, and it is understood that the ordinary minister would use the skeleton whilst adding the flesh of the moment.
[2] This transcription is presented in PreacherPunkt, which does not follow “grammatical rule” but is rather a visual representation of the speed, continuity, pace, and nuance of the speaker; it is an amalgamation of symbols used by the Puritan Divines to better prepare the delivery of their sermons and which, as here presented, enables the reader to better “hear” the printed text—as it was preached—now being “in the hand.” A full explanation of PreacherPunkt, with a list of its symbols and oddities, is given in the Preface to this volume.
As these lessons are delivered “live,” it may be that certain texts are misspoken or even absent from the prepared notes.
[3] In Reformed churches, the governing body of the local congregation.
[4] See “A Cold and Brutal Beginning,” in Twelve Sabbaths in the Puritan Pulpit, volume 1.
[5] Nextdoor Local News is a neighborhood-specific social-networking service for news, announcements, merchandise, “trash talk,” and immature rant—moderated by locals who may have a vested interest in promoting such trash talk whilst silencing those with whom they personally disagree.
[6] In Reformed churches, the governing body of the local congregation.
[7] The “Team of Teens,” our teenagers who help with the website and with mailings.
[8] Having previously posted—over the many years before my retirement—thousands of recordings on various platforms, the podcasts on this and other platforms—under the umbrella of The Puritan’s Hourglass—have been diligently rethought, re-argued, revised, and re-recorded to a reflect a more mature understanding of the Word of God.
I offer this as a model that all might do the same, as my mentor, Chuck Missler—Evangelical minister and information specialist—was so fond to remind us that “our only barrier to truth is the assumption we already have it.”
Do you seek truth? Or does the fallen nature that resides in all of us call out “Look no further!” … … leaving you content with what may be falsehood?
[9] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scriptural references are taken from the King James translation.
[10] Joel Osteen (1963- ) belongs to the collection of heretical “prosperity preachers”—many operating as televangelists (of which Osteen is one)—who preach that financial contribution to their ministries will result in personal “health and wealth.”
Much of what Osteen promises, however—although flawed and incomplete—is promised in Scripture, and much of the finger-pointing may well be redirected back toward deeply “Christian” churches that accuse Osteen of heresy but which themselves preach much the same message and which leads to the same burdens being placed upon their own followers.
[11] A doctrine of salvation.
[12] With the establishment of the Church of England (Anglican) by the Act of Supremacy, repealed by the Catholic Queen Mary in 1555 and then reinstated by the Protestant Queen Elizabeth in 1559. See “Our Place in the Protestant Canoe,” in Twelve Sabbaths in the Puritan Pulpit.
[13] See “Our Place in the Protestant Canoe,” in Twelve Sabbaths in the Puritan Pulpit.
[14] Although more than 200 were accused in the Salem Witch Trials , only 30 were executed—none by being burned at the stake; however, it is estimated that Mary I (also known as “Bloody Mary”), in her attempt to cleanse England of the Anglican heretics and to restore England to Catholicism, burned approximately 280 Protestants at the stake between 1553 to 1558.
[15] Catholics excepted, of course, using some variation of the Douay-Rheims translation, and with many Protestant churches now using a dumbed-down and imprecise translation for the dullards not willing to make the effort to understand the precise language of the KJV. For a history of Bible translations, see “Keel and Compass, Thou Art Our Guide,” in Setting Sail Under the Banner of Sola scriptura.
[16] “Non”-biblical referring to that which is not found in Scripture; “un”-biblical referring to something which is contrary to Scripture.
[17] Often attributed to Vladimir Lenin (1874-1924), although the label was in use as early as 1864. Lenin “was the founder of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), inspirer and leader of the Bolshevik Revolution (1917), and the architect, builder, and first head (1917–24) of the Soviet state. He was the founder of the organization known as Comintern (Communist International) and the posthumous source of ‘Leninism,’ the doctrine codified and conjoined with Karl Marx’s works by Lenin’s successors to form Marxism-Leninism, which became the Communist worldview.” Vladimir Lenin, Britannica.
[18] The Puritan Divines (ministers) were known as “soul physicians.”
[19] Scripture makes no distinction between the adultress and the whore; both engage in an unlawful separation from Christ the Bridegroom (or spouse), with both involved in (spiritual) adultery or (sexual) adultery with the latter being traded as payment for the purpose of gain—emotional comfort, physical pleasure, financial security, etc.
[20] It is a speech pattern that may offend today’s overly sensitive dullard but it is a speech pattern that sheds light on an important theological analogy—an analogy used throughout the Old and New Testaments and an analogy used by Christ Himself:
The pronoun “she” is used in reference to the female Church as she stands before “He”—before the male Bridegroom of the Church … … of which “Christ” is Lord and Master.
In preserving the grammatical practice of Scripture and to avoid the cumbersome use of wife/husband vs. man/woman and “she to him and in like manner he to her,” the pulpit speaks in the style that “she” commits the adultery against both God and her husband and we leave it to the sensible hearer to understand that the situation is just as often reversed.
[21] More fully addressed in the 1,000+ pages of Adultery, Divorce, and Remarriage According to the Word of God.
[22] although no longer in common usage, the male “adulter” and the female “adultress” commit adultery; otherwise, in the latter, we would be speaking (note the spelling) of the “adulterous adulteress.”
[23] See “The Black-Robed Regiment,” in Twelve Sabbaths in the Puritan Pulpit.
[24] Alice Morse Earle, “The Plain-Speaking Puritan Pulpit” in The Sabbath in Puritan New England (1891).
Earle was a New England antiquarian and social historian of the Puritans who authored an extensive array of books to provide a window to the former era by recording small pieces of “unessential” information that would otherwise be lost to history:
The Sabbath in Puritan New England (1891)
China Collecting in America (1892)
Customs and Fashions in Old New England (1893)
Diary of Anna Green Winslow, A Boston School Girl of 1771 (1894)
Costume of Colonial Times (1894)
Colonial Dames and Goodwives (1895)
Margaret Winthrop [Wife of John Winthrop, First Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony] (1895)
Colonial Days in Old New York (1896)
Curious Punishments of Bygone Days (1896)
In Old Narragansett: Romances and Realities (1898)
Home Life in Colonial Days (1898)
Child Life in Colonial Days (1899)
Stagecoach and Tavern Days (1900)
Old Time Gardens (1901)
Sun Dials and Roses of Yesterday (1902), and
Two Centuries of Costume in America, 1620–1820 (1903)
[25] See “Our Place in the Protestant Canoe,” in Twelve Sabbaths in the Puritan Pulpit.
[26] See “The Black-Robed Regiment,” in Twelve Sabbaths in the Puritan Pulpit.
[27] “Leaven” is that agent which causes dough to rise through fermentation, often used metaphorically in Scripture to symbolize an influence—both positive (rarely) and negative (typically).
[28] A ancient Hebrew unit of measure approximately 58 gallons or 11½ bushels. See Hosea 3:2.
[29] In Leviticus 16 we read of the pair of goats—one which would die in the ritual blood-sacrifice to atone for the sins of the nation, and the other—who would take upon His head the sins of the nation and, being set free in the wilderness, carry the sins of the nation to a remote place. Both foreshadow the coming of Christ: He who would take our sins upon Himself and then die on the Cross, and He who would take our sins upon Himself and then carry them to a remote place, far from the Throne of Judgment.
[30] It is a heresy of the Antichrist in Rome, stemming from a willful misreading of James 2:26, that Christ’s death on the cross was not sufficient and that man needs to contribute to his salvation. For discussion, see “Against the History and Heresy of Rome, which is the Antichrist,” in Setting Sail Under the Banner of Sola scriptura.
[31] For discussion of the tithe and financial obligations, see “Tithes and Offerings” on the church website as well as “Attending to His Great Commission,” in Here Am I: Guardian of the Word of God.
[32] Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), 1687.
[33] Since 2002, microwaveable turnovers generally containing one or more types of cheese, meat, or vegetables.
[34] “AFT’s Radical 2026 Convention: Teachers’ Union Goes Full Socialist,” The Connecticut Centinal, July 2026.
[35] Note that a rigid misinterpretation of the Law was used to dissuade the American Revolution, Nazi Germany and, later, the overthrow of Communist governments.
[36] Under Mosaic Law, six (later 48) cities in the Kingdom of (northern) Israel and the Kingdom of (southern) Judah were designated as “cities of refuge”; by meeting with the Elders at the gate of the city, one who had committed accidental manslaughter could seek—until trial and judgment—the privilege of asylum.
[37] With their presumption of innocence until proven guilty being carried forward into Christian, Jewish, and Islamic jurisprudence.
[38] Supreme Court of the United States, 30 June 2026.
[39] Made famous in a 1962 recording by The Rooftop Singers.
[40] “To preach the Truth to the face of Falsehood” is taken from Herman Melville (1819-1891), “The Sermon of Father Mapple,” in Moby-Dick; or The Whale (1851), Chapter IX. Fr. Mapple’s sermon was one on Jonah, delivered in the Whaleman’s’ Chapel in New Bedford Massachusetts just before Captain Ahab would take the Pequod out to sea for its fateful, last voyage.
See “Keel and Compass, Thou Art Our Guide,” in Setting Sail under the Banner of Sola scriptura, volume 1.
[41] In Catholic tradition, the imprimatur is the official declaration that a document is free from doctrinal error and that it may be published as an “approved” work of the Church.
[42] Reference to Elvis Costello and the Attractions, “What’s So Funny ‘bout Peace, Love, and Understanding?” (1978).
[43] Dale Carnegie (1888-1955), How to Win Friends and Influence People (1936), Chapter 3. In 2013, the Library of Congress ranked How to Win Friends as the seventh most influential book in American history.
[44] Two “Great Awakenings” shaped the direction of Christian preaching in the Colonies (later the United States). The First—falling in the third and fourth decades of the 18th century—is remembered for replacing theological exposition with “emotional” preaching; the Second—in the latter days of the 18th century into half the next—is remembered for its missionary outreach and social reform, being heavily involved in the promotion of women’s rights and the abolition of slavery.
[45] The phrase “great oaks from little acorns grow” may originate in a 14th-century proverb.
[46] For an exposition of the great “I AM,” see “A Faith of Precise Person, Place, Date, and Time,” in Twelve Lessons from the Puritan Pulpit.
[47] As is so often the case, Saul “riding on a horse” is not found in Scripture. Equally plausible, some scholars argue that Saul, as a pious Jew and a Pharisee, might have been “standing” for noontime prayer at this particular moment.
[48] In this I call you attention—as a prime example—to Bob Kirkland, “Calvinism in Question: Did God Ordain Sin?” in which Mr. Kirkland offers perhaps of the most juvenile and dishonest explanations on the internet of the Calvinist’s understanding of “Calvinism”
https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/calvinism-in-question-did-god-ordain-sin/
and which will, along with his Calvinism: None Dare Call it Heresy, be a point of departure for my later discussion, and defense, of what the Calvinist means by those “big words.”
[49] Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892), is primarily associated with the New Park Street Chapel (later the Metropolitan Tabernacle) in London, and—although a “Particular” or “Reformed” Baptist—is known for his A Defense of Calvinism (1874).
[50] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, A Defense of Calvinism and the Doctrines of Grace, 1874.
[51] Attributed to Charles Spurgeon but source unknown. Perhaps a variation of the widely quoted “if you give a man the gospel, wrap it in a sandwich. And if you give a man a sandwich, wrap it in the gospel.” Source likewise unknown.
[52] So that you are not confused in your reading elsewhere—while Catholicism is a branch of Christianity, many today refer to Protestants (of whichever denomination) simply as “Christians” to distinguish between these and non-Protestant “Catholics.” This is not to argue, of course, that the Catholics do not follow Christ.