Martin Luther Regarding Aristotle.
Aristotle's 'logic' is dialectical in nature, i.e. subject to "human nature" and "human reasoning" only, negating faith in the Lord, i.e. a little leaven leavens the whole loaf.
"... the whole Aristotle is to theology as darkness is to light."
(Luther's Works: Vol. 31, Career of the Reformer: I, p. 12)
"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:16
"And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Luke 16:15
"The heart is deceitful above all things [thinking pleasure, i.e., lust is the standard for "good" instead of doing the father's/Father's will], and desperately wicked [hating anyone preventing, i.e., inhibiting or blocking it from enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' it lusts after]: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 It can not see its hatred toward the father's/Father's authority as being evil, i.e., "wicked," i.e., "desperately wicked" because it's lust for pleasure is standing in the way, 'justifying' the hate. (Mark 7:21-23)
"To enjoy the present reconciles us to the actual." (Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right') In other words "Lust, i.e., enjoying the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' that the world, i.e., the current situation and/or people are stimulating, over and therefore against the father/Father's authority that gets in the way reconciles us to the world." "Self is actualized in lust and the world that stimulates it."
While I can not rescue Luther from his opinions, some were downright wicked (I understand his 'reasoning,' why he wrote what he wrote, but that still did not make his 'reasoning' right, i.e. regarding the removal of "Enlightened" Jews from Germany* who were using dialectic 'reasoning' to negate the Protestant Reformation—negate the Father's authority via dialogue, making God's Word subject to men's opinions) when he stayed within the Word of God itself he was revealing of its truth. While the same is true today, for example Max Horkheimer (a Marxist Jew who was a key member of the Frankfurt School, who's ideology Bloom's Taxonomies are built upon) wrote: "Protestantism [where righteousness, i.e. doing the Heavenly Father's will supplanted man's sensuousness, i.e. "lusting" after the things of the world] was the strongest force in the extension of cold rational individualism ['inalienable rights' under God, keeping the traditional family structure in place in society]." Max Horkheimer, Vernunft and Selbsterhaltung—"The family is one of these social forms which ... cannot be changed without change in the total social framework." Max Horkheimer, Kritische Theori; "For the men who made the Constitution there was no principle that did not derive its authority from a religious source." "Government and its trust is 'found on the nature of man, that is, on the will of his Maker and . . . [is] therefore sacred [inalienable, i.e. no man can put a lean upon it]. It is an offence against Heaven to violate that trust.'" Max Horkheimer, Eclipse of Reason ). Karl Marx wrote: "It is not individualism [where every individual soul is accountable before God (where each child is accountable before his father) for his own personal thoughts and actions, i.e. the "priesthood of all believers"] that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society [where compromise, i.e. man finding common-ism with himself, with other men, and with nature, i.e. thinking, feeling, and acting according to "human nature"] is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities . . . only in a socialist society." (Karl Marx) "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." (Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach #6) "... once you can identify a community [where people are willing to 'compromise' to get along or solve problems], you have discovered the primary unity of society above the individual and the family that can be mobilized ... to bring about positive social change." (Robert Trojanowicz, Community Policing The meaning of "Community" in Community Policing emphasis added) "Restoring" America by removing (annihilating) those of dialectic 'reasoning' (instead of preaching and teaching the Word of God, encouraging individuals to repent of their sins and turn to the Lord for salvation, following after Him, with no compromise) results in the same outcome, the works of man, glorifying his carnal wicked heart, doing his wicked deeds (praxis), even if he says he is doing it in the "name of the Lord."
Martin Luther regarding Aristotle (dialectic 'reasoning') :
We do not become righteous by doing righteous deeds but, having been made righteous, we do righteous deeds. (Luther's Works: Vol. 31, Career of the Reformer: I, p. 12)
... no one can become a theologian unless he becomes one without Aristotle [without dialectic 'reasoning']." bracketed added (Luther's Works: Vol. 31, Career of the Reformer: I, p. 12)
Thomas [Aquinas] wrote a great deal of heresy, and is responsible for the reign of Aristotle, the destroyer of godly doctrine. (Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer: II p. 258)
Virtually the entire Ethics of Aristotle is the worst enemy of grace. (Luther's Works: Vol. 31, Career of the Reformer: I, p. 12)
I greatly fear that the universities, unless they teach the Holy Scriptures diligently and impress them on the young students, are wide gates to hell. (Luther's Works: Vol. 1, The Christian in Society: p. 207)
I would advise no one to send his child where the Holy Scriptures are not supreme. Every institution that does not unceasingly pursue the study of God's word becomes corrupt. (Luther's Works: Vol. 1, The Christian in Society: p. 207)
... if we should hold to his [Aristotle's] meaning as strongly as possible (as I proposed here), nevertheless one gains no aid whatsoever from it, either for theology and sacred letters or even for natural philosophy. (Luther's Works: Vol. 31, Career of the Reformer: I, p. 58)
... according to the testimony of Gregory Nazianzen in his "Sermon against the Arians," Aristotle is discovered to be nothing more than a mere sophist and a bandier of words. (Luther's Works: Vol. 31, Career of the Reformer: I, p. 222)
Miserable Christians, whose words and faith still depend on the interpretations of men and who expect clarification from them! This is frivolous and ungodly. The Scriptures are common to all,
and are clear enough in respect to what is necessary for salvation and are also obscure enough for inquiring minds ... let us reject the word of man. (Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer: II, p.217)
In all these hundreds of years up to the present, the courses at the universities have not produced, out of so many students, a single martyr or saint to prove that their instruction is right and pleasing to God hile (the ancients from their) private schools have sent out swarms of saints. (Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer: II, p.258)
In vain does one fashion a logic of faith, a substitution brought about without regard for limit and measure. (Luther's Works: Vol. 31, Career of the Reformer: I, p. 12)
My advice has been that a young man avoid scholastic philosophy and theology like the very death of his soul. (Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer: II, p.258)
The sophists have imposed tyranny and bondage upon our freedom to such a point that we must not resist that twice accursed Aristotle, but are compelled to submit. Shall we therefore be perpetually enslaved and never breath in Christian liberty, nor sigh from out of this Babylon for our scriptures and our home? (Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer: II, p.217)
... Aristotle's philosophy is contrary to theology since in all things it seeks those things which are its own and receives rather than gives something good. (Luther's Works: Vol. 31, Career of the Reformer: I, p. 57)
The sophists, nevertheless, rise proudly up, hold their ears, close their eyes, and turn away their heart just so that they may fill all ears with their human words, and alone may occupy the stage so that no one will bark against their assertion[s] ... The word of man is sacred and to be venerated, but God's word is handed over to whores ... the meaning of sin ... is dependent on the arbitrary choice of the sophists. (Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer: II, p.216)
This theologian of glory, however, learns from Aristotle that the object of the will is the good and the good is worthy to be loved, while the evil, on the other hand, is worthy to hate. (Luther's Works: Vol. 31, Career of the Reformer: I, p. 57)
... with the assistance of the mastermind Aristotle, they (Papal Church) decree further that the soul is "essentially the form of the human body" [which] make[s] it possible for them to hold fast to the human dreams and the doctrines of devils while they trample upon and destroy faith and the teaching of Christ. (Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer: II, p.78)
It is just such a god that Aristotle, too, depicts for us, that is to say one who drowses (enjoying undisturbed blessedness in the contemplation of his own being) and lets all and sundry use and abuse his kindness and severity. (Luther's Works: Vol. 33, Career of the Reformer: III,p.171)
Here (Col. 2:8) it is clear that Paul wants Christ alone to be taught and heard. Who does not see how the universities read the Bible? ... it has been so bothersome to read and respond to this filth. (Luther's Works: Vol. 32, Career of the Reformer: II, p.259)
13. For philosophy does not know the efficient cause for certain, nor likewise the final cause,
14. Because it posits no other final cause than the peace of this life, and does not know that the efficient cause is God the creator.
15. Indeed, concerning the formal cause which they call soul, there is not and never will be agreement among the philosophers.
16. For so far as Aristotle defines it as the first driving force of the body which as the power to live, he too wished to deceive readers and hearers. [foot note: Aristotle On the Soul, II 4, "But the soul is the cause and first principle of the living body. The words 'cause' and 'first principle' are used in several separate senses. But the soul is equally the cause in each of the three senses to which we have referred; for it is the cause in the sense of being that from which motion is derived, in the sense of the purpose or final cause, and as being the substance of all bodies that have souls." W.S. (trans.),
Aristotle's On the Soul (Cambridge, Mass. 1935), p.87]
17. Nor is there any hope that man in this principal part can himself know what he is until he sees himself in his origin which is God.
(Luther's Works: Vol. 34, Career of the Reformer: IV, p.138)
Dr. M. Luther: Demonstrate that philosophy must be separated from theology. Philosophers and Aristotle are not able to understand or to define what the theological man is, but by the grace of God we are able to do it, because we have the Bible. (Luther's Works: Vol. 34, Career of the Reformer: IV, p.142)
Response: We say that philosophy knows nothing at all about man. Aristotle assumes a primum mobile or mover. Hence he concludes that all things are done by the prime mover with inner cooperation, and so dreams that the prime mover acts like a nursemaid who rocks the cradle of a child, yet admires herself. Thus Aristotle condemns us. In short, philosophers know nothing about God the creator and man made of a lump of earth. Augustine says that he found all things in the Platonic books except this one thing, that the Word was made flesh. But Hermese Trismegistus composed that book for Plato and pilfered it all from the Gospel of John. That book reached Augustine and he was deceived by its persuasion. [foot note concerning Tristmegistus an Egypto-Hellenic theologian. (Augustine has an extensive discussion of Trismegistus in the City of God, viii, 22-27)] (Luther's Works: Vol. 34, Career of the Reformer: IV, p.143) "That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above, corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracles of the One Thing." (The Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus, translated by Dennis W. Hauck.) "The Hermetic tradition was both moderate and flexible, offering a tolerant philosophical religion, a religion of the (omnipresent) mind, a purified perception of God, the cosmos, and the self, and much positive encouragement for the spiritual seeker, all of which the student could take anywhere." (Tobias Churton The Golden Builders: Alchemists, Rosicrucian's, and the First Freemasons.)
If Aristotle had understood the innate sinful condition, he would have called it a disposition, not only an affection. For original sin is a root and inborn evil, which only comes to an end when this body has been entirely mortified, purged by fire, and reformed. Meanwhile, however, it is not imputed to the godly. (Luther's Works: Vol. 34, Career of the Reformer: IV, p.165)
Just as Aristotle speaks of affections which are in us but bring us neither blame nor praise, [foot note: Nicomachean Ethis, ii, 4 and 5, "Now neither the virtues nor the vices are passions, because we are not called good or bad on the ground of our passions, but are so called on the ground of our virtues and our vices, and because we are neither praised nor blamed for our passions (for the man who feels fear or anger is not praised, nor is the man who simply feels anger blamed, but the man who feels it in a certain way), but for our virtues and our vices, we are praised or blamed." W. D. Ross (ed), The Works of Aristotle, IX (Oxford, 1925), 1105b.] so according to them as according to him, concupiscence is a kind of indifferent affection, or, as they call it, "adiaphoron," which does not damn us, and which is
neither advantageous nor injurious to us. (Luther's Works: Vol. 34, Career of the Reformer: IV, p.186)
These are dialectical phantasies or opinions, that man can without the Holy Spirit love God above all things. ... They likewise said that human nature is untainted. All these ideas come from ignorance of original sin. (Luther's Works: Vol. 34, Career of the Reformer: IV, p.187)
Inborn evil makes acts evil. That is the condition, that is to say, original sin is the root of actual sins. But Aristotle contradicts this, holding that passions are moderate virtues. For philosophers understand sins to be passions. [Personal Note: the same can be said for psychology.] But that radical sin does not cease, nor will ever be destroyed, except through the fire of the conflagration. Meanwhile in this wicked life, God deals with us in such a way that he does not impute our sins to us.(Luther's Works: Vol. 34, Career of the Reformer: IV, p.190)
The universities, too, need a good, thorough reformation. I just say that, no matter whom it annoys. Everything the papacy has instituted and ordered serves only to increase sin and error. What else are the universities, unless they are utterly changed from what they have been hitherto, than what the book of Maccabees calls gymnasia epheborum et graecae gloriae? [foot note: places for the training of youth in the fashions of Greek culture. II Macc. 4:9] What are they but places where loose living is practiced, where little is taught of the Holy Scriptures and Christian faith, and where only the blind heathen teacher Aristotle rules far more than Christ? [foot note: Scholars other than Luther were and had been against the Aristotelian domination in the medieval universities, e.g., Roger Bacon and Erasmus. In brief, Luther's animadversion spring mainly from Aristotle's baleful effect on Christian soteriology. Aristotle taught that a man becomes good by doing good, and ultimately led theologians to a belief in man's power to save himself. Luther taught that it was only when a man lost all belief in himself that he ever knew what it was to have faith in Christ. Luther had no objection to heathen philosophy as such and saw its value in the discipline of logical reasoning, but his objection to Aristotle was that he served to displace Christ who alone could save a man and give him true knowledge of natural and spiritual things.] In this regard my advice would be that Aristotle's Physics, Metaphysics, Concerning the Soul, and Ethics, which hitherto have been thought to be his best books, should be completely discarded along with all the rest of his books that boast about nature ... many souls have been burdened with fruitless labor and study, at the cost of much precious time ... It grieves me to the quick that this damned, conceited, rascally heathen has deluded and made fools of so many of the best Christians with his misleading writings, God has sent him as a plague upon us on account of our sins ... this dread heathen has conquered, obstructed, and almost succeeded in suppressing the books of the living God. When I think of this miserable business I can only believe that the devil has introduced this study. For the same reasons his book on ethics is the worst of all books. It flatly opposes divine grace and all Christian virtues, and yet it is considered one of his best works. Away with such books! Keep them away from Christians. No one can accuse me of overstating the case, or of condemning what I do not understand. Dear friend, I know what I am talking about. I know my Aristotle as well as you or the likes of you. I have lectured on him and been lectured on him, [foot note: Luther lectured on Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics four times a week during the first year in Wittenberg (1508-1509).] and I understand him better than St. Thomas or Duns Scotus did. I would gladly agree to keeping Aristotle's books, Logic, Rhetoric, and Poetics, or at least keeping and using them in an abridged form, as useful in training young people to speak and to preach properly. But the commentaries and notes must be abolished, ... (Luther's Works: Vol. 44, The Christian in Society: I, p.200/201)
... it is the Parisian school that is condemned in this connection, that impure and foul whore which has declared that Aristotle's teachings on morals are not in conflict with the teachings of Christ, [foot note: Disputation Against Scholastic Theology (1517) (LW 31, 9-16) and Against Latomus (1521) LW 32, 137-260), where Luther deals with this same matter. He discusses these issues further in Opinion of the Parisian Theologians of Doctor Luther's Doctrine. Doctor Luther's Dissenting Opinion. (Eyn Urteyl der Theologen tzu Parisz uber die lere Doctor Luthers. Eye gegen Urteyl Doctor Luthers) (WA 8, 289-312); Theses on Vows (WA 8, 323-335); Lectures on Galatians (1519) (LW 27, 224-225), and Disputation on Infused and Acquired Faith (Disputatio de fide infusa et acquisita) (WA 6, 85 ff.).] since he teaches nothing other than that virtue is acquired by works, saying, "By doing good we become good." The Christian conscience curses this statement as bilge water of hell and says, "By believing in a Christ who is good, I, even I, am made good: his goodness is mine also, for it is a gift from him and is not my work." To sum up, in this you see the theology of all the schools condemned, speculative as well as practical, because they teach not Christ but human wisdom, which on their own admission they allege even creates the faith they call acquired faith. Woe to these lost and dreadful men of Sodom and Gomorrah! (then
Luther quotes Phil. 3:6-7 and Romans 9:30-32) (Luther's Works: Vol. 44, The Christian in Society: I, p.300)
Do you now understand why I have said so often that neither our vows nor our works are necessary for righteousness and salvation. To those who believe in Christ there are no works so bad as to accuse and condemn us, but again, there are no works so good that they could save and defend us. But all our works accuse and condemn us. Christ's works alone protect and save us. (against Aristotle) a man acts not from a free conscience but for gain, desire for glory, or fear of punishment." (Luther's Works: Vol. 44, The Christian in Society: I, p.301)
(Another source of reading other than Luther's Works, edited by James Atkinson/ Lewis W. Spitz and general editor Helmut T. Lehmann, Fortress Press or Muhlenberg Press, Philadelphia, is Martins Luther's 95 Theses by Kurt Aland, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1967)
"The ideas of the Enlightenment taught man that he could trust his own reason as a guide to establishing valid ethical norms and that he could rely on himself, needing neither revelation [the Father's authority] nor that authority of the church [the authority of the only begotten Son of God] in order to know good and evil." (Stephen Eric Bronne, Of Critical Theory and Its Theorists)
"Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere Aude! Dare to know! 'Have courage to use your own reason!'- that is the motto of enlightenment." (Immanuel Kant, Konigsberg in Prussia, 30 September 1784)
"We must ultimately assume at the highest theoretical levels of enlightenment ... a preference or a tendency ... to identify with more and more of the world, moving toward the ultimate of mysticism, a fusion with the world, or peak experience, cosmic consciousness, etc." "Enlightened economics must assume as a prerequisite synergic institutions set up in such a way that what benefits one benefits all." "Enlightenment management and humanistic supervision can be a brotherhood situation." "The more enlightened the religious institutions get, that is to say, the more liberal they get, the greater will be the advantage for an enterprise run in an enlightened way [according to man's carnal nature]." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management)
You can be of any culture and reject God. You will simply go back to a culture of paganism. But a Jew can not reject God without rejecting his culture, his culture being the only culture created by a father (Abraham) obeying God (the Heavenly Father). Dialectic 'reasoning,' which was around since the garden, i.e. Satan liberating' the children (Adam and the woman) from the Father's authority (God) through self-'justification,' i.e. "evaluating" God and His word, themselves, and the world around them according to their "feelings" and "thoughts" of the 'moment,' i.e. through the "sensuous need" to "touch" the tree and the "sense perception" that there was nothing wrong, i.e. dangerous with eating of it, i.e. It is "good for food," "pleasing to the eyes," and therefore eating it is 'justifiable' (dialectic 'reasoning, i.e. "the pride of life" kicking in) making God (the Father and His authority) "irrational" and therefore "irrelevant." The same is going on today in culture (called a culture war), negating the Father's authority from the thoughts and actions of the children, as the first facilitator of 'change,' i.e. the first psychoanalyst desired.
It is not a race issue, Jew or Gentile, man divided against himself. It is a sin issue, man separated from God, i.e. from the Father and His authority. It is why the Father sent His only begotten son, Christ Jesus, who, in obedience to His Heavenly Father's will took our place on the cross, 'redeeming' us from His Heavenly Father's wrath against us for our disobedience, who, by the Father's raising of Him from the grave 'reconciled' us to His Heavenly Father, who, by the Father and the Son sending the Holy Spirit, makes it possible for us to do the Father's will, in Christ, by His Holy Spirit, according to His Word. While dialectic ("enlightened") men, both Jew and Gentile, might seek to 'liberate' themselves and all of mankind from the Father's authority, it is the only begotten Son of God who will judge us all (both Jew and Gentile) in the end, according to our disobedience (rejecting the Father's authority) or according to our faith in Him (doing the Father's will). "And truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." "He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." 1 John 3:1, 22 "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Ephesians 5:11
While philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. are based upon the flesh, i.e. upon the carnal nature of man, i.e. "Only a science of enjoyment can deliver us [from the Father's authority]." (Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History) and man's carnal "experiences" (relationship) with the world, i.e. "Experience is, for me, the highest authority." "Neither the Bible nor the prophets, neither the revelations of God can take precedence over my own direct experience." (Carl Rogers, on becoming a person: A Therapist View of Psychotherapy) the Apostle Paul knew that it is only in Christ Jesus alone, i.e. in the only begotten Son of God (obedient to His Heavenly Father in all things) that we can be delivered from "the body of this death," i.e. eternal death. "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." Romans 7:25
In man's use of dialectic 'reasoning,' the 'reasoning' of philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc. i.e. evaluating life, i.e. his life, the life of others, and the world around him, according to his carnal "feelings," thoughts, and actions, all that he can end up doing is loving the things of this world, rejecting the Father and His love. "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:15-18
While those of dialectic 'reasoning' want to make it a "race" issue, an issue of "human relationship, it is not a race issue, it never has been. It is a sin issue. We can not let the race issue become the sin issue (wanting to create a "better" world here), as Luther did, or we will fall into the same trap as he did, hate of the Jews. As I tell people, I am not here to prevent Armageddon (where God himself, via His Son will deal with both the Jews and Gentiles), I am only here to tell you about why it is coming (because of man's love for himself and this world and God's judgment upon him for his unrighteous ways, i.e. rejecting the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ). You can not have one without the other (the Son without the Father and the Father without the Son). To reject the one is to reject the other, i.e. is to reject both (to reject the Son is to reject the Father and to reject the Father is to reject the Son), is to choose Caesar ("human nature," i.e. the flesh, sensuousness, the pleasures of this life) over and against the Son and His Father (righteousness, doing the Father's will), is to choose the child's carnal nature over and against the Father's authority, is to make the devil your father, is to reason 'dialectically,' "lusting" after the things of this world.
"I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not."
"Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth."
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." John 8:38-59
"Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? For he knew that for envy they had delivered him." "But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus." "Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." "And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." "But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar." Matthew 27:17, 18, 20, 22-25; John 19:12, 15
The 'moment' the "church" turns to the state (to Caesar) it no longer is the bride of Christ. When Christ returns, his bride is not holding hands with anything in this world, i.e. her feelings being only for Him, her thoughts being only upon Him, her actions being only in Him alone. It is in His love that she loves the world, speaking the truth in His righteousness, according to His will (and His Father's will, i.e. "I and my Father are one." John 10:30) alone.
"And for this cause [because men, as "children of disobedience," 'justify' their "self," i.e., 'justify' their love of "self" and the world, i.e., their love of the carnal pleasures of the 'moment' (dopamine emancipation) which the world stimulates over and therefore against the Father's authority] God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie [that pleasure is the standard for "good" instead of doing the Father's will]: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth [in the Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ], but had pleasure in unrighteousness [in their "self" and the pleasures of the 'moment,' which the world stimulates]." 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2022