Gospel Portions are ready

This is a follow up to Gospel Portions.

On the Gospel Portions project. I have finished the basic outline, I know how to divide The Gospels up, I wound up with 52 weeks rather then 54.

I haven't named all the weeks are decided on half portions for most yet. I may be fine just totally leaving that part blank, allow different people wiggle room.

I'll be starting this in the Law Of Liberty Virtual House Church on the First Sabbath of Nisan.

Gospel Portions

Week 1: Immanuel

Matthew 1:1-2:23

Genesis 2:4-3:25, Exodus 2:1-10, Isaiah 7, Micah 5, Genesis 35:16-21, 1 Samuel 16:1-13, Hosea 10:9-11:12, Jeremiah 31

Optional if you have time. Genesis 38 and entire book of Ruth.

Week 2: Voice in The Wilderness

Matthew 3:1-4:22

Isaiah 40, Deuteronomy 6-8, Psalm 91, Isaiah 8:1-9:7

Week 3: Sermon on The Mount

Matthew 4:23-7:29

Exodus 20-23, Leviticus 18-19, Deuteronomy 5:1-21, Acts 15:1-29, Romans 13:8-15:13

Week 4:

Matthew 8:1-9:38

Week 5:

Matthew 10:1-11:30

Week 6:

Matthew 12:1-13:58

Week 7:

Matthew 14:1-16:12

Week 8:

Matthew 16:13-18:35

Week 9:

Matthew 19:1-20:28

Week 10:

Matthew 20:29-22:14

Week 11:

Matthew 22:15-23:39

Psalm 110

Week 12:

Matthew 24:1-25:46

1 Thessalonians 4-5, II Thessalonians 2

Week 13:

Matthew 26:1-27:10

Last Supper Portions
Genesis 14, Exodus 24:1-8, Psalm 110, Hebrew 7-9, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

Judas Betrayal Portions
Psalm 109, Zechariah 11, Ezekiel 34, Jeremiah 32, Genesis 37, Acts 1:15-26

Week 14: Messiah The Prince Cut Off

Matthew 27:11-28:20

Genesis 22, Exodus 12 (Entire Passover account), Psalm 22, Psalm 88, Psalm 89, Isaiah 52:22-53:12,
Daniel 12, Isaiah 26, Ezekiel 37, 1 Corinthians 15, Acts 1:2-14

Week 15: The Forerunner

Mark 1:1-2:22

Malachi (Entire Book)

Week 16: Sabbath

Mark 2:23-4:34

Week 17:

Mark 4:35-6:6

Week 18:

Mark 6:7-7:37

Week 19:

Mark 8:1-9:29

Week 20:

Mark 9:20-10:52

Isaiah 65-66

Week 21:

Mark 11:1-12:44

Week 22:

Mark 13:1-37

Week 23:

Mark 14:1-16:20

Week 24:

Luke 1:1-80

Acts 1:1, Leviticus 16,

Week 25:

Luke 2:1-52

Micah 5, Genesis 35:16-21, Isaiah 9:6-7, Genesis 31:38-40,

Circumcision
Genesis 17, Exodus 4:24-26, Leviticus 12:1-8, Leviticus 26:39-41, Deuteronomy 10, Deuteronomy 30, Ezekiel 44, Romans 1-3, Jeremiah 31, Hebrews 8-10,

Presentation
Exodus 13:1-16, Numbers 18:14-19, Deuteronomy 18:1-5,

Week 26:

Luke 3:1-4:15

Week 27:

Luke 4:16-5:39

Isaiah 49

Week 28:

Luke 6:1-7:50

Week 29:

Luke 8:1-56

Week 30:

Luke 9:1-62

Week 31:

Luke 10:1-11:14

Week 32:

Luke 11:15-12:59

Week 33:

Luke 13:1-14:35

Week 34:

Luke 15:1-17:10

Week 35:

Luke 17:11-19:27

Week 36:

Luke 19:28-20:18

Week 37:

Luke 20:19-21:38

Week 38:

Luke 22:1-23:25

Week 39:

Luke 23:26-24:12

Week 40:

Luke 24:13-53 and Acts 1:2-2:47

Week 41: The Word

John 1:1-2:25

Week 42:

John 3:1-4:26

Week 43:

John 4:27-6:21

Week 44:

John 6:22-7:1

Week 45:

John 7:2-8:11

Exodus 23:14-19, Exodus 34:22-26, Leviticus 23:33-44, Numbers 29:12-40, Deuteronomy 16:13-17
1 Kings 8:1-66, 2 Chronicles 5:2-7:11, 2 Chronicles 31:7-21, Ezra 3:4, Nehemiah 8:14-18,
Haggai 2:1-9, Zechariah 14:16-21, Ezekiel 45:25, Revelation 15-16

Optional if you have time: Psalms 112-118

Week 46:

John 8:12-10:21

Week 47:

John 10:22-12:11

Haggai 2:10-23, Zechariah 4, Numbers 7-8, Acts 6-7

Week 48:

John 12:12-13:20

Week 49:

John 13:21-14:31

Week 50:

John 15:1-17:26

Week 51:

John 18:1-19:42

Week 52:

John 20:1-21:25

The notion that the Democratic and Republican parties switched

Modern democrats, and Liberal independents who still cling the notion that the Democratic party is the "lesser evil", deal with the affiliation of the Democratic Party with Slavery and establishing the Jim Crow laws by insisting the two parties switched at some point in terms of which is Liberal and which is Conservative.

First of all the definition of what is Liberal or Progressive means and what Conservative means has changed.  Modern American Conservatives say they believe in Small Government, but in 19th Century France the Conservatives were the Royalists.  The United States Constitution was by definition a Progressive document when it was made, but today it's Progressives who want to ignore it and Paleo Conservatives who are fundamentalists about it.

And both major parties have always had different factions with not entirely compatible ideologies within them, which usually comes to the surface during the primaries as w'ere seeing now.

To suggest that Racism is inherently incompatible with Liberalism, means modern Liberals would have to renounce their intellectual descent from Enlightenment philosophers like Voltaire who were Racist and Anti-Semitic, and Sexist.

The American Democratic and Republican parties have changed a lot, but not in the basic principles, including the main things I object to about both.  Both parties were Racist, and both parties still are Racist.  Back in the old days that Racism manifested differently, but they've changed today to be different only in their rhetoric.

The Republican party that opposed Slavery was at the exact same time fighting Polygamy in the Mormon territories, on the grounds that "The definition of Marriage is 1 man and 1 woman".  Does it sound like they've changed their view on that?  BTW there often was Homophobic subtext in the anti Polygamy propaganda, I'm sure you can guess where.

The ugly fact people try to ignore is that, not all, probably not the majority when you get down to the common people, but many of the powerful influential white people leading and supporting the Abolitionist movement were no less Racist then Slave owners, maybe more Racist, they didn't want Blacks in the country period.

This includes Lincoln himself who is quoted as saying he did not believe in Racial Equality, and as saying Whites and Blacks can't co-exist together, and to have supported Colonization, that is sending all the Slaves either back to Africa, or to some Colony somewhere else like in South or Central America.  Now it's claimed he had a change of heart on this very late in life after so many Blacks fought bravely for the Union during the Civil War, I would hope that's true but it doesn't change my point here, because he ardently opposed Slavery all through his life which is why the Civil War happened largely.

This goes back to to the Abolitionists among the Founding Fathers.  David Barton is famous for manipulating quotes of the Founding Fathers to make them sounds more Evangelical Christian then they really were.  But his Wallbuilders site also has a lot of good information documenting opposition to Slavery among the Founding Fathers.  What he leaves out there is the other quotes that show those same people also did not believe it possible for Whites and Blacks to coexist.

There was also a lot of Anti-Semitic conspiracy rhetoric in the Anti-Confederacy propaganda of the Union, largely directed as Judah Phillip Benjamin.  And anti Catholic bigotry too, Conspiracy Theories that the Jesuits killed Lincoln linger to this day.  Back to anti-Black Racism, Civil War propaganda also expressed outrage that Southern women would let Black slaves nurse their White babies.

Yes there was also outrage against inhumane treatment of African slaves.  But for many that was equivalent to outrage over mistreatment of animals.

And the same Democratic party that supported Slavery under Andrew Jackson was also just as anti Wallstreet (or the same New England elite businessmen and bankers who would become Wallstreet) as Benrie Sanders is.  Jackson considered destroying the Central Bank his greatest accomplishment.  And the supporters of Slavery accused the Abolitionist movement of being supported by those rich New England elites, because it was.

Things haven't really changed.  The Republicans still wish African Americans weren't here, and Democrats still support Slavery.  But they use the same means to achieve these different goals, a privatized Prison System, War on Drugs, draconian crime legislation and an Income Tax on hourly wages.  While often the two parties rhetoric on those issues may seem different, the end result is both are equally culpable in using those same evils to oppress African Americans and other minorities.

The Republican Party's "Southern Strategy" of the 60s is what people will most often point to as where the switch happened.  All that changed was which racist party the southern racists voted for.  Because Southern Racists did not want Slavery anymore, they just wanted those Negros gone.

The same modern Progressives trying to make this political realignment argument praise FDR, who refused to accept Jewish refugees when Hitler only wanted to kick them out of Germany, and then rounded Japanese Americans into internment camps.  Then his hand picked heir apparent Truman committed the greatest War Crime in human history, twice.  Truman is known to have said some racist things.

Also the head of the KKK endorsed Hilary Clinton.  David Duke is a former Klansman, he's more dangerous then the Klan because he's more eloquent at hiding the malice in what he believes.  But it still annoys me that the mainstream media only talks about his endorsements of Republicans because that fits their narrative better.  That the real Klan still loves the Democratss they ignore.

Am I an Arminian?

There is a lot of confusion out there about what the definition of Arminian actually is.  The most surprisingly thing to me was to learn that Eternal Security is not inherently incompatible with Arminianism.  I know I'm not a Calvanist because I've always rejected all 5 points of Calvinism.  But most Eternal Security preaching preachers simply assume Arminians is lordship salvation when they mention it.

I shall copy/paste here from The Society of Evangelical Arminians.

Survey: Are You an Arminian and Don’t Even Know It?

February 28, 2013, posted by SEA

Over the centuries, Calvinists have so successfully vilified Arminianism that people who are Arminian are afraid to say so. This is true even though Arminianism is the default theological position of Christian Protestantism; indeed, many people are Arminian and don’t even know it, and even deny it. Arminianism is so widespread that even the strongest Calvinist churches are filled with Arminians. It is ironic, then, that people are afraid to say they’re Arminian; for example, many Independent and Southern Baptists are typically Arminian, but nonetheless often call themselves Calvinists!

The purpose of this survey is to help people who have an Arminian theology realize that they are Arminians and to help them understand that it is okay to be Arminian. The questions deal with the most pertinent issues which define Arminianism and distinguish Arminianism from Calvinism.

1. Do you believe that Jesus died for every human being?
• If you answered yes to the question, then at least you agree with one of the central tenets of Arminianism, and you would be generally unwelcome in Calvinist circles
• This is perhaps the most glaring issue which divides Calvinism and Arminianism
• Most Calvinists believe that Jesus died only for certain people, although there is some debate whether Calvin himself held this view
• If you believe that Jesus died only for those who would eventually believe, then you truly are a Calvinist and not an Arminian

2. Do you believe that humans are so depraved that they can do nothing to earn salvation and that they cannot choose to believe in Jesus without the intervention of God’s grace?
• If you answered yes, then you agree with Arminius and Arminianism
• Calvinists affirm the same doctrine, but often claim that Arminians do not, despite near, if not complete unanimity among Arminian theologians in affirming the doctrine

3. Do you believe that a person can resist the convicting power of God’s grace?
• If you answered yes, then again you affirm another one of the central tenets of Arminianism, as reflected in Jesus’ words, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often I have longed to gather your children together…but you were not willing” (Matt 23:37)
• Calvinists argue that God has determined which individuals will believe; to make their faith possible, he calls them to salvation in such a way that their own wills are overpowered so that they cannot possibly resist the call to salvation
• Arminians believe that God truly wants every one to believe; but when God enables a person to believe, he does so in such a way that the individual still can resist the convicting power of the Spirit–faith is not a necessary outcome of God’s enabling grace

4. Do you believe that you are born again when you put your faith in Jesus?
• If you answered yes, then you hold to a major tenet of Arminianism and you probably are not a Calvinist
• Calvinists believe that God must first give a person new life to enable faith; without first being made to share the new life, they think that a person cannot believe
• Arminians argue that people are not given the gift of the new life until they believe
• Arminians hold that when a person believes, he is united with Christ and only then does he partake of the new life and is born again; a person does not share in the new life without first being united with Christ by faith, for “whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16)

5. Do you believe in election?
• If you answered yes, then you might be an Arminian
• Calvinists believe in an election independent of faith
• Arminians believe that election is “in Christ;” i.e., anyone who is “in Christ” is elect, but that faith is essential to become united with Christ. Therefore, election is conditioned upon faith

6. Do you believe in predestination?
• If you answered yes, then you might be an Arminian
• Arminians assert that believers are predestined to final salvation, not that people are predestined to believe

7. Do you believe in eternal security?
• The issue is whether people who truly believe in Jesus for salvation can possibly shipwreck their faith and forfeit their salvation, or conversely, once people have genuinely put their faith in Christ, whether their final salvation is unconditionally guaranteed
• If you answered yes and do believe in eternal security, you might be an Arminian
• There is some question of whether Arminius himself ever actually taught that believers may make shipwreck of their faith and so forfeit their salvation
• The Remonstrants—the early Arminians, people who sided with Arminius in the theological debates of 17th century Holland—originally took no position on this issue, though they ultimately came to the conclusion that believers can make shipwreck of their faith and so perish
• If you answered no and don’t believe in eternal security, then you affirm something which many Arminians strongly affirm, and you certainly would not be welcome in the Calvinist camp
• The official statement of faith of the Society of Evangelical Arminians only affirms that “persevering in faith is necessary for final salvation,” without commenting further on the possibility of making shipwreck of one’s faith.
• All Calvinists believe in unconditional eternal security (some without qualification and some because they think that faith and its continuance is due to unconditional election).
• Most Independent and Southern Baptists base their claim to be Calvinists on this sole issue and the traditional inclusion of the possibility of apostasy for genuine believers as an essential part of Arminian theology. However, in light of uncertainty among early Arminians on this issue and the fact that such Baptists agree with the Arminian position against the Calvinist one on every other point of disagreement, eternal security should not be a determining factor in the question of whether one is an Arminian or a Calvinist

8. Do you believe in the penal satisfaction view of the atonement?
• If you answered yes or if you answered no, you might be an Arminian
• The penal satisfaction view of the atonement asserts that Jesus’ death entailed a payment for sin. It assumes that the justice of God requires that sin be punished and that the just wrath of God was diverted away from deserving sinners and poured out instead upon Jesus as their substitute
• This view is held by most Calvinists and by a majority of Arminians (especially those who claim the nomenclature “Reformation Arminianism”), although some Arminians reject the notion that God punished his Son Jesus
• Arminius affirmed the penal satisfaction view of the atonement

9. Do you believe that God exhaustively knows the future?
• If you answered yes, you might be an Arminian
• Calvinists and most Arminians believe that God exhaustively knows the future.
• Some Arminians think that a denial of this doctrine is a rejection of basic Christian Theism, and that those who deny the doctrine cannot therefore be Arminian
• The Society of Evangelical Arminians affirms the doctrine, and one cannot belong to the society unless one is in agreement with it

10. Do you believe in the sovereignty of God?
• If you answered yes, then you might be an Arminian
• All Calvinists and all Arminians affirm the sovereignty of God, but they differ on God’s endowment of freedom to human beings
• Some Calvinists define sovereignty as God ordaining and predetermining all things and events, so that human choice is merely an illusion
• Some Calvinists don’t explicitly deny human freedom, but attempt to redefine it to fit their view of sovereignty
• Arminians affirm basic free will and that humans really do make genuine choices, undeniably affirming human culpability in sin
• The Arminian view of Sovereignty is that God has the power and authority to do anything he wants, and nothing can happen unless he does it or allows it;
• Arminians believe that God is sovereign enough to endow his creatures with free will
• The Arminian view of Sovereignty and human freedom is motivated by its understanding of the character of God as being holy so that 1) God is not the author of evil; and 2) humans are culpable for their sins

In summary, you can be an Arminian and believe
• the doctrine of unlimited atonement (Jesus died for everyone)
• the doctrine of total depravity (people are incapable of believing in Jesus apart from the intervention of God’s grace)
• the doctrine of resistible grace (God dispenses grace in such a way that people may resist his convicting grace)
• the doctrine of election (all those who are “in Christ” are elect)
• the doctrine of predestination (believers are predestined)
• the doctrine of eternal security or the alternative view that true believers can turn from their faith and so perish as unbelievers
• the doctrine of the penal satisfaction atonement (God punished Jesus for the sins of the world)
• the doctrine of omniscience (including that God foreknows the future perfectly)
• the sovereignty of God (God can do whatever he wants, including endow humans with a free will)

As I stated earlier, the default position of Christian evangelicalism is Arminianism. And as can be seen in this brief outline, it is okay to be Arminian.

For more reflection on these issues, read Roger Olson’s Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, which sets forth classical Arminian theology and debunks 10 myths about Arminianism.

Arminian Baptist
James M. Leonard
jl502.cam.ac.uk
arminianbaptist.blogspot.com

I don't want to get into the peculiarities of what was said there.  I just want to say of these 10 questions I answer Yes to all but 2 and 4.  But I shall also clarify my position on 7 somewhat.

For 2, my position on Original Sin is only that it is a Genetic predisposition to Sin.  I believe all have sinned and fallen short and that we can't earn Salvation, we are saved by Grace through Faith alone apart from Works.  But I disagree with the notion that even the Faith is given by God.  The verses misused on that subject others have addressed.

For 4, my saying no is in no way based on a Calvanist definition.  I've discussed on this blog before that we are Born Again at the Resurrection.

For 7, What makes me not a Calvanist even on their Fifth point is that I believe a believer can and many have made a shipwreck of their faith but that will not result in losing Salvation.  Including if they die in Sin and/or unbelief like Saul and Solomon did.

I will leave it up to others to judge if I qualify, either way it's not how I'd ever identify myself because I base my beliefs on The Bible not Arminus or any other reformer or pope or patriarch or pastor.

What I will say hypothetically is my response to those that might say "if Free Will is the foundation of Arminianism that how can Eternal Security be compatible? Shouldn't you be able to choose to lose faith if you choose?".

My answer is in the parable of the Prodigal Son, we are God's Children and we can choose to forfeit our inheritance but our actions will never make us cease to be God's Children.

My position this election

I may have to violate my old value of never voting for a Major Party candidate because of how uniquely frighting this election is.

I've ranted about this informally on my Tumblr.  I was perhaps a little overly hyperbolic there on a few things.

But the fact remains I'm willing to vote Bernie Sanders.  But I'll never vote for Hilary.

I'm frighted of Trump.  The small part of me that thinks maybe his anti establishment pretense is real also thinks he may be the only thing worse then the Establishment.

But Ted Cruz being so strongly tied to Dominionism frightens me far more then anything else however.  And that the Liberal media is mostly giving him a pass on all of that really shocks me.

But still with Trump I feel Godwin's law has officially become the Boy who cried Wolf.

Hitler comparisons have been thrown out by both parties extremists every election cycle, but especially the Left.  To the point where they just got tiresome

But Trump's movement has truly specific legitimate parallels to Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon and Cromwell, with the bizarre combination of Populism, unapologetic crony capitalism, Xenophobia, and openly threatening the military will obey him even if they morally object to his orders in last night's debate.

But because that comparison has been so casually applied to absolutely everyone up until now, it can't be taken seriously anymore.

I'm deeply saddened by the failure of the Ron Paul Revolution.  Even though I no longer agree with Ron Paul as much as I did in 2012 or 2008, I still believe he was a truly honest man with enthusiastic supporters who were enthusiastic for the right reasons.

In hindsight he couldn't win either of those elections.  But his torch could have been past on to a younger candidate to build on it and win in the future.  And Rand Paul was positioning himself to be that, but he blew it when he sold his soul to Mitt Romney.

Now the kinds of conservatives who Ron Paul used draw into a movement of Love are being suckered by Trump into a movement of Hate.  And the Anti-War people who see Obama as the war monger he is are going for Sanders.

Now the legacy of the movement rather then creating a Libertarian Wing in the Republican Party, is unwittingly creating a Socially Conservative wing in the Libertarian community that is killing it's potential appeal to young voters and anti establishment liberals.