They Left Their Baby in A Swing For a Week and It Was Found, Rotting…

Honestly, if this story doesn’t make you pine for the swift application of the death penalty you have no soul.  And you care nothing for justice.

Two Chickasaw County parents are accused of murdering their nearly four-month-old son in August, according to the Chickasaw County Sheriff’s Office. Investigators said the child was found unresponsive in an infant swing at about 1:00 p.m. on August 30 in the apartments on Hilltop Avenue in Alta Vista.

According to a criminal complaint, Sterling Koehn was found in a powered, infant swing with maggots on his clothing and skin. An autopsy determined that Sterling weighed under seven pounds and was only 14 inches long, well below the 5th percentile in both size and weight for his age.

On Tuesday, the sheriff’s office said Zachary Paul Koehn and Cheyanne Renae Harris were arrested and taken to jail. Both are charged with murder and child endangerment causing death.

Investigators believe the parents’ account of how the baby died was inconsistent to the findings of the autopsy.

Court records show Zachery Koehn told police Harris had checked on their child at 9:00 a.m. on August 30 and said he was fine. Zachary told dispatchers he checked on him again about two hours later, finding him dead.

Further study of the growth and development of the maggots found on his body, show he had not had his diaper changed, given a bath or been removed from the swing in over a week.

Anyone with additional information is asked to call the Chickasaw County Chief Deputy Reed Palo at 641-394-3121.

Both are due in court on November 2.

Inhuman monsters.  Evil spawn of Satan.

The destiny of Zachary Paul Koehn and Cheyanne Renae Harris.

The Self Deceived

Jesus once remarked to his disciples, ‘Not everyone who says ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven will.”  Aside from the fact that many self declared Christians completely ignore what Jesus said, and meant, there remains nonetheless the fact that he said it.  And meant it.  And what is the will of the Father?   Well that’s disclosed throughout Scripture.  For instance, in Leviticus we read

“And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them:`You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy. … `You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor. 16 `You shall not go about as a talebearer among your people; nor shall you take a stand against the life of your neighbor: I am the LORD. 17 `You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. 18 `You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.”   (Lev. 19:1-2, 15-18).

The will of God is holiness.  The will of God is justice.  The will of God is impartiality.  The will of God is truthfulness.  The will of God is love.  God wills his people to be holy, just, impartial, truthful, and loving.  And yet, remarkably, in spite of the fact that Jesus clearly says that doing the will of God matters a lot, many who completely ignore the will of God fancy themselves ‘good Christians’.

But they’re fooling themselves.  And one day, when they stand before Almighty God, it will suddenly be quite clear to them that they were self deceived, as God utters the final sentence on their lives: ‘Depart from me, workers of iniquity; for I never knew you’.

If you are born again, you’re a child of God, and you act like it.  And when you don’t, you repent.  If you don’t feel any need to repent, or any need to act like a child of God there’s just one reason- you aren’t.  Maybe it’s time you stop lying to yourself and saying that you are.

The Divide Between Biblical and Theological Interpretation since Bultmann – Can/Should the Divorce be Overcome?

LIVE STREAM!!!

We’ll (try to) stream Scott Hafemann’s talk tomorrow (Friday, October 27) here on our Facebook page! If everything goes as planned, live stream should commence around 4pm (CEST/UTC + 2h)

Dr. Scott Hafemann (University of St Andrews):

The Divide Between Biblical and Theological Interpretation 
since Bultmann – Can/Should the Divorce be Overcome?

Description:
Regardless of what one may think of his demythologizing program, part of the power of Bultmann’s work derived from his integration of biblical and theological interpretation, while taking seriously their distinct, but equally valid methodologies. Since then, the renewed interest in biblical theology on the one hand, and the rise of the new “theological interpretation of Scripture” on the other, have led to a sometimes hostile divide between the two disciplines. We will discuss how and why this is the case and whether this divorce can or should be overcome, as well as what it means for our studies.

Tune in!

Zwingli and Islam

Emidio Campi writes

[Zwingli] considered Islam basically as a heretic sect deviating from true Christian faith (Z VI/1, 451, 3-16), and regarded the Turks as God’s punishment for Christendom (Z VI/3, 359,2 – 360,2…).  On the other hand, he was no friend of the crusades against the Turks, for the reason that it would put power into the hands of the Pope (Z II, 309,1-20); significantly, he did consider the possibility of a missionary enterprise to Muslims as an alternative to war (Z I,435,12 – 436,1; 438,30 – 440,9).*

As Campi goes on to point out, this is a topic which deserves further attention, particularly once Zwingli’s exegetical works are finally published.

In the meanwhile, here are the relevant texts which Campi cites-

Z VI/1, 451, 3-16 —   Dann soverr der mensch nit anderst gloubte, weder das ja ein gott wär, und sich aber an denselben gott nit liesse mit ungezwyfletem vertruwen, so thät er nit mer, dann so einer under uns gloubt, das die Türcken den Mahomet vererind, er vereret in aber nit. So ist im sölcher gloub nit schädlich; dann er setzt kein zuoversicht in inn. Glycherwyß, so wir allein gloubtind, das ein gott wäre, vertruwtind aber nit, das er unser gott und vatter, wäre es uns glych nit fruchtbar, als es ouch nit schädlich ist wüssen, das der Mahomet vereret und in inn vertruwt wirt, so verr wir dasselbig nit thuond. Dann ouch die tüffel gloubend Jacobi 2. [Jak. 2. 19] unnd erzitterend, das ist: erkennend wol, daß ein gott ist; dann sy deß innen sind worden, deßhalb sy noch ab im zittrend. Vertruwend aber nit, noch versehend sich keins guoten zuo im, habend in ouch nit lieb.

Z VI/3, 359,2 – 360,2 — … dann der Türgg in Sibenbürg ob fiertzig tusend menschen hingefuort oder erschlagen, rüst sich uff Sicilien und Tütschland mit großem züg. Darzuo werdend noch me lüt darzuo reden, ee und man die sechs stett also lasse von gottes wort tringen.

Z II, 309,1-20 — Ietz wil er wider den Türggen fechten, damit sin gesind zuo Rom nit umbkömme. Hör, o bapst, Christum: Steck in. Es werdend die weltlichen fürsten ir land wol beschirmen underston. Und gang, predig du das rych gottes! Bistu wirsch ze rüwen denn Christus, ob du glych erstochen wirdst? Oder muoß man den Türggen notlicher weeren, die uff dich ylend, weder den Juden, die uff Christum ylend? So du wol sehen magst, du syest denn blind, das sölich durchächten der ungleubigen got über uns verhengt umb unser sünden willen, wiltu den rat gottes hinderstellig machen? Gang hyn unnd wend die süntlichen Sodomen zuo rüwen, nit mit büchsen und reysen, nit mit dem hyn- und harryten der böggenbischoffen, sunder mit dem wort gottes, und predig und schry wie Jonas, wie Joannes, wie Christus: Besserend üch. Unnd nimm ghein ander schwert in d’ hend nit weder das schwert des geistes, das ist: das wort gots und andre waffen, die Paulus Eph. 6. [Eph. 6. 11-17] schmidet, oder aber du wirst umkummen. Diser David kan in dem stählinen harnest nit fechten [cf. 1. Sam. 17. 38f.]. Oder aber, so lang du nach ysinen waffen schryst, werdend wir all sehen, das du nitt ein nachgenger Christi noch Petri, sunder des tüfels bist, ja der war antchrist.

Z I,435,12 – 436,1; 438,30 – 440,9 — 1. Consideravi itaque, quod ad primum adtinet, si Romanus pontifex in hoc incumbit, ut Cęsarem et Francorum regem componat, qui fiat, ut hoc apud Germanos ordiatur, a quibus negocium minime pendet? Deinde si ecclesiam reparare constituit, quamobrem non a suis episcopis et cardinalibus auspicetur, pręsertim quod palam sit omnibus omnem luxum et abusum ecclesiasticorum a Romanis tanquam a fonte in universum orbem derivatos esse? Si vero copias in Thurcos expedire, miror tam audax propositum, quod [E. II. 341. p. 3304b] septuagenarius, quod Christi mansuetissimi sacerdos et vicarius – ut hoc interim donem – nondum pacatis bellis, nec principum summorum conciliatis animis, tantum facinus promittere audet, quasi ex se omnia pendeant. … 10. Hoc tamenadmonitos volo, ut si audiatis inducias inter Francorum regem ac Cęsarem factas, sciatis non ea gratia factas esse, ut vel in Thurcas mittatur exercitus, vel ut ipsi paulisper respirent. (Quomodo enim simul fideliter essent pugnaturi, qui adhuc inter se hostiliter dissiderent? vel quomodo respirationem darent ei, quem statuerunt toto etiam decennio belli oneribus fatigare?) Sed ut nervis omnibus possint in hoc unum incumbere, ut euangelii prędicatio sub Lutheri nomine infirmetur. Quod si factum erit, obtinuit Roma non iam totius Germanię regnum, sed orbis Christiani monarchiam. Taceo hic quiddam cuique cogitandum. 11. Nulli quoque principum imponere debet, quod superiores pontifices Romani cęperunt liberos vestros ad episcopatus et purpureum pileum vocare. Hoc enim propter pręsentem necessitatem tantum factum est, quo vos velut acceptis obsidibus oppignerarent vel dicto audientes facerent; quod ubi pręstiteritis, despicient. Atque interim vos hoc damni feretis, ut quod aliquando Romanos pontifices passi estis vestris tribuere quod vestrum erat, cum dolore cernatis non vestris accedere. 12. Sed neque istud pręterierim, quod ad pręsentem occasionem passim rumores dissipantur, novitium pontificem Romanum infensum esse luxui cardinalium, atque eius esse sententię, ut supra octo cardinales inautorare nolit. Deo gratia, quod vel huc ventum est. Verum quid octo faciet? Si cardinalitius ordo Rempublicam Christianam decet ex Christi aut apostolorum instituto, cur non potius augetur quam minuitur? aut quomodo licebit abolere quod deus statuit? Si ex dei instituto non est, quid vel octo miserę plebi obtruduntur, ac non potius tota radix evellitur, ne unquam simile luxus seminarium pullulet? 13. Verum confestim videbimus an dictus pontifex cupiat ad regulam euangelicam episcoporum et cardinalium mores corrigere. Nam si eis Thurcorum muros et lapidea corda septies uno die, hoc est indesinenter pręcipiat ambire ac tubarum instar euangelium [E. II. 341. p. 3306a] ebuccinare: iam certi erimus eum ad magistri sui exemplar omnia comparaturum, qui ut messem videbat adpetere, misit suos, ut meterent sine sacculo et pera, indubieque sperabimus eum Thurcorum animas lucrifacturum. Porro si machinas, commeatum,pedites, classem, equites expediat, nihil differet a mundi huius tyrannis. Periclitabitur enim tota Respublica Christiana. Cardinales autem et episcopi pręsertim, quos suffraganeos adpellamus, si fortiter euangelii munus obierint, immensam hominum capient multitudinem citra omne populi periculum citraque caedem et sanguinem; ni forte fortuna ipsi occidantur. Id autem proventus certissimum indicium erit. Granum enim tritici si mortuum fuerit, multum fructum adferet [Joh. 12. 24].

________________
* In his essay in Calvinus clarissimus theologus: Papers of the Tenth International Congress on Calvin Research, p. 108.

Against Latomus

Truly it won’t be easy for you to believe how unwillingly I have torn myself away from the peace-giving words of Christ, with which I have been occupied on this my Patmos, in order to waste my time reading the nonsense of this prickly and thorny sophist. Indeed, the man is sophistic from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. Swollen with the flatulent bull, he writes with such confidence that he considers both industry and discernment unnecessary. He is content to babble whatever he has read or swallowed. It is a great bother to reply to him, for in doing so you can neither exercise skill nor increase your learning, and yet you are forced to waste precious hours. I suspect the man of believing that Luther has been spirited away or has been condemned to eternal silence so that they may once again freely dominate the public with sophistic tyranny. They consider me not a little guilty for its decline and fall. O that its downfall were complete; I would gladly be guilty, even unto death, of this seven times unforgivable sin (if we are to believe the most holy priests of the bull).

Luther’s work against Professor Latomus is one of my favorite.  It’s fiery from page one.  And it reminds me of a lot of current ‘scholarship’.  I don’t mean Luther’s little book, I mean the description of Latomus’s work by Luther (as per the example above).  That paragraph would be perfectly suitable as a review for many, many things.