If you’ve been reading this blog since at least the beginning of this year, you’re probably aware of what I call the Witch Test.
Social media these days is rife with concern trolls who shill for Death Cult shibboleths while using Christian doctrines as handy clubs to browbeat Christians. Sometimes they claim to be Christian themselves.
All the Witch Test does is call the impostor’s bluff by challenging him to do what every Christian is commanded to do: publicly profess faith in Jesus Christ.
Several applications of the test by myself and others have yielded two more or less typical reactions depending upon the type of subject being tested.
Avowed Leftist
LEFTOID: Sure, Justin Trudeau wore blackface, but doesn’t the Bible say not to judge?
CHRISTIAN: Proclaim that Jesus is the Christ, and God has raised Him from the dead.
DEATH CULTIST: *sputtering* *evasions* *soon runs away*
Fake Christian
WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING: Instead of wasting time pushing to outlaw abortion, we should work for the ordination of female deacons!
PATRIARCH OF THE WEST: Confess faith in Jesus Christ, true God and true man.
MOLOCH WORSHIPER: Who do you think you are? I owe my confession to no one but God* alone!
*Neglects to mention that he means Ashtoreth.
What makes the Witch Test so effective is a remarkable phenomenon observed in every application of the test to date. Even though the Death Cultist could simply lie and make a false profession of faith, he somehow never does.
Again, no test subject has, to my knowledge, yet said, “Yeah, I believe that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. Now let’s get back to discussing why you’re a vile bigot for refusing to celebrate Drag Queen Story Hour.”
Many Twitter inquisitors and Facebook friars have asked me how the Witch Test works.
The answer is presupposition.
Being a Christian heresy, the Death Cult presupposes Christian morality.
But being a Christian heresy, the Death Cult simultaneously espouses a worldview diametrically opposed to Christianity.
The Witch Test confronts the Death Cultist with the contradiction at the heart of his belief system and forces him to demonstrate his moral incoherence for all and sundry.
In short, he can’t profess faith in the God he hates, nor can he deny Him without forfeiting his stolen moral authority.
Here’s what the Death Cultist dreads will happen if he answers in the affirmative.
CHINLESS WONDER: OK, fine. I believe in Jesus.
ST. CHAD OF MERCIA: Praise God for the grace of conversion! Welcome to the fold, brother! *posts screencap of Leftoid’s false confession EVERYWHERE* *Edits his Wikipedia page to read “Born again Christian”* *Uses SEO to get “[Prog’s Name] + Christian” on the first page of Google results*
Here’s what the soiboi subconsciously fears will occur if he plainly denies faith in Christ.
GOONBEARD: No, I don’t believe in your Bronze Age sky daddy myth. Locking undocumented children in cages is still an affront to human dignity!
THE MEMETIC DOCTOR: If man isn’t made in God’s image, then we’re all just moist robots, and moist robots have no dignity.
The second example illustrates how the Death Cult’s morality–or what passes for it–is totally parasitic on the Christian moral tradition. That’s because Christian morality isn’t just the dominant moral system in the West, it’s the ONLY moral system in the West–or more accurately, Christendom.
The best way to fight Leftoid hypocrites cloaking themselves in a facade of Christian morals while promoting enormities that are anathema to everything Christianity stands for is to cut them off at the knees.
The Left always argues from a position of unwarranted moral authority, so take that usurped authority away. The Witch Test works wonders in that regard.
Today is the last day to back Combat Frame XSeed: CY 40 Second Coming. Claim your awesome perks and back indie science fiction now!
And if, for some reason, you are a Christian who is reluctant to proclaim Christ crucified and risen, that's spiritual warfare directed at you.
Be bold and proclaim it for all: My lord and savior, Christ Jesus, died and is risen again! Seated at the right hand of God the Father, He will judge all!
Shall not the judge of all the world do right?
Shall we not define right by what the judge of all the world does?
Well said.
Is there a variation of the test to use on Jews (Ben Shaprio) arguing from a position of unwarranted moral authority?
I guess you could say "Confess that you believe Jesus was the son of a Roman who the whore Mary, was murdered for being a common criminal, and is boiling in a lake of excrement for all eternity" the next time he blathers on and on about "Judeo-Christian values."
That's the exact opposite of how the test works.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Why?
Brian,
I was attempting to be facetious to prove a point, which was that the Shapiro types would deny that even though it's what orthodox Jews believe.
But now that I think of it, I see your point about it being, if not the opposite, than an apples-to-oranges comparison.
@Requited Hate:
It's opposite in that instead of asking someone to confess a truth they don't believe, it's asking someone to confess a truth that they do believe. I see it now.
Regarding Jews, I don't think Jesus is a truth they don't believe, but a truth they believe but reject. The Jewish contempt for Jesus, like the Death Cult's, can't be explained by mere lack of belief.
The same applies to Muslims.
@Alex: Bingo.
the Witch Test would only be useful against Muslims and Jews in a Reconquista like scenario where you need to weed them out or get them to repent.
As to Judeo-Christian swindlers, you don’t need a test so much as a quick way to show how dishonest Judeo-Christian is as a rhetorical device. For a non-Messianic Jew to promote Judeo-Christian values, but not accept Christ, is already a contradiction, since Christ said you are either with him or against him.
Yeah, it would have to be if they were arguing a point contrary to their religion, under the guise of their religion, and you know what the most central touchstone of their religion was. Completely pointless. The only exception would be someone arguing Judeo-Christianity in direct violation of the Ten, which is basically the entirety of commonality of Judaism and Christianity in practice.
To some one like Shapiro, I would suggest latching onto the Christian part of Judeo-Christian.
"According to Judeo-Christian ethics we need to let the invaders in…."
"Praise the LORD, Christ is King, I thought you lost brother!"
A Christian has no problem saying Judeo-Christian, because there is some truth there.
The dishonest smallhat dishonestly proclaims the name of Christ, if he attempts to separate himself from Christ, then the Christian can observe his dishonesty/contempt for our King.
Oooh, subtle! The only way out is:
"Well, I adhere to the 'Judeo' side of the equation."
"Then why don't you just say, 'Jewish values'?"
That has been my one question about the Witch Test–are you sure it's never produced a false positive?
All the Witch Test does is call the impostor's bluff by challenging him to do what every Christian is commanded to do: publicly profess faith in Jesus Christ.
Thus someone who is a Christian ought to be willing to follow Christ's commands and proclaim Him publicly. Someone who does not is either not a Christian (and we should pray for them to be saved), or is a disobedient Christian (and we should pray for them to return to obedience).
Either way, it means that something is wrong.
Yes, we're sure.
Just to clarify, when I say 'false positive' I mean someone who makes the profession without being a Christian. What D.J. mentions would be what I'd call a 'false negative', but I can see how the terminology could be flipped, depending on whether one views Christianity or witch status as the 'positive' in the equation; I think I was presuming the former.
1 Corinthians 12:3 suggests that a false profession should be impossible, but I'd hate to presume. When I get home, I'll have to see what Thomas says in his commentary.
There have been no false positives. Only one test subject has actually made the profession to my knowledge, and further dialogue proved him to be a real Christian.
Amen. It's amazing how people who totally don't believe in Sky Daddy magical woo are really concerned about what this totally not real, fictitious Sky Daddy and his believers think of his personal predilections.
If there were no Christians, there would be no atheists.
Chewing on what you said about death cultists being Christian heretics, I noticed that I, as an (conservative) evangelical Protestant, passed the Witch Test. I have my doubts about the apostolic succession in general, the primary of Rome in specific, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and other things that have kept Protestants and Catholics regrettably at odds with one another for the last 500 years. I'm about half-way convinced regarding the Real Presence and the Immaculate Conception. I'm also pondering sacramental theology. All in all, I'm still materially a heretic. Given that I know why I'm a Protestant, I think I may also formally be a heretic. And yet, I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, so I pass the test.
If the Witch Test filters out Christian Leftists does it do so because the Christian Leftist are more Leftist than Christian?
A Reader
If you go to the Catholic Answers and Coucil of Trent archives, there might be podcasts that deal with any topics you have difficulty with.
Hope these help you
xavier
At the moment, Mr Xavier, I'm reading The City of God and am working my way in the direction of reading the Summa. I'll keep those in mind, though. I have an old Confraternity Bible and plan to read the deuterocanon to see what I've missed. I grew up without a liturgical year, I've got a lot of reading to do in terms of Church History, the Church Fathers, and so forth.
A Reader,
Great. I think either Ignatius press or Sophia Institute have books about bible readings for the liturgical year.
You're also in luck. Catholic Answer's conference this year is about the early Church fathers. Jimmy Akin wrote a book about them. You can buy it at their website. I have it and it's really helpful.
Mike Aquilina is a really good source about early Church history. Robert Reilly's the Apostasy that never was, I found to be quite helpful learning about the Arian heresy.
Peter Kreft's books on the Summa are great. I have his bigger book explaining the Summa published by Ignatius. He also wrote a shorter version of his original book called Summa of the Summa. Also published by Ignatius.
I'd strongly recommend Peter Kreeft's books. They're great, accessible, informative and orthodox.
xavier
@ A Reader:
First, glory be to God for your humility. You are not far from the Kingdom.
To answer your question, the Witch Test filters out Leftist masquerading as Christians because the Left is itself a Christianity-profaning Death Cult.
My extensive studies of theology, ecclesiology, and Church history have proven to my satisfaction that the sundry Protestant denominations are heretical to varying degrees, and it's hardly a secret that the Eastern churches are in schism, but all undeniably merit the name of Christian.
I think the idea of some sort of giant re-merger of the schisms is a dead end, and further I do not think it is right for me to encourage another Christian to abandon their traditions. I am a Protestant attracted to the notion of the Church Invisible and a better understanding of historical Christianity. What I have found to some extent at ground level though is that the social-cultural divide can be vicious in very unexpected ways, which makes casual trust across that divide a little risky at times. But, that's humans for you.
"What I have found to some extent at ground level though is that the social-cultural divide can be vicious in very unexpected ways, which makes casual trust across that divide a little risky at times. But, that's humans for you."
Can't argue against that.
As for the rest, the Great Schism has in fact been healed at least once before and has been on the–admittedly bumpy–road to final resolution for a while. I expect it within my lifetime.
I also desire that all my Christian brethren come to know and live the superabundant fullness of the Christian life, which is fully preserved only in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
@wreckage,
I think a healing of the schisms is inevitable and, more to the point, desirable. Our Lord prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane that we would be one, as He and the Father are one. I think, when we pray "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven," that includes a mending of our bridal gown, which we have not tended well. Over the last five centuries, we Protestants have parted company from one another so many times into so many little movements and denominations and congregations that I imagine only a full-time scholar of Protestant fractiousness could trace and explain all the different ways and times and reasons we've decided mutual reconciliation and fellowship was less important than being right. I reckon this grieves God sorely, because He has stated so plainly what He wants for us.
It might be desirable but it looks far from certain. I was warming to Catholicism before Francis but now it looks like y'all are closer to a second protestant revolt. If y'all can get the lavender mafia out y'all will have a real good chance catching everybody feeling from the more feminized protestant denominations.
The Church has endured far, far worse popes than Francis. There was John XII, elected at 18, who kept multiple concubines in the Vatican. Not to mention Alexander Borgia. Not one of them touched a single essential doctrine.
Truth binds the conscience. If you believe the Catholic Church's teachings are true, the personal conduct of her current pontiff should be no detriment to seeking full communion.
wreckage, A Reader, might I recommend St. Francis de Sales's 'The Catholic Controversy'?
He does a comprehensive review on Protestantism's differences with the Church.
My reading list is never going to get any shorter, at this rate.
This is a good problem to have.
"we Protestants have parted company from one another so many times into so many little movements and denominations and congregations that I imagine only a full-time scholar of Protestant fractiousness could trace and explain all the different ways and times and reasons we've decided mutual reconciliation and fellowship was less important than being right."
This is certainly true, to certain extent, but we're honest about it. When a segment of the visible church is demonstrating heresy, and is unrepentant, we part ways.
There are also divisions over what could really just be labelled as different 'rites', some churches practice Exclusive Psalmody, other don't think that is necessary, and so they develop separate worship practices. And some of these differing 'orders' share a ton in common, but have different historic/national/regional/linguistic roots. The differences between say the Dutch Reformed tradition and the Scottish Presbyterian tradition is basically nil. You can find Presbyterian/Reformed churches that use the Westminster Confession of Faith and Three Forms of Unity interchangeably. Then you've got differing forms of church governance, so in Lutheran churches you see 'Free' churches (congregational), Synods, and Episcopal churches, they all otherwise agree on the big things. Sure there are some differences in perhaps how open they are to serving Communion to those not in membership with the local church, but again they affirm the same doctrines.
In essence there very few divisions in the 'Protestant' world, Lutherans, Reformed, Anabaptists, Methodists, and Pentecostals. Are there more divisions than there ought to be? Sure, but man is fallen. Fortunately we know that Christ has redeemed His Bride.
BTFOs the "muh 10,000 Protestant denominations!" zombie meme.
These are valid points. If, for example, a Conservative Baptist congregation from up North and a Southern Baptist congregation from down South could work and worship as one, the different labels mislead and suggest a disunity that does not exist.
Precisely.
Moist robots
Personally, I like flesh mecha
If I'm a flesh-mech, why isn't my chest full of rockets?
He's got you there.
Flesh mecha are pregnant women, not people in general
Cue zombie piloted by a ghost description.
Descartes' wicked writings cast their long shadow even here! 😉
How do you respond to the neat little dodge that runs along these lines: "Hey man, I don't believe any of this. I am just holding you to YOUR OWN standards."
"You don't get to use Christendom to attack. Confess or begone!"
Bradford has formulated the correct rhetorical response.
Where does one random meat puppet get off holding another random meat puppet to ANY standard?
He can't do so without adopting OUR standard, violating his worldview's internal logic in the process, and committing the hypocrisy he's accusing us of.
There's another facet. If they are Christian and profess Christ they are forced in the act to tacitly admit you are too. If they are role-playing a Christian then they have to role-play the connection, and it's the same problem. It is emotionally very painful to humanize a perceived enemy in this way. It is unlikely that anyone but a Christian or actual bona fide psychopath would endure that without substantial need.
Good point, there.
The Lefts' handlers encourage them to RolCon, but it's much harder for them to RolChrist if challenged for the reasons you stated.
It's also why, propaganda to the contrary aside, Catholics and Protestants have even at the height of the conflict lived with a degree of peace that any two truly separate cultures would envy. Hell, even different interpretations of Islam would envy it. The very worst of the bloodshed in Europe over this and any other Christian schism would pass for a moderately successful negotiation in any other part of the world.
And the enemy knows it and fears it. Why else spend so much time running-down the minority Christians within majority Christian regions or nations? No denomination is too small to ignore… and given some of them are heretical even by my standards, it suggests that even tiny doses of Christianity are potentially lethal to the wicked.
I find that an encouraging thought. I hope others do too.
Indeed. With fair frequency, my Presbyterian cousin will sigh wistfully and tell me, "I can't wait until we win the culture war so we can get back to killing each other over what the sacraments mean."
What I wouldn't give to live in that world!
It's not what they /mean/! it's what they SIGNIFY! I reject your radical realism! DIE!
Ahhhh, the good old days! Tell you what, if in the glorious distant Tomorrow, the New Vatican starts a Crusade to liberate Jerusalem and old, old men are allowed in, you smuggle me in OK? Pretend I'm your totally devout but retarded Australian friend who's also too deaf to get the reading responses right. I also hope it will all be in Latin, so that every insult, even to the ears, of the modernists burning in Hell will be delivered in full.
"It's not what they /mean/! it's what they SIGNIFY! I reject your radical realism! DIE!"
*raises hands* HE said it. Don't shoot the messenger!
"Tell you what, if in the glorious distant Tomorrow, the New Vatican starts a Crusade to liberate Jerusalem and old, old men are allowed in, you smuggle me in OK?"
Next year, my friend!
*small enough to ignore, sorry.
Absolvo te.
>MOLOCH WORSHIPER: Who do you think you are? I owe my confession to no one but God* alone!
>*Neglects to mention that he means Ashtoreth.
A Hebrew prof at my denomination's flagship university collects pictures of Hebrew tattoos, especially ones with mistakes. He has one worn by a female student who simply copied words from different parts of the Hebrew Bible using an interlinear for the artist to use (one of the most common mistakes, he says). She didn't realize that Hebrew is gendered and "I exist to serve only you" using the feminine second person pronoun means "only Ashtoreth."
You have no moral authority. Spammed for witchery.