D'Souza and Cahn play the PROPHECY CARD

Playing the PROPHECY CARD.

Dinesh D'Souza and Jonathan Cahn in Dragon's Prophecy speak of a resurrected Israel.

But the "Messianic Activism" of the 19th century was a work of man rather than a supernatural work of God and fails to check off key elements of the actual (biblical) end-time Gathering of Israel.

To be clear, I'm part Jewish, love Israel, and love that the Jews have their own nation in the Holy Land. It's betting the farm on this being the end of the Age—which stirs up the same caustic fatalism of apocalypticism that has caused untold historical problems; and duly makes religion repulsive to the secular world. There's your problem!

Get THE PROOF ABOUT ISRAEL in my upcoming book; see details and pre-order at now!

https://www.amazon.com/Proof-about-Israel-Prophecy-Modern-ebook/dp/B0FYGDGKKW

Albatross—Throwing the Cover Off the Ball

 

SAMPLE CHAPTER from ALBATROSS

ALBATROSS Faith, Science, and the Future

by C.W. Steinle

One of my favorite chapters of Albatross paints two thought provoking pictures: comparing a juggler to a "super-juggler," and the baseball image of "throwing the cover off the ball." 

These illustrations demand consideration of the realities that must be met head-on when contemplating the creation of planet earth. We often picture creation as sort of "still life" setting. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Enjoy this free reading sample!

ALBATROSS

Faith, Science, and the Future

by C.W. Steinle

Copyright © 2025 Memorial Crown Press

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without prior written permission from the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations used in critical articles or reviews.

 

Chapter Twelve: Time and Creation

The man beneath the two skies looked up and wondered not only what the heavens declared, but when they had begun to speak.

For time itself seemed to stretch without edge or anchor. The stars above told stories in light-years, their glow beginning its journey across space long before the first human stood on the earth to see it. The rocks beneath his feet spoke in ages—strata laid down in fire and flood, fossils pressed between layers older than imagination. The physicists told of cosmic background radiation, an echo from the birth of the universe itself, nearly fourteen billion years ago.

The First Evenings, the First Mornings

The opening chapter of Genesis is a symphony of creation: light and darkness, sea and sky, land and life, sun and moon, stars and seasons, all rising at the word of God. Its refrain—“and there was evening, and there was morning”—beats like a drum between each act. For the Creator, to speak is to accomplish; His word is deed, His command reality. Yet, the “days” of Genesis may measure not hours but order, not chronology but liturgy—the pacing of a cosmic temple being built for the glory of God.

Others have read them as literal days, defending a young earth only thousands of years old. For them, geology is explained by catastrophe, fossils by flood, the speed of light itself perhaps altered to fit the timeline. The world, they insist is not older than Adam by more than a few rotations of the sun.

But the universe itself seems to argue otherwise.

The Testimony of the Cosmos

Astronomy stretches human imagination to the breaking point. Light travels nearly six trillion miles in a single year, yet we see galaxies whose light began its journey millions—even billions—of years ago. Geology speaks of ages before ages: continents drifting, mountains rising, oceans carving valleys through stone laid down in forgotten epochs.

As the man looked up at the stars, he realized he was watching a ballet on a galactic scale. As the universe has expanded over the last 13.8 billion years, the regions of space that emitted the light we now see have moved farther away. This means that objects whose light left 13.8 billion years ago are now much more distant. A calculation based on the standard cosmological model (known as Lambda-CDM) shows that these objects are now at a "comoving distance" of about 46.5 billion light-years from us. The calculation is based on data collected by major space-based and ground-based observatories and is constantly being refined.

• Planck Satellite (ESA): The Planck mission, which operated from 2009 to 2013, provided the most precise all-sky map of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) to date. The data released by the Planck team in 2013 and 2015 refined the age of the universe and the values of the cosmological parameters used to calculate its size.[1] (See explanation of CMB that follows.)
• Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP): Before Planck, NASA's WMAP mission produced detailed full-sky maps of the CMB's temperature variations.
• Hubble and James Webb Space Telescopes: These telescopes use multiple methods to measure distances and redshifts of galaxies, which inform our understanding of cosmic expansion.

This ballet of movement is observed using geometrical calculations considering various parallax angles of view.[2] Gravity supplies the inward pull; motion supplies the outward inertia; and the result is a cosmos where orbits persist for eons because moving masses follow curved paths under gravity’s pull (inertia vs. gravity in balance). Earth itself was made to move: it spins, it circles the Sun, the Sun sweeps around the Milky Way, and our whole neighborhood drifts through the cosmos relative to the primordial afterglow of creation—the cosmic microwave background (CMB). At the equator, Earth’s spin is about 1,037 mph; at Phoenix’s latitude it’s ~865 mph.[3]

Cosmic Microwave Background

From the moment scientists discovered it in 1965, the Cosmic Microwave Background has been regarded as one of the most important clues to the origin and structure of the universe. It is sometimes called the “afterglow” of the Big Bang, the faint whisper of radiation that fills all of space like the dying embers of a once-roaring fire. Roughly 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the young cosmos had expanded and cooled enough for electrons and protons to combine into neutral atoms, the fog of scattering particles cleared. For the first time, photons—the particles of light—could travel freely across space. The radiation released at that moment has been racing outward ever since, stretched by cosmic expansion until today it shines not in visible light but in microwaves at a temperature of 2.73 Kelvin (minus 454.8° Fahrenheit), just a few degrees above absolute zero.

To modern cosmology, this thin bath of microwaves is much more than an exotic curiosity. It is a cosmic landmark, a remnant from the earliest observable era of the universe, and one of the most precise tools we have for studying both the history and the motion of the cosmos itself. When satellites like COBE, WMAP, and Planck mapped the sky in exquisite detail, they found the CMB to be astonishingly uniform, the same in every direction to one part in 100,000. Yet there was a subtle pattern: a tiny rise in temperature on one side of the sky and a tiny dip on the other.

This “dipole anisotropy,” as it came to be called, could be explained very simply.[4] If you are at rest with respect to the expanding universe, the CMB should look the same in every direction—no side hotter or colder than any other. But if you are moving relative to that cosmic frame, the photons ahead of you get compressed by your motion, their wavelengths shortened, making them appear slightly hotter. Those behind you, by contrast, are stretched and cooled. The result is a faint hot-cold pattern across the sky, a kind of cosmic Doppler shift that directly reveals your speed relative to the universe itself.[5]

Careful measurements show that our Solar System is moving at about 369 kilometres per second relative to this universal rest frame defined by the CMB. The direction of this motion points roughly toward the constellation Leo, reflecting not only Earth’s orbit around the Sun but the Sun’s own orbit around the center of the Milky Way, the Milky Way’s motion toward the Andromeda galaxy, and the entire Local Group of galaxies moving through the larger cosmic web. Layer by layer, when astronomers correct for these known motions, what remains is the net velocity of our whole galactic neighbourhood through the expanding universe itself.

The CMB frame has thus become the closest thing modern cosmology has to a “preferred frame of reference”—not in the sense of overturning Einstein’s relativity, for the laws of physics remain the same everywhere, but as a practical benchmark tied to the universe’s own birth. It anchors our measurements of large-scale structure, galaxy flows, and cosmic expansion, providing a backdrop against which the drama of cosmic motion unfolds.

One might picture it this way: imagine a vast swimming pool filled with millions of ping-pong balls bobbing on the surface. In the frame of the pool itself, the balls drift randomly, no side favored over any other. But if you begin swimming through the pool, balls in front of you come thicker and faster; those behind thin out. The CMB behaves in just this way, its nearly uniform glow betraying our motion through space not by any single point of light, but by a universal, all-encompassing shift in temperature from one horizon to the other.

As instruments grew ever more sensitive—from the early COBE maps in the 1990s to WMAP in the 2000s and finally Planck’s stunning full-sky survey in 2013—the precision of these measurements improved dramatically. Modern results even account for the way our motion subtly aberrates the small-scale fluctuations themselves, a cross-check confirming the reality of the speed we measure. Far from being a mere curiosity, the dipole in the CMB has become one of the most solidly established facts in cosmology, a reminder that our Earth, Sun, and galaxy are all carried along in the vast river of cosmic expansion.

For those wanting to explore further, excellent introductions can be found in the Planck Collaboration’s 2013 paper “Doppler boosting of the CMB: Eppur si muove” (arXiv:1303.5087), the standard Planck 2018 results published in Astronomy & Astrophysics, and countless summaries in modern cosmology textbooks and reviews. Together, they show how a faint whisper from the dawn of time became a measuring stick for the motion of galaxies themselves—and for our own small place in the moving, restless universe.

How fast is Earth Moving?

The cleanest single answer is the CMB rest frame—defined by the tiny hot-cold dipole in the microwave background. That dipole tells us the Solar System’s barycenter is moving ~369.8 km/s (~827,700 mph) relative to the CMB.[6]

Layer Earth’s own orbital motion on top of that and you get a seasonal swing: when Earth’s orbital velocity[7] (~29.8 km/s; ~66,600 mph) happens to align with the CMB vector, our speed in that frame is higher; when it’s opposite, lower—roughly ~761,000 to ~894,000 mph over the year. (Daily rotation nudges that by only ~1,000 mph, negligible at this scale.)[8]

It is not necessary to add the Sun’s galactic speed on top of the CMB speed. The CMB number already includes the Sun’s ~220–225 km/s (~490,000–503,000 mph) orbit about the Milky Way, plus our Local Group’s other tugs. Adding them again would double-count.[9]

For context, our Local Group’s barycenter itself moves ~620–627 km/s (~1.4 million mph) relative to the CMB, roughly toward the Hydra–Centaurus “Great Attractor” region. That’s our peculiar motion atop the general expansion of space.

In regard to the concept of “moving away from the Big Bang”: space has no central point of expansion. Galaxies recede from each other according to Hubble’s law; we are not flying away from a single location. Quoting speeds in the CMB frame is therefore the standard, unambiguous way to say how fast we’re moving through the universe.

• While cosmology describes a gradual assembly, nothing in the observed dynamics (the speeds and balances above) contradicts the idea that masses and motions could have been set coherently at once; rather, the data show what combinations are required for stability.
• Physical statement (neutral): Long-lived orbits require the right combination of mass distribution and initial velocities; the Sun–Earth system and the Milky Way plainly have those conditions. In standard cosmology, such conditions emerge via gravitational collapse and structure formation over time.

The Juggler and the Super-Juggler

Picture a street performer beneath the open sky, tossing three balls—catch, toss, catch, toss—each motion depending on the one before. That is creation as sequence: God speaks, light dawns; He speaks again, sky and sea divide; He speaks once more, and land rises from the deep. The beauty lies in the timing—order revealed step by step, like a master artisan laying brushstrokes on a canvas or a teacher turning pages for eager students.

Now imagine another performer, a super-juggler of impossible skill. With one fluid motion, he sends every ball into the air at precisely the right speed, height, and angle. Their paths are perfectly coordinated, so when they reach their first peaks and begin to fall, his hands are already moving in flawless rhythm. From the very first moment, the whole performance works because the patterns were set in motion all at once.

One image shows God as Teacher—the week of creation unfolding like a lesson plan, each day declaring its purpose and culminating in Sabbath rest. The other shows God as Sovereign Composer—a universe so well-scored from the first instant that the entire cosmic symphony plays in perfect harmony as soon as the curtain rises. Both pictures are biblical; both magnify His wisdom. But they invite us to ponder different aspects of His creative genius: ordered progression on one hand, instantaneous coherence on the other.

Throwing the Cover off the Ball

Baseball fans know the phrase “throwing the cover off the ball,” the image of a pitch launched with such force that it seems to tear itself apart. Now imagine the reverse: a ball held motionless in mid-air and then, suddenly, fired forward at full speed. The jolt would destroy the ball. Now, scale this to the cosmos.

Suppose earth were created at rest; and during the course of a “day” or two was hurled into its present velocity—spinning on its axis while racing around the sun, the sun itself orbiting the Milky Way, the galaxy rushing outward with the universe’s expansion. These combined motions exceed 800,000 miles per hour. If earth had been thrust into such speed abruptly—in merely a day or so, neither oceans nor atmosphere nor crust could have survived the violent acceleration.

Instead, the evidence suggests a cosmos already in motion from its very first moment—its forces balanced, its paths aligned, its rhythms set like notes in a score. That is not a limitation on divine power; it is a tribute to divine wisdom. Whether through a six-day unveiling or a single, sovereign command, creation itself declares a God who needs no warm-up, no trial run, no second draft. The laws of physics and the gift of life appear not as afterthoughts but as parts of one seamless act of artistry and authority.

Poetic yet Truthful Readings of Genesis 1

Augustine (4th–5th c.): instantaneous creation with “seed-like principles.”

In De Genesi ad litteram, Augustine argues that God could create all things simul (together/instantaneously), implanting rationes seminales—latent principles by which creatures unfold in time. The “six days” then mark an order of understanding, not a mechanical 144-hour clock.[10]

Aquinas (13th c.): God could create at once; six days are “fitting.”

Aquinas affirms both options: God created the substance of things “all at once,” while the six-day distinction and adornment is narrated to display due order and pedagogy. He explicitly says the days are assigned so that “due order might be observed” in instituting the world—not because God needs time.[11]

Framework / literary structure (20th c. to present).

Meredith Kline and others see the week as a literary framework: Days 1–3 form “realms” (light/dark; sky/sea; land), Days 4–6 “fill” them (luminaries; birds/fish; animals/humans), culminating in the Sabbath. The pattern is semi-poetic and architectonic, communicating theology (God’s kingship, vocations, worship) more than a stopwatch chronology. (Even critics agree this is the claim.)[12]

Walton’s “cosmic temple inauguration.”

John H. Walton argues Genesis 1 describes functional origins—God assigning roles and order—framed as a seven-day temple inauguration in ancient Near Eastern idiom. The account is thereby “poetic” in purpose yet aims at truth about God’s world as his dwelling.[13]

Jewish literary scholarship (Sarna; Alter).

Jewish exegetes often note Genesis 1’s elevated prose, parallelism, and symmetry—a carefully composed text that teaches theology through artistry as much as through sequence. (This is not calling it “myth,” but recognizing its crafted rhetoric.)[14]

Bottom line: Each of these proposals treats Genesis 1 as poetic in form yet truthful in aim—communicating who God is and what the world is for, not merely how many hours each act required.

The All-at-Once vs. the Day-by-Day Creator

Classical answer: Greatness is not measured by duration but by sovereignty and wisdom. In classical theism, God could create in an instant or over ages; either way displays omnipotence. Aquinas: the multi-day ordering is fitting for revealing order, hierarchy, and Sabbath; Augustine: simultaneous creation exalts God’s transcendence over time while allowing temporal unfolding within creation. Both routes magnify God—different facets of the same diamond.[15]

• All-at-once (Super-Juggler) emphasizes: omnipotence, foreknowledge, comprehensive coherence—the “score” written so perfectly that reality plays on cue. (Your astrophysical section dovetails here: masses, motions, and laws must be mutually tuned from the start.)
• Day-by-day (Master Juggler) emphasizes: pedagogy, covenantal rhythm, creaturely participation—God teaches by pacing, names vocations by stages, and enthrones Sabbath as the crown.

If we define “greater” as raw power, the instantaneous orchestration feels maximal. If we define “greater” as revealed wisdom and moral pedagogy, the six-day drama—and, by analogy, an eons-long providence—displays greater didactic brilliance. The fullest confession is: both together—God is great in power (able to create “at once”) and great in wisdom (ordering creation to teach, to bless, to invite worship).

To the man beneath two skies it seemed that the very atoms in our bodies were forged in the cores of ancient stars that lived and died before the sun itself was born. To deny the antiquity of the cosmos would be to deny the testimony of the heavens themselves, as though the God who wrote Scripture had contradicted His own words by the language spoken through light and stone.

And so some sought harmony.

---------------------

C. W. Steinle

ALBATROSS Amazon book page: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FQGLTJYM

---

[1] Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al., “Doppler boosting of the CMB: Eppur si muove,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 571, A27 (2014), arXiv:1303.5087.

[2] Parallax is the apparent shift in an object's position due to a change in the observer's position, and the parallax angle is half the total angular shift observed over a baseline. A larger parallax angle indicates a closer object, while a smaller angle signifies a more distant one. This principle is used to measure distances to astronomical objects, with the unit of distance known as a parsec defined by a parallax angle of one arcsecond over a baseline of one astronomical unit (the distance from Earth to the Sun).

[3] Space.com, “How fast is Earth moving?,” equatorial rotation ≈1,037 mph.

[4] Particle Data Group, “Cosmic Microwave Background,” in Review of Particle Physics (2024), section “Cosmic Background Dipole Measurements,” p. 29.

[5] M. Piat et al., “Cosmic background dipole measurements with the Planck,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 571, A26 (2014).

[6] Particle Data Group, “Cosmic Microwave Background,” Review of Particle Physics (2022): sec. 29; v⊙ = 369.82 ± 0.11 km/s; v_LG ≈ 620 ± 15 km/s.

[7] Earth’s Orbit, last modified 2025, average 29.78 km/s.

[8] NASA, “Basics of Space Flight—Reference Systems,” last updated 2025, Earth’s orbital speed 29.29–30.29 km/s.

[9] National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), “How long does it take the Sun to orbit the center of our galaxy?,” v ≈ 225 km/s.

[10] Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram (on simultaneous creation; rationes seminales). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[11] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I.74.2 (God could create all at once; six days are fitting to display order). New Advent.

[12] Meredith G. Kline, “Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony,” 1996 (classic framework essay). Meredith G. Kline Resource Site.

[13] John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One (cosmic temple inauguration; functional origins). InterVarsity Press.

[14] Nahum M. Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis; Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (on elevated prose/parallelism). jps.org.

[15] New Advent.

TWO-IN-ONE Byzantine Alexandrian Greek New Testament- Now in Hardcover

 

Click image for details at Amazon

Just in time for Christmas. Hardcover edition of the TWO-IN-ONE Byzantine Alexandrian Greek New Testament. Also in paperback. The hardcover is not just a plain cloth cover with a dust jacket. This is a quality laminate hardcase full color printed cover. Be sure to "Look inside" to see the simple easy-reading format.

The Two-in-One Byzantine Alexandrian Greek New Testament is a merged in-line common text of the Alexandrian and Byzantine textual classics: Stephanus 1550, and, Nestle 1904. (Not a parallel and no messy side columns or footnotes). Over 4,000 textual variants between the two text-types are clearly documented in-line, providing a one-source solution for identifying the Greek variants behind the translation of most classic and modern English New Testaments. The Alexandrian and Byzantine texts, represented by Stephanus 1550 and Nestle 1904, where in agreement, form a common base-text for the Two-in-One Byzantine Alexandrian Greek New Testament.

Variants between the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts are presented in-line without bias using square brackets [Alexandrian] and parentheses (Byzantine). Thus, both text-types are honored without prejudice, allowing the reader equal and objective access to two of the most respected ancient Greek New Testament base-texts in one convenient document. The variants among most modern English Bible translations are addressed in the Two-in-One Byzantine Alexandrian Greek New Testament so the Greek reader can quickly identify and follow the source texts during live teachings or while listening to prerecorded audio.

Stephanus 1550 and Nestle 1904 represent two of the most respected and broad-based Greek source-texts for the English New Testament. The modern version of the Authorized King James Bible draws its New Testament portions primarily from Stephanus 1550. Stephanus standardized the chapter-and-verse numbering system used today and Stephanus IV was the chief base-text of the Geneva Bible, making the Stephanus texts the official New Testament Greek source of the Protestant Movement for more than 300 years. The Alexandrian text-type is represented by Eberhard Nestle's, The New Testament: Text with Critical Apparatus, published by The British And Foreign Bible Society.
Images of ancient papyri and parchments are displayed on the first page of each New Testament book. The digital images of these priceless treasures have been graphically enhanced to make the Greek text more legible.
The 2012 edition of the Dodson Greek-English Lexicon by John Jeffrey Dodson is included in the appendix to provide concise English definitions for most of the words found in this compilation.

First One to the Cross: Wive's Guide to a Winning Marriage

Updated Release: First One to the Cross: Wive's Guide to a Winning Marriage

Click for Amazon paperback page

Click for Kindle edition

First One to the Cross features God's Word in communicating practical tips to ensure strong marriages and real hope for women enduring strained marriages. The title of the book comes from the saying, "The first one to the cross wins!" Gwen covers nine crucial aspects contributing to the quality of married life:

1. Unconditional Love (Who Luvs Ya Baby? )
2. Reverence (Let Go & Let God)
3. Humility (Who Me? )
4. Affirmation (What's Real Good? )
5. Expectations (En Guarde! In Your Thought Life)
6. Spiritual Warfare (Satan's Up to Something)
7. Virtue vs. Vice (Fruity or Foul? )
8. Romance (Takin' Care of Business vs. Marital Bliss)
9. Personal Growth (The Easy Way or the Hard Way).

"Real life" case studies demonstrate how the principles discussed in each chapter have transformed lives and improved marriage relationships. This book includes Q&A and space for notes, as well as providing answers to many of the questions - making it a ready-to-use resource for individual or group study (gatherings or virtual online). The study questions at the end of most chapters will help the reader to personalize their own journey to relational well-being. If you don't feel like a "winner" in your marriage relationship, this book is for you!

Gwen Steinle has a passion for helping others make practical application of Biblical principles. Gwen's study of the Bible has taken her to Israel, Turkey, Greece, Sinai, Jordan, and Egypt to discover first-hand how people have historically "lived out" their faith. Gwen and her husband, Chris, have five children and 11 grandchildren. Gwen founded and operated her own business for over a decade. She has also served the Lord as Children's Education Director, Children's Church teacher, and women's mentor.

The Rise of Western Lawlessness - SAMPLE CHAPTER

Click cover for Amazon book page.

The Renaissance of Classical Philosophy

The two prior chapters recounted the oppression of Europe by Church leaders who were not honest or humble enough to admit that they had ceased from following Christ.  Taking advantage of that Name above all names, they wore it as a cloak for vice.  The papacy profaned that precious Name in exchange for worldly pleasures.  The people were compelled to make sense of this spiritual tragedy by drawing three general conclusions; that God is not able, that the Church must be reformed, or that a false Church had arisen and needed to be replaced by a revived Early Church.  (This third reaction bears similarities to the attitude of today's Emergent Church.)

Christians were left with the quandary of what to make of a Church which had obviously and inexcusably fallen into sin.  They were forced to answer the sensitive question of; "What constitutes the true Church?"  Obviously God, His Christ, and His Spirit could not have failed.  Christ said the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church.  Reformers, like Martin Luther, affirmed that the Roman Church was part of the Universal Church, but that its leadership and practices had missed the mark.  Other groups, such as the Anabaptists, rejected Rome as a false Church.  But all of the major Reformers made a distinction between the masses who attend church and those individuals who have genuinely surrendered to Christ.  This distinction was necessary in order to maintain that the Catholic Church was the continuing Church of Christ and, at the same time, to account for souls in that Church, including its leaders, who had lived like they were sons of the devil.

Because the unfolding of the mystery of lawlessness is our chief interest, this chapter will cover the social and political thought of the late Middle Ages through the Renaissance.  During this period most people were still grounded in the Christian faith, whereas during the Enlightenment many began to fall into Deism.  We will continue to draw on the research and commentary of Philip Schaff through this third chapter of Church History.

The turn of the first millennium without the return of the Lord, along with the unsettling corruption of the Church, gave rise to a movement called Scholasticism.  The schoolmen began to make an extensive study of the sea of writings by the Church Fathers in order to solidify the doctrines of the faith.  The Bible became one of many sources used in this search for truth; thus, the writings of the Fathers were canonized and set on a par with the Scriptures.  Writings from outside the church were also included in scholars' libraries. These included classical Latin and Greek texts.  During the first millennium, these writings were mostly banned because they promoted worldly wisdom and pagan morality.

The ban, which had been placed by the Church upon the study of the classic authors of antiquity and ancient institutions, palsied polite research and reading for a thousand years.  Even before Jerome, whose mind had been disciplined in the study of the classics, at last pronounced them unfit for the eye of a Christian, Tertullian's attitude was not favorable.  Cassian followed Jerome; and Alcuin, the chief scholar of the 9th century, turned away from Virgil as a collection of lying fables.⁷⁴

At first the schoolmen sided with the papal claims that the apostolic see held authority over the Church and the State.  But the northern nations of the Holy Roman Empire began to look to the classics of antiquity as reasonable alternatives to the violence and chaos caused by a Church which had been high-jacked by the selfish desires of fallen men.  The philosophies of men held the promise of a system that might better the human condition.  This study of the Humanities was even embraced by the churchmen.  People began to reason that God was in control of the spiritual realm, but man was the proprietor over the material realm, and should do whatever he could to make his world a better place.  Soon the Humanists began to estimate the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle to be equal, or even above, Christian ideology.  Thomas Aquinas studied Aristotle and incorporated some of Aristotle's philosophy into his theological catalog, the Summa Theologica.⁷⁵

Figure 6 - Celestial Orbs in the Latin Middle Ages⁷⁶

The scheme of the aforementioned division of spheres. · The empyrean (fiery) heaven, dwelling of God and of all the selected · 10 Tenth heaven, first cause · 9 Ninth heaven, crystalline · 8 Eighth heaven of the firmament · 7 Heaven of Saturn · 6 Jupiter · 5 Mars · 4 Sun · 3 Venus · 2 Mercury · 1 Moon

The image above depicts the medieval concept of the universe according to the scheme of Aristotle.  It was believed that the "Primu Mobile" (outer sphere) had its own consciousness, "nous", or Divine Mind; a concept tied to Plato's belief in the Demiurge and the World Soul.  The second book of Dante's Convivio describes the Ptolemaic universe.

"Outside all of these [orbs] the Catholics place the Empyrean heaven, which is to say, "the heaven of flame," or "luminous heaven"; and they hold it to be motionless because it has in itself, with respect to each of its parts, that which its matter desires.  This is why the Primum Mobile has the swiftest movement; for because of the most fervent desire that each part of the ninth heaven has to be conjoined with every part of that divinest, tranquil heaven, to which it is contiguous, it revolves beneath it with such desire that its velocity is almost incomprehensible.  Stillness and peace are the qualities of the place of that Supreme Deity which alone completely beholds itself.  This is the place of the blessed spirits, according to the will of the Holy Church, which cannot lie.  Aristotle, to anyone who rightly understands him, seems to hold the same opinion in the first book of Heaven and the World [i.e. De caelo].  This is the supreme edifice of the universe in which all the world is enclosed and beyond which there is nothing; it is not itself in space but was formed solely in the Primal Mind, which the Greeks call Protonoe.  This is that magnificence of which the Psalmist spoke when he says to God: "Your magnificence is exalted above the heavens."⁷⁷

He begins by citing "the Catholics," or orthodox belief, as authority for his account of this "abode of the supreme deity," but then goes on to treat the Empyrean as a created thing, "formed in the Primal Mind," and as the motionless cause of motion in the physical universe. If God dwells in this place, the Empyrean resides equally in Him, and the universe at large is encompassed, causally and locally, by the Empyrean. Dante deploys the Aristotelian physics of desire to explain the relationship of the Empyrean to the lesser heavens, yet it is at the same time beyond space, a wholly spiritual realm where blessed spirits participate in the divine mind. Dante seems to emphasize this double status by mingling theological and philosophical language, and invoking Aristotle and the neo-Platonists side by side with the poet of the Psalms.⁷⁸

The failure of religion's rule over the civil governments of Europe drove the people to contemplate other forms of government.  Through their rediscovery of Classical philosophy they were awakened to the thought that man could design his own ideal society.  Plato's The Republic provided a basic examination of various types of government.

During his life in Athens, Plato witnessed the fall of democracy and the installation of a tyrannical government.  In his Republic, Plato made a critique of various political structures.  Plato believed democracy to be the most unfavorable form of government.  He viewed democracy a great experiment that ended badly.  He concluded that it amounted to anarchy and resulted in slavery.  Athens was the first known attempt by a society to allow the crowd to rule themselves.

Just prior to 500 B.C. Athens became the first democracy in history.  The people had expelled a series of tyrants and established a popular assembly.  The other city-states mistrusted the Athenians and their aberrant form of government, and Athens gave the others additional cause for concern:  Following the expulsion of the Persians from Greece and, soon afterward, from some Greek cities of Asia Minor, Athens founded the Athenian League, a confederation of Greek cities around the Aegean Sea.⁷⁹  

Recall from Chapter Four that Plato's idea of Justice was an equity or balance between competing elements.  Plato proposed an ideal society with three types of citizens: rulers, auxiliaries, and producers.  Plato's three parts of the human soul were coincidental to his three types of citizens.  The rulers are men whose rational part holds mastery over the other parts of their soul.  The auxiliaries are men driven by their spirit of honor.  And the producers are people who are slaves to their appetites.   Plato says that these characteristics should be recognized in children so that they might be trained in the area for which they are naturally qualified.  Plato's proposed perfect state is, of course, ruled by a philosopher-king.

Plato identified five types of government: tyranny, timocracy, aristocracy, oligarchy, and democracy.  Tyranny is imposed government, established by the tyrant or by an outside party.  A timocracy is a government in which the right to rule is based on the value of the individual in terms of their ability to produce revenue for the community.  An aristocracy is governed by the most qualified members of society - such as the philosophers.  Plato said that a democracy occurs when an oligarchy breaks down and the lowest class, which is driven by immediate gratification, takes control.  The democratic man is obsessed with unnecessary desires and is disorderly.  Because they lack the intellect of the Philosopher, and the Auxiliary's sense of honor, the public will desire to do whatever they want, whenever they please - leading the society to become the slaves to their appetites.

Plato was not eclectic in his disgust with the democratic man. (This explains why democracy was not perceived as a desirable form of government for two thousand years after the Athenian experiment.)  The reason for western civilization to have changed its view can be explained quite simply.  Throughout history, until the Renaissance, the community was perceived as meriting the greatest importance.  People were given recognition by their community based upon how well they could work within that community toward the survival and benefit of society as a whole.  Not until the latter years of the Renaissance did individualism emerge.  It is an interesting observation that this inward focus set the stage for the rise of Deism and Atheism.

The overbearing government by the Roman Catholic Church resulted in the same reaction that Israel had as they fled from the oppression of Rehoboam: "Each of you to your own tent, O Israel!"- II Chron. 10:16 Going to one’s own tent implied more than a redirection of allegiance to a different government.  It expressed a desire by Israel to return to the days before Saul; a regret that they had ever asked for a king.  Individualism was the natural reaction of the people to Rome's unreasonable micromanagement of the Empire.  But the Europeans were accustomed to kings, so their first response was to free their individual nations from the yoke of Rome.

We will now trace the history of reform over time and throughout Europe in order to follow the changes in prevailing attitudes concerning authority and the law.  Pay close attention to the struggle to resolve these two dichotomies: the authority of the Bible vs. the authority of the Church; and, human authority vs. the conviction of conscience.

Those who were closest to Rome were unable to ignore the problems caused by her meddling in worldly affairs.  Italy bore the greatest exposure in the fight between the popes and the kings for control over the Empire.  Consequently, Florence became the incubator of the Renaissance.  Dante Alighieri was born in the mid-thirteenth century and was caught in the midst of these controversies.   The Florentines became divided over the issue of dominance by the Holy Roman Empire, which at that time was controlled by Philip IV of France.  Dante sided with the party who wanted more independence from The Roman Empire, which eventually resulted in his banishment from Florence.  In his work, The Monarchia,⁸⁰ Dante said that civil and religious authority should be separated.  He believed in the necessity of a potentate with enough authority to keep peace and maintain order.  This organization of society, Dante insisted, was necessary for civilization to thrive.  The happiness of individuals can only be achieved as the greater community is enriched.  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy offers the following commentary:

The Monarchia is in its own way as idiosyncratic as the Convivio. Its purpose, foreshadowed in the discussion of empire in Convivio IV, is to demonstrate the necessity of a single ruling power, reverent toward but independent of the Church, capable of ordering the will of collective humanity in peace and concord. Under such a power the potential intellect of humanity can be fully actuated—the intellect, that is, of collective humanity, existent throughout the world, acting as one. For just as a multitude of species must continually be generated to actualize the full potentiality of prime matter, so the full intellectual capacity of humanity cannot be realized at one time nor in a single individual [Mon. 1.3.3–8]. Here Dante adds his own further particularization of this Aristotelian doctrine [De Anima 3.5, 430a10–15], asserting that no single household, community, or city can bring it to realization. The ordering of the collective human will to the goal of realizing its intellectual potential requires universal peace [1.4], and this in turn requires a single ordering power through whose authority humanity may achieve unity and so realize the intention and likeness of God [1.8].   The basis of this argument for empire is evidently the first sentence of the Prologue to Thomas' literal commentary on the Metaphysics, where he declares that when several things are ordered to a single end, one of them must govern, "as the Philosopher teaches in his Politics" [Thomas, Exp. Metaph., Proemium; Aristotle, Politics 1.5, 1254a-55a.]

The second of the Monarchia's three books deals with the great example of Rome, describing the city's providential role in world history, largely by way of citations from Roman literature aimed at demonstrating the consistent dedication of Roman power to the public good, and the conformity of Roman imperium with the order of nature and the will of God. The third book deals with the crucial issue of the relationship between political and ecclesiastical authority. Dante argues on various grounds that power in the temporal realm is neither derived from nor dependent on spiritual authority, though it benefits from the power of the Papacy to bless its activity. These arguments consist largely in refutations of traditional claims for the temporal authority of the Papacy, but the final chapter makes the argument on positive grounds. Since man consists of soul and body, his nature partakes of both the corruptible and the incorruptible. Uniting two natures, his existence must necessarily be ordered to the goals of both these natures [Mon. 3.16.7–9]

Ineffable providence has thus set before us two goals to aim at: i.e. happiness in this life, which consists in the exercise of our own powers and is figured in the earthly paradise; and happiness in the eternal life, which consists in the enjoyment of the vision of God (to which our own powers cannot raise us except with the help of God's light) and which is signified by the heavenly paradise. Now these two kinds of happiness must be reached by different means, as representing different ends. For we attain the first through the teachings of philosophy, provided that we follow them putting into practice the moral and intellectual virtues; whereas we attain the second through spiritual teachings which transcend human reason, provided that we follow them putting into practice the theological virtues, i.e. faith, hope, and charity. These ends and the means to attain them have been shown to us on the one hand by human reason, which has been entirely revealed to us by the philosophers, and on the other by the Holy Spirit . . .

This is Dante's most explicit, uncompromising claim for the autonomy of reason, reinforced by the entire world-historical argument of the Monarchia and constituting its final justification for world empire. Dante here goes well beyond Augustine's sense of the stabilizing function of empire, and eliminates any hint of the anti-Roman emphasis in Augustine's separation of the earthly and heavenly cities. In the final sentences of the Monarchia the temporal monarch becomes, like the aspiring intellect of the Convivio, the uniquely privileged beneficiary of a divine bounty which, "without any intermediary, descends into him from the Fountainhead of universal authority" [Mon. 3.16.15]. Like the Averroistic reasoning of his earlier claim that only under a world empire can humanity realize its intellectual destiny, this crowning claim shows Dante appropriating Aristotle to the service of a unique and almost desperate vision of empire as a redemptive force. But whether we consider the world view of the Monarchia an aberration [D'Entreves, 51] or take it as Dante's straightforward exposition of his views on the relations of secular and religious authority, its categorical definition of the twofold purpose of human life is impossible to explain away. In the Paradiso [8.115–17] as in the Monarchia, to be a "citizen" is essential to human happiness, and the idea of an imperial authority independent of papal control remained fundamental to his political thought.⁸¹

Shortly after Dante, another advocate for civil independence arose from the western shores of the Empire.  Just as the remoteness of Rome from the center of Christianity had allowed her to rebel against Constantinople, so England's distance from Rome provided her with the leeway to be the last to submit, and among the first to be stirred by the spirit of freedom.  John Wycliffe has been called the Morningstar of the Reformation.  He is often remembered as a Bible translator, but his greatest impact on Europe during his lifetime was made by his political boldness in contesting against Rome's far reaching tentacles.  Wycliffe's opinion that authority must be questioned or rejected if it acts wickedly, was boldly declared by his words, "There is no moral obligation to pay tax or tithe to bad rulers either in Church or state.  It is permitted to punish or depose them and to reclaim the wealth which the clergy have diverted from the poor."⁸²

In the summer of 1374, Wycliffe went to Bruges as a member of the commission appointed by the king to negotiate peace with France and to treat with the pope's agents on the filling of ecclesiastical appointments in England.  His name was second in the list of commissioners, following the name of the bishop of Bangor.  At Bruges we find him for the first time in close association with John of Gaunt, Edward's favorite son, an association which continued for several years, and for a time inured to his protection from ecclesiastical violence.

On his return to England, he began to speak as a religious reformer.  He preached in Oxford and London against the pope's secular sovereignty, running about, as the old chronicler has it, from place to place, and barking against the Church.  It was soon after this that, in one of his tracts, he styled the bishop of Rome "the anti-Christ, the proud, worldly priest of Rome, and the most cursed of clippers and cut-purses."  He maintained that he "has no more power in binding and loosing than any priest, and that the temporal lords may seize the possessions of the clergy if pressed by necessity."⁸³

With the year 1378 Wycliffe's distinctive career as a doctrinal reformer opens.  He had defended English rights against foreign encroachment.  He now assailed, at a number of points, the theological structure the Schoolmen and mediaeval popes had laboriously reared, and the abuses that had crept into the Church.  The spectacle of Christendom divided by two papal courts, each fulminating anathema against the other, was enough to shake confidence in the divine origin of the papacy.  In sermons, tracts and larger writings, Wycliffe brought Scripture and common sense to bear. . . . As Luther is the most vigorous tract writer that Germany has produced, so Wycliffe is the foremost religious pamphleteer that has arisen in England; . . . .⁸⁴ 

It was in 1381, the year before Courtenay said his memorable words, that Walden reports that Wycliffe "began to determine matters upon the sacrament of the altar."  To attempt an innovation at this crucial point required courage of the highest order.  In 12 theses he declared the Church's doctrine unscriptural and misleading.  For the first time since the promulgation of the dogma of transubstantiation by the Fourth Lateran was it seriously called in question by a theological expert.⁸⁵

Wycliffe also became aware of the importance of distinguishing between man's philosophy and the truth of God's Word.  According to Schaff, Wycliffe confessed that in his earlier years he had leaned on the classical systems instead of fully relying on the Bible.  John Wycliffe was one of the first politically active Christians to realize that the problem of government should not be solved through the application of pagan principles.

As for the philosophy of the pagan world, whatever it offers that is in accord with the Scriptures is true.  The religious philosophy which the Christian learns from Aristotle he learns because it was taught by the authors of Scripture.  The Greek thinker made mistakes, as when he asserted that creation is eternal.  In several places Wycliffe confesses that he himself had at one time been led astray by logic and the desire to win fame, but was thankful to God that he had been converted to the full acceptance of the Scriptures as they are and to find in them all logic.⁸⁶

While it is not our intent to cover the history and theology of entire Protestant Movement, it is worth noting why Wycliffe has been called the Morningstar of the Reformation.  Although Wycliffe's writings were banned in England, they made their way into the hands of one of his European contemporaries, John Hus of Bohemia.  Hus translated Wycliffe's writings into Czech and read them from the pulpit.  The Czech nation was the first to reject the Christianity taught by Rome, and to form its own doctrines.  The Bohemian Movement was condemned by the papacy and Hus was burned at the stake.  But the Bohemian Kingdom withstood a series of papal crusades against it and was eventually left to practice its faith as Hussites.   Hus' primary grievances with Rome were over the sale of indulgences and the teaching of transubstantiation.  Thus, Wycliffe's teachings had gained acceptance in Northern Europe long before Luther.  And the Czechs' tenacity also set a precedent that would allow Martin Luther and his nation the ability to defy Rome.

Back in Florence the European Morningstar, Girolamo Savonarola, began around 1490 to condemn the immorality and greed of the province.  He became politically active when the ruling family of the Medici was expelled.  Savonarola spoke out publically against Pope Alexander VI until he was banned from speaking in public.  But he continued to speak out in spite of the ban.  After he was excommunicated he continued to call for reform until at last he was burned at the stake in 1498.  After the Medici family was restored to power, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote the political handbook, The Prince.⁸⁷ Like his predecessor Dante, Machiavelli was convinced of the benefit of a local authoritative ruler who could defend the province from the dictates of the Empire.

These early responses to the Church's dominance were aimed at establishing even stronger local magistrates who could defend their own territories from the political struggle between the papacy and the kings of Europe.  Because of Europe's faith at this time, they still believed their civil authorities were under God's control.

Wycliffe's call for a national response to reject a corrupted clergy was eventually consummated in the Peace of Westphalia, which dissolved the Holy Roman Empire; thus allowing the sovereign nations of Europe to regain their autonomy.  But first the spiritual monopoly of the Roman Catholic Church had to be broken so that the nations might object to the papacy without the fear of eternal condemnation.  The authority question during the Protestant Reformation will be examined in the next chapter.

The Renaissance was merely the revival of the Humanities.  Not until the Enlightenment did Humanism emerge in its present form.  Platonism and Neo-Platonism were interwoven with Scholasticism during the Renaissance in the hopes that mankind might lay hold of the mysteries of God by using the tools of the Ancient Greeks.  The Church had opened itself up to the doctrines of men when it granted the weight of Scriptures to oral traditions and the writings of the Church Fathers.

The Greek and Latin philosophers, as Paul put it, were merely groping that they might find God.  Yet their murky visions were accepted by the Schoolmen as if they had already found Him.  In their foolishness these Christian theologians opened the door to the belief that all of the nations worship the same God.  The Church sought to gain a clearer understanding of God by merging the Gentiles' darkened image of God with the Bible's revelation of God.  Instead, they further contaminated and diluted the Church's knowledge of God.  Furthermore, the writings of the Fathers and scholars remain bound within the Latin concepts of God to this day.  The God of the Bible is the Creator of all men.  But He has chosen to reveal Himself through the Jews.  God is not the god that all nations worship.  This false doctrine of Universalism is a growing pestilence that is leading the unsaved down the road with those who are the enemies of the cross of Christ.

"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.  For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power." – Col. 2:8-10