This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum. You may browse here but there are no updated threads or new posts since January 1st 2017. Forum members please see THIS NOTICE for information concerning your account at the new forum.

Remarks on Freedom of Association and Disassociation

This forum is for discussions and questions concerning Christian Identity direction, doctrine and debate.

Remarks on Freedom of Association and Disassociation

Postby wmfinck » Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:55 am

These are the notes I made for the remarks which prefaced my Amos Part 10 presentation last night, April 5th. They are based upon an older version I did for a Euro Forum program in March of 2012 found here: http://saxonmessenger.christogenea.org/ ... ssociation

In his Annals of Imperial Rome the ancient Roman historian Tacitus claimed, among other things, that Christians had “anti-social tendencies”. I would assert that, if Christians would only put their Christian profession into practice, they should indeed have anti-social tendencies! Not only should Christians practice their God-given right to free association with whom they please, but rather they have an obligation to practice their right not to associate with anyone who does not please their God!

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 5: “9 I had written to you in the letter, not to associate with fornicators: 10 not at all with the fornicators of this Society, or with the covetous, or rapacious, or idolaters, seeing that you are therefore obliged to come out from the Society.” In this same manner, James wrote in his epistle, at James 4: “4 Adulterers! Do you not know that the love of Society is hatred for Yahweh? He therefore who would desire to be a friend of Society establishes himself as an enemy of Yahweh!”

Christians must make a choice between God or the world. I have recently been criticized for choosing to separate myself from certain people who I believe have made themselves friends of the world. Some of my critics have insinuated that I have no right to tell them whom not to associate with. That is true, I cannot control whom other people associate themselves with. However, I have every right not to associate with people based on their associations! And it is this right which I am asserting. If I do not like whom one is associating with, I have every right to disassociate myself from that person. If that weighs on one's heart, then one probably has a guilt problem, and one should therefore reassess those associations.

Paul warned Christians at 2 Corinthians 6: “14 Do not become yoked together with untrustworthy aliens; for what participation has justice and lawlessness? And what fellowship has light towards darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Beliar? Or what share the faithful with the faithless? 16 And what agreement has a temple of Yahweh with idols? For you are a temple of the living Yahweh; just as Yahweh has said, 'I will dwell among them, and I will walk about; and I will be their God, and they will be my people.' 17 On which account 'Come out from the midst of them and be separated,' says the Prince, and “do not be joined to the impure, and I will admit you”. 18 'And I will be to you for a father, and you will be mine for sons and daughters, says the almighty Prince.'” Therefore if you choose to associate with aliens or fornicators or idolaters, I may choose not to associate with you. And if I do further choose to associate with you, it is only to persuade you, one way or another, directly or indirectly, not to associate with aliens or fornicators or idolaters. The time will come that if you do not accept such persuasion, we will have to part ways.

Since all men are sinners, whether they are Israelites or not (Romans 5:12), yet since only Israel has a promise of cleansing and only Israel was cleansed on the cross of Christ, then it naturally follows that only Israel is clean and all others are unclean. It is clear in the passage of 2 Corinthians just cited that we are to separate ourselves from the unclean, or impure, which is anyone who is not Israel, whom we esteem to be the Keltic and Saxon and related peoples of the world today. There is no other promise of cleansing in the Bible to anyone but the children of Israel. Therefore John described the words of Christ in his gospel at John chapter 13: “10 ... 'He who is bathed does not have need except to wash the feet, but is entirely clean. And you are clean, but not all!' 11 For He knew the man betraying Him. For this reason He said that 'You are not all clean'.” Judas was not clean, and never could be, because Judas was a Canaanite. He was a product of that same sin which could not be washed off, as it was described in Jeremiah chapter 2: “22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.” Peter, as it is in Acts chapter 10, was warned not to consider common that which God had cleansed: which according to the prophets must refer to the long-dispersed children of Israel.

Paul said towards the end of his second epistle to the Thessalonians, at 2 Thessalonians 3: “14 and if anyone obeys not our word through this letter, make him known, not to associate yourselves with him, that he may turn about.” Earlier in that same letter was a statement at 2 Thessalonians 3:2 where he said: “and that we should be protected from those disgusting and wicked men, since the faith is not for all.” Of course the faith is not for all, since the faith is only for the children of Israel.

Sadly, even most Identity Christians do not understand that they have a basic right to freely choose whom they associate with, and whom they do not associate with. Christians have a basic religious obligation not to associate with fornicators, sexual deviants and other sinners, and also not to associate with people from other religions. Christians cannot justly be compelled even to make simple business transactions with those of other religions. Exodus 23:32-33: “32 Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. 33 They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee.” Those who would attempt to force Christians into associating with sinners or with aliens, or who would promote such associations, cannot possibly be true Christians themselves.

Paul taught in Romans chapter 1 that not only those committing certain sins are worthy of punishment, but those who approve of them who sin in such a manner are also worthy of the same punishment. If you approve of sinners, you are enabling them and making their sinful behavior legitimate. The Word of Yahweh says in the 82nd Psalm: “1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. 2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked?” In truth, none of us should ever accept the persons of the wicked, which includes all non-Israelites because according to the Word of God only the sheep escape the Lake of Fire.

Some of my critics have complained that I am somehow censoring them. This claim is ridiculous. It is typical of the same claims which jewish radicals have frequently made in order to usurp unsuspecting Christian societies. My adversaries, whom are mostly jews and enemies of Christ, or people with otherwise anti-Christian agendas, are not invited to set up soap-boxes in my program chats, on my websites or in my forums. These places belong to me and for the most part they are financed by those of our Christian brethren who appreciate my work. I am not censoring the man whom I exclude from my own abode. That man may go elsewhere and exercise his perceived freedom of speech. If one thinks that he may do better, that is fine and he has every right to express his ideas, so long as he does it elsewhere. One may create his own Talkshoe programs, his own websites, and his own forums. I cannot and of course I would not try to prevent one from doing that. If ones ideas or teachings are indeed good, one will have success. Yahweh God will render to each according to his works.

2 Timothy 2: “20 In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, and some things for honor, yet others for dishonor. 21 Therefore if a man would purge himself of the latter, he would be a vessel for honor, having sanctified himself, serviceable to the master, having prepared himself for all good works.” Christians must purge themselves of the vessels of wood and clay if they expect themselves to be of any use to their God, or of any value to their fellows. Christians must cleanse themselves of dross, as gold and silver vessels are cleansed, and seek only those other vessels which have done so, or which at least make an earnest attempt to do so, and to associate themselves with those. Associate yourselves with the ungodly, and in pieces ye shall be broken.
Image
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
wmfinck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: Remarks on Freedom of Association and Disassociation

Postby TJ » Sun Apr 07, 2013 10:30 pm

Withholding fellowship until apostate behavior is corrected, is sound doctrine. If they're brethren, your intent should be corrective and encouraging rather than imprecatory.

If a brother is willfully erring, we attempt to intervene with admonishments. If this repeatedly falls on deaf ears, we rebuke them for their steadfast erring, refuse them fellowship, and tell them why.

Determinations of when to move from admonishments to rebukes is the purview of the church. Without a properly functioning church body, we do what we can in an ad hoc style.

If you've moved on to rebukes, and I still feel that fellowship is warranted to provide a venue for continued admonishments, then we should have no quarrel; absent a proper church government to preside over such matters.


I frequently use Romans vs Galatians to sort out my positions. Paul is harsh and unequivocal with the Galatians, because they were corrupting the fundamental tenets of the doctrine. The Romans are supposed to ignore their differences to reinforce each others' faith. This is how I measure whether I shore up my brother or rebuke and turn my back.

Eli is clearly adulterating the doctrine in an intolerable fashion and is steadfast. This is a Galatians-type interaction, but even Paul's rebukes to the Galatians, for believing that Yashua's finished work was not adequate sacrifice without circumcision, were still aimed at bringing them back into compliance.

I agree that Eli is a well poisoner, but if a Brother-A wants to interact with him, that seems more like a Romans issue to me. I can do more to maintain and encourage Brother-A's faith through fellowship than I can with rebukes and out casting.

We aren't posturing ourselves amongst men. We're consolidating the Remnant.


* Even though my tone is direct I intend it to be a discussion. I constantly revise my positions as my theologic knowledge grows and I better understand what Yahweh requires of me.
Husbands: Love your wives as Christ loved the church.
User avatar
TJ
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:55 pm

Re: Remarks on Freedom of Association and Disassociation

Postby wmfinck » Mon Apr 08, 2013 1:42 pm

Thanks, TJ that analogy is excellent and it is worthy of consideration. I am honestly wearied having to address all of this again and again, at least every so often. What is most tiring is having to convince certain people that they should judge a man for his words and his deeds, and not for the labels he uses or the actions which he takes for obvious political reasons.

This later group represents the people whom my recent efforts are directed at. Is it proper to accept a reprobate because he appears to be on your side? Can you ignore the substance of a man's professions, because he cheers you on and roots for you behind a facade? I can not. And in the long run I can not accept those who do.

I have warned these people time and again that such double-mindedness is harming our cause. It is certainly not helping us. When they refuse to recognize and publicly acknowledge Eli's treachery, either by refusing to look at the evidence, by seeing the evidence but still refusing to acknowledge it, or by acknowledging it and choosing not to discredit the man (and there are quite a few in this later group, such as Allen Truitt and others I will refrain from naming for the time being, hoping that they repent), then they are empowering the man to continue in his treachery by giving him creditability. These people I must separate myself from, as an example that I can only hope that others will follow.

I would gladly accept any of these people back. On the condition that they publicly recognize the treachery, profess that it is evil, and publicly issue a rebuke of the person committing it. Then I would rejoice and be happy to accept them in my company.

Of course I only speak about those people who have been associated with the perpetrator and who have had interaction or who have worked with him and I these past several years. I still communicate with or have worked with some of them, who are mostly new to this dispute, hoping that I can help them see the problems and acknowledge them.
Image
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
wmfinck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: Remarks on Freedom of Association and Disassociation

Postby wmfinck » Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:01 pm

There is one more thing I am compelled to elucidate. I do not want people to come to me and kiss my ass and tell me that I was right. The Word of God is all I need to see that, because that is what I endeavor to conform myself to - whether I succeed or not. And I am well aware that none of us can succeed completely but that we all must aspire to it.

My ego does not need to be inflated. I do not need to be ingratiated or flattered or smothered with platitudes. I actually despise that behavior and those who really know me know that I have banned certain people from my own chat server for obviously attempting to ingratiate themselves with me. For others who were more subtle, a breaking of company required a longer process.

I only ask that others seek to do the right thing and review the evidence and make an appropriate judgement. That is what is required of Christians. Turning a blind eye to such treachery, or ignoring it and glossing it over for political reasons, that is as greater a sin as the original act.

Leviticus 5:1 is a difficult passage to translate clearly. However I am persuaded that Paul was following it in his Romans chapter 1 admonition, that those approving of a sinner are just as deserving of the penalty as the sinner himself.

Here is how I would translate Leviticus 5:1 from the Septuagint:

And if a soul should sin, and a voice of adjuration is heard and there is a witness, if one has seen or is conscious of it, if he does not announce it then he shall bear the sin.

Here are some of the mainstream translations:

ASV Leviticus 5:1 And if any one sin, in that he heareth the voice of adjuration, he being a witness, whether he hath seen or known, if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.

KJV Leviticus 5:1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.

LXX Leviticus 5:1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and he is a witness or has seen or been conscious, if he do not report it, he shall bear his iniquity.

NAS Leviticus 5:1 'Now if a person sins, after he hears a public adjuration to testify, when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt.
Image
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
wmfinck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: Remarks on Freedom of Association and Disassociation

Postby wmfinck » Mon Apr 08, 2013 4:13 pm

Well, the remarks in that last post are not directed at anyone posting here, but to some ridiculous comments I have received in another venue. So I just thought I would make my sentiments known.
Image
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
wmfinck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: Remarks on Freedom of Association and Disassociation

Postby Nayto » Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:09 am

My wife has a friend who has married a mongrel. The friend appears to be pure white although she is not CI. Do you think we bear the sin of her race-mixing unless we tell her? We have disassociated ourself with her, but should we warn her? She is actually in denial about her husband being non-white; one of those situations where a passer-by would call him white but any CI would notice mongrelization immediately.
Nayto
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:06 am

Re: Remarks on Freedom of Association and Disassociation

Postby Kentucky » Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:51 am

Nayto wrote:My wife has a friend who has married a mongrel. The friend appears to be pure white although she is not CI. Do you think we bear the sin of her race-mixing unless we tell her? We have disassociated ourself with her, but should we warn her? She is actually in denial about her husband being non-white; one of those situations where a passer-by would call him white but any CI would notice mongrelization immediately.


There's no nice way of putting it. But she has the Ezra-Nehemiah option of "putting away" the mongrel. When she stands before the judgment seat, and if she was informed, she can't say, "I wasn't given lawful notice." This might be one of those instances where Ezekiel 3:19-21 applies.

Mark
User avatar
Kentucky
 
Posts: 1803
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:20 am

Re: Remarks on Freedom of Association and Disassociation

Postby Acrimonious » Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:28 am

I'm familiar with the Scriptures concerning miscegenation in Ezra - if, indeed, you are referring to Ezra 10:1-5 - but where is the Scripture concerning the same found in Nehemiah? I'd love to read that, as I've not yet arrived at that point.

Ezra 10:1-5 for posterity (emphasis mine):

1 And when Ezra was praying, and confessed himself in tears, and had flung himself down before the House of GOD, a very great crowd of men, women, and children from all Israel collected to him;-and they wept with much weeping. 2 And Shekaniah-ben-Jekhial, one of the sons of Aulam, addressed, and said to Ezra;-

'We have done wrong to our GOD, when we turned to marry women from the Peoples of the country; yet there is hope for Israel over this. 3 So now let us make an agreement with our GOD to expel all the women and the children born of them, according to the advice of my Lord, and of those who tremble at the commands of our GOD! But let it be done according to law. 4 Arise for the affair is yours,-and we will support you in its execution.'

5 Ezra consequently arose and sword the Chief Priests and Levites, and all Israel to do according to this proposal;-And they swore it.
User avatar
Acrimonious
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:37 am

Re: Remarks on Freedom of Association and Disassociation

Postby wmfinck » Tue Apr 09, 2013 12:19 pm

I think Kentucky meant "Ezra-Nehemiah" as in one of those two books. In some editions they are one book, and not two separate books.

See, for example: http://www.theology.edu/biblesurvey/ezra.htm

However for the real chronology of Ezra and Nehemiah, which you will read nowhere else (unless they copied it from me, LOL) see here:
http://christogenea.org/content/mark-ch ... genea-talk

Because they duplicate one another to some degree, they are often lumped together.
Image
If a jew is moving his lips, he's lying. If you see a rabbi, there has already been a crime!
User avatar
wmfinck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2775
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:09 am

Re: Remarks on Freedom of Association and Disassociation

Postby Acrimonious » Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:26 pm

Ah, I did not know that the two are so similar. I have a Ferrar Fenton translation, and perhaps it mentions that fact in one of the footnotes. I did some searching, and I see that Nehemiah 13:23 is subtitled 'Mixed Marriages Forbidden,' and that portion of the chapter is telling of the dissuasion of taking strange wives. Of interesting note, on topic, is verse 28:

And although one of the sons of Joiada,-Aliashib, the High Priest, was son-in-law to Sanballat, the Horonite, yet I drove him from me.


Unwavering determination to refuse association due to a sinful path? I think so :D
User avatar
Acrimonious
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:37 am

Next

Return to Christian Identity Directions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest