PHILnBOAZ wrote:I for one am perplexed by these "ministers" who preach a one seedline, no Satan and no angels doctrine.
I don't know of anybody who calls themselves "one seedline" except for the adversaries or satans that use misnomers to divide and conquer; and these people are dual seedliners who think a simplistic soundbyte resolves the many issues which they are incapable of discussing in a civil manner. I know, because these unnamed troublemakers have been falsely accusing me of the most ridiculous and preposterous things for years that have nothing to do with theological resolves. Everybody in Christian Identity should believe in two seedlines if they are to believe Gen. 3:15. It's kind of no-brainer ya know. The real issue is a literal personified "Satan" but evidently that object of discussion is skirted for a "straw man" argument under the illusion of "one seedline." And when somebody intentionally convolutes this subject with a myriad of other peripheral subjects, they are not being intellectually honest. Isn't that perplexing? I will not dignify or give free advertising to these false accusers, but our forum is well aware that it is highly unlikely that these interlopers are racially pure Israelites; one even had the audacity to say that 15% mixed blood can still be considered White. And you should be perplexed that they slander Bill as much as myself, Nayto and others, for daring to challenge their doctrine. In fact, Bill has written about this at the following link:
viewtopic.php?f=46&t=3765 Some of my best friends still believe in a literal personified "Satan." So what, it's not a litmus test for fellow laborers in the vineyard for the coming harvest; it's never been a prerequisite for being a believer and follower of Christ; and loving your neighbor as yourself is not predicated on fallen angels. There's bigger fish to fry, like "turning the hearts of the fathers to the children, and turning the heart of the children to their fathers."
I see them posted up on other sites and one in particular (Ted R. Weiland) really gets my goat. Why do these people call themselves Christian Israel Identity?
Weiland gets my goat also. He calls himself CI because he stands for the basic premise of who true Israel is. After that it is downhill. It is not fair to lump all people who have a different perspective on "Satan" with universalist clowns like Ted. That is not only slavish and ignorant of the facts, but accusing one man of sin for the sins of another. Since when has sin been transferable or interchangeable?
Another at benwilliamslibrary.org has Bible courses and I decided I would do the one on Acts only to discover he did not believe in angels as spiritual beings and said when mentioned in the Bible they are merely "messengers" in the flesh and blood. There is even some doubt he believes in a literal Satan. What is going on??
Ben Williams was the successor to Pastor Sheldon Emry and his tenure at America's Promise was short-lived when he denied the deity of Christ (among other things). He doesn't believe in a literal "Satan" and neither do I, but I resent people throwing the baby out with the bathwater, when many of us see the failure of many of his other doctrines. There are going to be people in our midst with their pet doctrines and denominational baggage that they drag into Christian Identity, but that should not distract us from our primary mission. We can have intelligent discussions about these things, but they should not hijack the principle premises of what our message is i.e. who the true Israel is and who the imposters are.... period. My priority is not to determine the origin of jews thousands of years ago, but to equip the saints for spiritual warfare against the children of darkness in the here and now.
Mark
Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2015 7:30 am