Page 5 of 5

Re: America: The Beginning Of The End

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 11:31 pm
by ElleJay
Gaius wrote:There are many sincere people in Reformed who do not see its obvious failing.


This is so true. When you bring up an inconsistency in what they do believe, you may be in for some fireworks so to speak. When eyes are blind, they truly cannot see what seems so obvious to us. You may give them chapter and verse ... but in a sense there is arminian creep into their own interpretations.

Thanks for your comments :) I am like you ... ever hopeful ... when it comes to those I know and love.

MichaelAllen wrote:In the past, I did listen to a lot of reform theologians myself such as Gentry, Bahnsen, etc... because they were ostensibly for God's law... but you put these guys to the test, and without exception they would be the first to call folks like us sinners for being racists or whatever.


We still have Bahsen and Gentry books in our library ... and Gary North ... and others, but they simply gather dust. They were a tight circle with what sounded to be scholarly ideas. When one is "hungry" seeking Truth ... it can be a very muddy path you find yourself on. You are right ...they do call us sinners.

MichaelAllen wrote:Well, then there's the problem in the traditional predestinarian mindset which would kind of come to this... "God only predestined certain individuals to be called, justified, etc." and this basically means, when they die, they won't suffer in hell for all eternity... but see, there are a lot of people who have accepted the TULIP construct of the modern Calvinist believers, who have no clue about God's laws. So then, the question begs, "What is the purpose of God's choosing just a few individuals to be saved in the here after?" --- I guess what I'm getting at is ultimately, what is the point of the here and now? Is it not to produce the kingdom of God on earth?


You are so right that even those who profess to believe we should live according to God's law, look at you rather horrified when you mention the stoning of certain peoples. They believe in theory that all God's laws should be honored and obeyed, but in actuality, they really do not think it through. So many are not students of the Book. They are so worried about becoming legalists as well, being hit over the head time and again with we are not under law, but under grace ... from other sectors of Judeo-Christianity. At least in reformed circles, they talk about the importance of knowing God's law-Word.

Thinking about "the point of the here and now," without an understanding of who is whom ... there is no point. For us, though, we are to occupy ... be about our Father's business.

MichaelAllen wrote:100 years ago, nearly every white person in America would have hung a sign on their door which read: "No niggers allowed," and they would have felt not one bit "sinful" or "mean-spirited" for doing so. Even though they didn't hang the signs, everyone knew those signs were there de jure - call it a social understanding.


I have not lived 100 years quite yet, but I do know there has been a HUGE cultural shift in this regard even in my own lifetime. People have forgotten history. They have forgotten just how white we were ... and the many laws that prevented intermarriage. As a little girl, it was emphasized that anyone with one drop of negro blood was negro. The thing is, Mexican blood or Indian blood was not quite as frowned upon. (I was born and raised in California ... San Jose for the raising part.) We were thrown together in public schools with all races beginning in kindergarten ... it does affect one's thinking. I was always uncomfortable when it came to blacks and whites. I do not remember seeing anyone dating in my high school days who were mixed like that ... but Mexicans ... yes. God has changed my thinking radically over the last 20 years. Now I see God's plan for His people ... and who His people are. Oh ... to live in those days 100 years ago you mentioned. Yet ... we were born for such a time as this. I think one of the things about all of this that troubles me is that even my own generation has forgotten so much amidst all the propaganda.

I appreciated your response so very much. Very thoughtful ... and well thought out. :)

Re: America: The Beginning Of The End

PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2015 8:49 pm
by Micah83
Hail brothers, sorry for my absence but I was in the belly of the beast. The fact is Calvinism and Identity coincide. Fags who dont like the Bible talk about free-will. We are Yah's puppets and thankfully so!

Re: America: The Beginning Of The End

PostPosted: Sat Oct 24, 2015 6:49 am
by EzraLB
Micah,
You stated, "The fact is Calvinism and Identity coincide."

Did you miss Bill's podcast comments on how Calvin is not, in fact, Christian Identity? He pointed out exact passages in Scripture how Calvin contradicts Paul at every turn:

http://christogenea.org/system/files/au ... ussion.mp3

And earlier in this thread Bill wrote of Calvin:

"But the fruits of Calvin on any dimension are wrong. The mainstream Calvinists believe in an anti-Biblical type of predestination which transcends race and creates a Frankenchrist - a body of Christ stitched together out of all races, no different from that of the modern Roman Catholics. On the other hand, most so-called Kinists are Calvinists, but think that there can be multiple bodies of Christ. So while claiming to be nationalists they can still cling to Calvin in spite of Scripture."

Perhaps you'd like to explain where Bill is wrong.

Re: America: The Beginning Of The End

PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:52 pm
by Micah83
Ezra, Hail. Im soory for my long absence.

Some things. I dont beileve Calvins supposed jewish heritage is relevant unless sufficiently proven as some of the greatest are called thus, namely, Yahshua and Hitler. I think the argument is as valid as me stating that since the pharisees and sadduccees were Armianist and the Essenes held a Calvinist worldview that that solves the issue.

When the Bible states Yah is in total control I dont think it leaves any room for anyone to assert mans free-will into the equation. When Adam and Eve got placed into the Garden in the face of the foe did He not know who was there and what the Adamites were made of? Did lucifer just pull one over on an old hopeful God or does He have a Master Plan? Im curious to know how you coincide His sovereignty with His apparent non-sovereignty.

I have definitely read the old master Swift on the issue and hes on board, but, once again, Yahs word is the ultimate authority as are a mans fruits. Calvin, amongst other things, was the theology of the Puritans. White men with faults must be taken with the good and the bad, aye?

Re: America: The Beginning Of The End

PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 10:27 pm
by wmfinck
Micah83 wrote:Ezra, Hail. Im soory for my long absence.

Some things. I dont beileve Calvins supposed jewish heritage is relevant unless sufficiently proven as some of the greatest are called thus, namely, Yahshua and Hitler. I think the argument is as valid as me stating that since the pharisees and sadduccees were Armianist and the Essenes held a Calvinist worldview that that solves the issue.

When the Bible states Yah is in total control I dont think it leaves any room for anyone to assert mans free-will into the equation. When Adam and Eve got placed into the Garden in the face of the foe did He not know who was there and what the Adamites were made of? Did lucifer just pull one over on an old hopeful God or does He have a Master Plan? Im curious to know how you coincide His sovereignty with His apparent non-sovereignty.

I have definitely read the old master Swift on the issue and hes on board, but, once again, Yahs word is the ultimate authority as are a mans fruits. Calvin, amongst other things, was the theology of the Puritans. White men with faults must be taken with the good and the bad, aye?


I think you missed the entire point, which was my explanation that the predestination that Calvin taught is absolutely contrary to the predestination taught by Scripture. EzraLB was trying to get you to listen to that.

Here is the program page:
http://christogenea.org/podcasts/various-topical-discussions

Some of my remarks against Calvinism and Arminianism

PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 10:46 pm
by wmfinck
It is not really a quote, but I pulled it out of the notes for this program, which I retained for future use:
http://christogenea.org/podcasts/various-topical-discussions

While Calvin and his defenders claim the inspiration of Paul, Calvin's predestination is not the predestination which was taught by Paul. Calvin is compared to Arminius, and the basis of his predestination contrasted to that of Arminius, and there is a false dichotomy. Arminius described God's foreknowledge as being the basis of predestination, meaning the foreknowledge which God has in relation to the behavior of men. Calvin rejected this, and based his idea of predestination on the “good pleasure” of God.

Both men are wrong. Paul said that whom God foreknew, those He predestinated. Paul did not say that it is whom God foreknew that would do either good or evil. Paul said it was whom God foreknew, and that he would have mercy upon those whom He foreknew if they did do evil.
To find out who God foreknew, we must go to the prophets of the Old Testament, as Paul had also said that it was for “them who are the called according to his purpose.” Going to the Old Testament, we find that God only foreknew the children of Israel.

Neither men understood that salvation is actually in accordance with God's law, and that there are men planted by God according to his law, and there are so-called men planted by the devil contrary to God's law, as described in the parable of the wheat and the tares.

But Paul said it was whom God foreknew that were those whom He predestinated, and that he would have mercy upon those whom He foreknew if they did do evil, to “them who are the called according to his purpose.” Therefore foreknowledge and predestination cannot be separated. The Old Testament reveals the foreknown, and the New Testament assures their destination.

And Calvin is mostly right, but the wrong part is this: the predestination and foreknowledge only pertain to the Old Testament children of Israel, as Paul had spoken in Ephesians chapter 1 of redemption, pre-ordination, transgression and the remittance of sins, all things which only pertain to the children of Israel of the Old testament, since where there is no law, according to Paul in Romans, sin is not imputed and thereby there is no transgression and no need for forgiveness.

In Ephesians chapter 2 Paul says that his readers were among “the nations in the flesh”, meaning that they were indeed one of those nations promised to Abraham which would come from his offspring, as Paul described at length in Romans chapter 4. For that same reason Paul told the Ephesians in chapter 2 that they had been alienated, but were now being reconciled. They were Israelites according to the flesh, from the ancient dispersions of Israel. Like all other Judeo-Christian commentators, Calvin ignores the meaning of all of these statements, and cherry-picks the scripture in order to fit it into his own universalist understanding.

And God had already chosen the children of Israel, whereas the descendants of Esau are all rejected, for which Paul calls them “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” in that chapter, and using the plural he must be referring to all of Esau's posterity in general.

And all of this ignores the fact that the promises of God to Abraham would not fail, and that they were carried down to his seed after him, to which nobody else could be added. This is the problem with Calvinism, that just like every other universalist interpretation of Scripture, it attempts to make void the promises to Abraham assured in turn to Jacob-Israel, promises which can never be voided.

I have not read Calvin. But the fruits of Calvin on any dimension are wrong. The mainstream Calvinists believe in an anti-Biblical type of predestination which transcends race and creates a Frankenchrist - a body of Christ stitched together out of the pieces of all races, no different from that of the modern Roman Catholics. On the other hand, most so-called Kinists are Calvinists, but think that there can be multiple bodies of Christ. So while claiming to be nationalists they can still cling to Calvin in spite of Scripture.

Re: America: The Beginning Of The End

PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 10:08 am
by EzraLB
Micah83 wrote:I have definitely read the old master Swift on the issue and hes on board, but, once again, Yahs word is the ultimate authority as are a mans fruits. Calvin, amongst other things, was the theology of the Puritans. White men with faults must be taken with the good and the bad, aye?


I'm not sure what qualifies Wesley Swift as a "master" as he certainly is not my Master in any way. He certainly did some important work in articulating the CI message, but he also made a lot of mistakes along the way that need to be corrected. It would be a huge mistake to bow down to him in any way, such as referring to him as a "master".

And suggesting that because Swift supposedly agreed with Calvin--or the Puritans--on some issues is a false appeal to authority. Both Swift and Calvin were wrong on many issues--and if you reread this thread you'll see exactly how they were wrong. Even some of Calvin's contemporaries rightly accused him of being a judaizer. His idea that a biological Jew, through the arbitrary whim of Yahweh, could be among His elect, is down right pharisaical.

I do not believe that just because someone is White that we have to take the good with the bad. That's a jewish and hindu idea. The Jew will tell you nine truths just for the purpose of getting you to accept one colossal lie. Rather, we should be constantly vigilant, taking the good and rejecting the bad, as Paul stresses in his Epistles. No White man gets a free pass just because he is White.

Re: America: The Beginning Of The End

PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 11:00 am
by wmfinck
EzraLB is correct, we should not consider any man a master. We have one master, and that is Christ.

Therefore Swift and all others are men, and all men make mistakes. Swift made plenty of mistakes, and I pray that perhaps I can critique some of his work as I have been doing lately with Comparet. We honor them by critiquing their work in a scholarly manner, and giving them credit where they deserve that.

Wesley Swift admired many of the Reformers, as he often expressed in his sermons, but he did not put them on pedestals. Here he puts his attitude towards Calvin in perspective:

Swift's June 9th 1965 Bible Study wrote:Now, there is no doubt that we have many orthodox believers who would never consider the truth if it would upset some little orthodox idea, even though that idea might not have been orthodox with YAHWEH, but only with their organization. For instance you have Methodists who think that John Wesley had the last word in theology, and then you have Baptist who think that Calvin knew all there was to know in theology and then other denominations think that who ever started their denomination knew all there was to know in theology. But these men like Wesley and Calvin founded churches on belief and the Faith of the Word of God. Never the less, there are things which became quite obvious, and evident in the pursuant of the study of the passages of scripture, and some of the oldest codexes demonstrated that the oldest documents of the Gospel of Mark in original Aramaic and in the Greek as well as in the original codex did not have any of the verses from 9-20 of this 16th, chapter of Mark. (Your Living Bible and the Revised Standard Version tell you this as well.)


http://swift.christogenea.org/content/06-09-65-bible-study-qa

Re: America: The Beginning Of The End

PostPosted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 2:55 pm
by Micah83
Bill and Ezra,
Salutations.
Indeed, I would never claim Calvin to be 100% right. My issue is that I think it is a brazen thing to go around calling any Reformers crypto-jews without sufficient evidence. If Calvin taught non-whites deserve a place under the Son then he was dead wrong. When I say "Calvinist" I speak of the "Sovereignty of God," which he vehemently pronounced, as did Luther, at a time our Race resided in Romish darkness, and I agree with that part of their ideology. If it is misleading to use his name for that then I apologize.

Ezra,
It sounds as though you are engaging in pettiness with me. My reference to "the old master Swift" in the lower case was a harmless attempt to show my respect for his vast resevoir of Christian knowlegde. On the "good with the bad" comment this was not an attempt to say we should accept anyone non-Christian, non-heterosexual, non-pro-life etc. just because they are white. Id be a traitor myself if I voiced such a travesty. No, it was said to emphasize the point that nobody is perfect and that we must weigh out the good from the bad regarding our forebears.

Bill,
I do not own a copy of "The Institutes of the Christian Religion" by Calvin nor do I own a copy of "Christreich." But, when I am able, you can be sure that I am purchasing the latter before the former, if that sheds any light on my persuasion.

EzraLB wrote:
Even some of Calvin's contemporaries rightly accused him of being a judaizer. His idea that a biological Jew, through the arbitrary whim of Yahweh, could be among His elect, is down right pharisaical.


John Calvin wrote:
"Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone."

Excerpt from "Ad Quaelstiones et Objecta Juaei Cuiusdam Responsio," by John Calvin; The Jew in Christian Theology, Gerhard Falk, McFarland and Company, Inc., Jefferson, NC and London, 1931.


I have not read the book yet and I have only read part of "The Institutes" so, who knows, maybe he switches up by the end of the book. :?:

Christ bless.