Kentucky Petition for Secession Tuesday, Jul 31 2012 

Petition Background (Preamble):

This State under the United States Constitution and Federal Government has committed the following sins that require confession, and repentance pursuant unto a new Government under God:

i. Our rejection of God the Father and his mediatorial King, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose royal prerogative (Phil. 2:9-11, Dan. 2: 44-45, Dan. 7: 13-14, Rev. 1:5, Ps. 89:27, 1 Cor. 15:25, Luk. 22:29-30, Acts 5:29-31, Heb. 1:13, Acts 2: 29-35, Heb. 1: 8-9) has been treasonously rejected by our Constitution’s Preamble (Which contradict Romans 13:1), Article 6 (Contradicts Exodus 18:21 ) and First Amendment of the Bill of Rights (A disestablishment principle utterly incompatible with the Bible and Christian History).

ii. Legal protection of idolatry and false worship within a nation that has been enlightened by the gospel, together with a refusal to establish the true reformed religion as the only established religion within that nation.

iii. Refusal to affirm in constitutional documents that God’s moral law is the supreme law of the land (within a nation enlightened by the gospel), but to the contrary, the legal declaration of an immoral constitution to be the supreme law of the land.

iv. Any mistreatment of African slaves and the complete destruction of their communities through forced integration.

v. Legal protection of public blasphemy against the name of the Lord in all forms of media.

vi. Refusal to prohibit all unnecessary work on the Lord’s Day.

vii. Subjecting the children to the evils of the Roman Catholic Church and their perverted rapist Priests without proper prosecution.

viii. Legal endorsement of the slaughter and murder of unborn children.

ix. Legal protection of gross immorality, sexual perversion and heinous pornography.

x. Habitual theft through unjust and excessive taxes through inflated paper currency and the violation of a man’s natural right to his wages for personal service.

xi. Our involvement with wars of conquest.

This will be accomplished by defensive war if necessary. This war is not offensive, but defensive; not by falling upon persons to take away their lives, but a defending of our Religion and ourselves from all unjust assaults which is allowable to all men (Gen.14,1 Sam. 14:44-45, Prov. 24:11-12, Luke 22:36). We must resist this wicked government. It is our duty (Psa. 94:16). We are informed by Scripture that God punishes sinful nations with war (2 Chron. 16:9, 2 Sam. 12:10). We are informed by 2 Kings 21 that God brought complete destruction upon Jerusalem because of the sins of their King Manasseh. God held the people liable for the sins of their Government! Jeremiah the prophet warned those who would murder him, “But know ye for certain, that if ye put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants thereof: for of a truth the LORD hath sent me unto you to speak all these words in your ears.” (Jer. 26:15) In fear of almighty God we seek to repent of our sins that more judgment does not come upon us than already has.

We do not fear the reproach of man. As the apostles stated, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” (Acts 4:18-20) We do not fear death, as the Lord Jesus Christ commanded, “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Mat. 10:28) And we know that through much difficulty we shall prevail, “And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.” (Rev. 12:11)

No doubt, our enemies will try to rise up puppet representatives among us, to lead us astray and discredit our movement. When an Anglo or Japhethite Protestant Christian people have demanded a land and a Christian Government for themselves, evil white men have risen up in their ranks to lead their people to offensive violence to justify the existence of a reactionary movement which the media has mounted to support against us. Therefore, to protect ourselves, let it be clear: WE VEHEMENTLY REJECT OFFENSIVELY VIOLENT AND MALICIOUS ACTIONS AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS PEOPLES OF OTHER ETHNICITIES AND PEOPLES OF OTHER RELIGIONS. ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH NEO-NAZI MOVEMENTS OR MALICIOUS KU KLUX KLAN GROUPS WE REJECT. AFTER OUR ESTABLISHMENT WE SEEK TO CONDUCT PEACE TREATIES AND COMMERCE WITH OUR BLACK AMERICAN FRIENDS AND OUR CATHOLIC FRIENDS.

The grievances which have brought us to this petition are bitter and if we are not careful can easily lead to malice and offensive violence. Let us never forget the wisdom of the Scriptures which says, “When a man’s ways please the LORD, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him” (Pro 16:7) and as the Lord Jesus Christ said, “But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.” (Luk. 6:35) May God grant this mercy to us with lawful assemblies and non-violent petitions to both our representatives and our fellow man.

Eligible Petitioners:

– Voters in the United States, who desire to become citizens of The Republic of Kentucky

– Voters who are Citizens of the State of Kentucky

Petition:

We, the undersigned citizens of the State of Kentucky demand that the Governor, Kentucky House of Representatives and Senate exercise their duties and rights under God’s Law (Exo. 18:21, Rom. 13:1-7, Psa. 2:10-12, Rev. 1:5, Eph. 1:20-21) and mandate a vote of all Kentucky Residents to withdraw from the United States of America, and form a more perfect Constitution agreeable to the Protestant Christian Religion-The Republic of Kentucky. This Republic shall first perform public confessions of our sins. Next The Republic of Kentucky shall enter into an agreement with the United States of America settling any and all outstanding debts or land disputes; convene a religious council to draw up a confession of our faith and a civil constitution commensurate with God’s revelation in the Holy Bible; withdraw its military support from lands abroad; form its own army to protect its borders; collect its lawful taxes; remove all ecclesiastical persons (not laymen) of the Roman Catholic Church from this land; pay the remaining Black peoples of African descent of this State reparations by giving them a portion of the lands of this Commonwealth to be their own Nation independent of The Republic of Kentucky; and finally manage the government for the glory of God the Father, his co-eternal Son Jesus Christ and the welfare of its citizens. If in case a large portion of people wish to live in a pluralistic and integrated society, The Republic of Kentucky is willing to give land to those people to erect their own body politic.

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/kentucky-petition-for-secession.html

Divorce and Remarriage in Martin Bucer Monday, Jul 30 2012 

The following considerations are given on behalf of a friend who is currently in the midst of a violent and miserable marriage and has been as many of us are, the victim of a failed Church and State, pursuant unto the Jesuit Counter-Reformation agenda. My friend has been told for years now that she is bound in a state of marriage with a person who has physically abused her and consistently denies her fundamental marital duties.

Martin Bucer was a 16th Century Protestant Reformer in Strasbourg, a contemporary and friend of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. He wrote voluminously on the issues that concern the application of Christian theology to society. The following will be based on his Of the Kingdom of Christ quoted in The Prose Works of John Milton, Volume 1. In this treatise we must first keep in mind the way the relationship between two covenanted parties  is understood. Just as in the Divine Right of Kings debate in Rutherford’s Lex Rex, we are going to find that the Protestant idea of a conditional covenant, as opposed to a mystical, superstitious and therefore tyrannical sacramental relationship, is key in escaping the conscience searing effects of Anchorism. Just as in the Anchoretic superstitions regarding ceremonies, candles, incense, robes, vestments, altars, relics, prayers to dead saints, and homage paid to rotting corpses “It is a trap for a man to say rashly, “It is holy!” (Prov 20:25). Marriage is not a sacrament. It is a conditional covenant that only the civil authorities can ultimately dissolve as this issue pertains to the sphere of secular authority; a category that Rome adamantly despises because this is just another attempt by the Anchoretic Churches to completely control the state and all of human life. An over solemn attitude towards marriage is based on a typical Roman Catholic view of arbitrary authority. But that is the point isn’t it? As Protestants we believe in a real distinction between the secular and the sacred. We believe in a real distinction between Church and State. Rome wants the Church above the State. The Anglicans want the State above the Church, but we Protestants have the view that has been the bread and butter of human progress for the last 500 years: distinct spheres of authority and function for Church and State.

Marriage is not a sacrament therefore it may be dissolved if the terms of the covenant are not met, just like we saw in the Scottish Reformation, where if the King does not meet the terms of the covenant between the people and himself he may be resisted and overthrown with violence if necessary.  Covenants have terms and obligations, they are not unconditional.

I am going to quote the primary passages of scripture that deal with these issues of divorce and remarriage and immediately give necessary commentary and consideration, all in defense of the idea that physical adultery is not the only grounds for the right to divorce and remarry and the desertion spoken of by Paul in 1 Cor 7 can be extended to other sins or impotencies giving full right to the innocent spouse to divorce and remarry after all attempts to correct the abuse through Church and State fail.

Isa 50:1 Thus says the Lord, “Where is the certificate of divorce By which I have sent your mother away? Or to whom of My creditors did I sell you? Behold, you were sold for your iniquities, And for your transgressions your mother was sent away

I wanted to begin this little discourse by reminding us that God himself divorced Israel for their sins and so we should not think of Divorce as something evil in itself. If that was so, God is evil for divorcing Israel.

Deut 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Mat 5: 31 “It was said, ‘ Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce’; 32  but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Mat 19: 7 They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Rom 7:1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

The first axiom that we must accept is that Jesus’ teaching does not contradict Moses’ teaching (See my Tables of Human Hearts, I. Thirty Two Theses in Defense of the Moral Law. xxvi-xvii).  Second, considering Deut 24, John Gill points out, “This word “uncleanness” does not signify adultery, or any of the uncleannesses forbidden in ( Leviticus 18:6-19 ) ; because that was punishable with death”. So I want to be clear that this passage was not given by Moses to appease the emotional turmoil of a person who has been betrayed through their spouse’s sexual unfaithfulness or desertion. That is not what Christ means by hardness of heart.   The Jews were putting away wives THAT MET ALL QUALIFICATIONS FOR A LAWFUL SPOUSE. This sinful attitude was tolerated (not morally sanctioned) to maintain the commonwealth of Israel at that time. So let it be clear that when the Lord Jesus Christ addresses this issue, it is in the context of a wife who meets the necessary qualifications and obligations for a lawful spouse, JUST LIKE IN DEUT 24 (See Bucer pg. 280; That is why Christ does not mention desertion as a grounds for divorce but Paul does)! This is not the same thing as a person who physically abuses their spouse and refuses to meet necessary marital obligations. In Fisher’s Catechism, Q.72, he says,

“Q. 20. Why then does our Lord tell the Pharisees, Matt. 19:8, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives?”

A. The meaning is, Moses, because of the wicked and malicious disposition of the Jews, and in order to prevent a greater evil, namely, the ill usage, or even killing of their hated wives, (if they could not be separated from them) permitted processes of divorce to be legally commenced.”

Do people not have hard hearts anymore? Does the greater evil of remaining bound in a miserable and wretched marriage which can only lead to adultery not exist anymore? This is preposterous, of course it does and I find it fascinating that Fisher does not say a word about the meaning and extents of the desertion spoken of in 1 Cor 7! Bucer speaks in detail on the great extents of the evils produced by the Roman Catholic Church’s refusal to grant divorces and the multiplied evils that were produced by it. It is the same sinfulness today as in the days of Moses, and we have the same greater evil to avoid stemming from the same rights and obligations of men as in the time of Moses.  So how could someone make the argument that Deut 24:1 no longer applies to Christian societies? This is the attitude of the Romanists: a person being beaten and refused marital benefits (When they do not have the gift of celibacy-Mat 19:11) which leads to adultery is better than divorce and remarriage. I wonder why a Romanist would say something like that? Maybe they want their people to live under despair and moral depravity pursuant  unto an ecclesiastical and civil agenda. Maybe those sins are used by the Church to keep their societies morally depraved so that they will never investigate what is going on behind closed doors in their Churches. Hmm…………(See Bucer on page 267 where he attributes a denial of divorce and remarriage as a popish antichristian doctrine)

Ezra 9:1 Now when these things had been completed, the princes approached me, saying, “The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, according to their abominations, those of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians and the Amorites.2 For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has intermingled with the peoples of the lands; indeed, the hands of the princes and the rulers have been foremost in this unfaithfulness.”…10: 3 So now let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.

I have failed to find a single OT commentator give this verse much detailed explanation with regard to its relationship to 1 Cor 7. Some erroneously allege that Paul’s 1 Cor 7 passage overrides this passage in Ezra. Such talk is Gnostic and quite frankly stupid. In 1 Cor 7 Paul is speaking to people who married as unbelievers and then subsequently one of them became a believer. In that situation divorce was not to be immediately pursued but only pursued if the unbelieving spouse deserted. This law is required because the Covenant of Grace is now extending to nations historically alien to God. That was not the case with Ezra 9 and 10. You had a believing people taking unbelieving spouses. That was directly forbidden in Deut 7:3.  The marriage was null and void because it was an unlawful vow. It is the same teaching for OT saints as NT saints. Same law. Same religion! Paul clearly forbids marrying unbelievers just like Moses did in the OT (1 Cor 7:39, 2 Cor 6:14), and no vow is binding that is unlawful! This is the exact issue that the first Reformers had to deal with when their vows of celibacy were revoked as unlawful and Luther for instance having acknowledged the unlawfulness of that vow took a wife.

Mal 2:14 Yet you say, ‘For what reason?’ Because the Lord has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 [But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And [what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. 16 For I hate divorce,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the Lord of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit,  that you do not deal treacherously.

Kiel & Delitzsch’s Commentary on the Old Testament, Malachi 2:13-16 may be referenced to introduce you to the flow of thought, and the use of these terms through Malachi’s prophecy which all agrees with John Calvin’s commentary on Deut 24 when he states,

“Still, God chose to make a provision for women who were cruelly oppressed, and for whom it was better that they should at once be set free, than that they should groan beneath a cruel tyranny during their whole lives. Thus, in Malachi, divorce is preferred to polygamy, since it would be a more tolerable condition to be divorced than to bear with a harlot and a rival. (Malachi 2:14.)”

1 Cor 7: 1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.5  Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. 12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife[Already at the time of conversion-DS]  who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

This passage truly is an all out indictment against miserable marriage. Theodosius I, a great Christian Emperor from the 4th Century, extended 1 Cor 7:15 to many areas of sin as was pointed out in the Encyclopaedia Americana, Volume 4  by Gamaliel and Vethake that divorce was lawful if your spouse was a witch, a murderer a slave trader, sacrilegious, a thief, a robber, overly flirtatious, refusal to regular cohabitation, a frequenter of illicit plays, or a traitor.  On page 277 of Bucer, he says that  offenses that by the civil laws of God or man require death or long term imprisonment constitute an abandonment or an infamy and therefore are grounds for divorce and remarriage. He adds on page 274 that a refusal to provide conjugal duty is grounds for divorce (Better to marry than to burn is no less true of the deserted or divorced person) as is physical abuse as Bucer shows on page 275. Wouldn’t such teaching also condemn such contemporary sins such as a refusal to work and support the family, refusal to bear or care for children, unrepentant addiction to pornography, alcoholism or drug abuse as grounds for divorce?

Objections:

  1. If you have a situation where there is abuse a separation is required not divorce!

Ans. First there is no difference between a desertion and a separation. Second, if the abused mother separates how is she going to provide for the children? If she appeals to the state she will have to first divorce the man for the state to grant her child support privileges.

2. Well, ok you can divorce but you can’t remarry, that would be adultery!

Ans. The right to divorce is the same as the right to remarry (Bucer, pg. 280). The whole point of 1 Cor 7:15 is that if you are deserted you are not bound to misery as a single person. You have a right to divorce, which means you have a right to remarry.

3. Divorce defiles the person (Deut 24:1-3) and is even on your own terms simply a deterrent to a greater evil! Is that not sin?

Ans. In the sense that God’s law allows it, it is not a sin. However, in a societal sense there is a social reproach that comes with divorce and remarriage. Lev 21:7 does not allow a man who married a divorced woman to be a priest. Picking up off of this passage, a Roman Bishop named Leo only removed a man from the priesthood for marrying a divorced woman, he did not dissolve the marriage or excommunicate him (Bucer, pg. 270- Leo, Ep. 85, to the African Bishops of Mauritania Caesariensis). Therefore, the  male spouse of a couple where one person has been divorced should not hold positions of Church leadership (The female spouse of course is not eligible for Church office).

———————————————————————————————————————————–

Addendum

Jewish Encyclopedia, on Divorce states,

“In the Mishnaic period the theory of the law that the husband could divorce his wife at will was challenged by the school of Shammai. It interpreted the text of Deut. xxiv. 1 in such a manner as to reach the conclusion that the husband could not divorce his wife except for cause, and that the cause must be sexual immorality (Git. ix. 10; Yer. Soṭah i. 1, 16b). The school of Hillel, however, held that the husband need not assign any reason whatever; that any act on her part which displeased him entitled him to give her a bill of divorce (Giṭ. ib.). The opinion of the school of Hillel prevailed. Philo of Alexandria (“Of Special Laws Relating to Adultery,” etc., ch. v.; English ed., ii. 310, 311) and Josephus (“Ant.” iv. 8) held this opinion. Jesus seems to have held the view of the school of Shammai (Matt. xix. 3-9).”

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5238-divorce

 

The “Real” Zeitgeist Challenge Debunked Friday, Jul 27 2012 

Calvinism is Not Heresy; A Defense of Reformed Theology Against the Attacks of Eastern Orthodox and Romanist Apologists Friday, Jul 27 2012 

Related to this article is my 58 Reasons Why I Am Not Eastern Orthodox. My 58 reasons are why I think Eastern Orthodoxy fails. This article presents why I think Eastern Orthodox Apologists have failed to show that Calvinism fails.

Is Calvinism The Monergism of the Monothelete Heresy? No! My dialogue with the Called to Communion blog on this issue: My comments begin at 137.

Is Reformed Soteriology Nominalism?- Union with Christ-Traducianism-Realism-Nominalism-Original Sin-Ethics-Metaphysics [I wanted to add that if you read this you will notice that I attribute the moral activity of Christ in the COR to the genus of ethics. Yet in my justification debate I place Imputed Righteousness in the genus of relation. To be clear, the former is the object of the righteousness; the later is the way that object is applied to the believer. The former is not ontological, the latter is. That is the moral activity of Christ in the genus of ethics is the object of the imputation, the union with Christ in the genus of relation is the  basis of the imputation]

Is Grace Alien to Man’s Original State or Was the Covenant of Works Itself Gracious? The former I deny the later I affirm

Francis Turretin, John Owen and Carl Trueman Refute Perry Robinson’s and Daniel Photios Jones’ Maximianism by Drake

Does Reformed Theology Teach the Annihilation of Works of Nature for Men Post-Fall? Is Grace Alien To Nature?

The Essence and Energies Distinction in David Bradshaw Refuted

What is Grace? In Jonathan Edwards

Calvin on the Christological Issues that Concern the Lord’s Supper

William Cunningham and Edward Stillingfleet on the Real Presence, Transubstantiation and the Adoration of the Host in the Lord’s Supper

The Covenant of Redemption; Adoptionism; Justification and Christology by Drake

Does Reformed Anthropology and the Covenant of Works Teach a Pelagian View of Pre-Lapsarian Man? by Drake

Gnosticism Compared with Scripturalism by Drake

Is Mary the Mother of God? In Francis Turretin

A Dialogue between a Popish Priest and an English Protestant By Matthew Pool Reviewed by Drake Shelton

Bishop Joseph Hall and Matthew Pool Answer Perry Robinson on Issues of Authority, by Drake

Eastern Orthodox Apologists, Jedi Masters or Professional Bureaucrats by Drake

The Righteousness of God in James Buchanan

John Owen on Semi-Pelagianism

Does Penal Substitutionary Atonement Assert a Split in the Trinity? Drake Shelton

Eastern Orthodox Objections to Calvinism’s View of the Will

Jay Dyer’s “If You’re a Serious Calvinist, to be Consistent, You Must Also Be” Refuted by Drake Shelton

The Vision of God by Vladimir Lossky Reviewed by Drake Shelton

‘Free Choice in Maximus the Confessor’ by Joseph P Farrell Reviewed by Drake Shelton

Answering Jay Dyer’s Jewish objections to Christianity Thursday, Jul 26 2012 

Jay Dyer’s Jewish Objections to Christianity Answered

Dyer’s article can be found here: http://jaysanalysis.com/2010/09/05/jewish-objections-to-christianity/

1. How is there one ontological will in God, while the Persons appear to do separate actions? For example, the Son does actions in His Incarnation the Father doesn’t do. The Spirit likewise. This seems to require separate willings, but will is not hypostatic, it’s a property of nature. This is why Damascene says there is one will and energy in God, inasmuch as there is one God acting.  Nahmanides makes this same objection, I came to find, that occurred to me.  So how is it the three act differently?  Similarly, is generation not an eternal act? If it’s an eternal action, then it must be of nature and of will. But the Nicene Fathers are adamant the Son is not a product of will in any sense. He is of the Father’s nature. But He and the Spirit share that nature, and thus he is auto-generated. But this makes no sense. Similarly, is spiration also an action? If so, it cannot be hypostatic, it must be of nature, but again, nature is common in the Godhead.  Also, if apophatic theology is true, in a hardcore sense, then there can be no Incarnation, since it is not an energy that became Incarnate, but the divine Son, with His divine nature, as Chalcedon says.

>>>Because the One God is not three persons. The One God is the Father. There are separate wills in the persons. I have clearly affirmed with the Nicene Creed 325 a generic unity among the divine persons not a cardinally numeric unity. Damascene is a product of post Constantinople 381 Monadism

You are confusing volitions that reflect nature and volitions that reflect decree. Just because the faculties of will and nature are ontologically distinct does not mean that they can be separated in divine activity.

Nature is not numerically common in the Godhead, it is generically common.

I am a Clarkian I do not believe in apophatic theology.

2. This leads to the next issue: the Neo-Platonic doctrine of trinity. A proto-trinitarian doctrine was already taught in Hellenism in Proclus, Plotinus, and others, including a kind of version in Philo. It is hard to accept that the Eastern Fathers were not Hellenistic as the Eastern apologists tell us, when they can’t even seem to figure out if God gave sex and human bodies as a *result of the fall. The threefold power clearly has antecedents in Hellenism and Platonism.  Did God really shift from Jewish monotheism to Greek Hellenism to give the true doctrine?  http://www.iep.utm.edu/neoplato/  And if so, then why is it that Hellenism is the great enemy of the Maccabean period? Remember – the Maccabean books are in our canon. It is Philo from whence the Logos idea comes.

>>>I do not believe that the One God is a Trinity. The one God is the Father and eternally WITH the One God is his Son and Spirit. The Neo-Platonism is a departure from the Nicene Creed 325 coming with and after Constantinople 381- I lost my career for the second time over this issue. I completely agree with your Neo-Platonic criticisms. I have been making the same arguments for years now.  I originally learned this view from Thomas Hopko.

The sex issue is a problem for the anchoretics not a Protestant like me.

3. Judaism always taught iconoclasm. The Law says not to make alliances with paganism and certainly God forbade paganism as part of His acceptable worship. Yet by the time we are into the second century, pagan basilicas have been converted and are now holy. In fact, Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa and Pope Benedict recently, even go so far as to say that the Trinity reconciles Jewish monotheism and pagan polytheism (emphasis). How far is this from the declarations that God is God alone, and to destroy pagan altars?

>>>As a Puritanic Iconoclastic Protestant whose life was destroyed over  the regulative principle behind Iconoclasm I cannot but give this section a hearty amen and watch the anchoretics squirm!

4. The Law. The Law is said to be eternal. This cannot be typologized into some mystical meaning, inasmuch as God Himself even warned against such an approach (Dt. 13, 17, 18).  In fact, God even says that the Law is near you, even unto your hearts, and is not so mystical and impossible as to need to ascend heaven to grasp it. Yet somehow this is a prophecy of the ascension in St. Paul. God promised blessings and cursings based on how the Jews functioned in that covenant.  When they obeyed, they were blessed, and when they failed, they were cursed. How is it this is turned into a situation where God was for thousands of years “tricking” them, intending the Law to be an impossible task (as Peter says it was), when God said it wasn’t impossible, and it was never intended as a means to merit eternal life?

>>>This was a fundamental basis for Calvin’s rejection of Anchorism. This is nothing new with the Reformation. The Puritans were Masters of the Law and its application to life. One need only read the lectures on the Law at the Westminster Assembly by Anthony Burgess to see this.

Peter is not saying that the law is an impossible task absolutely. It is impossible without Christ.

5. The covenant with Israel is said in several places to be eternal. When this is all spiritualized to mean the Church, it becomes a hermeneutical slippery slope, since the cursing passages are not spiritualized, and are only applied to “flesh Israel.” The hermeneutic appears inconsistent and arbitrary.

>> > First, we have different definition of the word eternal. See my YOUTUBE VID on Creation Ex Nihilo. Second it is not spiritualized absolutely. God is not through with ethnic Israel (Romans 11).We are not saying the cursing passages are spiritualized. They are literally applicable to Christian peoples now. If they were only applied to flesh Israel why does God say that he is applying those curses to pagan nations in Deut 18:12?

6. The LXX has flaws and problems and isn’t the original text. Are we to just trust that Origen is right when he says the evil Jews alterred their own prophets? But Origen was a heretic, and Justin Martyr didn’t even get the Trinity right, so is he any better when he makes this same charge against Trypho?

>>>I have no dog in that fight.

7. How do we participate in divine nature and remain creatures? It’s a mystery. Yet we say it is pantheism when we deify creatures. If the divine nature is simple, then how do we participate in it and remain creatures? we participate in the energies, not the nature. Ok, do we participate in 7 energies, and not 4? 8 and not 3? And for Catholics, what is the difference between supernatural and natural gifts? Which was it the Spirit gave to Bezaleel to design the temple? At what point does a virtue become supernatural and not natural?

>>>Univocal knowledge. It is no mystery. But we do not participate in the manner of God’s knowledge but the object of God’s knowledge. Thus no absolute deifying of creatures. The divine nature is not simple. I don’t believe in the e and e distinction.

8. Did Moses experience the divine radiance? Yes. But the Incarnation had not happened yet. But theosis is supposed to occur only when the Incarnation occurs. If the response is that Moses was deified because it was Christ there, then the Incarnation wasn’t necessary.

>>>That is inherent in Dispensationalism which I reject as a Calvinist. I believe in Covenant Theology. Same salvation in all time periods.

9. If the only way eternal life is restored is through the resurrection of Christ, then why do angels have eternal life, since Hebrews says they do not share in redemption? This means God can grant eternal life without a human sacrifice. Indeed, Anselm’s theory of the Atonement is absurd, but the same objections can be applied to a Neo-platonic or patristic idea that death could not be overcome other than by the Incarnation. Why? God has always been immanent and present in the world as all the theophanies show, and if Moses saw the divine radiance, then why does there have to be an Incarnation or a human sacrifice?

>>>I made that same argument in my Theses why I am not Eastern Orthodox, so I have no dog in that fight. Eternal life is not the same thing as immortality.

The former is spiritual, the later is ontological. His argument assumes upon Christus Victor and a denial of Penal Substitution. Turretin has answered all the fopperies against Anselm’s Satisfaction theory so it is not absurd: https://sites.google.com/a/thekingsparlor.com/the-kings-parlor/apologetics-vs-atheism/the-end-of-christianity-ed-loftus-reply-to-chapter-7.

10. God commanded the extermination of the Canaanites. This is hard for 90% of Christians to accept, but denying this leads to absurdities. Acceptance of it means that God was racial. No Christian churches really teach race. In fact, most churches actively work to oppose race. But unless humans totally changed in the first century, men are still pretty much acting like they did 3,000 years ago.  90% of Christians feel the bizarre need to “spiritualize” the Canaanite conquest and extermination, or even outright reject that “God.” That would be Marcionism, of course, but acceptance of that God entails a God who told the Jews they could practice slavery as well as enact usury on Gentiles. So all you conspiracy chaps who bitch about the Jewish bankers have to admit they got this from God.  God also condones slavery. Now, God says over and over how just His law is, and if this is so, then slavery and usury must in some sense be just. So also must death for adultery, homosexuality, etc. But the only Christians who will say this are heretics (reconstructionists) and amount to nothing.  It also doesn’t work to say this was all temporary, since mankind still operates pretty much like he did then, and we are told in Dt. 4 that the wisdom of God’s law and it’s justice are a light to all nations. Did God’s social justice vanish in the New Testament?

>>>The rejection of racialism is a product of 20th Century Jesuit Integrationism which I am trying to expel.

https://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/does-god-no-longer-care-about-race-and-nationality/

https://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/averting-the-coming-race-war

https://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/category/anti-white-racism/

Anti-racialism is not Historically Protestant, or human for that matter.

I have no problem with the Canaanite conquest. Rutherford dealt with this in detail in Lex Rex. The issue is, the conquest was a positive law not a natural law. His commentary is found at the end of Question XII of Lex Rexhttp://www.constitution.org/sr/lexrex.htm

As to usury that is not absolutely condemned in Calvinism. Also, the institution of slavery is not condemned either as Dabney’s Defence of Virginia amply proved. And by the way, we Puritan types believe in the capital punishments of God’s OT Law.

11. If the Messiah has come, then why has the Church been full of wars, splits, conquests, and evil men, when the Messianic era is said to be one of peace? It’s a spiritual peace, you will say. The nations are supposed to no longer learn war. Do you notice how everything is constantly getting “spiritualized” when it doesn’t appear to match up? But aren’t we in the time of the reality, and not the type? This brings me to the next big one.

>>>Well as  Protestants we know that the time right after the Messiah until the golden age of Post-Mil eschatology will be mostly dominated by the Anti-Christ- the man of Sin- the Roman Papacy. So again, I have no dog in that fight.

12. If we are experiencing the realities in the New Testament, and the Law was the shadow, then why is it we are still in a state of shadow? The Church building and elements are still considered foreshadowings of heaven. Yet, the Temple was already heaven on earth. It was already the ‘real presence’ of God. So it appears we have moved from OT type –> NT type —> heaven. How many heavenly liturgies are there? There’s one in heaven, we know. But on earth there are a thousand different – some shitty, some pretty. If we read Leviticus, it is hard to see how we get from Nadab and Abihu to the Novus Ordo.  It can be responded that this was necessary as the covenant was opened to the Gentiles, but is the situation as dire as Lev. 10? Indeed, as the fathers argue, it’s far worse, since that’s the real presence. Well, if that’s the case, then we should see far more Uzzahs.

>>>First, the Law absolutely considered is not the shadow. The ceremonial law was the shadow.

Because some of the New Covenant promises are not fulfilled until the New Heavens and New Earth. This dispensation is not the final cause of Christ’s Work.

13. Why is the book of Esther in the Christian canon? It specifically condones post-Canaanite genocide and conversion to the supposedly “corrupted Babylonian Judaism.”  From a hardliner trad Catholic or Orthodox perspective, it is hard to see why this is in the canon, as well as the Maccabees. However, once again we will see that the justification will be something along the lines of how it is “spiritualized” or “allegorized.” Again the trend – when in doubt, allegorize it.

>>>Esther 8 and 9 was not genocide it was self-defense. Pre-emptive war is even condoned in the life of David (1 Chron. xix. and in 2 Sam. x).

14. We condemn “Pharisee tradition” but we rely on that tradition in many places, just like Protestants rely on Catholic tradition.

>>>Not all tradition is bad. I am no solo scripturaist. However, if you are referring to the Neoplatonism of Rome I have fully escaped that objection. https://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/drakes-triadology-stuff/

15. It is hard to see why any Jew would have been expected to convert to the Church of the first 2-3 centuries, since it was so full of bizarre and absurd teachings. For example, denying the death penalty was normative, as well as weird views of sexuality. Can you blame any Jew for not joining this group, when they had been warned in the Deuteronomy passages above to have a healthy skepticism about newly rising movements among them?

>>>It is hard to see why any Jew could convert seeing that God had divorced ethnic Israel as a nation (Isa. 50:1) and blinded them (2 Cor 3:15), culminating in the destruction of their temple, being demolished now for almost 2000 years!

16. God made man as a man, yet Catholicism and Orthodoxy want men to live like angels. But God reproved the angels who sought to change their habitation. Why should he expect man to become an angel?

>>>This is the angelic celibacy of Anchorism. I have no dog in this fight. http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/concerning-orthodoxy/against-ancient-christianity

17. David, and most of the fathers of the OT of necessity lived most of their lives in mortal sin, if the moral law is a reflection of Gods essence (as in Catholicism). This is because David had numerous wives, and such an action, if presently a mortal sin, must always have been one, since it is a reflection of God’s essence, which cannot change.

>>>This is dealt with in Fisher’s Catechism Question 72,

“Q. 8. What is POLYGAMY?

A. It is the having more wives or husbands than one at the same time, Mal. 2:14.

Q. 9. Is this a sin contrary to the law of nature?

A. Yes; for it is contrary to the first institution of marriage; God having created  but one woman, as a help meet for man; Gen. 2:22-25, compared with Matt. 19:5, 6.

Q. 10. Is it a sin prohibited in scripture?

A Yes; Lev 18:18 — “Thou shalt not take a wife to her sister, to vex her — in her lifetime.”

Q. 11. What is the meaning of taking a wife to her sister?

A. The meaning is, (according to the marginal reading,) Thou shalt not take one  wife to another; that is, thou shalt not have more wives than one at a time.

Q. 12 But may not this be a prohibition of incest, namely, of marrying the wife’s sister?.

A. No; because it is said, Thou shalt not do it in her lifetime; whereas it would be incestuous in a man to marry his sister-in-law after his wife’s death, as well as to do it in her lifetime; so that the meaning is, Thou shalt not take another wife to her whom thou hast married, by which means they would become sisters.

Q. 13. Who was the first polygamist we read of in scripture?

A. Lamech, of the posterity of Cain, who had two wives, Gen. 4:19.

Q. 14. Were not several of the godly likewise guilty in this matter, as Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others?

A. Yes; but though these and other bad actions of good men are recorded in scripture, they are not approved of, nor proposed for our imitation; but rather set up as beacons, to prevent our making shipwreck on the same rocks.

Q. 15. Has not God even testified his displeasure at the sin of polygamy, in the godly, though we do not read of his reproving them for it in express words?

A. Yes; he has testified his displeasure in the course of his providence, by the emulations, quarrels, and disturbances, that were thus occasioned in their families; as in the instances of Sarah and Hagar, in Abraham’s family, Gen. 21:10, 11; of Leah and Rachel, in Jacob’s, Gen. 30:1, 15; and of Hannah and Peninnah, in Elkanah’s family, 1 Sam. 1:6.

Q. 16. Does not God seem to approve of polygamy, when he says to David, “I gave thee thy master’s wives into thy bosom?” 2 Sam. 12:8.

A. It being the custom of those times, for succeeding kings to take possession of all that belonged to their predecessors, the meaning is, I have made thee king, in room of Saul, and have given thee the property of all that appertained to him: but we do not read of David taking any of Saul’s wives into his bed.”

Seeing how easily I answered Jay, it is no surprise then that Rabbi Duncan, a Reformed Presbyterian saw more Jewish converts, and a Jewish Scholar named Alfred Edersheim, than any Christian missionary to the Jews ever has.

Samuel Clarke on the Filioque; Filioque and Protestant History Wednesday, Jul 25 2012 

In Samuel Clarke’s The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, (1712) Clarke says,

“The Holy Spirit (or Third Person,) is not Self-existent, but derives his Being or Essence from the Father, (by the Son,) as from the Supreme Cause.” Now in  Part II.1-2 he clearly affirms the Father alone as the Supreme Cause, so it is questionable whether he means the same thing as the Scholastics do with reference to Filioque.

Then on page 424 Clarke quotes Bennett’s Paraphrase with Annotations on the Book of Common Prayer pg. 273, [Referred to in Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Volume 2, By John McClintock, James Strong, pg. 441], “Now this is our present case. To name no more; what greater Authors has the established Church ever had, than Arch-Bishop Laud, Dr. Hammond, Bishop Pearson, and Bishop Stillingfeet? Now all these, (the First, in his Conference with Fisher; the second, in his Discourse of Fundamentals; the third in his Book on the Creed; and the fourth in his Rational Account;) have written their Minds fully and clearly as to this matter. For with respect to the Procession of the Holy Ghost in particular, they have expressed themselves in a most satisfactory manner in defense of the Greek Church; and abundantly declared, that the Belief of the Procession from the Father and the Son, which is asserted in the Athanasian Creed, is not necessary to Salvation. Now this demonstrates, that the Belief of every Proposition in the Athanasian Creed, is not thought by our Church to be necessary to Salvation.”

Here we have the Church of England admitting that Filiqoue is not necessary to salvation and as Turretin, says in Institutes of Elenctic Theology Volume 1 (P & R Publishing: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1992), pg. 309,  3rd Topic. Q. 31. Did the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son? We affirm. “the Greeks ought not to have been charged with heresy”.

 

A Full Refutation of Steve Hays’ Van Tillian and Thomistic Theology Proper Wednesday, Jul 25 2012 

In a recent Triablogue article: Illustrating the Some Truths about the Trinity I was accused of being a Unitarian and holding the same view of God as Dale Tuggy. After making a number of searches I found the debate between Tuggy and Hays on David Waltz’s blog linked here. Tuggy says some things that are clearly Arian so I am not taking sides with him though he does say some things I agree with.

Issues arise concerning the meaning of the word “Trinity”, whether one believes a social view or a Latin/Sabellian view. In either case if it is stated that the One God is a Trinity I deny this proposition. I believe that there are three divine persons in eternity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. However, only one of the persons is cardinally the one God, namely the Father. The word “Unitarian” is too closely connected with a rejection of Christ’s Divine Nature and his Eternal Generation, so I don’t like the label. I would like to be called a Trinitarian. If I must be labeled a Unitarian it is only with a lowercase “u”.

As I have found in other discussions, I have found this problem dominating Steve’s explanations of God as well: I have found that the word “God” can mean at least 6 things in this discussion: 1. The Father/Monarchy; Concreted person; 2. The Divine Nature; abstract substance; or that an uncreated person possesses a divine nature 3. Godhead  4.Source of operation; 5. Auto-theos: that is uncaused 6. An indirect sense in that the Logos and the Holy Spirit are called God as they inter-dwell (perichoresis) and are consubstantial with the Father.

I take meanings 1, 4, and 5. Steve has no definition of God and so he has no basis or standard to hold his opponents to when they use this term.  Before I begin, my view is not Eastern Orthodox, considered as an institution. There are Orthodox ministers who explain God the same way that I do but as an Institution, I reject the Eastern Orthodox explanation of God. For more info see David Waltz’s articles on the Nicene Creed 325 vs. Constantinople 381 here here and here and my denial of the essence and energy distinction which is nothing short of ADS Monadism here.

As a side note I thank Hays for posting his blogs publicly because cowards like Bob Letham and Jim Dodson refused to let my examinations of Latin based Protestant Scholastic Theology Proper become public but this summary lets the reader see in detail the problems with Thomistic and Van Tillian Theology Proper.

I have about 25 pages of commentary on Hays and Tuggy’s articles written here (A mere drop in the bucket compared to the 122 pages dialogue with Dodson). The following 27 Theses summarize in condensed form my arguments against Hays’ Van Tillian Theology Proper.

Composition was the case that they gave me

 1. The word “God” can mean at least 6 things in this discussion: 1. The Father/Monarchy; Concreted person; 2. The Divine Nature; abstract substance; or that an uncreated person possesses a divine nature 3. Godhead  4.Source of operation; 5. Auto-theos: that is uncaused 6. An indirect sense in that the Logos and the Holy Spirit are called God as they inter-dwell (perichoresis) and are consubstantial with the Father.

I take meanings 1, 4, and 5. Steve has no definition of God and so he has no basis or standard to hold his opponents to when they use this term

2. Steve has  no uniform definition of Unitarianism which he admits.

3. Steve Hays’ denial of logical inferences of scripture being scripture itself is Anabaptist.

4. Steve must argue that the persons of the Father and Son are synonymous because the persons are relations on his view, not subject/consciousnesses.

5. All of Steve’s arguments intended to label me a Unitarian are confused. On my Nicene view, being the one God is a hypostatic property of the Father, not a divine attribute. This he never acknowledges.

6. Steve does not understand that the Numeric distinctions between the divine natures that I am using pertain to Cardinal Numerics, not Nominal or Ordinal Numerics.  Mr. Dodson and I spilled much ink on this issue.

7. Steve’s Dialectic between human reason and language with exegetical theology is Adoptionist, Anabaptist, and Papist. The Papists love when Protestants espouse a paradoxical and multi-interpretive Bible. It feeds right into the authority of the Hierarchy. (Thus Rutherford’s Free Disputation)

8. Steve uses mirrored images and symmetries to explain God ad intra, but his epistemology does not allow created objects to speak of God ontologically because that would allow human language to speak of God univocally.  [https://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/taking-steve-hays-to-task-on-archetypalectypal-knowledges-dependency-on-divine-simplicity/]

Using symmetry to explain God ad intra is using created spatial categories as a created univocal ontological framework which his epistemology does not allow.

9. Hays succumbs (implicitly) to the exact error that Farrell pointed out by defining the persons as attributes. [http://www.anthonyflood.com/farrellphotios.htm] The persons are therefore not subjects but predicates.

10. Steve fails to describe to us if the persons are part of the one God, each wholly the one God or what.

11. It is inconsistent and illogical to speak of one cardinally numerical nature and then refer to it as them.

12. Steve asks if the divine attributes are reducible or irreducible. What Steve is asking for is how the compositions are unified. Is there a collector behind the collections? The issue is I deny that compositions require a unifier for the  existence or essence of a subject. It is Steve’s task first to prove that a collection requires a collector or that composition depends on simplicity. If it were the case,

#1 How did distinction ever extend from an absolute simple Monad to begin with? Plotinus could not answer this and I’ll assume Steve can’t either.

#2 If it is the case, can the distinctions between the persons be reduced? If so how does that not terminate with the same absolutely simple monad that I have been accusing him of believing in for years now? Yet Steve tells us he doesn’t believe in ADS? Which is it Steve?

13. Steve refuses me (As a Scripturalist) the distinction between colloquial language and technical philosophical language yet he appeals to this distinction himself.

14. On Steve’s view, the divine persons are representations of each other, so then what is the reality of the representation? Could it be a monad? Second, knowledge of God is supposed to be a created similitude of that which is uncreated. So the knowledge of God with respect to object is a created representation, of an uncreated representation of a monad. Break out the Ragu, word pasta for all!

15. On Steve’s view, selfhood and personality can have no definition in human language. Just like in Plotinus where the monad suffers no distinctions required for a mind or intellect, Steve’s divine self is equally impersonal and completely incompatible with the ontology of men. Say goodbye to the hypostatic union. He has two choices in front of him: #1 Assert Plotinus’ system of not a hypostatic union but a substantial pantheistic union. #2 Take the Adoptionist and Nestorian system of no ontological compatibility between humanity and divinity.

16. Steve does not understand the differences between Thomistic Analogies. There are numerous types of analogical knowledge and he consistently tries to escape into the ambiguity and ignorance of most people he discusses this issue with. Sadly, thus will not work with me. https://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/analogy-of-proportionality-refuted-univocal-predication-defended/

17. Steve refuses any kind of subordination among the divine persons which paints him necessarily in the Tri-Theist corner.

18. On Steve’s view the unicity of God is not revealed. Therefore we know not what we worship; leaving us spiritual Samaritans (John 4:22) and as Rutherford points out in Free Disputation, Anabaptists or completely ignorant Papists that must rely implicitly on an infallible Church official . He even goes to the lengths of saying that there are numerous possible formulations. This is exactly the position of the Anabaptists who refused to believe in the Establishment of One True Religion.

19. Steve falls into the trap of looking to Plotinus’ One to escape the polytheism of the ANE. How is that placing Yahweh outside of Paganism? It doesn’t.

20. Steve’s use of the Mandelbrot set posits a generic unity not a numeric unity because a set is not multiple parts of one thing but a set of different things. This contradicts his earlier numeric unity.

21. Just like in Plotinus, Steve’s God is a monad. Personality or the nous is produced by the monad not constituted by it.

22. Saying that Jesus is the same Cardinally Numeric person as  Yahweh is Sabellian. And if he denies that the unicity of God has been revealed he basically vindicates Sabellius and makes the business of Church discipline impossible.

23. Steve denies that humanity can assume divine properties and prerogatives thus he denies the hypostatic union.

24. Steve does not understand the difference between divine attributes and properties. He confuses them numerous times and speaks as if they were synonymous. Thus he confuses nature and person.

25. Steve’s dialectic between human language and divine revelation is a denial of Bible Translation which requires apriori linguistic assumptions and theological assumptions.

26. Steve has a fundamental confusion between the ontological and economical trinity! This mistake is fleshed out more in Latin Theology Proper with the Filioque Heresy. Steve is saying that the distinction between Father and Son in the Ontological Trinity is the same distinction in the economy of salvation. This refutes Steve’s interpretation of John 17:3 and his understanding of Yahweh.

27. Steve wants the paradoxes in math, science and logic to be parallel with God ad intra and applicable to Theology Proper, but then he turns around and says that God is in a class all by himself. If that is so then he cannot appeal to the paradoxes in math, science and logic.

How then Should We Pray? ; Case Studies in Nicene Triadology vs. Thomistic and Van Tillian Sabellianism Saturday, Jul 21 2012 

Mat 6:6 But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

Mat 6:9 “Pray, then, in this way: ‘Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.

John 14: 13  Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

John 15: 16  You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.

John 16:23 In that day you will not question Me about anything. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you. 24 Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be made full.

Rom 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ

Rom 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

Eph 2: 18 for through Him [Christ-DS]we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

Eph 6: 18 With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

Heb 13:15 Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name.

1 Pet 2:5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

1 Pet 5: 10 After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ

What about Acts 7:59? “They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!”

When Stephen is said to call on the Lord we have the Greek word “epikaleō”. This is from the root “kaleō”. This word is never translated a single time as prayer in the NT:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G2564&t=KJV&page=1

Just like in all the previous passages we have considered, Jesus is the mediator and bridge to God. Stephen sees the Lord Jesus when he says, “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” and invokes him as his mediator and only bridge to God. It wasn’t like Stephen was in a corner with his eyes closed and his head bowed praying to Jesus.

In Luke 16:22 we read, “Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and *saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.”

So does this passage prove that we should pray to Abraham? NO!

An invocation is not a prayer.

So these passages are very clear. We pray to Father, through the Son in the Spirit. The Son and the Spirit are man’s apparatus-man’s equipment to perform divine activity and participate in divine nature (2 Pet 1:3-5). They give us this ability precisely because they are divine uncreated persons.  Prayer to Jesus is typical Sabellian heresy.

Does God no Longer Care About Race and Nationality? Saturday, Jul 21 2012 

In my defense of racial separation and Nationalism, I have had numerous so-called Reformed apologists and Eastern Orthodox apologists appeal to the same passages that Bible hating Liberals appealed to during the integration debates about 50 years ago:

Eph 2: 11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “ Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, [i] excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope andwithout God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you whoformerly were far off [j]have been brought near [k] by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the [l]barrier of the dividing wall, 15 [m]by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might [n] make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, [o]by it having put to death the enmity.”

Is the Bible requiring integration? Is the Bible demanding a social monad? Francis Nigel Lee replies in his NATIONALITY, RACE AND INTERMARRIAGE,

“After establishing the church at Corinth, Paul preached in Ephesus for two years in a separate building from the Synagogue. That separation represents the long-lasting split between Judaism and Christianity.

Yet liberalistic theologians never tire of pointing to Ephesians, Colossians and Galatians — in support of their integrationistic position. In Ephesians, they maintain that Christ “has broken down the middle wall of partition” between Christian converts from Judaism and from the Gentiles — so that the latter “are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and the Household of God.”

But the context solves the problem, before the liberals created  it!  For the Gentile Christians are here called “fellow-citizens with the saints” — with the Jewish Christians alone, and not with other Israelites in Palestine nor even with other Gentiles elsewhere.   The Gentile Christians’ solidarity is here only with elect Jewish Christians, and with the elect of all other Non-Ephesian Christian Gentiles.

They are not fellow-citizens of the same geographical area or earthly state. How could they be, strung out from the Near East across Southern Europe?  They are spiritual fellow-citizens in Christ’s heavenly kingdom, by the same Spirit.   They are “a holy temple in the Lord in Whom you too are built together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.”

“For our citizenship is in Heaven.”

 

 

Secularism; The Handmaid of the Jesuits Part 2; German Rationalism; Liberal Christianity and the Jesuits Tuesday, Jul 17 2012 

GERMAN RATIONALISM, IN ITS RISE, PROGRESS, AND DECLINE By DR. K. R. HAGENBACH

“In Germany also the Jesuits had exercised a wide influence: public instruction was almost completely in their hands, and German courts, like that of Yienna at the time of Maria Theresa, those of Bavaria, and of the Palatinate in special, were wholly in their control. But about the same time that the Jesuits were driven from South America, the day began to dawn in Germany, first in matters of science and then in ecclesiastical matters, more especially as to the relation of the German Catholic Church and its clergy to Rome. The voices which at the time of the great Reformation were raised in favour of an independence of Rome, now came from the clergy itself. A prelate of high rank, the Archbishop of Treves, had, as early as when Clement XIII. sat in the papal chair (1765), published a work under the assumed name of Justinus Febronius, in which he asserted the ancient rights of the bishop in contrast to those of the pope, and pleaded for a return of the independent German Catholic Church, as it existed before the Council of Trent; a work which the friends of the hierarchy and the Jesuits most of all, were specially bitter against, and whose author was at last compelled to retract, when the influence which it had exerted upon the whole Catholic world could not be recalled. And in the other departments of theological science there were constantly manifested the proofs of the influence of the sceptical literature of Protestant countries, great as was the demand for that literature, even among the Catholic clergy.” Pg. 385

So we see that as German Rationalism is rising it is the Jesuits who are mounted atop. They are controlling it and as Hagenbach pointed out earlier,

“It is singular that the Jesuits, who were the first to take up Kepler when he was proscribed by the Protestants, were the first to side with Wolf [Christian Wolf– Leader of Rationalistic Philosophy at the time and accused of atheism-DS]; and they not only allowed his writings to pass uncondemned, but it was a Jesuit who first proposed that he be made a baron.” Pg. 36

 

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: