Homoousios;Generic or Numeric? Wednesday, Aug 29 2012 

Leo Donald Davis says,

“However, homoousios was at the time a notoriously slippery word and could have three principal meanings. First, it could be generic; of one substance could be said of two individual men, both of whom share human nature while remaining individuals.

Secondly, it could signify numerical identity, that is, that the Father and the Son are identical in concrete being. Finally, it could refer to material things, as two pots are of the same substance because both are made of the same clay. Constantine himself explained that “homoousios was not used in the sense of bodily affections, for the Son did not derive His existence from the Father by means of division or severance, since an immaterial, intellectual and incorporeal nature could not be subject to any bodily affection. These things must be understood as bearing a divine and ineffable signification.” The point was that the third meaning of homoousios, with its connotations of materiality was not the meaning used in the creed. That left the two previous meanings. It seems that the Council, intent on stressing the equality of the Son with the Father, had the first meaning explicitly in mind. Father and Son are homoousioi in that they are equally divine.”

Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1983. Pg. 61

Yet in desperation Davis adds,

“But implicit in their statement was numerical identity, that Father and Son are of a single divine substance, an aspect brought out by Athanasius in the course of the long struggle following the Council.”

Even if that was the case, which he offered no reference to prove, it did not get Ecumenical status until 381. My position stands Truly Nicene in nature and my detractors must acknowledge a refusal of the Original Nicene Creed. That’s gotta hurt.


On the face of it:

1. A generic unity is a denial of the Pagan, Babylonian and Hindu Triune God.

2. This phrase, “of one substance could be said of two individual men”
necessarily affirms an ontological parallel between God and Man thus
closing the door on Van Til and Aquinas’  Analogy of Proportionality
and leaving Clark’s Univocal predication fully vindicated.

So if my readers are consistent and honest Christian men you will do one of two things:

1. Publicly renounce the Nicene Creed 325 as heretical and put
yourself in an Ecclesiastical position utterly unknown to any Orthodox
Christian peoples since the First Ecumenical Council.

2. Draw up petitions to have the Westminster Confession amended
agreeable to the Nicene Creed 325 with a single ontological procession
of the Spirit, renounce Thomism and embrace Dr. Clark’s Epistemology
and contact me so that I can apply for membership.

Jeremiah Crowley on the Foreign Policy of the United States Government Saturday, Aug 25 2012 

Rev. 17: 15 And he *said to me, “The waters which you saw where the harlot sits, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues. 16 And the ten horns which you saw, and the beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire.17 For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled. 18 The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

Romanism a Menace to the Nations (1912) by Jeremiah Crowley (Ex-Roman Catholic Priest ), pg. 207:

“Romanism is not a religion: Romanism is first and last political. According to the most trustworthy statistics, eighty million followers have left the Roman Catholic Church during the past seventy-five years. The Roman Catholic Hierarchy has been exposed and dethroned by the despoiled Catholic people in Italy, France and Portugal. It is being exposed and dethroned by the Catholic people in Spain, Austria, Belgium, Poland, Ireland and other so-called Catholic countries, where it is trembling, tottering, failing.

Strange as it may seem to the casual observer, it is true, nevertheless, that in many Catholic countries the papal policy of power and pelf has been repudiated as a curse by the Catholic people and their representatives, while in non-Catholic countries the papal policy is embraced for the graft that is in it, by non-Catholic politicians elected to office by the credulous non-Catholic people: and this is especially true in the English-speaking countries-England-Canada and the United States. These unscrupulous politicians, high and low, are only too wiling to serve the pope in his ungodly efforts to regain temporal power.”

Crowley did not say that the foreign policy of the United States is to be lead in the 20th Century by Corporate Interests seeking the takeover of all solvent currency.  He did not say that it was lead by Jewish interests. He did not say that it would be lead by a Christian desire for theocracy (because Romanism is not a religion it is a political powerhouse). Crowley said that the foreign policy of the United States would be lead by the Papacy to regain its temporal power that was taken from it by the Protestant Reformation. International Banking, currency, Jewish Bankers, and religion are definitely involved but the end game is clear: Turning the wealth of the  United States of America into a Military Industrial Complex through theft by the Federal Reserve Bank, its IRS crony Chicken-hawks, and its diabolical Central Intelligence Agency (The Secret Deposing Power of the Pope), to depose all traditional governments and religions and replace them with an international government which is controlled in secret by the Jesuits and the Vatican but will in the end be openly controlled by that man of sin and lawlessness: The Pope. But seeing that the Pope and his Jesuit minions were behind this world empire all along that same international empire (The United nations or one of its successors, i.e. the Beast) will rise up against the Papacy and Destroy it. At this point, the Seventh Vial will be poured out upon the Papacy and Islam and the Millennium of Postmillennialism will be ushered in.


Bill Maher and his Jesuit Buddy George Coyne Friday, Aug 24 2012 

Notice how acidic Maher is with most Christians but when he sits down with a Bible hating Jesuit its smoochy smoochy, kissy wissy. Now this guy is someone to respect ok all you atheists. Yeah come on board with my true paymasters.  Who is Bill really working for?

Drake’s Complete Scripturalist Systematic Theology Friday, Aug 24 2012 

At the request of a number of my readers I have recently finished polishing up my Systematic Theology. Seeing that I am the first to attempt  a complete Scripturalist Systematic Theology in a single Volume I am going to provide  this work cost free and available at Google docs because I want to promote the Epistemology and Metaphysics of Gordon Clark.  I will hopefully finish a book on the Trinity in the next couple months which I will also provide cost free.  That book should seal the deal on the Clark-Van Til debate for all time.

My  Systematic Theology needs more editing but not by me.  It will cost a couple grand to get this book professionally edited and I don’t have that kind of cash right now.  If anyone wants to contribute to that work please contact me and I will make a paypal donation option available.

My  Systematic Theology can be permanently accessed by clicking on the image I have on this post in the sidebar or you can click this link: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_Uia_WumWyCbTh2SXYzMjNKMXM/edit?pli=1

If you don’t like working with Google docs I have made the document downloadable. Just click File>Download. If it gives you the phrase “Sorry, we are unable to scan this file for viruses” it still offers you the option to “Download anyway”.

Is Gary North A Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor? Case studies in the contemporary lust for filthy lucre in the Reformed Church Sunday, Aug 19 2012 

I remember being brainwashed in Seminary that the Puritans completely blew it with regards to economics. I had suspicions about that then. They have now been completely confirmed.  Since my introduction to Libertarianism, and in specific the Austrian School of Economics, I have been suspicious of learning my Economic theory from Jews and Jesuits.  Ludwig Von Mises, the primary character behind our contemporary push towards the Austrian School, was born a rich Jew. Gary North, adds that he laid the foundations for his own Libertarianism by reading another Jew named Murray Rothbard.  Now the Jesuit history behind Libertarianism is fascinating as it buttressed the Anti-Christian practice of usury. In McCabe’s A Candid History of the Jesuits pg. 282-283, we find that the Jesuit Houses in Peking, China made a fortune, charging interest up to 24%! Does that sound familiar to you my American reader?

I will never forget the epic scenes in the First season of the Showtime series The Borgias, where Girolamo Savonarola, preached so passionately against the corruption under the Borgia Pope Alexander VI (Rodrigo Lanzol Borgia-Papacy: 1492-1503), giving specific emphasis to the common use of usury.

In 1492 Jews were expelled from Spain and some 9,000 Iberian Jews were welcomed into the Papal States in Rome by Borgia Pope, Alexander VI. He did the same with expelled Jews from Portugal in 1497 and from Provence in 1498. Under the Borgia Pope Alexander VI, the Jews made a fortune off of excessive usury.

It was in the 14th and 15th centuries that the rise of the Marrano Jews (Jews forcibly converted to Christianity) were creating problems for the Catholics as this new demographic was producing a number of Judaizer heresies. However, the Jesuits in the 16th century allied themselves with the Murranos. The Cross and the Pear Tree: A Sephardic Journey by Victor Perera, mentions on page 76 that Loyola was called a Jew-lover and many Murranos later became Jesuits. And let the reader not forget the earlier Borgia House connection because the co-founder of the Jesuit Order was Don Francis Borgia. Thus the Borgia House-Jesuit-Jewish Zionist-Usury Financed International Banking Cartel came into its own. Is it just a coincidence that Marx was educated at the Jesuit High School in Trier, Germany? Is it not strange that the Charging Bull on Wall Street looks exactly like the Family Crest of the House of Borgia and the crest of the Duke of Valentois, a title of nobility first given to Cesare Borgia in 1498? Is it just a coincidence that the Salamancan Jesuits  like Molina and Juan de Mariana laid the foundations for Libertarianism and the Austrian School of Economics?  Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian School, relied heavily on them.

In Vatican Assassins, 1039-1040, EJP quotes, David I. Kertzer’s  The Popes Against the Jews [Bracketed comments are EJP’s]

“In September 1882, the first international anti-Semitic congress was held in[apostate Protestant, Masonic Lutheran, Jesuit-controlled, later-to-be firebombed] Dresden, with representatives present from [apostate Protestant] Germany and the [Roman Catholic] Austro-Hungarian empire. In reporting on the event, Civilta Cattolica recounted that although many violent speeches had been made denouncing the Jews, the ‘relatively moderate’ resolutions proposed by Reverend Adolf Stoecker had been approved [sealing the future fate of Dresden, as the Order’s Nuremberg Laws of 1935 would also seal the fate of Bavaria’s Nuremberg]. Stoecker, a Protestant minister [like America’s Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor, anti-Jew, once anti-Pope, Christian minister Texe Marrs], was one of the most influential pioneers in the development of German anti-Semitism. . . .But let us return to Civilta Cattolica, where by 1890, the ailing [Jesuit] Father Oreglia had passed on his leadership in the Jesuits’ crusade against the Jews to colleagues. One of these men, [Jesuit] Father Raffaele Ballerini, . . . wrote [in ascribing to the Jews the secret goal of the Jesuit Order] . . . ‘The whole Jewish race [in fact, the White Gentile-led Company of Jesus] . . . is conspiring to achieve this reign over all the world’s peoples [as declared in the Jesuit-authored The Protocols of Learned Elders of Zion].’ . . . They [in fact, the Jesuits] began ‘a remorseless, constant war against the Christian religion and especially against Catholicism [the same war carried out from 1789 to 1815 by Jesuit Adam Weishaupt’s Bavarian Illuminati directing high-level, Grand Orient Freemasonry via the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars] . . . and an unbridled campaign of usury, monopolies, and thievery of every sort [via the ten planks of the Order’s Masonic The Communist Manifesto], to the detriment of those among whom they have enjoyed and continue to enjoy civil liberties [which high crimes the Jesuits have committed in every host country since the inception of the Society, especially in Fourteenth Amendment America].’ . . .‘For the Jews’, [in fact, the Jesuits] the Jesuit concluded, ‘brotherhood of peace [set forth in the Jesuit-edited The Documents of Vatican II] were and are merely pretexts to enable them [the Jesuits] to prepare—with the destruction of [both “heretic” Protestant and “liberal” Roman Catholic] Christianity, if possible, and the undermining of Christian nations [which conspiratorial undermining the Order has accomplished in both Protestant and Roman Catholic nations during the Devil’s Twentieth Century]—the messianic reign [aspired to by the Pope of Jesuit making] that they believe the Talmud promises them…[My interruption-DS] In 1890 [Jesuit] Ballerini devoted three long articles in Civilta Cattolica to ‘the Jewish Question in Europe.’ The following year these were bound together and published as a ninety-page book to reach a broader audience.

The Jews [in fact, the Jesuits] ‘formed a foreign nation in the nations where they resided [as do the Jesuits], a sworn enemy of the nation’s well being [as are the Jesuits, evidenced by the Order’s scores of legal expulsions due to its quest to control the governments of all nations]. . . . Although they may live in France, in Germany, in England, they never become French, or German, or English, but remain Jews and nothing but Jews [as do the cosmopolitan Jesuits remain only Jesuits under their secret vows]. In an 1893 article titled ‘Jewish Morality,’ another Jesuit author, Father Saverio Rondina, listed all the recent changes aimed against the [Masonic] Jews [fronting for the Jesuits] in Europe, ranging from fraudulent banking practices [evidenced today by the Order’s Federal Reserve Bank] to charges of murder [constantly committed by the Order’s CFR-controlled Central Intelligence Agency]. . . . The Jewish nation [in fact, the Jesuit Order], Father Rondina wrote, ‘does not work, but traffics in the property and the work of others [like the Order’s Chicago Board of Trade]; it does not produce, but lives and grows fat with the products of the arts [like the totally morally depraved “Hollywood” Jesuit Theater] and industry of the nations [like the Order’s CFR-controlled New York Stock Exchange] that give it refuge. It is the giant octopus that with its oversized tentacles envelops everything [as does the Jesuit Order, marvelously described in 1844 by Eugene Sue in his The Wandering Jew]. It has its stomach in the banks [Bank of America, Chase Manhattan Bank, etc.] . . . and its suction cups everywhere: in contracts and monopolies [Halliburton and Bechtel Corporations] . . . in postal services and telegraph companies [A. T. & T.], in shipping [W. R. Grace and Co.] and in the railroads, in the town treasuries and in state finance. . . . It represents the kingdom of capital [controlled by the Order from Hong Kong, Zurich, London and New York],. . . the aristocracy of gold. . . . It reigns supreme. . . . What governs is Masonry, and this too is governed by the Jews [first declared by Masonic Jesuit Abbe Augusten de Barruel in his 1797 treatise on the French Revolution, repeated by Ludendorff and Hitler].’ ”

Is it possible that Communism, that primary weapon of the Order, designed to supplant all traditional governments and religions pursuant unto the destruction and subsequent confiscation of white property, has been firmly supported by a controlled Pro-Usury-Libertarian-Gold Standard feigned opposition that increases the Order’s wealth by boosting the price of gold? I was taught by a Free Market Economist, John Robbins, that value is subjective not objective. Yet what is the whole basis behind the Gold Standard? Objective value. Gold has no objective value and neither does a federal reserve note. Both can be manipulated, confiscated, and re-distributed.


Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 142. What are the sins forbidden in the eighth commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are…usury (Psalm 15:5)

Fisher’s Catechism QUESTION 75. What is forbidden in the Eighth Commandment? (Taken from Reformed.org)

“Q. 29. What is it to monopolise?

A. It is to engross commodities, in order to enhance the price of them.

Q. 30. What is the worst kind of monopolising or forestalling?

A. It is the buying up grain, or other provisions, in large quantities, in order to exact a higher price for them afterwards.

Q. 31. In what consists the evil of this sin?

A. They who are guilty of it enrich themselves upon the spoils of others, Ezek. 22:29; they “grind the faces of the poor,” Isaiah 3:15; and bring upon themselves the curse of the people, Proverbs 11:26 — “He that withholdeth corn, the people shall CURSE him; but blessings shall be upon the head of him that selleth it.”


Q. 32. What is it to take USURY, according to the proper signification of the word?

A. It is to take gain, profit, or interest, for the loan of money.

Q. 33. What kind of usury or interest is lawful?

A. That which is moderate, easy, and no way oppressive, Deut. 23:20, compared with Ex. 22:21.

Q. 34. How do you prove that moderate usury is lawful?

A. From the very light of nature, which teaches, that since the borrower proposes to gain by the loan, the lender should have a reasonable share of his profit, as a recompense for the use of his money, which he might otherwise have disposed of to his own advantage, 2 Cor. 8:13.

Q. 35. What is the usury condemned in scripture, and by right reason?

A. It is the exacting of more interest or gain for the loan of money, than is settled by universal consent, and the laws of the land, Proverbs 28:8 — “He that by usury, and unjust gain, increaseth his substance, shall gather it for him that will pity the poor.”

Q. 36. How do you prove from scripture, that moderate usury, or common interest, is not oppression in itself?

A. From the express command laid upon the Israelites not to “oppress a stranger,” Ex. 23:9; and yet their being allowed to take usury from him, Deut. 23:20; whicH they would not have been permitted to do, if there had been an intrinsic evil in the thing itself.

Q. 37. Is it warrantable to take interest from the poor?

A. By no means; for, if such as are honest, and in needy circumstances, borrow a small sum towards a livelihood, and repay it in due time, it is all that can be expected of them; and therefore the demanding of any profit or interest, or even taking any of their necessaries of life in pledge, for the sum, seems to be plainly contrary to the law of charity, Ex. 22:25-28; Psalm 15:5.

Q. 38. Were not the Israelites forbidden to take usury from their brethren, whether poor or rich? Deut. 23:19 — “Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother.”

A. This text is to be restricted to their poor brethren, as it is explained, Ex. 22:25, and Lev. 25:25, 35; or, if it respects the Israelites indifferently, then it is one of the judicial laws peculiar to that people, and of no binding force now.

Q. 39. What is the spring of all these different ways by which men defraud and Injure one another in their outward estate?

A. Covetousness, Luke 12:15, or an inordinate prizing and loving of worldly goods, Psalm 62:10.

Q. 40. What should affright and deter every one from such wicked practices?

A. The consideration of the curse that shall enter into the house of the thief, Zech. 5:3, 4; and of the vengeance that shall light upon such as go beyond and defraud their neighbour: for, “the Lord is the avenger of all such,” 1 Thess. 4:6.”

This is where the skeletons in Gary North’s closet really start to stick out. In North’s Usury, Interest, and Loans: A Brief Summary of Biblical Teaching, With Bibliography  North states, “There is not one verse — not one hint — in the Bible that taking excessive interest is wrong.” What he means is, if you take his view of Hereditary slavery, then upon that foundation, “There is not one verse — not one hint — in the Bible that taking excessive interest is wrong”.

North wants to know where the Bible allows usury, but condemns excessive usury.

In Fisher’s quotation above in answer to q. 36 Fisher says, “From the express command laid upon the Israelites not to “oppress a stranger,”  Ex. 23:9; and yet their being allowed to take usury from him, Deut. 23:20; which they would not have been permitted to do, if there had been an intrinsic evil in the thing itself.”

Next, North says, “A non-charity loan could be collateralized by a piece of rural land. The borrower could lose his land for up to 49 years if he defaulted. The 49-year limit was established in terms of the sabbatical periods of seven years: seven times seven. This is discussed in Leviticus 25, the chapter on the jubilee year. [1] A non-charity loan was not under any restriction with respect to interest. A person who defaulted on a commercial loan that had not been collateralized by land could be sold into slavery, but a unique kind. He had to be paid. Also, he did not receive tools of production at the end of his term of service. [2] This term could be up to 49 years….[3] He who denies that Jesus annulled the Jubilee laws owes it to his followers to explain why the Mosaic law’s authorization of inter-generational slavery is not still in force.

Leviticus 25:44-46 was widely was cited by defenders of the South’s slave system prior to 1865. [4] I think it is wise not to attempt to resurrect it now. Except for Jesus’ words in Luke 4, there is no explicit or implicit annulment of inter-generational slavery in the New Testament.

In short, [5] a Christian who cites the Mosaic laws governing the prohibition against interest has a lot of explaining to do. He had better understand the implications of his position.

[6] The Mosaic laws governing interest-taking on charitable loans were aspects of the national sabbatical year, including the crucial provision, the six-year term of slavery. This all ended when Israel disappeared as a nation in 70 A.D. These laws were not re-established by the New Testament.

Conclusion: the Mosaic laws governing charitable loans are defunct. There is no more national sabbatical year and no more jubilee year.”

[1]. The first underlined statement here has already been refuted. Fisher pointed out that Ex 23:9 forbid the Jews to oppress the stranger. That is a restriction with respect to interest.

[2]. Slavery was not limited to 49 years. That pertained to the Israelites, not the heathen. R.L. Dabney in his Defence of Virginia says,

“The antithesis in the position of the two laws [Lev. 25:44-46-DS] shows that these heathen slaves were not to go free at the year of Jubilee, like Hebrew slaves. They are to be bondmen forever. They and their children, slaves by birth, are to descend from father to son, as heritable property. There was to be “no seventh year freedom here; there is no Jubilee liberation.” So says the learned divine, Moses Stuart, of Andover, himself an anti-slavery man. And so say all respectable Hebrew antiquaries. Indeed it would be hard to construct language defining more strongly and fully all those features of domestic slavery most contradictory to the theory of Abolitionists. They were to be bought and sold. They were heritable property: (Mr. Sumner would prove hence, “mere chattels.”) (Here is involuntary slavery for life, expressly authorized to God’s own peculiar and holy people, in the strongest and most careful terms…  An honest mind can make nothing less of their words. But in Numbers xxxi. 25 to 30, and Joshua ix. 20 to 27, we have instances which are, if possible, still stronger. In the former passage the people of Midian had been conquered by God’s command, and the captives and spoils brought home; the captives to be slaves for life according to the law of Leviticus, ch. xxv. The book of Numbers then proceeds: “And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, Take the sum of prey that was taken both of man and of beast, thou and Eleazer the priest and the chief fathers of the congregation; and divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them who went out to battle, and between all the congregation. And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses and of the sheep: Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazer the priest, for an heave-offering of the Lord. And of the children of Israel’s half thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the Lord.” In verses 40th and 46th, we read farther that the “Lord’s tribute of the persons” of the first half, “was thirty and two ‘persons,” and of the second half, “three hundred and twenty.” Here God commands a portion of these slaves to be set apart to a sacred use, and dedicated to himself, that they might become the property of the ministers of religion. The second instance is not contained in the books of Moses, but in the history of his successor Joshua: we group it with the former, for its similarity. In Joshua, ch. ix., we are told that while he was triumphantly engaged in the destruction of the condemned heathen tribes of Palestine, according to God’s command, the people of Gibeon, a part of the doomed race, despairing of a successful defence, adopted this stratagem to save themselves. Under pretence that they were not of Palestine at all, but from a very distant place, their ambassadors obtained from the leaders of the Israelites a very stringent oath of amity. This pledge the elders incautiously gave, without seeking the divine direction. In a very few days they learned to their astonishment, that these Gibeonites lived in the very heart of Palestine, close to the spot where they were encamped, and that they were of the very race which they were appointed to destroy. But they had sworn in the name of Jehovah not to destroy them. In this state of things, the princes and Joshua determined to punish them for their falsehood, and at the same time substantially observe their oath, by leaving them unhurt, but reducing them to slavery as the serfs of the Tabernacle and its ministers. In verses 23d and 27th, Joshua told them: “Now, therefore, ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen,” (Ebed, i. e., slaves,) “and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God.” “And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation and for the altar of the Lord, even unto this day, in that place which he should choose.” This compact the Gibeonites seem gladly to have accepted. In 2d Samuel, ch. xxi., we find this same race of serfs still living among the Israelites, under the same compact. King Saul, David’s predecessor, having broken it by killing many of them, God himself interposed, and required a satisfaction for the breach. Here we have evidence that the slaves of heathen origin were not freed by the Jubilee, for centuries had now elapsed and they were still slaves. We also see evidence that the contract made by Joshua was not regarded by God as unlawful. In this case, also, we find God accepting a religious offering of slaves for the service of his sanctuary. And these, while real slaves, did not belong each to an individual master, but were slaves to an institution and a caste, a form of bondage always justly regarded as less benevolent than the former.”  (Pg. 117-121)

[3] So what if Christ abrogated Jubilee? That is not the issue. North never even hinted at distinguishing the rights of Jews and Heathens at this point. Fisher already admitted that prohibitions against taking any interest from a fellow Israelite was ceremonial. But our position is not dependant on those relations. Hereditary slavery was authorized in the law of Moses and basing a rejection of Hereditary slavery from King George’s attempt to start a race war here (The presence of African slaves here was a Jesuit plot to destroy the Protestant peoples of this land through race war) simply buttresses my suspicion that North is indeed a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor.

[4] By “resurrecting” does he mean the principle or the practice? Mr. North’s imprecise language becomes overwhelmingly burdensome the more you read him.

[5] It is North who has the explaining to do. Why is it that North seems to consistently fall right in line with the Jesuit-Borgia-Usury Financed International Banking Cartel- Counter Reformation agenda? That is what North needs to explain. Not only do I understand the implications of my own view I understand the implications of Mr. North’s view because I have been living with those implications for 32 years. Demonizing of the Slave Institution here in these original colonies is nothing-less than demonizing the Culture and Peoples of these original colonies, which said culture has been utterly annihilated here in my homeland; pursuant unto the Counter Reformation agenda which I have to work for, pay over 30% taxation to, and am currently exiled in. No, it is North who has the explaining to do.

[6] Wrong! Those laws governed the Israelites. There were general laws that reflected relations with heathen nations but as we have seen, there was a body of natural laws separate from the laws that pertained to Israel as a commonwealth.

In conclusion I would like to draw your attention to a statement made by Reg Barrow, in his SAUL IN THE CAVE OF ADULLAM

“Moving next to _The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin_ (P.E. Hughes, ed. and trans., Eerdmans, 1966), it is evident that Wilson’s [Doug Wilson-DS] view of negative civil sanctions was alien to Calvin and the Geneva Presbyteries. Blasphemies, contradiction of the Word, drunkenness, usury over five percent, dissolute games, missing church, being late for sermons, women (midwives) baptizing, superstitious worship, observing Romish festival days, attending Mass, etc., all came under civil cognizance (usually fines, pp. 53-59).”


Libertarianism Connected to Pluralism

Gary North is known for his devotion to Theonomy and his abhorrence of Pluralism. However, is it possible that he uses this commitment as a Trojan Horse to import numerous Pro-Pluralist ideas into Theonomic communities to eliminate the possibility of a real Christian Nation ever truly developing? I think so.  Ingrained within Libertarian thought is the primacy of the individual and his hunger for competition. Now I do not deny that North has often committed himself to a Patriarchal understanding of the Law of Moses.  His commentaries are full of this. However, his Libertarian poison eliminates the possibility of this ever really developing. Enter Social Contract Theory. The Bible does not teach that men are naturally self-interested individuals that become social through a contract.  The Bible teaches that men are Social and Patriarchal by nature. The great divine Samuel Rutherford said, “Every man by nature is a freeman born, that is, by nature no man cometh out of the womb under any civil subjection to king, prince, or judge, to master, captain, conqueror, teacher…because freedom is natural to all, except freedom from subjection to parents.” (Lex Rex, [Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1982], 51)

Even if Adam had never been beguiled by the serpent in the beginning, man would by nature be subject to his parents.  By nature, from the very innocence of creation God has established order and rank.  Paul speaks of God being the head of Christ, Christ being the head of man and man being the head of woman, who by nature was born under matrimonial subjection (There goes the primacy of self-interest). Admittedly, woman was made for man and under his authority because she originates from him (1 Corinthians 11:8-12).  In our ordinary generation we originate from our parents and therefore by nature are subject to them.  Though Christ is God blessed forever and never created, he is eternally begotten of the Father and has the Father as his head.  Man was made lower than the angels in rank (Hebrews 2, Psalm 8) and have these beings as superiors though not directly under their authority.  So it is clear that by nature, there is order and authority given by nature outside of sin.  However, is this the case with civil government?  What is the difference between the office of father in a family and the office of a king when Isaiah calls him “a nursing father (Isaiah 49:23)?”  The answer is given by Samuel Rutherford: “As a man cometh into the world a member of a politic society, he is, by consequence, born subject to the laws of that society; but this maketh him not, from the womb and by nature, subject to a king, as by nature he is subject to his father who begat him, no more than by nature a lion is born subject to another king-lion; for it is by accident that he is born of parents under subjection to a monarch, or to either democratical or aristocratical governors, for Cain and Abel were born under none of these forms of government properly.” (Ibid.)  The distinction being made by Rutherford is the difference between natural law and positive law.  This distinction is defined by Webster’s Dictionary: “In laws, that which is natural, bindeth universally; that which is positive, not so.  Although no laws but positive are mutable, yet all are not mutable which are positive.”  Therefore, it is clear that paternal authority is different from civil in that paternal authority is universal and therefore natural, while civil authority is regional and temporal in its forms and legislation and therefore positive, mutable, and as a minister with the power of the sword, has its origin from the consequences of sin.

The nature of civil authority is given in Romans 13.  The Divine Right of Kings doctrine interprets this passage as descriptive.  This view is incorrect due to the key terms that regularly describe government for most are not “a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”  Romans 13 is prescribing the authority in much the same way the constitution of the United States is described as “an express powers document.”  This method of delegation is a “regulative principle” (Not to be taken as strictly as it is in Ecclesiastical matters) and the only authority that it has is that which has been expressly stated by God.  To this statement some will object that government has authority in the same way a father does when he tells his son to take his feet off the coffee table.  They will argue that there is no command or prohibition in the Word contrary to one’s foot on the table, but the father has authority to forbid such.  This objector fails to see the distinction between paternal and civil authority. Rutherford pointed out that kings are called fathers metaphorically in the scriptures and tyrannous leaders are metaphorically called leopards and lions in Ezekiel 22:27, and Zephaniah 3:3; “If then, tyrannous judges be not essentially and formally leopards and lions, but only metaphorically, neither can kings be formally fathers.”[Ibid., 62]  Civil power and fatherly power are not of the same essence as this objection implies and “It is answered,- that the argument presupposeth that royal power and fatherly power is one and the same in nature, whereas they differ in nature, and are only one by analogy and proportion; for so pastors of the Word are called fathers, 1 Cor. iv. 15, it will not follow, that once a pastor, evermore a pastor; and that if therefore pastors turn wolves, and by heretical doctrine corrupt the flock, they cannot be cast out of the church.” [Ibid]

The rank individualism and the emphasis on competition creates a certain attitude in these people that cannot be ignored. These people will never win the broad attention of mankind and will keep competing with each other until their group is all but extinct. I would rather have a Parish than a pluralistic social mystery meat and I would rather have a brother than a competitor thank you very much.



Called to Communion’s David Anders Can’t Answer My Criticisms of His Recent Posts on Relics and So He Deleted My Comments Friday, Aug 17 2012 

Called to Communion has recently published a blog Relics, Saints, and the Assumption of Mary by David Anders. Anders did allow my first two comments but only addressed about 5% of what I said. My next series of comments were even more horrifying to him because he became firmly aware that his Protestant Opponent understands the Fathers a bit more than he is comfortable with. So just like the Eastern Orthodox Robert Arakaki, and that Van Tillian James Anderson, Mr. Anders decided to censor his sheep from this troubler of Israel (1 Kings 18:17). And these guys wonder why I am trying to start my own Church. I am giving them opportunities to convince me and  they just keep convincing me that I’m right. The following were my comments:

“Well, yes, that’s what I mean by Christianity – among other things. And, I think I did show that there was some basis for saying this. It’s one thing to say you think I have misconstrued the data. It is another thing to say, “No basis what so ever!”

>>>What I was saying is that you have no basis for your assertion, “relics were indispensable to the former”, which is why I wanted to make a clear connection to the Jewish people because as I showed, relics were not indispensable to the Jews. Veneration wasn’t done in the temple and neither imagery, nor relics nor veneration was done in the synagogue either which shows it was dispensable.

“As far as your references to Synagogue worship – this really isn’t at issue in the post. I don’t remember mentioning synagogue worship or Jewish art. Really, the post has nothing to do with that.”

>>>But this regards Jewish worship which after the tabernacle meant Temple and Synagogue worship. Neither of which contained what you say they contained.

“Rather than go point by point from here on, let me restate the central focus of the post – which I think you misconstrue.”

>>>Even if I did, that does not remove the problems that I showed with many other things in your post. You don’t want to have to reply to them so you are trying to escape by finding some ambiguity in one of my replies among many replies.

“Ancient Jews and Hebrews believed that some people were gifted with miraculous powers due to their close relationship to God”

>>>But is that what you believe?

John of Damascus, On Holy Images Part 2,

“Behold, then, matter is honoured, and you dishonour it. What is more insignificant than goat’s hair, or colours, and are not violet and purple and scarlet colours? And the likeness of the cherubim are the work of man’s hand, and the tabernacle itself from first to last was an image. “Look,” said God to Moses, “and make it according to the pattern that was shown thee in the Mount,” (Ex. 25.40) and it was adored by the people of Israel in a circle. And, as to the cherubim, were they not in sight of the people? And did not the people look at the ark, and the lamps, and the table, the golden urn and the staff, and adore? It is not matter which I adore; it is the Lord of matter, becoming matter for my sake, taking up His abode in matter and working out my salvation through matter. For “the Word was made Flesh, and dwelt amongst us.” (Jn. 1.14) It is evident to all that flesh is matter, and that it is created. I reverence and honour matter, and worship that which has brought about my salvation. I [73] honour it, not as God, but as a channel of divine strength and grace. Was not the thrice blessed wood of the Cross matter? and the sacred and holy mountain of Calvary? Was not the holy sepulchre matter, the life-giving stone the source of our resurrection? Was not the book of the Gospels matter, and the holy table which gives us the bread of life? Are not gold and silver matter, of which crosses, and holy pictures, and chalices are made? And above all, is not the Lord’s Body and Blood composed of matter? Either reject the honor and worship of all these things, or conform to ecclesiastical tradition, sanctifying the worship of images in the name of God and of God’s friends, and so obeying the grace of the Divine Spirit.”

No. On your view the efficacy of the relic comes from the incarnation. I find it fascinating that Damascus even admitted that Athanasius thought this practice with regard to the dead bodies was totally pagan and rejected it. Damascus says in Part 1 of On Holy Images,

“we know that blessed Athanasius objected to the bodies of saints being put into chests, and that he preferred their burial in the ground, wishing to set at nought the strange custom of the Egyptians, who did not bury their dead under ground, but set them upon beds and couches.”

OUCH! I’ll stick with Athanasius on that one thanks.

“those powers sometimes adhered even to their corpses, and such power is echoed in the book of Acts.”

>>>That is sleight of hand. You are referring to the power of a person’s piety with regard to OT saints and then saying it echoed in the book of acts as if it is the same power but it is not, it is the power of the incarnation in the book of Acts on your view. I don’t even think you understand what your Church teaches sir.

Maybe you have not been introduced to these issues because there are certain metaphysical categories in Damascene’s construction that don’t quite fit Thomistic Theology Proper.

Matthew 28:19; Does One Name Equal Three Names? Thursday, Aug 16 2012 

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit

The Sabellians argue that the word “name” is singular. Thus there is only one subject and three modal relations.

I suggest to the reader, John 5:43, John 10:25, John 14:13, John 14:26 [This one is horrifying to our opponents], John 15:16, John 16:23, and John 16:26.  Here in these passages, Jesus makes very clear that he has a name, distinct from the Father and Spirit. It destroys his mediation to say they all have the same name. It destroys the Covenant of Redemption which says, the Son who has his own personality came in his Father’s name to do his Father’s bidding.

But wait, I count three names: Father, Son, Holy Ghost.

Here are some counter verses:

Exo 23:13 And in all [things] that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of ****the name**** of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth. 

Here we have a singular use of “name” which refers to a plural cardinally numerically distinct subjects.

Ruth 1:2 And the name of the man [was] Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and ****the name**** of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there.

Here we have the same.

Athanasius on 1 John 5:20 Wednesday, Aug 15 2012 

Discourse 3 Against the Arians

Chapter 24

“9. If then the Father be called the only true God, this is said not to the denial of Him who said, ‘I am the Truth John 14:6,’ but of those on the other hand who by nature are not true, as the Father and His Word are. And hence the Lord Himself added at once, ‘And Jesus Christ whom You sent. ‘ Now had He been a creature, He would not have added this, and ranked Himself with His Creator (for what fellowship is there between the True and the not true?); but as it is, by adding Himself to the Father, He has shown that He is of the Father’s nature; [HUGE!!!!! THAT IS JUST HOW THE NICENE CREED 325 READS! GENRIC UNITY! WOW!!!-DS] and He has given us to know that of the True Father He is True Offspring. And John too, as he had learned , so he teaches this, writing in his Epistle, ‘And we are in the True, even in His Son Jesus Christ; This is the True God and eternal life 1 John 5:20.’”

Chapter 25

“19… For only in this way can we anyhow become imitators, and in no other, when we minister to others what comes from Him. And as we put a fair and right sense upon these texts, such again is the sense of the lection in John. For he does not say, that, as the Son is in the Father, such we must become:— whence could it be? When He is God’s Word and Wisdom, and we were fashioned out of the earth, and He is by nature and essence Word and true God (for thus speaks John, ‘We know that the Son of God has come, and He has given us an understanding to know Him that is true, and we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ; this is the true God and eternal life 1 John 5:20 ‘) and we are made sons through Him by adoption and grace, as partaking of His Spirit (for ‘as many as received Him,’ he says, ‘to them gave He power to become children of God, even to them that believe in His Name John 1:12 ‘), and therefore also He is the Truth (saying, ‘I am the Truth,’ and in His address to His Father, He said, ‘Sanctify them through Your Truth, Your Word is Truth ‘); but we by imitation become virtuous and sons:— therefore not that we might become such as He, did He say ‘that they may be one as We are;’ but that as He, being the Word, is in His own Father, so that we too, taking an examplar and looking at Him, might become one towards each other in concord and oneness of spirit, nor be at variance as the Corinthians, but mind the same thing, as those five thousand in the Acts Acts 4:4, 32, who were as one.”

Athanasius is saying that the word Theos/God here is to mean divine, with regard to nature, not The One God, with regard to person when speaking of the Son of God.

The History of the World According to James Ussher Wednesday, Aug 15 2012 

James Ussher’s Annals of the World. This book details the Conservative and Literal rendering of the genealogies  of the Bible and includes a history of  the world that corresponds to recorded history and not according to the speculations of an indemonstrable scientific theory.

BTW, I have been thinking through something. How does empiricism help, with regard to history? When you are reading a history book you are not seeing and hearing the events happening so how could history be a problem for Scripturalists?  People say that empiricism is required for history but how often does one actually see and hear a historical event that appears in the historical record? How often do Historians see and hear the historical events they debate? Probably never. I have never read a single event in a book that I experienced first hand. Second, Clark mentioned in his Festschrift that Scripture gives us the significance of an event, not the event itself. When I have mentioned this to people they seemed puzzled by it. I have been chewing on this and I think I understand what he is saying. What he is saying is that Scripture gives us Historiography not history. That is, it gives us the method to interpret the history, not the record itself.  Thoughts?

The Jesuit Inspired Boer Genocide in South Africa Tuesday, Aug 14 2012 

I have written a 17 page summary of the intrigue surrounding the History of South Africa in the past 360 years. The account can be found here: https://sites.google.com/a/thekingsparlor.com/the-kings-parlor/concerning-roman-catholicism/the-jesuit-inspired-boer-genocide-in-south-africa

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: