Catholic Nick’s “7 Reasons to reject Sabbatarianism (Seventh Day Sabbath Keeping)” Refuted Sunday, Sep 30 2012 

Nick’s blog against Sabbath keeping can be found here. Nick’s comments will be in bold and italic font.

Keeping the Sabbath was a commandment given only to Israel, not to mankind in general…the first time men are instructed to “Keep the Sabbath” (i.e. rest on the 7th day of the week) is in Exodus 16:23-30…There is no mention of men keeping or being commanded to keep the Sabbath anytime from Eden to Egypt…of all the types of sins the recorded throughout Genesis, no mention of keeping or breaking the Sabbath is mentioned”

>>>1. The Sabbath is a creation ordinance which pre-dated the Commonwealth of Israel (Gen 2:3; Which implies it is natural law and will never be abrogated in the dispensation of men Mat 22:30 i.e. monogamous heterosexual marriage [Gen 2:24, Mat 19:4-5], the headship of the man over the woman [1 Cor 11:3], man’s dominion over all creation [Gen 1:26,28] and labor [Gen 2:15]) and is the assumed premise of Moses when he says in the giving of the law and the Sabbath command at Mt. Sinai “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy (Exo 20:11). How can Nick side step this phrase in Gen 2:3 “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it” ?

2. The first recorded prohibition to commit murder is Exo. 20. The first recorded prohibition to commit idolatry is Exo. 20. The first recorded prohibition to commit adultery is Exo. 20. The first recorded prohibition to commit homosexuality is Lev. 18. Yet Abel’s murder is condemned as if men knew it was wrong to murder. Jacob abhorred idolatry in Gen 35:1-4. Joseph refused to commit adultery as if he knew it was sin. Sodom and Gomorrah were judged for homosexuality. Therefore, it is irrelevant that the first RECORDED command to obey one of the ten commandments is in Exo 16.

3. Exo. 21:28 says, “If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox [shall be] quit.”

Yet we find no examples of men stoning an ox to death in our canon. Therefore, it is irrelevant that we find no examples of men being commanded to keep a Sabbath from Egypt to Eden or being punished for not keeping it. God obviously gave man his law before he made it formal under Moses. God sanctified the Sabbath in Gen. 2 which is the exact basis that Moses provided for keeping it in Exo. 20! Just imagine a Jew in the 4th  Century B.C., whose OX just gored his neighbor to death, making a defense of himself saying  “Oh, but there is no mention of an OX goring a man and being stoned to death in the Bible from Moses’ days until now”!

“Nehemiah 9: 13 “You came down on Mount Sinai; you spoke to them from heaven. You gave them regulations and laws that are just and right, and decrees and commands that are good. 14 You made known to them your holy Sabbath and gave them commands, decrees and laws through your servant Moses.

Clearly, the Sabbath as a legal commandment was revealed only at the time of Moses, to the Israelites, as a sign between them and God.”


>>>Yet Nick must have verses 13 and 14 to only mean the Sabbath when we see that these verses included many laws that Moses gave. If Nick want to use this verse he needs to say that all the Mosaic instruction on Sinai was new. Yet I have already proven that this was not the case. What then is Nehemiah up to? Just read the context from verse 9. These people had been in bondage in the pagan land of Egypt that did not observe God’s law, had been there for centuries and they needed a refresher and a new word from God.


“(2) The Ten Commandments are not the greatest commandments. Those who insist on making the Ten Commandments an eternal standard of morality become guilty of cutting and pasting their doctrine from the Bible. Jesus teaches us that there are two great commandments: loving God with all our heart and loving our neighbor as yourself (Mt 22:34-40). Yet these two greatest commandments are taken not from the Ten Commandments, but rather two separate passages from the Torah (Deut 6:5Lev 19:8). It would be quite ironic to say the Ten Commandments remain eternal while the greatest commandments can be either ignored or appended at will to the Ten Commandments. In reality, Christian tradition has shown the two greatest commandments are the only supreme commandments, and summarize the entire Mosaic Law and Prophets. The Ten Commandments are thus only a very handy guideline summary for the two greatest commandments.”


>>>This is just stupid. The man even admits that the two great commands are just summaries of the Ten Commandments. It is proved these statements are summaries of the separate tables in that they are joined together in Mat 22:37-39 and the second statement is specifically said to be a summary of the second table in Romans 13:

“Rom 13:8  Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

Rom 13:9  For this, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”


“(3) Sabbatarianism is a form of Judaizing. One of the biggest heresies in the Apostolic age was that of Jewish Christians pressuring Gentile Christians to get circumcised and thus live by the Mosaic Law (Acts 15:5).”


>>>That was not the issue of Acts 15:5. Paul makes very clear in 1 Cor 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

The issue was not the substance of the act but the purpose of it. That is, these people in Acts 15 believed that Circumcision was a condition of justification.


“This was especially ‘visible’ in the avoiding of certain foods and keeping of certain holidays. Yet the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 demonstrates that keeping the Mosaic Law is not required for Gentile Christians, only Faith in Jesus.”

>>> Only Faith in Jesus? Is Nick becoming a Protestant? I admit this is a difficult issue. However, I believe John Gill answered this in full. The issue is that blood was forbidden ceremonially and even in the context of natural law before the law of Moses until the death of Christ whose death fulfilled all ceremonial types. It was forbidden again in Acts 15 to appease the conscience of the Jews who did not understand how Christ abolished all aspects of the ceremonial law. After this age the laws against blood consumption are now abrogated. John Gill comments on Acts 15:20,

and from blood: which is not to be understood of the blood of men and shedding of that, which is of a moral nature; but of the blood of beasts, and of eating of that. There were several laws about eating of blood, and which are different, and ought to be carefully distinguished. The first is in Ge 9:4 “but flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood there of, shall you not eat”; which forbids the eating of flesh with the blood; but not the eating of flesh separately, nor the eating of blood separately, provided they were properly prepared and dressed, but the eating of them together without any preparation. As this was the first hint to man that we know of, that he might eat flesh, it was proper that the manner in which he should eat it, should be suggested to him; that he should not take the creature alive and eat it, or tear off any of its members and eat it whilst alive, or eat raw flesh; but should prepare it by roasting or boiling, or some way, in which it might become proper food: and it is the constant sense of the Jewish synagogue {c}, that this law is to be understood of the member of a living creature, torn from it, and eaten whilst alive; six commands, the Jews say, were given to the first man Adam, the first five forbid idolatry, blasphemy, shedding of blood, uncleanness, and theft, or robbery, and the sixth required judgment against offenders; to these were added, for the sons of Noah, a seventh, which forbid the eating of the member of a living creature, as it is said, Ge 9:4 {d}. So that this law has nothing to do with eating of blood, simply considered, and no more forbids eating of it separately, than it does eating of flesh separately: in like manner is the law in De 12:23 to be understood, and is so interpreted by the Jewish writers {e}: another law is in Le 19:26 “ye shall not eat anything with the blood”; which according to our version, seems to be the same law with the former, but is not; for it is not said here, as before, b, “in”, or “with”, but le, “upon”, “over”, or “by” the blood. This is differently understood: some think the sense is, that no one should eat of the sacrifices, before the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar {f}; or until it stands or is congealed in the basons {g}; others, that it is a caution to judges, that they do not eat until they have finished judgment; for whoever judges or passes sentence after he has eat and drank, is as if he was guilty of blood {h}: another observes {i}, that next to this clause, it is said, “neither shall ye use enchantment”; meaning that they should not use enchantment by eating, in the way that murderers do, who eat bread over the slain, that the avengers of the slain may not take vengeance on them; this author smells something superstitious or diabolical in this matter; and indeed this is the case; the truth of the matter is, it refers to a practice among the Heathens, who fancied that blood was the food of the demons, to whom they sacrificed; and therefore when they sacrificed to them, they took the blood of the beast and put it into a vessel, and sat down by it, and round about it, and ate the flesh; imagining that whilst they ate the flesh, the demons eat the blood, and by this means friendship and familiarity were contracted between them; so that they hoped to receive some advantage from them, and be informed of things to come {k}. Hence, this law is placed with others against enchantments and observing times, to which may be added, Eze 33:25 “ye eat with the blood”, or “over it”, or “by” it; “and lift up your eyes to your idols”: which is to be understood in the same light, and with these compare 1Sa 14:32. But besides these, there was a third law, which is frequently repeated, Le 3:17 which absolutely forbids the eating of blood, as well as fat; the Jews except the blood of fishes, and locusts, and creeping things, and the blood of men, and the blood that is in eggs, and that which is squeezed out of flesh, or drops from it, which a man may eat and not be guilty of the breach of this law {l} the reason of this law was, because the blood, which is the life, was given in sacrifice for the life of men, to be an atonement for them; wherefore, to keep up a just reverence of the sacrifice, and to direct to the blood of the great sacrifice of the Messiah, blood was forbidden to be eaten, till that sacrifice was offered up; and then that blood itself was to be spiritually eaten by faith: and now if eating of blood in general was morally evil in itself, it would be a monstrous shocking thing in the Christian religion, that the blood of Christ is to be drank; though it be to be understood in a spiritual sense: the law against eating blood was very strictly enjoined the Jews, and severely punished; whoever ate of blood, but the quantity of an olive, if he ate it wilfully, was guilty of cutting off; if ignorantly, he was to bring a sin offering {m}: James knew that the breach of this law would give great offence to the Jews, and therefore for the peace of the church he moves that the Gentiles might be wrote to, to abstain from blood; and which was agreed to and done: and this was attended to with much strictness by the primitive Christians, who seemed to have observed this advice in the form of a law, and thought it criminal to eat blood; but in process of time it was neglected; and in Austin’s time abstinence from blood was derided, as a ridiculous notion; and it is at least now high time that this, and everything else of a ceremonial kind, was dropped by Christians; though where the peace of the brethren is in danger, this, and everything of an indifferent nature should be abstained from: Beza’s ancient copy adds, “and whatsoever they would not have done to themselves, do not unto others”; and so two of Stephens’s: the Ethiopic version is, “whatsoever they hate should be done to themselves, let them not do to their brethren”.

However, we have the command concerning things contaminated by idols which clarifies that keeping the Moral aspects of the Mosaic Law IS required.

From Exo 34:15, Lev 17:1-7, Lev 7:28-36, 1 Cor 10:19-21, 25-28, and Rev 2:14, 20 it is morally sinful for anyone to eat meat knowingly sacrificed to an idol in both the Old and the New Covenant. The distinction Paul gives concerns one’s liberty when eating with other Gentiles and the meat may or may not have been sacrificed to an idol (You do not know and Paul forbids you to ask).  Paul wants to avoid offenses as much as possible but if it is made known to you that it was sacrificed to an idol you are morally obliged to abstain.


“In fact, there are two passages where Paul clearly refutes the idea that the Sabbath is still binding. The Epistle to the Galatians was focused upon refuting Judaizing, since many Gentile Christians had fallen prey to the heresy. In Galatians 4:10 Paul rebukes them by saying, “You observe days and months and seasons and years.” It is plain that Paul is not speaking of pagan holidays, so these “days” can only be referring to the weekly Sabbath days, along with the monthly, seasonal, and yearly Jewish holidays.”

Some Sabbatarians object saying the “days” here are the yearly feast days, but Paul has already covered this in the “seasons and years” category. Notice that Paul is talking from smaller time frames “days” to larger ones “years”.


>>>Gen 1: 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Gal 4:10 is clearly operating off of this passage. We have this exact thing appealed to in 1 Chron 23:31 in connection with the CEREMONIAL SABBATHS AND THE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM:

“And to offer all burnt sacrifices unto the LORD in the sabbaths, in ***the new moons*****, and on the set feasts, by number, according to the order commanded unto them, continually before the LORD:”

In Lev. 23, the ceremonial Sabbaths are described differently than the weekly Sabbath. The ceremonial Sabbaths are observed for more than one day. An example of which is that the feast of unleavened bread was for seven days. Thus the plural use of the word. Nick’s next passage is Col. 2:16-17 which is also clearly operating off of the CEREMONIAL SABBATHS in 1 Chron 23:31.

“ Secondly, as noted in the prior text, the length of time Paul cites is that of year-month-week, and since year is covered in “religious festival,” that means “Sabbath day” must correspond to the week.”

>>>The word “week” does not appear in either the Gal. 4 nor the Col. 2 text.


“Just as powerful is Leviticus 23, which is speaking of the Jewish calendar feasts, and includes explicitly the Seventh Day Sabbath as one of the feasts (Lev 23:1-3), meaning it isn’t it’s own ‘moral command’ independent of feast days”

>>>How does he make this connection? The mention of the weekly Sabbath is necessary because these multiple-day feasts would overlap the weekly Sabbath. Instruction was necessary on how that was to be handled. Secondly, work was forbidden on the weekly Sabbath, but not absolutely with the other feasts. Thirdly, the weekly Sabbath is said to pertain to “all your dwellings”. There was clearly a distinction.


“If all of the Old Testament is a shadow of things to come, fulfilled in Christ, as 2:17 says, then it would be absurd for something as central as the Sabbath to have no fulfillment in Christ.” 

>>>All of the OT is not a shadow of Christ. The ceremonial law was the shadow. The moral law is natural and perpetual.  Thus Anthony Burgess’ Vindiciae Legis: or, A Vindication of the Moral Law and the Covenants, from the Errors of Papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially, Antinomians (1647) says in distinguishing the moral over the ceremonial laws,

“But herein the moral Law is preeminent: 1. In that it is a foundation of the other laws; and they are reduceable to it. 2. This was to abide always, not the other. 3. This was immediately written by God, and commanded to be kept in the Ark, which the other were not.” (pg. 151)


“(4) The Ten Commandments are the heart of Mosaic Law and abolished as a legal code; they now only serve as guidelines.”

>>>Blasphemy! Mat 5: 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

“So when Jesus ended and fulfilled the Mosaic Law the Ten Commandments most certainly were abolished along with it!”

>>Blasphemy! Mat 5: 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

“Anything else is a form of Judaizing and denial that Jesus came! And yet Sabbatarians like the Seventh Day Adventists follow the Mosaic law on many points, including Sabbath day regulations and dietary laws. After the Mosaic Law was abolished, Christians only kept the Ten Commandments format to use as guidelines for general morals (e.g. don’t kill, steal, lie), but not as a legal code with detailed regulations and legal penalties.”


>>> So why then did the early Christians in the vast majority perform worship and the sacraments on the Sabbath for centuries after the Apostles?

Socrates Scholasticus, Church History (Book V), Chapter 22. The Author’s Views respecting the Celebration of Easter, Baptism, Fasting, Marriage, the Eucharist, and Other Ecclesiastical Rites: 

“For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and atRome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this.”

Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History (Book VII), Chapter 19. A List Worthy of Study, Given by the Historian, of Customs among Different Nations and Churches.

“The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria. There are several cities and villages in Egypt where, contrary to the usage established elsewhere, the people meet together on Sabbath evenings, and, although they have dined previously, partake of themysteries. The same prayers and psalms are not recited nor the same lections read on the same occasions in all churches.”


“ A crucial passage to be aware of in this regard is 2 Corinthians 3, which says the Ten Commandments are the “ministry of death” (2 Cor 3:7)!”


>>>Only as it functions in the Covenant of Works. Nick misses verse 3 which states, “Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” This is in direct fulfillment of Jer 31:33  “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

The law, as it functions to the elect in the Covenant of Grace is a promise of the New Covenant, not something abrogated as a minister of death.

“Now Paul is not saying the Ten Commandments are evil, but rather that they being the heart of the Mosaic Law represent a dead-end path to salvation.”

>>>But wait Nick! I am not stating the law is a path to salvation. I am saying that it is the rule of sanctification. Having been saved/justified, man now has the ability to keep the law. Nick’s view is the exact mistake of the Galatians when Paul said, “Gal 5:4  You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.” I am not seeking to be justified y the law. I am seeking to be sanctified by the law not justified by the law.


“(5) The New Testament never commands Sabbath Keeping for Christians. The only time Sabbath keeping is mentioned in the New Testament is in reference to either the Jews keeping the Sabbath or for the Apostles going to preach in the synagogue on the Sabbath (since that’s when the Jews assembled). Of all the teachings and commands given, never does Jesus nor the Apostles mention the need to keep the Sabbath. This is quite astonishing if, as Sabbatarians believe, Sabbath breaking was to become one of the most brazen and nearly universal attacks on God’s moral teaching. This is why the Seventh Day Adventists must go to embarrassing extremes to try and find any shred of proof from Scripture, settling on the idea that the “Mark of the Beast” must be Sunday worship (despite the fact no such connection can be made).”


>>>The New Testament never speaks to the issue of bestiality. Does that mean that Nick thinks this practice is now morally acceptable?


“(6) Sunday is not the Sabbath.”




(7) The mention of Sabbath and Marriage in the Garden of Eden each have a fulfillment.”

>>>But Nick, normal physical marriage has not been abrogated has it?


Did The White People Of This Original Colony Of Virginia Kidnap Africans To Make Them Their Slaves? A Helpful Reminder From The History of Virginia In The Hopes Of Avoiding A Coming Race War Friday, Sep 28 2012 

A Helpful Reminder From The History of Virginia In The Hopes Of Avoiding A Coming Race War

The following is a tract that I have created for my hometown of Louisville, KY.

War. Everyone seems to have a theory about why it is waged. In our current situation as Americans, we are faced with numerous theories concerning our Government’s wars in the Middle-East and abroad. Some will tell you they are about ending terrorism. Some will say they are about oil. Some will say they are about opium. Some agree on the means but not on the ends. That is, some people see one thing, like oil, as a means, and not an end in itself, so as to attain the ability to accomplish something else; after all, projects need funding.  So what is the real endgame to all these wars? Is it oil, drugs, terrorism, Imperialism, or a one world government?  Your author thinks none of the above. It is in my opinion that the real endgame behind these wars is one thing we all know too well to be a driving force behind war: RELIGION. As a religious person myself I do not claim that all religions produce wars. However, there are some religions, and one primarily that thrives off of religious war and has used it more than any other religion: The Roman Catholic Church.  People from the British Isles understand this more than we Americans do, which is why their history is so little known among us today. The Roman Catholic Church’s Inquisitions killed over 50 million people who refused to submit to the Roman Papacy.[1] When the Protestant Reformation happened, the Inquisition was failing to eliminate the Protestants and so the Roman Catholic Church resorted to full scale war. In 1618, Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor (educated by the Jesuits), began his persecution of Protestants in direct contradiction to religious rights granted to them by Emperor Rudolf II in his Letter of Majesty. Thus, his tyranny culminated in The Thirty Years War. The Thirty Years War failed to destroy the Protestants and was concluded by The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 which secured religious liberty for Protestants and ushered in a golden age in white Anglo-Saxon civilization. Rome failed to destroy the Protestants by force and so they turned to the order of the Jesuits to wage covert wars from behind the scenes and out of the spotlight. I could spill gallons of ink on this subject but the one I want to draw your attention to is the covert war that has been at the center of American Culture for centuries: the African Slave Trade.

To understand the significance of this you must understand who the people were who used to inhabit our (By “our” I mean citizens of the State of Kentucky for we used to be a commonwealth of Virginia) original colony, Virginia. Virginia and other colonies in North America were places of refuge for Protestants who were escaping the Inquisition. Our original colony had made the Inquisition and the Council of Trent powerless in these lands and was a bastion of the Protestant Religion. The Jesuits were not going to stand by and watch this happen. I want to survey some points of history with you:

1. The Colony of Virginia had no ships involved in any foreign slave trade.

2. 1726 A.D. – Virginian statesman Mr. Drysdale annexed a tax on the African slave traders in order to decrease the influx of the slaves coming into the colonies yet it was repealed by the English Royal African Company.[2]

3. 1769 A.D. – The House of Burgesses were the first assembly of Colonial representatives in North America which was established by the Virginia Company. It passed an act for raising the duty on all slaves imported, to twenty per cent. “The records of the Executive Department show that this law was vetoed by the king, and declared repealed by a proclamation of William Nelson, President of the Council, April 3d, 1771.”[3]

4. 1772 A.D. – The House of Burgesses Petitioned,

“Resolved, that an humble address be prepared to be presented to his Majesty, to express the high opinion we entertain of his benevolent intentions towards his subjects in the colonies, and that we are thereby induced to ask his paternal assistance in  averting a calamity of a most alarming nature; that  the importation of negroes from Africa has long been considered as, a trade of great inhumanity, and under its present encouragement may endanger the existence of his American dominions; that self-preservation, therefore, urges us to implore him to remove all restraints on his Governors from passing acts of Assembly which are intended to check this pernicious commerce”.[4]

5. 1776 A.D. – Virginia declared her independence from Great Britain. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were drawn up for the State of Virginia where we read in the section detailing the grievances against King George III, “By prompting our negroes to rise in arms against us, those very negroes whom, by an inhuman use of his negative, he hath refused us permission to exclude by law”.

6. 1778 A.D. – On Oct. 5, 1778, Patrick Henry, Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, passed An Act for the Preventing the Farther Importation of Slaves, thus  preventing of the African slave trade.[5] Virginia was then the first province on earth to abolish the African slave trade and make it a penal offence.[6]


Why Were The Africans Forced On Virginia ?

1. During the Suppression of the Jesuits in the 1760s and the 1770s in Europe, the Jesuits fled to England and were received by King George III.[7]

2. Jeremiah Dyson and Charles Jenkinson were known as “the Jesuits of the Treasury”, and the Treasury was the secret dictator behind the throne, which used Grenville as their tool to persecute the American Colonies with their Grenville’s Stamp Act.[8] Dyson also protested the repealing of the said Grenville’s Stamp Act and supported the other measures drawn up by Lord North against the American Colonies.[9] In 1774, Lord North, the ringleader of the Jesuit Treasury,[10] defended the Intolerable Acts in the House of Commons; and let us not forget the Quebec Act which was flagrantly Pro-Catholic, and went against King George’s Protestant Oath which he had taken at his Coronation.


King George was in league with the Jesuits pursuant unto the Counter-Reformation agenda. The Jesuits controlled and used King George and the Royal African Company to flood Virginia with African slaves to kill their citizens just like what happened with the Haitian Revolution. The Jesuits are the real criminals not the White Anglo Protestants in Virginia. On the contrary, the Virginians were the first people on earth to abolish the slave trade. The Jesuit race-war failed to arise but the Africans would later be used as a justification to invade and impoverish the South in the Civil War. Having now populated much of Northeast America with Irish Catholics, and having ascended to positions of power in the American Government[11] the Roman Catholic Hierarchs, the Jesuits,[12] and their Military Cults and Freemasons[13] used the Africans to orchestrate the Civil Rights movement of the 20th Century. The abuse of the Africans by the Jesuit-Freemasonic controlled KKK would be used to forcefully integrate Whites and Blacks together, literally at the end of a Bayonet by our National Guard.[14] The purpose of this was to destroy both the Black and the White Protestant communities, destroying our racial and religious identity, thus turning us into a debauched and immoral society pursuant unto the justification of a police state and a Fascist Dictatorship.[15] That is exactly what we have seen in the last 50 years of American History. I believe that the Roman Catholic influences that originally brought Africans to these shores will continue to agitate another race war here.  In order to avoid this, I advocate that the State of Kentucky Secede from the United States Federal Government, remove the Roman Catholic Hierarchy and  their military orders of the Jesuits, the Knights of Malta and their coadjutant organizations like the Masonic Lodge, provide land for the Africans to have as their own homeland to be governed by them independently and establish a new Protestant Christian Government under the law of God, and the Magisterial Reformation achievements[16] that were rejected by Thomas Jefferson 235 years ago.[17]  The people of America belong in the Magisterial Protestant tradition which has been extirpated by Jesuit inspired Secularism and propaganda related to our present issue.[18] The Jesuits did this exact thing in Germany where they used the Universities to de-Christianize the Protestants through German Rationalism and Criticism of the Bible in preparation for Germany’s coming Nazi-Fascism.[19] We cannot be deceived into falling in line with either the Fascist or Communist systems. Those are both two sides of the same Roman Catholic agenda[20] which succeeded in slaughtering over 100 million enemies of the Vatican in the 20th century. The Protestant Reformation brought universal literacy and human development to the world. It produced the greatest Civilizations ever to exist. What your Vatican controlled government wants to do is  continue to destroy the black community and agitate them through hatefully racist Communism against white people while pushing the white people into hatefully racist Fascism against black people. Don’t fall for their trap.

There is indeed an evil white power structure in the world. But this article has been designed to show that there is more than one kind of white man in the world. There is the white man that falls in line with the Vatican-Jesuit agenda and there is the Protestant. The people of this State need to wake up to the history of the Protestant Reformation and its systematic extermination through covert wars and disinformation. This issue plays a huge role in our Country’s usury-fed economic disaster that started many years ago in the late 15th century with the union between the Jewish bankers, the Vatican and the Jesuits in the late 15th century into the 16th century. We would know that if we had followed the Protestant Reformation.

I am attempting to start The Protestant Christian Church of Louisville. I have a website dedicated to this work which can easily be accessed online by Googling “The Protestant Christian Church of Louisville” or through the URL:

[1] John Dowling, The History of Romanism (New York: Edward Walker, 1870), Book VIII, 541

[2] R.L. Dabney, Defence of Virginia  (New York: E.J. Hale and Son, 1867), 29

[3] Ibid., 47

[4] The General Assembly of the House of Burgesses, Journals-The House of Burgesses of Virginia (The Colonial Press, E. Waddy Co., 1770), 256

[5] William Waller Hening (editor), The Statutes at Large: A Collection of All the Laws of Virginia From the First Session of the Legislature in the Year 1619 , Volume IX (New York: W.G. Bartow, 1823), 471

[6] Defence of Virginia, 49

[9] Stephen (Sir Leslie), Robert Blake, Christine Stephanie Nicholls, The Dictionary of National Biography, Volume 6, 300

[11] Jeremiah Crowley, Romanism a Menace to the Nation (Wheaton, IL: Jeremiah Crowley, 1912)

[12] Jesuit John Lafarge Jr. controlled A. Philip Randolph, who influenced Martin Luther King. Roman Catholic Priest Theodore Hesburgh, previous President of Notre Dame [Which said University was patterned after the Jesuit’s Ratio Studiorum] was a key member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.

[13] The Knights of Malta. This group also has orders within Freemasonry itself. The primary Freemason behind this Jesuit plot was Albert Pike who orchestrated the violent and unrighteous 2nd KKK to demonize the 1st righteous KKK pursuant unto the Jesuit agenda to demonize the white Protestants in general and thus provide justification for forced integration and the Civil Rights Movement.

[14]CentralHigh School, Little RockArkansas, 1957.

[15] Remember that we have already seen corporate interests attempt to overthrow our government and turn it into a Fascist Dictatorship with the Business Plot involving General Smedley Butler.

[16] The Solemn League and Covenant, 1643.

[17] The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1777. Jefferson knew of the Presbyterian argument from the Renewal of the Covenants of the Presbyterians at Middle Octarara in Pennsylvania, November 11, 1743 and the Mecklenburg Declaration.

[18] The Jesuits designed the Ratio Studiorum to teach Humanism. Not only so, but Rene Descartes, Voltaire, and Robespierre were all trained by Jesuits. The Big Bag Theory itself was created by a Jesuit named Georges Lemaitre. The African slave trade and institution has been a` justification for the Liberalizing of Christianity in America.

[19] Dr. K.R. Hagenbach, German Rationalism (New York: Charles Scribner, 1865), 385

[20] To see the Vatican-Jesuit history behind Fascism read The Order of the Death’s Head by Hohne, see the 1929 Vatican concordat with Benito Mussolini, and the 1933 Vatican Reichskonkordat with Nazi Germany. To see the Vatican-Jesuit history behind Communism study Sir Thomas More’s Utopia,  the Jesuit Reductions in Paraguay, the Lady of Fatima Hoax and Descent Into Darkness by Zatko.

A Recantation of the Sunday Sabbath and an Affirmation of the Original 7th Day Sabbath Thursday, Sep 27 2012 

As my readers probably know, I am very interested in the Counter-Reformation and the Jesuit order. I have been reading a bit on the Council of Trent and came across the 17th session.[1] It seems the Reformation was making serious headway in the Roman Church until the speech by Archbishop Reggio[2] who complained that the Church’s change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday was indicative of her authority over the scripture.

This was an occasion for me to re-read my written material on the change from Saturday to Sunday and I found a contradiction. The WCF uses Acts 20 to prove the change of worship claiming that the breaking of the bread was sacramental. Yet when discussing the time when the Sunday Sabbath begins, Thomas Shepard, English puritan, who wrote the most prolifically on this issue[3], denied that this was sacramental pointing to verse 11 and others where this was simply a meal. Moreover, John 20:19 says that the disciples were not coming together on Sunday to change the Sabbath day, but for fear of the Jews, “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled ****for fear of the Jews****, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.”

It also appears that for the first few Centuries of Christian History, worship was conducted on the Seventh Day Sabbath, not Sunday!

Socrates Scholasticus, Church History (Book V), Chapter 22. The Author’s Views respecting the Celebration of Easter, Baptism, Fasting, Marriage, the Eucharist, and Other Ecclesiastical Rites: 

“For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and atRome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this.”

Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History (Book VII), Chapter 19. A List Worthy of Study, Given by the Historian, of Customs among Different Nations and Churches.

“The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria. There are several cities and villages in Egypt where, contrary to the usage established elsewhere, the people meet together on Sabbath evenings, and, although they have dined previously, partake of the mysteries. The same prayers and psalms are not recited nor the same lections read on the same occasions in all churches.”

The Augsburg Confession says in  Article XXVIII: Of Ecclesiastical Power.

“33] They [The Romanists-DS] refer to the Sabbath-day as having been changed into the Lord’s Day, contrary to the Decalog, as it seems. Neither is there any example whereof they make more than concerning the changing of the Sabbath-day. Great, say they, is the power of the Church, since it has dispensed with one of the Ten Commandments!…

57] Of this kind is the observance of the Lord’s Day, Easter, Pentecost, and like holy-days and 58] rites. For those who judge that by the authority of the Church the observance of the Lord’s Day instead of the Sabbath-day was ordained as a thing necessary, 59] do greatly err. Scripture has abrogated the Sabbath-day; for it teaches that, since the Gospel has been revealed, all the ceremonies of Moses can be omitted. And 60] yet, because it was necessary to appoint a certain day, that the people might know when they ought to come together, it appears that the Church designated the Lord’s Day for this purpose; and this day seems to have been chosen all the more for this additional reason, that men might have an example of Christian liberty, and might know that the keeping neither of the Sabbath nor of any other day is necessary.

61] There are monstrous disputations concerning the changing of the law, the ceremonies of the new law, the changing of the Sabbath-day, which all have sprung from the false belief that there must needs be in the Church a service like to the Levitical, and that Christ had given commission to the Apostles and bishops to devise new ceremonies as necessary to 62] salvation.”

Now I learned the answer to this from the Puritans themselves: The Sabbath is a creation ordinance (Gen 2:3; Which implies it is natural law and will never be abrogated in the dispensation of men Mat 22:30 i.e. monogamous heterosexual marriage [Gen 2:24, Mat 19:4-5], the headship of the man over the woman [1 Cor 11:3], man’s dominion over all creation [Gen 1:26,28] and labor [Gen 2:15]) and is the assumed premise of Moses when he says in the giving of the law and the Sabbath command at Mt. Sinai “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy (Exo 20:11). Therefore, the Sabbath is not Mosaic and not Levitical. Some object that Col 2: 16-17 [16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.] abrogates the 4th Commandment but let the reader note from Lev. 23 and 1Chron. 23:31 that there were two types of Sabbaths in the OT. One was weekly and began with creation. The others were seasonal, ceremonial and clearly connected to the sacrificial system. The wording of Col. 2 and 1 Chron. 23 is exact.

It is argued[4] that Carlstadt, one of the original Reformers, participant in the Leipzig Debate, and a close acquaintance of Luther, demanded a 7th day Sabbath. This seems incorrect. In The Essential Carlstadt[5], “Regarding the Sabbath and Statutory Holy Days”, Carlstadt says, “God says, without distinction, ‘Remember to celebrate the seventh day’. He does not say that we must keep Sunday or Saturday as the seventh day. It is no secret that human beings instituted Sunday. As for Saturday, the matter is still being debated.”[6]

Now to the scripture. It is a common assumption that the apostles met for sacramental worship on Sunday, yet this is not true. As I have already pointed out John 20:19 clearly says that the apostles met for fear of the Jews, not to institute a new day of worship. Acts 20:7 says, On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight. 8 There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together. 9 And there was a young man named Eutychus sitting on the window sill, sinking into a deep sleep; and as Paul kept on talking, he was overcome by sleep and fell down from the third floor and was picked up dead. 10 But Paul went down and fell upon him, and after embracing him, he said, “Do not be troubled, for his life is in him.” 11 When he had gone back up and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while until daybreak, and then left. As we can see from verse 11 the breaking of bread was not sacramental. Moreover, Acts 2:42-47 says that the disciples met daily to hear the apostle’s doctrine, for worship and for breaking bread. Christians meeting for singing and preaching is not a sufficient condition to constitute a new holy day, otherwise every day of the week would be a Sabbath according to Acts 2:46-47. Also, in Acts 20 Paul was preparing to travel in the daytime on the first day of the week (Days begin with evenings, see Gen. 1), necessarily inferring that he did not regard it as a Sabbath.

1 Cor 16:1, 2 commands work be done on the first day of the week. If the first day of the week was the NT Sabbath, then he should have commanded them to prepare on Saturday not Sunday.

There is nothing left in the NT for a Sunday Sabbath. Therefore, in humility and repentance I must recant the Sunday Sabbath doctrine and return to the original 7th day Sabbath. Lord have mercy.

[3] Thomas Shepard , The Works of Thomas Shepard Vol III Theses Sabbaticae, (Boston: Doctrinal Tract and Book Society, 1853, Harvard College Library)

[5] E.J. Furcha (Editor), The Essential Carstadt (Waterloo, Ontario; Scottdale, Pennsyvania: Herald Press, 1995)

[6] Ibid., 333

John Loftus Refuted Tuesday, Sep 25 2012

Not to forget a recent addition:


Which Divine Person Should We Worship? Monday, Sep 24 2012 

I have already spoken to this issue a bit in a previous blog on prayer here. In Clarke’s Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, Part 1., Section 4, pg. 69 , Clarke defends this premise, “that All prayers and praises ought primarily to be offered to Him [The Father-DS], and that everything ought to be directed ultimately to His Honour and Glory.” Clarke offers many scripture passages but I think these are the clearest and most powerful  to prove his premise:

John 4:23 But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.

John 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. KJV

Rom 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world. 9 For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son, is my witness as to how unceasingly I make mention of you

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 5: 19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord;20 always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father;

Phil 3:3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh

Col 3: 16 Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. 17 Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father.

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 4:11 Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Objection:  Doesn’t Phil. 2:9-11 command worship to Jesus? Phil 2:9-11,

“9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Clarke deals with this nicely on page 132,

“Joh. V; 22, 23. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, * even as they honour the Father: He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth  not the Father which hath sent him.

*…The meaning is not, that the Sons authority should like That of the Father, be looked upon as Underived, Absolute, Supreme, and Independent; but that, as the Jews already believed in God, so they should also for the future believe in Christ, chap. Xiv, 13 AS they already honoured God the Father, so they should also for the future honour the Son of God; honour him as having All judgment committed unto him; honour him, to the Honour of the Father which sent him; acknowledge him to be Lord, to the Glory of God the Father.”

Who is that in Isaiah 6?-Yahistic language Sunday, Sep 23 2012 

Samuel Clarke says in The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity,

“And Cyril of Jerusalem, speaking of this very passage in Esaias, where he saw God sitting upon the Throne of his glory: The Father (saith he) hath no man seen at any time; but he which then appeared to the Prophets, was the Son….Thus when ‘tis said of Moses and the seventy Elders Exod. xxiv, 10, that they saw the God of Israel, and that there was under his feet as it were a paved work, etc. it must be understood that they saw, not the Invisible Father, but the Son appearing in the Name and Person of the Father.

All which, is much confirmed by St. Stephen’s Expression, Acts vii; 30, 32, that the ANGEL of the Lord [viz. the Angel of the Covenant, the Angel of his Presence, whom the Name of God was, and by whom God always speaks, upon which account he is stiled the Word of God] appeared to Moses in the Wilderness in a flame of Fire in a Bush;—stating, I AM the God of the Fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Pg. 104-105

This is what we read in Acts 7:

30 “After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning thorn bush.31 When Moses saw it, he marveled at the sight; and as he approached to look more closely, there came the voice of the Lord: 32 ‘I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.’ Moses shook with fear and would not venture to look. 33 But the Lord said to him, ‘Take off the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground. 34 I have certainly seen the oppression of My people in Egypt and have heard their groans, and I have come down to rescue them; come now, and I will send you to Egypt.’

Yet we read in Exodus 3:7 that Jehovah is speaking. However, from verse 2 we know that it was not the person of Jehovah speaking but the angel of Jehovah. Here we see how the Word of God is identified with the Father with reference to Nominal Numerics not Cardinal Numerics. With reference to Cardinal Numerics the two persons are distinct. With reference to Nominal Numerics, the Word speaks for the Father as if the two were wearing the same jersey or as Clarke puts it that the Word appears in the name, or bore the name of the Father in the economia.

Genesis Chapter 9; Does it Really Compass the Whole Line of Ham or Just Canaan’s Line? Saturday, Sep 22 2012 

Dabney, Defence of  Virginia, pages 101-104

“And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem: and Canaan  shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japhet and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”

In explanation of it, the following remarks may  be made; on which the majority of sound expositors are  agreed. In this transaction, Noah acts as an inspired  prophet, and also as the divinely chosen, patriarchal head of church and state, which were then confined to his one family. God’s approbation attended his verdict, as is proved by the fact that the divine Providence has been executing it for many ages since Noah’s death. Canaan probably concurred in the indecent and unnatural sin of Ham. As these early men were extremely ambitious of a numerous and prosperous posterity. Ham’s punishment, and Canaan’s [Notice they are connected-DS], consisted in the mortification of hearing their descendants doomed to a degraded lot. These descendants were included in the punishment of their wicked progenitors on that well-known principle of God’s providence, which “visits the sin of the fathers upon the children,” [Not just Canaan’s direct line-DS] and this again is explained by the fact, that depraved parents will naturally rear depraved children, unless God interfere by a grace to which they have no claim; so that not only punishment, but the sinfulness, becomes hereditary. Doubtless God’s sentence, here pronounced by Noah, was based on his foresight of the fact, that Ham’s posterity, like their father, would be peculiarly degraded in morals as actual history testifies of them, so far as its voice extends.

Some have been weak enough to draw a justification of slavery from the fact, that the bondage of Canaan’s posterity is predicted. This logic the Abolitionists have, of course, delighted to expose; it was easy to show, by sundry biblical instances, like that of the Assyrian employed to chastise Israel, and then punished of God for his own rapacity, that it is no “justification of one’s acts to find that God, in his inscrutable and holy workings, has overruled them to the effectuation of his own righteous, secret purposes.   And our opponents, with a treachery fully equal to the folly of our unwise advocates, usually represent this as nearly the whole amount, and the fair exemplar, of our biblical argument. Such is not the use we design to make of this important piece of history.

It does in the first place, what all secular history and (speculations fail to do: it gives us the origin of domestic slavery. And we find that it was appointed by God as the punishment of, and remedy for (nearly all God’s providential chastisements are also remedial) the peculiar moral degradation of a part of the race. God here ordains that this depravity shall find its necessary restraints, and the welfare of the more virtuous its safeguard against the depraved, by the bondage of the latter. He introduces that feature of political, society, for the justice of which we shall have occasion to contend; that although men have all this trait of natural equality that they are children of a common father, and sharers of a common humanity, and subjects of the same law of love; yet, in practice, they shall be subject to social inequalities determined by their own characters, and their fitness or unfitness to use privileges for their own and their neighbours’ good.

But second: this narrative gives us more than a prediction. The words of Noah are not a mere prophecy; they are a verdict, a moral sentence pronounced upon conduct, by competent authority; that verdict sanctioned by God. Now if the verdict is righteous, and the execution blessed by God, it can hardly be, that the executioners of it are guilty for putting it in effect. Can one believe that the descendants of Shem and Japhet, with this sentence in their hands, and the divine commendation just bestowed on them for acting unlike Ham, could have reasonably felt guilty for accepting that control over their guilty fellow-men which God himself had assigned ? For the vital difference between the case of the Assyrians, when their guilty ambition was permissively employed by God to punish the backslidings of his own people, and the case of Shem and Japhet, is this: The Assyrians were cursed by God for doing their predicted work, in the very sentence; Shem and Japhet were blessed by Him in the very verdict which assigns Canaan as their servant. It may be that we should find little difficulty in tracing the lineage of the present Africans to Ham [No it is not and Ridpath does that very thing in his Universal History Volume 2, pg. 413-414 and his race Charts that I give attention to here-DS], But this inquiry is not essential to our argument, if one case is found where God has authorized domestic slavery, the principle is settled, that it cannot necessarily be sin in itself. It is proper that we should say, in conclusion, that this passage of Scripture is not regarded, nor advanced, as of prime force and importance in this argument.  Others more decisive will follow.”

Matthew Henry comments on gen. 9:24-27 stating, “He pronounces a curse on Canaan the son of Ham (v. 25), in whom Ham is himself cursed”. The point that needs to be emphasized is that Shem and Japheth both receive blessings in this Chapter (vs. 26-27) while Ham’s line is left bereft of blessing. It is admitted by every Reformed Commentator that I have read, that this curse did have a specific fulfillment in the specific line of Canaan. However, this is not to be divorced from the fact that the entire race of Ham was bereft of blessing extending from the sin of their father Ham who was also cursed in Canaan. This is why the race of Ham is a historically subjugated peoples and will always be so.  I want to make some comments here:

Some people say that the black skin is also a part of the curse of the Hamites. I reject this. My view is that Shem, Ham and Japheth came into the world sovereignly endowed with their specific race’s characteristics. The curse upon the Black Hamites is a bereavement of blessing and thus a subjugation extending from the word of God, “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children” Exo 20:5, not just one child’s line.

Awesome Debate! Jared Taylor and Tim Wise debate “Merits of Racial Diversity” Wednesday, Sep 19 2012 


I have to agree with most of what Taylor says but I will say some things:

1. Taylor’s reliance on genetics as his basis of racial behavior, a type of atheistic Behaviorism, is anti-christian. The Augustinian Christian Anthropology is that human behavior is determined by the soul not the genes.

2. Taylor is questioned if he has any Christian biblical basis for his position, and he replies by refusing to answer saying that religion is a private thing. That is definitely anti-christian.  This comes into play later in the debate when he is questioned on the de jure obligation of racial separation. Taylor had pointed out that his position is Universally acknowledged in the history of the world and universally wherever one finds racial, national, linguistic and religious diversity, one finds unnecessary conflict. The Infidel Guy read a commenter who asked Taylor why his is  should be taken as an ought. I don’t think he gave a satisfactory answer to this. This is where my position, as a Protestant Christian improves. Genesis 11 demonstrates a divine mandate for racial separation. Nigel lee demonstrated that the NT never abrogates this mandate.

3. I will have to agree with Wise at around the 1 hour and 20 minute mark that the emphasis on white-ness is destroying real culture. I completely agree. I am in no way advocating any kind of White Facism. My racial separation is for the purpose of maintaining the Christian and primarily the anti-Roman catholic Christian History of my ancestors in the British Isles.  We need to go back to maintaining our English-ness or our Scottish-ness or our  Dutch-ness. God established more than one language and nation within the Japhethite race and those historical distinctions need to be preserved not just our racial identity.

That I Have the Authority to Separate From A Wayward Church, Exhort Them to Repentance, Begin a New Church of my Own and Upon Lawful Election Ordain New Elders From Among the Congregation Proved in Martin Luther Wednesday, Sep 19 2012 

The following is quoted out of Luther’s Works, Volume 39, That a Christian Assembly or Congregation has the Right and Power to Judge all Teaching and to Call, Appoint, and Dismiss Teachers, Established and Proven by Scripture.

“For the soul of man is something eternal, and more important than every temporal thing. That is why it must be ruled and seized only by the eternal word; for it is very disgraceful to rule consciences before God with human law and old custom….John 10[:4], “My sheep know my voice.” Again, “My sheep do not follow strangers, but flee from them, for they do not know the voice of strangers” [John 10:5]. Again, “No matter how many of them have come, they are thieves and murderers. But the sheep did not listen to them” [John 10:8]…. but it is the sheep who are to judge whether they teach the voice [i.e., the words] of Christ or the voice of strangers…They shamelessly take away the judgment of teaching from the sheep and annex it to themselves through their own law and blasphemy. That is why they should certainly be regarded as murderers and thieves, as wolves and apostate Christians, for they are openly convicted here not only of denying God’s word but also of opposing and acting against it. Such action was quite appropriate for the Antichrist and his kingdom, according to the prophecy of St. Paul, II Thessalonians 2[:3–4]… Again, the third passage is from St. Paul, I Thessalonians 5[:21], “Test everything but hold fast to that which is good.” You see, here he does not want to have any teaching or decree obeyed unless it is examined and recognized as good by the congregation hearing it…However, the spiritual tyrants have made a worldly power out of Christendom….All of St. Paul’s warnings, Romans 16[:17–18], I Corinthians 10[:14], Galatians 3, 4, and 5, Colossians 2[:8], and elsewhere, and all the sayings of the prophets in which they teach us to avoid human teaching, do nothing but take the right and power to judge all doctrine away from the teachers and with a stern decree impose it on the listeners instead, on pain of losing their soul. Accordingly, they not only have the power and the right to judge everything that is preached, they also have the duty to judge, on pain of [incurring] the disfavor of Divine Majesty. …Thus we conclude that wherever there is a Christian congregation in possession of the gospel, it not only has the right and power but also the duty—on pain of losing the salvation of its souls and in accordance with the promise made to Christ in baptism—to avoid, to flee, to depose, and to withdraw from the authority that our bishops, abbots, monasteries, religious foundations, and the like are now exercising. For it is clearly evident that they teach and rule contrary to God and his word…And since in these last accursed times the bishops and the false spiritual government neither are nor wish to be teachers—moreover, they want neither to provide nor to tolerate any, and God should not be tempted to send new preachers from heaven—we must act according to Scripture and call and institute from among ourselves those who are found to be qualified and whom God has enlightened with reason and endowed with gifts to do so…or no one can deny that every Christian possesses the word of God and is taught and anointed by God to be priest, as Christ says, John 6[:45], “They shall all be taught by God,” and Psalm 45[:7], “God has anointed you with the oil of gladness on account of your fellows.” These fellows are the Christians, Christ’s brethren, who with him are consecrated priests, as Peter says too, 1 Peter 2[:9], “You are a royal priesthood so that you may declare the virtue of him who called you into his marvelous light. And in Psalm 51[:13], he [God] says of all Christians, “I will teach the ungodly your ways, and sinners will return to you.” Here again it is certain that a Christian not only has the right and power to teach God’s word but has the duty to do so on pain of losing his soul and of God’s disfavor….First, if he is in a place where there are no Christians he needs no other call than to be a Christian, called and anointed by God from within. Here it is his duty to preach and to teach the gospel to erring heathen or non-Christians, because of the duty of brotherly love, even though no man calls him to do so. This is what Stephen did, Acts 6–7, even though he had not been ordered into any office by the apostles. Yet he still preached and did great signs among the people. Again, Philip, the deacon and Stephen’s comrade, Acts 8[:5], did the same thing even though the office of preaching was not commanded to him either. Again, Apollos did so too, Acts 18[:25]. … Second, if he is at a place where there are Christians who have the same power and right as he, he should not draw attention to himself. Instead, he should let himself be called and chosen to preach and to teach in the place of and by the command of the others…1 Corinthians 14[:30], when he says, “If something is revealed to someone else sitting by, let the first be silent.” Do you see what St. Paul does here? He tells the teacher to be silent and withdraw from the midst of the Christians; and he lets the listener appear, even without a call… “You can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be admonished” [1 Cor. 14:31]. Again, “You should earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues; but all things should be done decently and in order” [1 Cor. 14:39–40]… But if you say, “Did not St. Paul command Timothy and Titus to institute priests [I Tim. 4:13; Titus 1:5], and do we not read, Acts 14[:23], that Paul and Barnabas instituted priests among the congregations? (Therefore, the congregation cannot call anyone, nor can anyone draw attention to himself and preach among Christians; rather, one must have permission and authorization from bishops, abbots, or other prelates who represent the apostles)” I answer that if our bishops, abbots, etc., did represent the apostles, as they boast, one opinion would certainly be to let them do what Titus, Timothy, Paul, and Barnabas did when they instituted priests, etc. But since they represent the devil and are wolves who neither want to teach the gospel nor suffer it to be taught, they are as little concerned with instituting the office of preaching or pastoral care among Christians as the Turks or the Jews are. They should drive asses and lead dogs… Otherwise, if there is no such need and if there are those who have the right, power, and grace to teach, no bishop should institute anyone without the election, will, and call of the congregation. Rather, he should confirm the one whom the congregation chose and called; if he does not do it, he [the elected man] is confirmed anyway by virtue of the congregation’s call. Neither Titus nor Timothy nor Paul ever instituted a priest without the congregation’s election and call. This is clearly proven by the sayings in Titus 1[:7] and 1 Timothy 3[:10], “A bishop or priest should be blameless,” and, “Let the deacon be tested first.” Now Titus could not have known which ones were blameless; such a report must come from the congregation, which must name the man.

Again, we even read in Acts 4 [6:1–6] regarding an even lesser office, that the apostles were not permitted to institute persons as deacons without the knowledge and consent of the congregation. Rather, the congregation elected and called the seven deacons, and the apostles confirmed them. If, then, the apostles were not permitted to institute, on their own authority, an office having to do only with the distribution of temporal food, how could they have dared to impose the highest office of preaching on anyone by their own power without the knowledge, will, and call of the congregation?

But since in our times there is the need, but no bishop, to provide evangelical preachers, the examples from Titus and Timothy are invalid…Not one of them is ever instituted pope or bishop by the power of someone; rather, he is elected and called by his chapter and then confirmed by others—the bishops by the pope as their supreme head, and he, the pope himself, by the cardinal of Ostia as by his inferior. And even if one of them were not confirmed, he would still be bishop and pope. Thus I ask the dear tyrants: if bishops are made by the election and call of their own congregation, and if the pope is pope without confirmation by any other authority and by election alone, why should not a Christian congregation, too, make a preacher by its call alone?”

[Thank you]

The Incarnation of Drake’s Jesuit Race War Conspiracy Theory: Michael Pfleger Friday, Sep 14 2012 

Michael Pfleger is a Roman Catholic priest and was educated by the Jesuits at LoyolaUniversity. He is a master of the Racist Liberation Theology, i.e. the completion of the destruction of WASP civilization. Behold your true enemy my White Protestant brother.




Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: