The Satanic Nature of Nazism

July 17, 2010 4 Comments

Image of Savitri Devi that Pretty Much Says it All

By: Jay

A couple of years ago, when I first began to look at race studies and “national socialism,” someone (I don’t recall who) argued to me that national socialism was not Teutonic paganism. This is a bunch of bull. It clearly is, and I intend to demonstrate that. What the movement also has is interesting connections with is Hinduism and gnosticism and can also be considered as a forerunner to the modern green movement. Yes, Nazism as a forerunner to the modern green movement. How is this? The key players in demonstrating this claim are Savitri Devi, Heinrich Himmler and other notables of the so-called “traditionalist studies,” such as Julius Evola, Ananda Coomaraswamy as well as the infamous God-hater and fraudster, Madame Blavatsky.

Just as I critiqued the notion of “perennial philosophy” that specifically rejects the biblical God who is in covenantal relationship with man, so these theorists also posit at times a “perennial religion.” What is this? Once again, it is the age-old pantheistic lie that “Nature” is God. You will notice in these writers that, having rejected a personal God, like with Guenon, his move was more gnostic in nature, become a Sufi Muslim. With someone like Savitri Devi, a huge promoter of the Nazi movement and well-known writer of the traditionalist school, Devi makes clear what the agenda is – a green, neo-pagan, polytheistic-that-blends-into-pantheistic mythos that looks to Hinduism and the myth of Aryan “godhood.” Thus the convergence of Devi and Heinrich Himmler’s fables. Devi makes this abundantly clear in this article, which is indisputable proof. Read more of this post

Filed under Apologetics, Bible, Conspiracy, Culture, Esoteric/Speculation, History, Religion, Theology Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Taking the Law and Prophets Seriously: Judgments

June 10, 2010 7 Comments

The Prophet Samuel Hacks Up King Agag

By: Jay

I am sick and tired of the Law and the Prophets being a joke. This past year I’ve seen several Orthodox priests/prelates openly say they do not accept the “God” as presented in the Old Testament, as well as not a few Roman Catholics. Textual liberalism and rejecting “that kind of God” often go hand in hand, or are at least kissing cousins. One need only look at the history of Luther’s “reformation” and the explosion of textual liberalism that followed a few hundred years later in German higher criticism to see where these views lead.

Higher criticism and modern rejections of Moses may not have the same motivations, but they arrive at the same endpoint – the rejection of “that kind of God.” By that, what is meant is the God who condones exterminations of cities, is providential within all historical events, and punishes (even if remedially) descendants based on the actions of fathers and forebears. The simple question that arises is this – how do these people expect anyone to take them seriously as proponents of a religion which comes from the Law and the Prophets? Seriously? I am supposed to accept that you have the truth, and you tell me all these instances are “allegory” or at least not historical. Anyone with basic logic and an elementary knowledge of the Bible need only think for about 5 minutes about how implausible this is. Were I a serious Jew, I would not accept such ridiculous claims, and justly so. You prelates have told me that the very Book you accept is a-historical in crucial events, when all along it’s been viewed as historical – even amongst the various Christian groups, prior to higher criticism. In fact, in places where the New Testament views incidents in the Law and Prophets as historical, I have been told they are not – and that the New Testament writers are in error. What arrogance. 

I am always bitched at for “not being practical.” Well, ok, here we go – let’s be practical. Let me examine the stories I was told emulate in Sunday School as a young boy – arguably the most simplistic and practial stories imaginable, and let’s see if these religionists persuade me to be practical according to their conceptions. Read more of this post

Filed under Apologetics, Bible, Theology Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There is No Such Thing as Calvinism

June 5, 2010 1 Comment

John Calvin's Beautiful (Purported) Grave

(Back by popular demand. -Jay  ;)

By M. B.

One thing that amazes me when I read Reformed people’s arguments against Rome is not so much what they say about us, but the gall and arrogance they have to even say anything at all.

The funny thing about the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate is that there is no such thing. What? That’s right. Calvinism does not exist, at least not any more than the Ku Klux Klan does. Oh sure, there are still several groups that run around in rural communities in the South, calling themselves everything from “The Traditional Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan” to the “International Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan”. But everyone knows what Nathan Bedford Forrest started over a century ago after the War Between the States has long since disbanded, only be revitalized by kooks, losers, and provocateurs trying to keep the torch aflame every other decade or so. And the ironic thing is that they’re trying to revitalize some thing that, any student of history knows, would not be blessed by the men who first established it to fight Yankees and carpetbaggers.

And it’s the same with Calvinism, with its “Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly” and “Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States ”. These amounts to little more than malcontent American whites trying to revamp a failed experiment, some thing that has long since been swept away into the dustbin of history. Read more of this post

Filed under Apologetics, Bible, Religion, Theology Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Response to Turretinfan on the Crucifixion

May 22, 2010 3 Comments

Part 7 from our old interaction

By: Jay
Turretinfan responded to the accusation that the strict legal imputation view must necessitate a damning, forsaking, cutting-off, or separation (choose whichever term you wish) of the Son from the Father. He writes:
“The Father that spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all, shall also freely give us all things (Romans 8:32). This was no pagan sacrifice, but a fulfilment of the pious type (“type” in the sense of “shadow”) that Abraham provided by offering up Isaac his son (Hebrews 11:17-19). Jesus was stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted (Isaiah 53:4) and it pleased the LORD to bruise him, to put him to grief, and to make him an offering for sin (Isaiah 53:10). Nevertheless, God did not utterly forsake him, but raised him up on the third day when the work to obtain our justification was complete (Romans 4:25).”

Read more of this post

Filed under Apologetics, Bible, Theology Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Paul Washer is a False Prophet

May 3, 2010 40 Comments

By: Jay Dyer

I was, for several years, a huge fan and follower/disciple of Paul Washer.  I thought he was a godly leader: a real missionary, and a true “reformer.” I had several of his sermons on tape and, in fact, made copies of his tapes and distributed them to my fellow college students who needed to hear the “true Gospel of God’s grace.” I met him and spoke with him on theology several times. However, I was on a Path that Paul Washer was not on.

As I researched biblical theology and Church History more in depth, and in particular, the formation of the biblical canon,  I came to reject common Protestant notions, such as sola scriptura.  The simple reason for this is that it was unheard of until the time of the Reformation.  Prior to Luther and Calvin, the doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura were non-existent.  There is a complete blackout of Protestant theology for 1,500 years of the Church.  Apparently, the Holy Spirit forgot the Church.   But that brings me to an interesting point in regards to Paul Washer… Read more of this post

Filed under Apologetics, Bible, Theology Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Response to a Calvinist on “Fallen Nature”

April 17, 2010 6 Comments

By: Jay Dyer

A Calvinist has asked: how can Christ assume a fallen nature and not be sinful?

 
In Calvinism, the tendency is to say that sin is actually in our nature, almost as a kind of substance, giving it ontological status.  The answer to this lies in the Catholic nature/grace distinction and our view that sin is negation and non-being. For us, sin is, and can only be an act of the will, as 1 John 3:4, 7, says–it’s transgression of the law–an act of the human will.  It’s not a state of being, as in Calvinism.  For the Calvinist, nature is inherently evil and passed on now, due to the fall. This is flat-out Manichaean.  It’s also why Calvinists end up hating creation and images–God cannot have anything to do with matter.
In fact, I often use the question posed to me years ago from one’s reading of Berkhof: when we worship Christ, do we worship His human nature, or just the divine? When you asked me that, I answered as any good Calvinist would–as a Nestorian. I said we only worship the divine nature, as Rushdoony said.  However, the meaning of in the Incarnation according to Ephesus, which most Calvinists profess to hold, teaches that we worship Christ with one adoration which includes his flesh (see the quote below).  This means we do, in some sense, worship something created–namely the deified humanity of Christ.  This the Calvinists cannot grasp.  Read more of this post

Filed under Apologetics, Bible, Philosophy, Theology Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Athanasius Shows the Reformed to be Arian, Pt 2

April 15, 2010 1 Comment

Dramatist Paul Washer

[So stop trying to get the hypostases to split and damn one another, Protestants! -Jay]
Four Discourses Against The Arians, Discourse III:

54. Therefore as, when the flesh advanced, He is said to have advanced, because the body was His own, so also what is said at the season of His death, that He was troubled, that He wept, must be taken in the same sense. For they, going up and down , as if thereby recommending their heresy anew, allege; Behold, ‘He wept,’ and said, ‘Now is My soul troubled,’ and He besought that the cup might pass away; how then, if He so spoke, is He God, and Word of the Father? Yea, it is written that He wept, O God’s enemies, and that He said, ‘I am troubled,’ and on the Cross He said, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani,’ that is, ‘My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?’ and He besought that the cup might pass away. Thus certainly it is written; but again I would ask you (for the same rejoinder must of necessity be made to each of your objections ), If the speaker is mere man, let him weep and fear death, as being man; but if He is the Word in flesh (for one must not be reluctant to repeat), whom had He to fear being God? Or wherefore should He fear death, who was Himself Life, and was rescuing others from death? Or how, whereas He said, ‘Fear not him that kills the body Luke 12:4,’ should He Himself fear? And how should He who said to Abraham, ‘Fear not, for I am with you,’ and encouraged Moses against Pharaoh, and said to the son of Nun, ‘Be strong, and of a good courage,’ Himself feel terror before Herod and Pilate? Further, He who succours others against fear (for ‘the Lord,’ says Scripture, ‘is on my side, I will not fear what man shall do unto me ‘), did He fear governors, mortal men? Did He who Himself had come against death, feel terror of death? Is it not both unseemly and irreligious to say that He was terrified at death or hades, whom the keepers of the gates of hades saw and shuddered? But if, as you would hold, the Word was in terror wherefore, when He spoke long before of the conspiracy of the Jews, did He not flee, nay said when actually sought, ‘I am He?’ for He could have avoided death, as He said, ‘I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again;’ and ‘No one takes it from Me. ‘ Read more of this post

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Athanasius Shows Reformed Imputation Theology to be Arian

April 11, 2010 16 Comments

 

Calvinistic Dramatist Fraud, Paul Washer, Teaches This Goofy Doctrine

St. Athanasius Uses theosis, the Theotokos, the Real Presence and the Single Subject Argument to Refute the Same Errors the Calvinists Preach:

[Prior to the battle of St. Cyril of Alexandria with Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus (431), St. Cyril's predecessor on the throne of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, St. Athanasius, had already defended the Theotokos and the orthodox doctrine of a single personal subject in the Incarnational economy--the divine Person of the Word. On top of that, he also defended this, like St. Cyril, by an appeal to the Real Presence. Here, St. Athanasius rebukes the Proto-Nestorians and by extension, their modern day re-incarnation, the Calvinists. So, we now officially have five well-known Calvinists who have made pro-Nestorian statements: A.A. Hodge, R.J. Rushdoony, Eric Svendson, Turretinfan and John W. Robbins co-author, Sean Gerety. According to these men (not even understanding what is meant by a "single subject"), our view is heretical. So, now, let's call on them to be consistent and damn St. Athanasius, whom they inconsistently laud. -Jay]

Letter 61 to Maximus. (Written about 371 a.d.)

To our beloved and most truly longed-for son, Maximus , philosopher, Athanasius greeting in the Lord.

Having read the letter now come from you, I approve your piety: but, marvelling at the rashness of those ‘who understand neither what they say nor whereof they confidently affirm 1 Timothy 1:7,’ I had really decided to say nothing. For to reply upon matters which are so plain and which are clearer than light, is simply to give an excuse for shamelessness to such lawless men. And this we have learned from the Saviour. For when Pilate had washed his hands, and acquiesced in the false accusation of the Jews of that day, the Lord answered him no more, but rather warned his wife in a dream, so that He that was being judged might be believed to be God not in word, but in power. Read more of this post

Filed under Apologetics, Theology Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Reflecting on Various Errors in Calvinsm

April 11, 2010 3 Comments

And Why I Wouldn’t Go Back

Many practical and observational reasons could also be given, but this will focus on the central doctrinal errors I see.

By: Jay Dyer

I believe that Calvinism is an erronrous system that, while containing much that is true, must be abandonded because of several serious flaws:

1. Sola Scriptura cannot be the foundation of true religion because the Protestant Bible has the wrong canon and therefore sola scriptura cannot be true (since it presupposes a correct canon). The process of the formation of the canon in the early church as described by myraids of Protestant scholars makes it also impossible, as well as ahistorical. Read more of this post

Filed under Apologetics, Bible, Theology Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Resolving Essence/Energy Disputes With Christology

April 11, 2010 Leave a comment

By: Jay Dyer

No one should be afraid to read someone even the West believes to be a Doctor of the Church. Some Latins, however, actually discourage people from reading St. John of Damascus. Ironically, Aquinas himself read the Damascene and cited him extensively.

Since I can’t seem to get anyone to read Book III, I’ll post the relevant chapter that explains it all. Why do I keep harping on Book III? In this Book of On the Orthodox Faith, St. John give his exposition of the teaching of Ephesus, Chalcedon and Constantinople II and III. These councils are key, as they focus on Christology. Christology is central, since that is our bridge to God, and not speculation and philosophizing about God’s essence in supposed “natural theology.”

It is in Christ that we meet the Father and the Spirit. It is the Incarnate Christ who shows us the Trinity. So if we want the clearest, most explicable understanding of the meaning of the essence/energy discinction and what hypostasis is, or what enhypostatized means, we should look to Christology, as it should be evident that what we formulate about the ontological Trinity must match up with our doctrine of Christ Incarnate. In other words, it makes no sense to come up with some hyper-philosophical, speculative view of God “ad intra” and God “ad extra,” as if we can come up with views that don’t have to match up with what we are saying about the divine hypostasis Who assumes human nature.

Everything about Christology proves the essence – energy distinction and is the doctrine of the 6th council in particular. Below, St. John exposits perfect Christology, as it culminated in the 6th Ecumenical Council.

Confusions resolved. Read more of this post

Filed under Apologetics, Bible, Religion, Theology Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 155 other followers