Communism and Capitalism Examined and Compared

Lest I be accused of simply showing the logical connections between Hegelianism, Yankee Capitalism and Communism, I suggest Mr. Anthony Sutton’s works as evidence of a historical connection as well.

Having laid the foundation for my rejection of Karl Marx’s Communism and his Roman Catholic Theology Proper, I would like to now demonstrate to the reader how his Neoplatonic-Roman Catholic Dialectic fleshes out in application.

I will be initially quoting from the Manifesto of the Communist Party first published in 1848.[1] Of course, Marx does make some valid criticisms of Yankee Capitalism which I will also include.

The CM says,

“The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”.”[2]

This is striking! I would not have taken Marx to be the kind to actually point this out. Truly, Yankee Capitalism has made the individual the primary concern of society and that individual is then not to see his family or nation as his primary base of concern but himself. His life’s goal is then, not to maintain his race, his family and his religion, but to travel the earth to whatever distance necessary to follow Commerce and War. This has fragmented the old national and racial bonds between men and made life nothing else but Commerce and War. Marx has no improvement because his economic is simply a reaction to the Yankee Capitalism (Thesis and Anti-Thesis) and thus when the Yankee Capitalist is in need he looks not to his family or Nation but to the State which greatly pleases Marx. We will see these many agreements between Yankee Capitalism and Marxism.

Agreement #1 Both Yankee Capitalism and Marxism reject the primacy of the Family and National obligations.

The CM complains,

“A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. ”

There is too much commerce, and Communism bares a great deal of guilt in it. In an interview with the late Aaron Russo, Russo pointed out that the Rockefeller’s were behind the American Women’s Liberation movement (A Communist Movement) in order to influence the other half of the population to be involved in public work so that there would be an increase in commerce and taxes.[3] Women used to take care of the home and raise the children in order to maintain the private social order and now they are helping to feed the State and the Yankee War Machine. Do we now see how Communism and Capitalism work together? Secondly, the Southern Plantation system was the best system to compete with Yankee Capitalist Industries which we will see later. This system has also been destroyed by Communist Propaganda and the now Popular demand for equal rights. Again, Communism helps Yankee Capitalism.

Agreement #2 Both Yankee Capitalism and Marxism wanted the destruction of the Plantation and slavery.

Agreement #3 Both Yankee Capitalism and Marxism want the women working due to universal equality.

The CM complains again,

“In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.”

Except in Southern Agrarianism and moreover, the absolute free labor system has still failed to stake the interest of Capital in their labor. The labor of Capital is now as disposable as a Coke Can.

The CM makes a great point,

“The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.”

Only in a society that believes in universal equality and women’s suffrage. Do we not then see how our problems continue to be primarily sociological and not economical? This has greatly contributed to the genocide of White European peoples in the last 60 years. The modern white woman cares little for family and is now consumed with her career. They care little about having children and raising a family.[4] This has devastated our people.[5] And though the modern white man sees little significance in preserving his race, in a very short time he will be face to face with a majority colored population that does care about race and wants nothing else but to see the white race annihilated. When white people become a minority in a land they are not respected for their humanitarian efforts. They are a hated and persecuted minority.[6] Atheism and liberalism is the end of a people. It is genocide!

The CM states,

“In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.”

This turned out to be a total lie. Communist society turned out to end the existence of the laborer. The problem is men are totally depraved and when all the property was given to the state who was supposed to virtuously disperse all equally, the State starved millions of its own people and massacred millions more. You see Capitalism and Communism is Thesis and Anti-Thesis. The Synthesis, the true purpose behind all, is Global Government and a massive global population reduction.[7]

The Capitalists love the internationalist ethnic Genocide and illegal immigration which afflicts America because it means cheap labor for them.

The CM states,

“The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.”

Now we are getting to the heart of it. Do we not then see how Yankee Capitalism was used to end our National Sovereignty? Agrarianism reasonably preserves the independence of a land. When a people know how to live off of the land, they are free in a way the modern man cannot possible fathom. If in the case of a global or international economic collapse, an Agrarianized population could survive without massive social unrest. But this kind of life is demonized and mocked in our media and entertainment venues. Are we continuing to understand how our economic problems stem from much deeper sociological issues? Now I admit some factories will need to stay functional for heavy industry and military production but they will be Nationalized.

Agreement #4 Global Government and Internationalism

The CM complains,

“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.”

I would agree with this because the Yankee Capitalists practice their version of wealth re-distribution primarily by way of usury.

Agreement #5 Wealth redistribution.

The CM states,

“But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.”

Notice, Marx does not deny that his Communism promotes community of women. His point is, yes, we believe in community of women, but this in no way means that we are INTRODUCING the idea. Now, I agree firmly that Yankee Capitalism promotes too much luxury, idle-ness and immorality. Dabney spoke to this issue in great detail from pages 301-330 in Defence of Virginia. The Southern system maintained a reasonable restraint on the excessive wealth and luxury of the rich while not falling into the trap of Communism.

As a side note, I would ask the reader to think of anyone they have known who abstained from sex before marriage. It is an unheard of phenomenon in the Yankee ruled United States.

Agreement #6 Community of Women and widespread fornication.


The CM states,

“What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.”

And this is not different with Communism. The ruling class in America shoves Communist lies and propaganda down our throats in this system. The two biggest pieces of propaganda pushed by our Communist Government is the Abolitionist propaganda against the South and Charles Darwin’s insanities. That the state controls the thinking of a people is no discovery by Communists. It is natural law, which is why the First Amendment and legislation like it is a fool’s illusion and always will be.

The CM states,

“What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other.”

And such it always will be. It is a biological reality that will never disappear. Why not then administrate it properly while keeping that exploitation as mild as it was in the South?

The CM states its core principles,

“1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.”

With the abolition of all rights of inheritance (#3), the invidualism so indicative of Yankee Capitalism, is enshrined by the Communists. Gal 6:7’s application to families is then uprooted and rejected. #5’s affirmation of monopoly would make any Yankee Capitalist happy.

Agreement #7 The individual’s emancipation from familial or tribal responsibilities and benefits.

Agreement #8 The morality of Monopoly

In Frederick Engels’ Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith 1847 he attempts to lay down the ethical theory of the Communist movement stating in question 5,

“For example, every individual strives to be happy. The happiness of the individual is inseparable from the happiness of all, etc.”

Here Engels is espousing Teleological Ethics; more specifically Psychological Hedonism. This theory asserts that the Good is pleasure. On this view all people always desire pleasure and nothing else but pleasure. This theory is an illusion. Will the Psychological Hedonists refuse bitter medicine or a discomforting trip to the dentist to cure their ailment? Will they not suffer the pains of employment? All these do not give pleasure at the moment. If not an immediate pleasure, maybe then all people always desire or act towards a future pleasure? Clark objects,

“There are many evidences that this is not true. A drunkard may know that guzzling his liquor will make him sick and give him a headache, but he guzzles. He desires the immediate pleasure and sacrifices the pleasure of tomorrow.” (Christian View, pg. 118)

The difficulties continue for secular theories because it can never be determined how a good desire is distinguished from a bad desire. And finally, the definition of pleasure as sensation falls prey to the hundreds of criticisms Clark has made to the entire endeavor of Empiricism.

Applied to society this theory evolves into Utilitarianism. This is the ethical theory that affirms that the proper moral action is one that produces the overall happiness for the greatest number. In utilitarianism, the individual must sacrifice his own interests for the interests of the whole or the state. Clark summarizes the problem with teleological theories:

“It would be necessary to know not merely the immediate results of a given choice, but the more remote, and the still more remote into an indefinite future. It would be necessary to know the effects of the proposed action on every individual who might possibly be involved. And all these effects in their various degrees would have to be balanced against the same calculations made for each of the other proposed policies. Only after all these calculations had been completed could it be said that such and such ought to be done. But obviously these calculations cannot be completed. Therefore, a teleological system cannot conclude that one action rather than another is a moral obligation.” (Christian View, pg. 124-125)

Engels states again,

“Question 9: How did the proletariat arise?

Answer: The proletariat came into being as a result of the introduction of the machines which have been invented since the middle of the last century and the most important of which are: the steam-engine, the spinning machine and the power loom. These machines, which were very expensive and could therefore only be purchased by rich people, supplanted the workers of the time, because by the use of machinery it was possible to produce commodities more quickly and cheaply than could the workers with their imperfect spinning wheels and hand-looms. The machines thus delivered industry entirely into the hands of the big capitalists and rendered the workers’ scanty property which consisted mainly of their tools, looms, etc., quite worthless, so that the capitalist was left with everything, the worker with nothing. In this way the factory system was introduced. Once the capitalists saw how advantageous this was for them, they sought to extend it to more and more branches of labour. They divided work more and more between the workers so that workers who formerly had made a whole article now produced only a part of it. Labour simplified in this way produced goods more quickly and therefore more cheaply and only now was it found in almost every branch of labour that here also machines could be used. As soon as any branch of labour went over to factory production it ended up, just as in the case of spinning and weaving. in the hands of the big capitalists, and the workers were deprived of the last remnants of their independence. We have gradually arrived at the position where almost all branches of labour are run on a factory basis. This has increasingly brought about the ruin of the previously existing middle class, especially of the small master craftsmen, completely transformed the previous position of the workers, and two new classes which are gradually swallowing up all other classes have come into being, namely:”.

And I mean to Nationalize mass production and enfranchise domestic production. Engels brings up an important issue. In Dabney’s Defence of Virgina, pages 325-326 we read the Southern reply,

“Now we emphatically and proudly admit that Southern society has not learned the frugality of New England; which is, among the middle classes, a mean, in-hospitable, grinding penuriousness, sacrificing the very comfort of children, and the kindly cheer of the domestic board, to the Yankee penates, Mammon and Lucre; and among the upper classes a union of domestic scantiness and stinginess with external ostentation and profusion ; a frugality which is “rich in the parlour, and poor in the kitchen. The idea of the Southern planter is the rational and prudent use of wealth to procure the solid comfort of himself, his children, and his servants at home, coupled with a simple and unostentatious equipage abroad, and a generous hospitality to rich and poor. But we fearlessly assert, and will easily prove to every sensible reader, that slavery was peculiarly favourable to the economical application of labour, and of domestic supplies and income. The attempt to carry the freehold tenure of land down to the yeomanry, subdivides land too much for economical farming. The holdings are too small, and the means of the proprietors too scanty, to enable them to use labour-saving machines, or to avail themselves of the vast advantages of combined labour. How can the present proprietor of a farm of five or ten acres in France or Belgium, afford a reaper, a threshing-machine, a three-horse plough, or even any plough at all ? The spade, the wheel-barrow, the donkey, and the flail, must do his work, at a wasteful cost of time and toil. But the Southern system, by placing the labour of many at the direction of one more cultivated mind, and that furnished with more abundant capital, secured the most liberal and enlightened employment of machines, and the most convenient “division of labour.” Moreover, the administration of the means of living for the whole plantation, by the master and mistress, secured a great economy of supplies. The mistress of Southern households learns far more providence, judgment and method in administering her stores, than are possessed by free labourers or by blacks. The world over, those who have property are more provident than those who have none. For, this providence is the chief reason why they have property; and the improvidence of the poor is the cause of their being poor. But even if the slaveholders had no more of these qualities, all can see that an immense saving is made by having one housekeeper for ten families, with one kitchen, store-house, and laundry, instead of ten kitchens, ten store-houses, and ten varying administrations of stores. A smaller supply of provisions secures a greater amount of comfort to all, and a great saving of labour is effected in preparation of food, and housekeeping cares. A system of slave labour is, therefore, more productive, because it is more economical.

In all this argument, the anti-slavery men keep out of view a simple fact which is decisive of the absurdity of their position. They shall now be made to look it in the face. That fact is, that in free States, a large portion of all those who, from their moneyless condition,ought to pursue manual labour, are too lazy to do so voluntarily. But they must live, and they do it by some expedient which is a virtual preying on means of the more industrious, by stealing, by begging, by some form of swindling, by perambulating the streets with a barrel-organ and monkey, or by vending toys or superfluities. Their labour is lost to the community; and their maintenance, together with their dishonest arts and crimes, is a perpetual drain from the public wealth. But slavery made the lazy do their part with the industrious, by the wholesome fear of the birch. Slavery allowed no loafers, no swindlers, no ” b’hoys,” no “plug-uglies,” no grinders of hurdy-gurdies, among her labouring class.”

In the Southern system the Planation provided a strong competitor for Yankee Capitalism. A Plantation using many slaves with community of property could afford the large industrial machines. This preserved agrarian society which kept us off of the globalist grid, while at the same time allowed us to enjoy and benefit from modern technology. Do you see what happens when we think we are smarter and holier than Elohim? Now, the unemployed Yankee black free laborers which Dabney complained of, are now the modern day gangsters, drug dealers, and organized crime syndicates.

During the so-called Great Migration[8], blacks left the South in mass and moved into Yankee cities where they found little hope of lawful sustenance. In response, they formed themselves into Gangs.

The United States Department of Justice’s National Gang Center Bulletin, in a piece, HISTORY OF STREET GANGS IN THE UNITED STATES by James C. Howell and John P. Moore says,

“The second period of gang growth in Chicago commenced in the 1930s as the result of a steady migration of Mexicans and blacks to northern cities. Black immigrants arrived first, following the U.S. Civil War, to escape the misery of Jim Crow laws and the sharecropper’s life in the southern states. Between 1910 and 1930, during the “Great Migration” of more than a million blacks from the rural South to the urban North for jobs, Chicago gained almost 200,000 black residents (Marks, 1985; Miller, 2008), giving the city an enormous urban black population—along with New York City, Cleveland, Detroit, Philadelphia, and other Northeast and Midwest cities. From 1940 to 1950, the Chicago black population nearly doubled, from 278,000 to nearly 500,000 (Miller, 2008). Most of the immigrant blacks in Chicago settled in the area known as the Black Belt, a geographic area along State Street on the South Side, where abject poverty was concentrated (Wilson, 1987). Large numbers of black workers were inspired “to leave family and friends and seek their fortunes in the North” (Marks, 1985, p. 5). But they faced formidable challenges. Many observers thought the black migrants were unqualified for the upward mobility paths that white immigrants had used in Northeast cities. However, “the reason for non-assimilation of Black migrants into American society was not because Blacks were non-urban or unskilled. It owed substantially… to racial segmentation of the labor force structured to keep them at what they had been recruited for, a source of cheap labor” (Marks, 1985, p. 22).

The origins of Chicago’s serious street gangs can be traced to blacks’ disproportionate residency in socially disorganized inner-city areas, dating back to the period between 1917 and the early 1920s (Cureton, 2009).12 “As more and more Blacks populated  Chicago, there was an increase in delinquency among Black youth as well… As one might anticipate, these activities invariably led to Black youth hanging out together and forming cliques, major ingredients for the formation of street gangs” (Perkins, 1987, p. 20). In addition, “athletics played an important role in the development of early Black street gangs” (p. 21). The games fueled conflicts between rival teams. By the mid-fifties, Black street gangs “began to vent their frustration and perpetrate violence against the Black community.” (Pages 6-7)

As for their impact today, the FBI’s, 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment – Emerging Trends[9] states,

“Gangs are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions and up to 90 percent in several others”.

This is not to imply that all Gangs are black but the point I think is clearly made. The Yankee Abolitionism failed miserably if it was ever meant to succeed and our predictions of how Abolition would morally and socially affect the blacks has been fully vindicated.


“Question 16: How do you think the transition from the present situation to community of Property is to be effected?

Answer: The first, fundamental condition for the introduction of community of property is the political liberation of the proletariat through a democratic constitution.”

Now this is an important issue to discuss. Did the Protestant Reformation and the Scottish Covenanters establish Democracy in their rejection of the Divine Right of Kings? No.

I deal with this in my Thomas Jefferson Was Wrong.


“Question 21: Will nationalities continue to exist under communism?

Answer: The nationalities of the peoples who join together according to the principle of community will be just as much compelled by this union to merge with one another and thereby supersede themselves as the various differences between estates and classes disappear through the superseding of their basis — private property.”

Here we see the clear Communist agenda behind Abolition and the 20th century Civil Rights movement. It is then, no surprise that the first major author to use the word “Racist” was a Communist named Leon Trotsky.[11] The Bible clearly teaches against a general mingling of the races.[12] If you think this is Southern white racist propaganda I refer you to Frederick Engels’ The Principles of Communism 1847 where he states,

“In antiquity, the workers were the slaves of the owners, just as they still are in many backward countries and even in the southern part of the United States.”[13]

The so called Civil War was nothing short of a Communist Revolution as I have cataloged in detail.[14]

Communism truly is the Economic Theory of Big Industry. Engels says,

“That big industry, and the limitless expansion of production which it makes possible, bring within the range of feasibility a social order in which so much is produced that every member of society will be in a position to exercise and develop all his powers and faculties in complete freedom.”[15]

Firstly, the paradox in this all, is that Industrialism was proved to provide an inferior standard of living than Southern Agrarianism for the working class. Robert Fogel’s Time on the Cross states,

“Data in the 1850 census suggest that the economic condition of the average free northern Negro may have been worse than that of the average free negro in the South.”[16]

And again,

“The material (not psychological) conditions of the lives of slaves compared favorably with those of free industrial workers.”[17]

And again,

“U.S. Slaves had much longer life expectations than free urban industrial workers in both the United States and Europe.”[18]

Secondly, Engels appeals to absolute freedom. This brings me back to my primary objection to Marxism’s Metaphysics and Anthropology which I wrote earlier.[19] This system is inherently Luciferian. All over Marx and Engels, you will find this obsession with “Freedom”. Engels states in our present consideration,

“The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.” (7)…

“The handicraftsman therefore frees himself by becoming either bourgeois or entering the middle class in general, or becoming a proletarian because of competition (as is now more often the case). In which case he can free himself by joining the proletarian movement, i.e., the more or less communist movement.” (9)…

“Big industry, freed from the pressure of private property, will undergo such an expansion that what we now see will seem as petty in comparison as manufacture seems when put beside the big industry of our own day.” (20)…

“Education will enable young people quickly to familiarize themselves with the whole system of production and to pass from one branch of production to another in response to the needs of society or their own inclinations. It will, therefore, free them from the one-sided character which the present-day division of labor impresses upon every individual. ” (20)

Marx and Engles are fundamentally concerned about keeping man free from any sort of social determinism. The paradox in it all, and this is right in keeping with its Hegelian roots, is that this “freedom” is socially established with the cruelest of compulsions and ends up “freeing” man by stripping him of all that it is to be a person. It dissolves his personality and humanity into a social collectivist monad. As soon as the Protestant Reformation was established in England, there was a huge Cultural explosion with the Elizabethan Era. And then with the Treaty of Westphalia the Western World was brought into the modern period and with it, the greatest Western literature and music ever composed.

What did Communism produce? Nothing but death! No one worthy of note! No Shakespeare, no Bach, no Rembrandt.

Communism has unlocked the gates of hell. Just to stick with the labor aspect, under today’s Capitalist-Communist Hegelian Dialectic we have child slave labor with the Walmart-China connection, a huge world-wide industry in trafficked Sex Slaves, and a massive Prison slave system, which said prisons are now privately owned![20] Yankee Capitalism indeed!

Just like in England, after the death of Oliver Cromwell, we have a pro-Jesuit Charles II-like Government, all the more willing to spread immorality and gross persecution upon Anglo Protestantism.  To add another staggering statistic, a recent CDC Fact Sheet, Incidence, Prevalence, and Cost of Sexually Transmitted Infections in the United States states,

“CDC’s new estimates show that there are about 20 million new infections in the United States each year, costing the American healthcare system nearly $16 billion in direct medical costs alone.”

Communism’s racial policy has also unleashed an inquisition upon the Anglo and European peoples:.

Take these Social results of Communism along with their Southern inquisition[21] and their many 20th Century Inquisitions [22], I wonder why the modern civilized man even allows these people rights of citizenship and assembly. Could it be because he himself is a Communist but doesn’t have the guts to take it consistently? Could it be that the modern man will have no other choice but to return to Southern Agrarianism for his survival and emancipation from a Global Empire? Could it be that the South will rise again? The South MUST rise again.

As a post-script a ninth agreement could be made regarding Darwinism.

[17] Ibid., 5

[18] Ibid., 126

This is Why Your Pastors and Your Fathers Will Do Nothing

Prov. 29:27 An unjust man is abominable to the righteous, And he who is upright in the way is abominable to the wicked.

If you are wondering why our men and the Pastors of this country will do nothing about what has happened here watch this. This is a war folks. These liberals have conquered your ancestors, they know more than them, they are more cunning and know how to use verbal manipulation and they are more motivated to use violence to destroy their enemies. This is a war folks and we must demand that if men in power want to stay in power that they will be on the front lines of this war or we will not follow them or enfranchise their institutions. We will not follow any man until we have seen him fired from his job his blood shed in battle his career and inheritance taken from him, etc. to demonstrate that he is actually fighting the enemy. We want to see his name on the SPLC’s hate watch list, and we want to see that he has been persecuted by this system, because if he isn’t he is cooperating with the Communists. When a man walks a righteous path the Bible says that the wicked see him as a monster and an abomination! Is this what the Church teaches? No. The Church teaches universal love and for there to be tolerance and love between the wicked and the righteous. On the contrary Yeshua says, Mat. 12:30 “He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters. The Bible, not the Church, displays the true nature of this world: war. If you aren’t conquering your enemies, they will be conquering you. And in our country the Church is the primary reason why the wicked are winning. The Pastors and the older men are cowards. Their wealth, their once-a-month sex session with their “wife”, and their social status is more important to them than making sure there is a future for the next generation.  That is why I exhort the reader to abandon your church and help me in the building of a new nation.

Is Yahwehism a Pagan Religion?

I would like to thank Glenn Miller at for his tireless research in pointing out these fantastic resources to me.

“Its (the name YHWH) earliest appearances are in the Song of Deborah (Judges 5; which has been dated to the 11th century b.c.), on the Mesha Stele (9th century; ANET, 320), in an ostracon from Kuntillet ˓Ajrud (8th century; Freedman 1987: 246), and in the Arad and Lachish Letters (6th century; ANET, 569, 322). … To move outside of the Levant, we find Egyptian name lists which include a Syrian site, Ya-h-wa (No. 97), which is identical to Yahweh. A Rameses II (1304–1237 b.c.) list is found in a Nubian temple in ˓Amarah West with six names (Nos. 93–98) following the designation “Bedouin area.” Nos. 96–98 have been found at Soleb in Nubia on an Amon temple of Amenhotep III (1417–1379). No. 93, Sa-˓ra-r, has been identified with Seir (Edom) and related to the biblical references (Deut 33:2) which associate Yahweh with Seir and Paran. This could be taken as evidence the name was known in Edom or Midianite territory ca. 1400 b.c. (EncRel 7: 483–84). … However, Astour (IDBSup, 971) notes that the writing “S-r-r” is incorrect as opposed to the spelling in other Egyptian inscriptions. Furthermore, three of the sites, including Yi-ha, on Rameses III’s temple in Medinet Habu, are in a Syrian context suggesting that Ya-h-wa/Yi-ha was also in Syria. Thus the name is not associated with Edom or Midianites but does seem to appear as early as 1400 b.c. in Syria. … From a later time, the 8th century b.c., two Aramean princes have names with the element “Yau.” This has been taken to mean that some Arameans may have worshipped Yahweh (Rankin 1950: 95). This could relate to the earlier connection of the Patriarchs with the Arameans, e.g., Jacob’s sojourn with Laban, the eponymous ancestor of the Arameans (Genesis 29–31). The divine name is not found in any cuneiform texts. … The formative -yw in some personal names from Ugarit (ca. 14th century b.c.) is not a divine element and has no connection with the name Yahweh. [Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6:1012). New York: Doubleday, s.v. “Yahweh”]



K.A. Kitchen:

“The individual themes of creation and flood … recur in other writings. Thus the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish (called ‘Babylonian creation’ in most books), completed by circa 1000 from older sources, has been repeatedly compared with Gen. 1-2. But despite the reiterated claims of an older generation of biblical scholars, Enuma Elish and Gen. 1-2 in fact share no direct relationship. Thus the word tehom/thm is common to both Hebrew and Ugaritic (north Syria) and means nothing more than ‘deep, abyss.’ It is not a deity, like Ti’amat, a goddess in Enuma Elish. In terms of theme, creation is the massively central concern of Gen. 1-2, but it is a mere tailpiece in Enuma Elish, which is dedicated to portraying the supremacy of the god Marduk of Babylon. The only clear comparisons between the two are the inevitable banalities: creation of earth and sky before the plants are put on the earth, and of plants before animals (that need to eat them) and humans; it could hardly have been otherwise! The creation of light before the luminaries is the only peculiarity that might indicate any link between the Hebrew and Enuma Elish narrative; but where did it earlier come from? Not known, as yet. Thus most Assyriologists have long since rejected the idea of any direct link between Gen. 1-11 and Enuma Elish, and nothing else better can be found between Gen. 1-11 and any other Mesopotamian fragments.” [OT:OROT, p.424ff; Note: His footnote mentions/references J.V. Kinnier-Wilson, W. G. Lambert, A. R. Millard, T. Jakobsen, with this intro: “Assyriologists generally reject any genetic relationship between Gen. 1-2 and the Mesopotamian data because of the considerable differences”.] [Page 424]


“The Eden narrative affinities with primitive folklore and other biblical and Ancient Near Eastern, especially Mesopotamian, compositions are many, yet there is no single piece of ancient literature which resembles the narrative as a whole, either in its details or theological significance.“…

“Yet another paradise narrative is the Sumerian tale of “Enki and Ninhursag” (Pritchard, texts 37-41), which describes the land (or island) of Dilmun, east of Sumer, as a pure, clean, and bright land, where there is neither sickness nor death, and where the animals live in harmony. One episode in the narrative involves the sun-god’s watering Dilmun with fresh water brought up out of the earth, thus making it fertile. The earth-goddess Ninhursag gives birth to eight plants, which the water-god Enki proceeds to devour. This leads Ninhursag to curse Enki; this nearly causes the latter’s death, but ultimately Ninhursag is made to heal him. Aside from the Eden narrative’s manifest similarities to these stories, the differences are also significant; most notable is the far more natural configuration of the narrative in Genesis 2-3, in contrast with the fantastic or supernatural nature of the other accounts...”…

“Not all details of the relationship of the Myth of Adapa to the Eden narrative are clear or necessarily convincing, but some relationship does seem indicated. The contrasts, aside from obviously wide divergence in details and plots, are most profound and characteristic in the area of underlying religious outlook.“…

“The above survey has led many scholars to the conclusion that the biblical Eden narrative has roots in Ancient Near Eastern literature. Yet, as stated above, these parallels are fragmentary, dealing with only a few motifs each, and the discrepancies in detail are often great. How these gaps were bridged cannot be said with certainty, presumably because of ignorance of the process of transmission of Ancient Near Eastern literature to the Bible.”

Ency. Judacia, s.v. “Paradise”, 13:82; To view photocopies of this reference see here:


Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, Ed. Alexander and Baker

“This sort of maximalist position would see the biblical authors as working directly from Mesopotamian exemplars as they carried out theological transformations. Though this sort of conclusion is common, the summary of comparative literary studies of Genesis 1-11 offered by R. S. Hess in the introduction to ‘I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood‘ demonstrates that [the maximalist’s] conclusions are far from universally held. D. Tsumura’s introduction in the same volume details the rejection of dependence on the Babylonian materials by such well-known Assyriologists as W. G. Lambert and A. Sjoberg….Nevertheless, given the complexity of the transmission of tradition and culture in the ancient world literary dependence is extremely difficult to prove.”, [Page 166-167]


Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context: A Survey of Parallels, by John H. Walton

“Similarities between Genesis and Enuma Elish have been frequently cited in great detail. While superficial parallels may be noted and do exist, the only substantial similarity occurs in the dividing of the body of Tiamat by Marduk to create the two separated spheres of water. This is comparable to God’s dividing the waters of the firmament on the second day of creation…In summary, then, it is difficult to discuss comparisons between Israelite and Mesopotamian literature concerning creation of the cosmos because the disparity is so marked. Differences include basic elemental issues such as theogony verus cosmogony, polytheism versus monotheism, and emphasis on organization versus emphasis on creative act. Similarities are either linguistic in nature or, as in most cases, due to the fact that the accounts are descriptive of the cosmos of which both are a part.” [AILCC, 26f]

“The two differing perspectives given concerning the creation of man are that either he sprang from the ground (Creation of the Pickax) or that he was formed from a clay mixture using the blood of a slain deity. From these details, it is clear that there are several differences between Mesopotamian and biblical beliefs concerning the creation of man.” [AILCC, p27ff; Note: Walton then lists/discusses the major points of discontinuity–material used, relationship to the Divine nature, monogenesis versus polygenesis (tn: humanity was created en masse in the ANE lit–not an original pair), and purpose of humanity]

The similarities between Genesis and Enuma Elish are too few to think that the author of Genesis was in any way addressing the piece of literature we know as Enuma Elish.” [AILCC, p.34]

The second possibility, that the Israelite account was borrowed from the Babylonians, has enjoyed an overabundance of popularity. In reality, there is nothing that would lend substantiating credence to this belief. The fact that Israel on occasion exhibits cultural characteristics assimilated from Babylon, as did most of the Ancient Near East, can in no way serve as independent proof that any given item was borrowed. Each potential case of borrowing must be studied on its own merits, for it is clear that there are several cultural elements from Mesopotamia that Israel rejected… The only evidence that can be produced to support the case for Israelite borrowing is the similarities we have already identified. These are hardly convincing, in that most of the similarities occur in situations where cosmological choices are limited. For example, the belief in a primeval watery mass is perfectly logical and one of only a few possibilities… Since there is little to suggest direct borrowing on the part of the Israelites, we would be inclined to accept a more cautious position…” [AILCC, p. 37], [Page 26, 27-34]


I Studied Inscriptions From Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, edited by Richard S. Hess, David Toshio,

Alan R. Millard:

“Reconstruction of a process whereby Babylonian myths were borrowed by the Hebrews, having been transmitted by the Canaanites, and ‘purged’ of pagan elements remains imaginary. It has yet to be shown that any Canaanite material was absorbed into Hebrew sacred literature on such a scale or in such a way…However, it has yet to be shown that there was borrowing, even indirectly. Differences between the Babylonian and the Hebrew traditions can be found in factual details of the Flood narrative (form of the Ark; duration of the Flood, the identity of the birds and their dispatch) and are most obvious in the ethical and religious concepts of the whole of each composition. All who suspect or suggest borrowing by the Hebrews are compelled to admit large-scale revision, alteration, and reinterpretation in a fashion that cannot be substantiated for any other composition from the ancient Near East or in any other Hebrew writing. If there was borrowing then it can have extended only as far as the “historical” framework, and not included intention or interpretation. The fact that the closest similarities lie in the Flood stories is instructive. For both Babylonians and Hebrews the Flood marked the end of an age. Mankind could trace itself back to that time; what happened before it was largely unknown. The Hebrews explicitly traced their origins back to Noah, and, we may suppose, assumed that the account of the Flood and all that went before derived from him. Late Babylonian sages supposed that tablets containing information about the ante-diluvian world were buried at Sippar before the Flood and disinterred afterwards. The two accounts undoubtedly describe the same Flood, the two schemes relate the same sequence of events. If judgment is to be passed as to the priority of one tradition over the other, Genesis inevitably wins for its probability in terms of meteorology, geophysics, and timing alone. In creation its account is admired for its simplicity and grandeur, its concept of man accords well with observable facts. In that the patriarch Abraham lived in Babylonia, it could be said that the stories were borrowed from there, but not that they were borrowed from any text now known to us. Granted that the Flood took place, knowledge of it must have survived to form the available accounts; while the Babylonians could only conceive of the event in their own polytheistic language, the Hebrews, or their ancestors, understood the action of God in it. Who can say it was not so?” [[ISI, “A New Babylonian ‘Genesis’ Story”, p.126f]” [Pages 126-128]


The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment, Livingston (1974), page 141,

“As a literary production, Genesis 2 and 3 have no parallel in ancient Near Eastern literature. The Epic of Adapa, often presented as a parallel, is not really so, either in literary structure, in moral emphasis, or in theological content.”






As for the objection that Yahew was a Canaanite Deity, W. F. Albright showed this to be a mis-reading of the so called Yahu-Stamps:











A Critique of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man

An Examination of the Declaration of the Rights of Man – 1789, Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789

What is the Biblical theory of rights?

In Robert Lewis Dabney’s, “Anti-Biblical Theories of Rights”, Dabney lays out the fundamental form of government and the theory of rights taught in the Bible:

“So far as God gave to the chosen people a political form, the one which he preferred was a confederation of little republican bodies represented by their elderships. (Exodus 18:25-26; 3:16; Numbers 11:16-17; 32:20-27.)”

When he conceded to them, as it were under protest,[1 Sam. 8- DS] a regal form, it was a constitutional and elective monarchy. (1 Samuel 10:24-25.) The rights of each tribe were secured against vital infringement of this constitution by its own veto power. They retained the prerogative of protecting themselves against the usurpations of the elective king by withdrawing at their own sovereign discretion from the confederation. (1 Kings 12:13-16.)

The history of the secession of the ten tribes under Jeroboam is often misunderstood through gross carelessness. No divine disapprobation is anywhere expressed against the ten tribes for exercising their right of withdrawal from the perverted federation. When Rehoboam began a war of coercion he was sternly forbidden by God to pursue it. (1 Kings 12:24.)

The act by which “Jeroboam made Israel to sin against the Lord” was wholly another and subsequent one—his meddling with the divinely appointed constitution of the church to promote merely political ends. (1 Kings 12:26-28.)

Thus, while the Bible history does not prohibit stronger forms of government as sins per se, it indicates God’s preference for the representative republic as distinguished from the levelling democracy; and to this theory of human rights all its moral teachings correspond. On the one hand, it constitutes civil society of superiors, inferiors and equals (see Shorter Catechism, Question 64), making the household represented by the parent and master the integral ‘unit of the social fabric, assigning to each order, higher or lower, its rule or subordination under the distributive equity of the law. On the other hand, it protected each order in its legal privileges, and prohibited oppression and injustice as to all.”

Now to an examination of the Atheistic view of Politics as laid out in The Declaration of the Rights of Man – 1789, Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789, 

“1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.”

>>>This is creedalized here in our country with Thomas Jefferson’s famous words, “all men are created equal.” The most obvious problem with this principle is the relationship between parents and children. Children are human and thus must be equal.

Now, at this point, the liberal will jolt his head back roll his eyes and his face will get beet red. “That’s ridiculous!” he will exclaim. Right, but the problem is, it follows directly from your premises. In a fit of desperation, the liberal will play a semantic game with you. He’ll say, well ok, being human isn’t the ground of equal rights, a base standard intelligence and human value is. Women are just as intelligent as men, and just as human, or at least capable of a base standard intelligence.

First, the invocation of value is completely arbitrary. What theory of value? The Marxist Labor theory? The Austrian Subjective theory? Or maybe the Aristotelian Utility theory? This is disgusting manipulation. According to the Bible immoral people have no value, whether they are intelligent or not. In my experience the more intelligent a person is the more capacity they have for evil. Second, appealing to rationality as the basis for equal human value and equality of opportunity is the Theology of the Church and its doctrine of humanity as God’s image.According to the Church, we are not physical beings, we are actually light beings called souls, trapped inside the clay prison of the body. The image of God then is not man as is clearly stated in Gen. 1:26-27 and 1 Cor. 11:7, but logic and rationality.  Thus, the soul doctrine refuted:

But on this Catholic Theology, and I hope the atheist reader knows he is operating on Catholic Theology, human beings equal in value at the level of the light being, should have equality of justice, opportunity and franchise.

Children know innately that they are subordinated, and hence not equal, women do to, but are brainwashed and indoctrinated into denying their nature, to those who created them. And if in case the reader thinks that I am misinterpreting these words I would like to draw your attention to Engels’ Principles of Communism  (Remember, the Communist Manifesto was written during the Second French Revolution), Section 21,

“What will be the influence of communist society on the family?

It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage – the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents.”

You see, among other things, this doctrine is designed to strip parents of their authority over their children and to place the state in the position of master and teacher. And get this folks, the vast majority of so called Bible believers fall for this nonsense hook, line and sinker.  Secondly, what is the general good? Is this the same thing as the majority vote? If so, how does this not succumb to the problems of Utilitarian ethics? Thirdly, what is a right? How do we know about rights? Are rights things I can see, touch, smell, hear or taste? If not how do I know about it? Empiricists cannot appeal to innate forms because they believe all knowledge begins with sensation and thus Locke’s Tabula Rasa follows necessarily.

Dabney lays out the basic idea of the Jacobins, in that they teach all men are,

“entitled to ‘all the same franchises and functions in society as well as to his moral equality; so that it is a natural iniquity to withhold from any adult person by law any prerogative which is legally conferred on any other member in society. The equality must be mechanical as well as moral, else the society is charged with natural injustice… (1), There can be no just imputation of the consequences of conduct from one human being to another in society; (2), No adult person can be justly debarred from any privilege allowed to any other person in the order or society, except for conviction of crime; (3), All distinctions of ” caste” are essentially and inevitably wicked and oppressive; (4), Of course every adult is equally entitled to the franchise of voting and being voted for, and all restrictions here, except for the conviction of crime, are natural injustice; (5), Equal rights and suffrage ought to be conceded to women in every respect as to men.”

And then of course, they utterly reject the very essence of the slavery institution.

Dabney refutes each point from Scripture:

(1.) Of course hereditary imputation is involved in the persons of Adam and Messiah, but besides these, Dabney adds other instances of hereditary imputation in Holy Scripture,

“I add other instances, some of which are equally extensive. “The woman was first in the transgression,” for which God laid upon Eve two penalties (Gen. iii. 16), subordination to her husband and the sorrows peculiar to motherhood. The New Testament declares (1 Tim. ii. 11 to end) that it is right her daughters shall continue to endure these penalties to the end of the world. (See also 1 Peter, iii. 1-6.) In Genesis ix. 25-27, Ham, the son of Noah, is guilty of an unfilial crime. His posterity are condemned with him and share the penalty to this day. In Ex. xx. 5, God declares that he will visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations. Amalek met Israel in the time of his flight and distress with robbery and murder, instead of hospitality. Not only were the immediate actors punished by Joshua, but the descendants of Amalek are excluded forever from the house of the Lord, for the crime of their fathers. (Deut. xxv. 19.) It is needless to multiply instances, except one more, which shall refute the favorite dream of the rationalists that Jesus substituted a milder and juster law. For this Jesus said to the Jews of his own day (Matt, xxiii. 32-36) : ” Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers: . . . that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation.”

(2.) Dabney refutes the idea of universal equality of franchise,

“Not to speak of the subordination of women and domestic bondage (of which more anon), God distributed the franchises unequally in the Hebrew commonwealth. The priestly family possessed, by inheritance, certain teaching and ruling functions which the descendants of no other tribe could share. There was a certain law of primogeniture, entitled the right of the firstborn, which the younger sons did not share equally, and which the father himself could not alienate. (Deut. xxi. 15,16.) The fathers of houses (Ex. xviii. 21; Josh. xxii. 14), in virtue of their patriarchal authority, held a senatorial dignity, and this evidently for life. (See also the history of Barzillai.)”

(3.) Dabney refutes the atheistic, absolute denial of caste or inequality in privilege,

“Of course there is a sense in which every just conscience reprehends inequalities of caste. This is where they are made pretext for depriving an order or class of citizens of privileges which belong to them of right, and for whose exercise they are morally and intellectually qualified. But this is entirely a different thing from saying that all the different orders of persons in a state are naturally and morally entitled to all the same privileges, whether qualified or not, simply because they are men and adults…Thus, in the Hebrew commonwealth, the descendants of Levi were disfranchised of one privilege which belonged to all their brethren of the other tribes; and enfranchised with another privilege from which all their brethren were excluded. A Levite could not hold an inch of land in severalty. (Num. xviii. 22, 23.) No member of another tribe, not even of the princely tribe of Judah, could perform even the lowest function in the tabernacle. (Heb. vii. 13, 14.) These differences are nowhere grounded in any statement that the children of Levi were more or less intelligent and religious than their fellow-citizens…A “caste distinction ” is also found among the bondmen, whose subjection was legalized by the constitution. A person of Hebrew blood could only be enslaved for six years. A person of foreign blood could be held in hereditary slavery, although born within the land of Israel as much as the other. It was also provided that the treatment of bondmen of Hebrew blood should be more lenient. (Lev. xxv. 42-47.) A “caste distinction” was also provided concerning the entrance of persons of foreign blood into the Hebrew state and church. (Exodus xvii. 16; Deut. xxiii.3-8.)… Let the inference from these histories be clearly understood. It is not claimed that these caste distinctions established by God himself obligate us positively to establish similar distinctions in our day. But the fact that God once saw fit to establish them does prove that they cannot be essentially sinful. To assert that they are, impugns the righteousness of God….”We shall be reminded of Paul’s famous declaration (Col. iii. 11): “Where there is neither Jew nor Greek, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all and in all”; or this (Gal. iii. 28): ” There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Now the Torah did indeed say that there was to be one law in Israel.

“Num 15: 15 As for the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the alien who sojourns with you, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; as you are, so shall the alien be before the Lord. 16 There is to be one law and one ordinance for you and for the alien who sojourns with you.’”

This legal and moral equality was the exact thing that was rejected by Christian Feudalism, as Adalberon (bishop of Laon) famously stated, “Nobles and serfs, indeed, are not governed by the same ordinance.”[2] For example, according to the Torah,

Lev. 24: 17 ‘If a man takes the life of any human being, he shall surely be put to death. 18 The one who takes the life of an animal shall make it good, life for life. 19 If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.

Notice, the Torah did not distinguish between the rich and the poor. If a poor man killed a rich man, he was put to death. If a rich man killed a poor man, he was put to death. (Christianity also does not understand this. That is why they believe in the eternal punishment of hell. They think that offending an infinite person requires an infinite punishment. This operates right off of Dark Age feudalistic thinking) The Torah enacted equal justice, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, regardless of one’s station or place in society. That is the equality which the Torah enacted: blind, equal justice. It did not demand an absolute equality of privilege and franchise. That is the delusional insanity of Communism.

As a qualification, Dabney’s Christianity comes out when he says, “It is not claimed that these caste distinctions established by God himself obligate us positively to establish similar distinctions in our day.” Though my love for Dabney could not improve; I respect the man as much as any man could respect another; however, this statement right here is precisely why modern Christianity rejected the emphasis on the Torah that the Puritanic Colonies used to have. It is an inherent design flaw in Christianity.

One of many problems for the liberal argument at the later part of Dabney’s statement above is that these passages (E.g. Gal 3:28) obviously did not remove the supremacy of the male and the subordination of the female as Dabney will prove in a moment. So if it did not remove the natural distinctions between male and female, it did not remove the racial ones. The distinction removed here is spiritual.

(4.) Dabney refutes universal suffrage so enshrined in the slogan, “One man, one vote”,

“4. God’s commonwealth was not founded on universal suffrage. That he rejected the Jacobinical principle is plain from the history of the Gibeonites. They were exempted by covenant with Joshua from the doom of extinction, and retained a title to homes for many generations upon the soil of Palestine, and, as we see from 2 Sam. xxi. 6, they were very carefully protected in certain rights by the government. They were not domestic slaves, neither were they fully enfranchised citizens. From the higher franchises of that rank they were shut out by a hereditary disqualification, and this was done by God’s express enactment. (Josh. ix. 27.)…And to make the matter worse, the Scripture declares that this disqualification descended by imputation from the guilt of the first generation’s paganism and fraud upon Joshua”.

(5.) Dabney refutes the idea of gender equality,

“If a Hebrew landholder had male descendants when he died, his daughters inherited no share in his land. They could inherit land in cases where there was no male heir. And this was the legislation, not of Moses, but of God himself. (Num. xxvii. 8.)

It is more decisive to add, that the New Testament continues to assign subordination to women. 1 Cor. xi. 3: ” The head of the woman is the man.” 1 Cor. xiv. 34: ” Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” Eph. v. 22-24: ” Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. . . .

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.” 1 Tim. ii. 11, 12: “Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence,” (oude abdevreiiv dudpo;, “nor to dominate man.” The concept of usurpation is only implicit in the Greek verb.) 1 Tim. v. 14: “I will, therefore, that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.” Titus, ii. 4, 5: “That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” 1 Pet. iii. 1, 5, 6: “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands, that if any obey not the word they also without the word may be won by the conversation of the wives; for after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.”

(6.) The sixth issue pertains to slavery which I have already given attention to in great detail.[3]

“2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.”

>>>There is some truth here but it is incomplete.

“The supreme end of magistracy is only the glory of God as King of nations, and as exercising dominion over the inhabitants of the earth… The subordinate end of the civil power is, that all public sins committed presumptuously against the moral law, may be exemplarily punished, and that peace, justice, and good order, may be preserved and maintained in the commonwealth, which doth greatly redound to the comfort and good of the church, and to the promoting of the course of the gospel.”[4]

The Declaration goes on to define liberty, “Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else”. First, as we have already discussed, the rights of men have yet to be accounted for, but now we have at least a definition of what rights the French think men have. Second, we have no definition of what an injury is. Government, de jure government, that is Government with well being, also has religious responsibilities and ends. As the Westminster Confession 23.1 states concerning the Father,

“the supreme Lord and King of all the world, has ordained civil magistrates, to be, under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, has armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers.”[5]

Here we see that Civil law must reflect Yah’s law in order to identify evil doers. And again, at 23.3,

Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;[5]yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.[6] For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.[7][6]

You see, heresy is an attack upon a body politic; that is, it inflicts injuries. Christian heresy, which abrogates the law of Moses is a key example. The modern banking system is a result of Christianity’s rejection of the Torah’s usury laws. Thus, we see that Yah’s law intends to preserve man’s right to truth. With usury laws, we preserve man’s right to property and to the enjoyment of the earth.

The institution of Civil Government, is not a human invention designed to control humanity through Priestcraft or other forms of psychological manipulation. It is a divine ordinance derived from God the Father immediately as Creator.[7] Thus it is a law of nature. Therefore, even if Adam had not fallen, Civil Government would still have been ordained though the power of the sword would not have been. We can infer this because there is a Government even among the sinless angels.[8] Therefore, this institution is not based on grace but on nature. The institution of the Congregation (commonly referred to as the Church), is also not a human invention designed to control humanity through Priestcraft or other forms of psychological manipulation. It is a divine ordinance derived from Messiah immediately as Mediator.[9] This, the congregation, is based on grace. Therefore, the Yahudim as well as Atheists or Pagans[10] have the right, yes even an obligation, to raise up a Civil Government for the protection of its people. The Yahudim set up a Government de jure, with well-being. The atheists set up a Government de facto, with only being.

Operating off the same principles as anarchists, and this is something common with the Eastern Church, the East does not like to speak at all about necessities of nature, whether divine or human due to their Pelagianism. They don’t like the idea that nature influences action, because they know it ends up inevitably in Calvinism. It is this rejection of biblical revelation that the East denies the necessity of law upon man. Following Maximus the Confessor, they distinguish natural goodness from righteousness. However, Turretin shows that one cannot distinguish between natural good and righteousness when discussing a rational person:

Turretin says, Institutes, Vol. 1, 5th Topic, Q.10,

“X. First, because man was created upright and good and so originally righteous. Moral goodness and rectitutde necessarily include righteousness; nay, it is the righteousness of which Moses speaks, ‘God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was every good’ (Gen. 1:31). ‘God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions’ (Ecc. 7:29). Socinus, however, falsely pretends that tvb in Gen. 1, does not signify rectitude of soul or righteousness, but the aptitude and fitness to that which God had proposed to himself (and is extended to all the works of creation).Because although this may be said of all God’s works in general, yet it ought to pertain in particular to each one and should be applied peculiarly to man (according to the state of his nature and suitably to the end for which he was destined by God). Therefore as brutes and other creatures are called good by natural goodness, man (who is a rational creature and should be in moral subjection to God and his law)is declared to be good by a moral goodness, without which he could not attain his appointed end (viz. the glory and worship of God).  The word yshr in Ecc. 7:29 cannot only denote a negation of unrighteousness and a want of sin (with an indifference to good and evil), but necessarily marks the possession of righteousness by which he is reckoned upright and perfect (i.e., conformed to the law). It is frequently rendered in the Septuagint (in accordance with the subject matter) by dikaion, katharon, kalon, and agathon The antithesis confirms this because he opposes moral pravity in the vain reasonings of men to the rectitude in which man was created.”[11]

Turretin shows that it is a necessity of nature for God to place rational creatures under a law presupposing their creation. It is this necessity of nature that is at the basis of the necessity for civil magistracy.

You will notice in my examination of Communism here and other places how uniformly the Communists operate off of Eastern Orthodox anthropology. The supposed absolute freedom of the hypostasis leads the Pelagian Eastern Church to state that only man’s environment compels him to do evil. This is uniformly agreed upon in Communist literature.  And here we have the anarchist tendencies of Communism and the Pelagian Eastern Church coming to fruition in the recent Zeitgeist movement which advocates the abolishment of the state.

“3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.”

>>> There is much truth here but like any effective deception, it is mixed with some error. Civil Government ministers good by institution; that is by ordaining offices and lawful powers found in Yah’s Moral Law[12], and by constitution; that is, by securing the consent of the people by election and the drawing up of a conditional covenant between himself and the people.[13]  Again Gillespie,

“The supreme end of magistracy is only the glory of God as King of nations, and as exercising dominion over the inhabitants of the earth… The subordinate end of the civil power is, that all public sins committed presumptuously against the moral law, may be exemplarily punished, and that peace, justice, and good order, may be preserved and maintained in the commonwealth, which doth greatly redound to the comfort and good of the church, and to the promoting of the course of the gospel.”[14]

The Sovereignty of the people to elect a ruler as shown above, is not the same sovereignty being affirmed by the French. The concept of Popular Sovereignty affirms that the authority of Government is derived from the consent of the governed. This is true, but only instrumentally, not essentially and absolutely. This is why Rutherford’s book Lex Rex (The Law is King in contrast to Rex Lex: The King is the Law) was not entitled Vox Populi Vox Dei: the voice of the people is the voice of God which amounts to nothing less than that the people are the sovereign. In Harold Laski’s attempt to corner the Protestant theory in an anarchist position he says,

“For once it is clear that the prince holds his power upon conditions, becomes necessary to discover the means through which those conditions may be enforced. The merit of popular sovereignty at once becomes apparent; and to an age still permeated by feudal notions, princely power becomes, at least in part, the result of, and dependent upon, a contract with the people.” Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, Historical Introduction.

Does Protestantism teach that Government is ordained by the people and not by God? No. Samuel Rutherford says in Lex Rex, Question I and Question II,

“I reduce all that I am to speak of the power of kings, to the author or efficient, — the matter or subject, — the form or power, — the end and fruit of their Government, — and to some cases of resistance. Hence,

The question is either of Government in general, or of particular species of Government, such as Government by one only, called monarchy, the Government by some chief leading men, named aristocracy, the Government by the people, going under the name of democracy. We cannot but put difference betwixt the institution of the office, viz. Government, and the designation of person or persons to the office. What is warranted by the direction of nature’s light is warranted by the law of nature, and consequently by a divine law; for who can deny the law of nature to be a divine law?


That power of Government in general must be from God, I make good, 1st, Because (Rom. xiii. 1) “there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.”2nd, God commandeth obedience, and so subjection of conscience to powers; Rom. xiii. 5, “Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, (or civil punishment) but also for conscience sake;” 1 Pet. ii. 13, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the king as supreme,” &c. Now God only by a divine law can lay a band of subjection on the conscience, tying men to guilt and punishment if they transgress.

Conclus. All civil power is immediately from God in its root; in that, 1st, God hath made man a social creature, and one who inclineth to be governed by man, then certainly he must have put this power in man’s nature; so are we, by good reason, taught by Aristotle. 2nd, God and nature intendeth the policy and peace of mankind, then must God and nature have given to mankind a power to compass this end; and this must be a power of Government. I see not, then, why John Prelate, Mr. Maxwell, the excommunicated prelate of Ross, who speaketh in the name of J. Armagh, had reason to say, That he feared that we fancied that the Government of superiors was only for the more perfect, but had no authority over or above the perfect, nec lex, nec rex, justo posita. He might have imputed this to the Brazillians, who teach that every single man hath the power of the sword to revenge his own injuries, as Molina saith…. Therefore I see not but Govarruvias, Soto, and Suarez, have rightly said, that power of Government is immediately from God, and this or that definite power is mediately from God, proceeding from God by the mediation of the consent of a community, which resigneth their power to one or more rulers; and to me, Barclaius saith the same, Quamvis populus potentice largitor videatur, &c.”[15]

This principle is explained in a masterful way in an article The New Constitution of Pennsylvania appearing in The Reformation Advocate, (vol. 1, no. 7), September, 1875, pp. 197-200. It was a critique of the American Atheistic principles in the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1874 and appended to Samuel B. Wylie’s book The Two Sons of Oil,

“[Article 1.,] Sec. 2. [of the Constitution of 1874] declares that “all power is inherent in the people.” By this, Pennsylvania means that the power to institute and administer civil Government exists in the people, like a property or attribute in a subject, so as to be inseparable from that subject, and essential to its very existence…the people are not a subject in which Government necessarily exists as a power, but merely an object, upon which it is intended to act as a power, by him in whom it necessarily exists, as an almighty power—”there is no power but of God.” The divine Government on earth is thus symbolically represented; Dan. 7:9, “his throne (the Mediator’s) was like the fiery flame, and his wheels (his providences) like burning fire.” And civil Government, is just the divine Government over men upon the earth. Just here is where Pennsylvania in her new constitution was lost. The convention laid it down as an axiom—a self-evident truth, that civil Government is a mere human thing—is inherent in the people. A most egregious blunder!

Government is the exercise of moral power upon the people as its object: not an emanation or flowing forth of moral power from them, as its origin or fountain.”[16]

Therefore, the correct statement is not, “The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation”. The correct statement is, “The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in Yah the Creator through the nation”. I appreciate the Declaration’s attempt to steer away from the individual sovereignty of their Anarchist brethren, but the attempt still failed.

“4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.”

>>>Again how do we define injury without the law of Yah? And also, what is society? Is this just a name for a reality that Empiricists can give no account for? Has the Frenchman actually seen a society or has he abstracted it? If the latter how can an Empiricist account for an abstraction that he cannot touch, or smell or taste or see, or hear? The secular mind will scoff at this question and appeal to common sense. The rise of the modern banking system is the most devastating rebuttal to such an appeal. What is wrong with taking interest from a loan if that loan provides a service for you? The loaner should get paid for using his money! Makes sense right? It appears to be common sense! Yet usury is detestable according to the Torah and the same inevitable result that Nehemiah saw in chapter 5 of his book is upon us today. Common sense is obviously not reliable. Economics is too nebulous to resort to “common sense”. Supposedly, the free sex movement was about love of your common man. That made perfect sense to our parents 50+ years ago. Now that this movement has permeated our culture, and the pill is an established method to avoid pregnancy, a man cannot find a woman to marry that has not had sex with many different men. It tortures the minds of the men here to know how many men their loved one has been with. No wonder marriage is avoided so much in our modern times. What seemed to be common sense and love for your fellow man, is actually destroying the family.  We may not see the injury that lies before us during our immediate action. This is why revelation from an omniscient being is necessary to a consistent and effective theory of ethics. Because fornication is a behavior considered to be non-injurious and even celebrated I am not assured the enjoyment of marriage and family. 

“5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law”

>>>Prov. 14: 34 sin is a disgrace to any people. So heresy is not hurtful to society? Sabbath breaking is not hurtful? Dissolution of the family is not hurtful? I will give you a perfect example of why false religion harms a society. From our Western Civilization text again,

“Therefore, when the Hebrews confronted natural phenomena, they experienced God’s magnificent handiwork, not objects with wills of their own. All natural phenomenon-rivers, mountains, storms, stars-were divested of any supernatural quality. The stars and planets were creations of Yahweh, not divinities or the abodes of divinities. The Hebrews neither regarded them with awe nor worshipped them. This removal of the gods from nature is a necessary prerequisite for scientific thought

The Hebrews demythicized nature”.[17]

You see, non-Abrahamic religions theoretically prevented their people from progressing technologically. Moreover, many years ago I was committed to one religious group who promised to fund my college expenses in exchange for certain services and they refused to come through a month and a half before I graduated, because I became convinced of certain Presbyterian doctrines. This spiraled my life into financial ruin which resulted in the loss of everything I worked for my entire adult life. I know of others who have been persecuted for being Sabbatarian, but I am a Sabbatarian and I have had to take huge debts which resulted in the loss of a prosperous career and my health because this society’s economy ipso facto rejects the Sabbatarian’s rights to practice his religion. I believe that general work and business on the Sabbath is prohibited and because of this I have been refused employment on scores of occasions. I have filled out or sent thousands of resumes and applications to employers during the last semester of college and after I graduated. The only jobs I could get were positions that paid little more than minimum wage. I had to get multiple jobs to survive which ended up destroying my health. I know many other people who believe the same thing and have been threatened to lose their jobs if they don’t work on the Sabbath. No nation allows freedom of religion. Its people through their own actions develop economies that inherently prejudice the religion of others. Human life is inherently Theocratic or at least Establishmentarian.

The Sabbath command was rejected by the French Revolution’s French Republican Calendar, and its ten day work week. It was rejected by the people as injurious to them. Yah is wiser than us and knows what it good for us and what harms us. Yah is wiser than men.

Not only is the materialist a failure in identifying beneficial behavior, what he thinks is injurious, like the institution of slavery has actually been proven to be beneficial. The blacks in North America have never enjoyed a greater standard of living and a more moral and familial stability than under Southern Slavery.

Also, slavery insures a native manual labor force and thus removes the present justification for illegal immigration.

“6. Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.”

>>>So does the decision have to be unanimous? If so, good luck with that one. If not, where does a Government or anyone get the authority to coerce someone else? By what right does a majority coerce a minority? Is the majority decision distinct from common good? If so what is the distinction?

And we all know these people are rabid hypocrites and liars. During the history of the South here in North America, the Southern people decided that slavery was condoned by Elohim in the Bible, because it is. Yet, in typical Theocratic fashion, the Communists led the Yankee Army down here to rape, pillage and murder us for expressing our general will. The same thing happened to us during the Civil Rights era. It did not matter that the majority of the people in the Southern states did not want their culture and their race destroyed through integration and miscegenation. The Communists here in America imposed their will on us against our will at the end of a bayonet.[21] And let’s just get horrifyingly honest: The United States fundamentally contradicted its First Amendment when it made slavery illegal. What it said was the Bible’s religious teaching is criminal for condoning the owning of slaves. Truth hurts.

7. No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense.

>>>This is a Biblical Right. According to the Torah, no penalty was to be executed upon anyone without due process upon the testimony of two credible witnesses.[22] Moreover, extending from the Biblical rights of private property[23] and an express injunction against nonconsensual search and seizure[24], the Rights delegated in the 4th Amendment to the American Bill of Rights are also Biblical.

8. The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense.

>>>Yahovah is the one who decides what is necessary and what is cruel. All the punishments in the Torah, beating[25], hanging[26], stoning[27], burning alive[28], along with severe torture to those who deserve it[29] (These were not citizens of Israel), shall continue through due process as Yah commanded them. Christianity and Western Civilization in general needs to grow a pair.

The Communists have no moral leg to stand on here. The bloodbaths and mass rapes these people indulged in in Russia, France, Asia and here in the South of North America[30] in the 19th and 20th Centuries gives them no room to lecture anyone on how to treat other human beings. 

“9. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner’s person shall be severely repressed by law.”

>>>Agreed. Penalties are only inflicted through due process.

“10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.

11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.”

>>> This is a direct contradiction to 1. The first few Commandments of the Decalogue.   2. The nature of Truth. 3. Biblical Anthropology.  4. The Kingship of the Messiah.

1. Deut. 13 precludes absolute freedom of speech as an application of the first commandment.

2. This legislation is intended to confuse the Congregation of Yah with thousands of religious factions. First, the Congregation, both in the laity and the pastoral, is commanded to have one voice[31] and against this one faith, there is to be severe rebuke to those who speak other doctrines.[32]

Samuel Rutherford says,

“Assertion 1.) “Such opinions and practices as make an evident schism in a Church, and set up two distinct Churches, of different forms of government, and pretending to different institutions of Christ, of which the one must by the nature of their principles labor the destruction of the other, cannot be tolerated [Free Disputation, 7.3] …there is but one old way, Jer. 6. 16. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph. 4. 4. One faith once delivered to the Saints, Jude 3. one truth to be bought, Prov. 23. 23. one Christ, which the Apostles, heard, saw, and handled with their hands, from the beginning, 1 John 1, 1. One name of Jesus, not any other under heaven by which we may be saved, Act. 4. 12. not Jehovah and Malcom, Zeph. 1. 5. not Jehovah and Baal, 1 King. 18. 21. not the true God, and the Gods of the heathen, the Samaritan mixture, 2 King. 17. 33. (2) And this one way we are to keep with one heart, Ezek. 11. 19. with one judgment, one mind, one tongue, one shoulder, Act. 4. 32, 2 Cor. 13. 11, Phil. 4. 2, 1 Cor. 1. 10, Zeph. 3. 9. Zach. 4. 9. Being rooted and established in the faith, Col. 2. 7. Not tossed to and fro, nor carried about with every wind of doctrine, Eph. 4. 14. Without wavering, Heb. 13. 9.” [Free Disputation, Chapter 12.2]

Objection. Doesn’t 1 John make things very simple, he that hath the Son hath life he that hath not the Son hath not life? Answer. By the Son, you could mean many things. The Messiah is a different person in the many thousands of factions we here. Do you mean Jesus, Yehoshuwah or who? Objection. If what you are saying is true all the Church fathers (Along with the rest of the history of Christianity) are going to hell for they held different doctrines! Answer. I am not arguing for a method of determining who is going to hell and who is going to heaven. I am arguing for a method of determining how the true religion is to be recognized and visibly administrated (By the Congregation and Magistrate) not a method of determining if the true religion has been applied to an individual (Which is the prerogative of Yah alone).

Rutherford says,

“But I hope Jeremiah had not the people of God in Judea, under the Babylonish captivity, follow an Heathenish peace, with toleration of divers Religions, or yet a Religious peace, or a Church peace, that standeth well with many Religions, yea they are to denounce wrath against the Chaldean Religion, Jer. 10. 11. and would he have Christians all keeping such an Heathenish unity and peace, as Babylonians and Americans have, and in the mean time tolerate all Religions, Christians who have one God, and one faith, and one hope are to follow more than a Civil and Heathenish peace” [Free Disputation. Chapter 25. Next to Last Paragraph]

Truly, the essence of a Congregation only requires the gospel of Messiah but proclaiming the gospel is not the only vocation of the Congregation. The New Covenant clearly defines many negative fundamentals:

1. Professing that the resurrection has past 2 Tim 1:17-18, 1 Tim 1:19-20;

2. Professing that circumcision is required for salvation Gal 5:3-4  Compare with Acts 15:5, 24;

3. Professing that eating meat offered to idols is nothing even if you know it was offered to an idol, even though it is a grievous sin to eat meat offered to idols with knowledge of such Rev 2:14-16, 1 Cor 8:1-13; 1 Cor 10:25-33

4. Forbidding marriage 1 Tim 4:1-3;

5. Teaching that Messiah did not come in the flesh 2 Tim 1:7;

6. Professing that the day of the Lord has already come before the apostasy 2 Th 2:1-3;

7. Professing another gospel Gal 1:8-9 (Implied mixing faith and works from the context);

8. Teaching synchristic fables and geologies Tit 1:14, 1 Tim 1:4, Tit 3:9-10, 1 Ti 1:3, 2 Jo 1:9, 2 Jo 1:10. In addition to the support of this claim Rutherford says:

“Neither give heed to fables and endless Genealogies, which minister questions, rather then edifying, which is in faith, then to preach fables and endless Genealogies which are not fundamental errors, are yet another doctrine than the Apostles taught, and those that so teach are to be charged to teach no such thing, and so under two or three witnesses, if they willfully continue therein, to be accused and censured, yea and we are to avoid them, and not to receive them in our houses, nor bid them God speed, and so non-fundamentals as questions of Genealogies come in under the name of e`terodidaskalein of teaching uncouth doctrine.”

Second, Yah  holds people accountable for heresy even if what they said directly is not heresy but the logical consequence is.[33]

Thirdly, ignorance is a judgment of God on a people for sin and not an excuse for heresy.[34]

Fourthly, theological knowledge is the material cause of salvation and does not corrupt its possessor per se.[35]

3. Freedom of religion operates off of the assumption that if you give man freedom of worship he will seek the truth. On the contrary, the Scriptures teach: John 3: 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.

4. The Scriptures teach that the risen Messiah Yehoshuwah has civil authority over all nations[36] and all his Political enemies will be destroyed.[37]

Torah based theocracy does not require men to force other men to attend their religious institutions. But it does mean that the magistrate has the authority to force heretics out of society. This is also not an absolute control of the press. We are mostly concerned with people speaking to lead the people to another religion. People will follow false teachers simply because of the dynamic way they speak. People rarely follow false teachers through diligent study.

“12. The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.

13. A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.”

>>>Agreed, only for those who keep the Law. Apostates and traitors have no rights.

[2] The Tripartite Society. Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society, Volume I: To 1789, by Marvin Perry (Author), Myrna Chase (Author), James Jacob (Author), Margaret Jacob (Author), Theodore H. Von Laue (Author) (Wadsworth: Boston, MA, 2013, 2009), 221: Footnote: Jacques Le Goff, Medieval Civilization, trans. Julia Barrow (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), 255

[3] Drake, Defense of the South

[4] Gillespie, Aaron’s Rod Blossoming (Edingurgh: Robert Ogle, and Oliver Boyd, 1844-Originally Published in 1646) pg. 86-87.

[5] ROM 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 1PE 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

[6] [5] 2CH 26:18 And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine honour from the Lord God. MAT 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. MAT 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 1CO 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? EPH 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. 1CO 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. ROM 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! HEB 5:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

[6] ISA 49:23 And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me. PSA 122:9 Because of the house of the Lord our God I will seek thy good. EZR 7:23 Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven: for why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons? 25 And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God; and teach ye them that know them not. 26 And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment. 27 Blessed be the Lord God of our fathers, which hath put such a thing as this in the king’s heart, to beautify the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem: 28 And hath extended mercy unto me before the king, and his counsellers, and before all the king’s mighty princes. And I was strengthened as the hand of the Lord my God was upon me, and I gathered together out of Israel chief men to go up with me. LEV 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. DEU 13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. 6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers. 12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, etc. 2KI 18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. (1CH 13:1-8; 2KI 24:1-25) 2CH 34:33 And Josiah took away all the abominations out of all the countries that pertained to the children of Israel, and made all that were present in Israel to serve, even to serve the Lord their God. And all his days they departed not from following the Lord, the God of their fathers. 2CH 15:12 And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; 13 That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

[7]2CH 19:8 Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites, and of the priests, and of the chief of the fathers of Israel, for the judgment of the Lord, and for controversies, when they returned to Jerusalem. 9 And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of the Lord, faithfully, and with a perfect heart. 10 And what cause soever shall come to you of your brethren that dwell in their cities, between blood and blood, between law and commandment, statutes and judgments, ye shall even warn them that they trespass not against the Lord, and so wrath come upon you, and upon your brethren: this do, and ye shall not trespass. 11 And, behold, Amariah the chief priest is over you in all matters of the Lord; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the house of Judah, for all the king’s matters: also the Levites shall be officers before you. Deal courageously, and the Lord shall be with the good. (2CH 29-30) MAT 2:4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. 5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet.

[7] Rom 13:1, 2

[8] Josh 5:14-15-Captain of angels; Dan 10:13- Chief among angels; Col 1:16-Invisible dominions

[9] Eph 4:11-12

[10] Rom 2:14-15

[11] Pg. 467

[12] Exo 18:21, Det 17:14,15,18,19, 2 Sam 23:2,3 Job 34:17, Psa 94:20, Prov 16:12, Isa 10:1, Rom 13:3,4

[13]  Deut 17:14,15, Jud 8:22,  Judg 9:6, Judg 11:11, 1 Sam 11:15, 1 Chron 12:38, 2 Sam16:18, 2 Kings 14:21, 2 Chron 23:3

[14] Aaron’s Rod Blossoming (Edingurgh: Robert Ogle, and Oliver Boyd, 1844-Originally Published in 1646) pg. 86-87.

[15] Constitution Society Site, “Lex Rex” Samuel Rutherford. [Accessed November, 2011]

[16] (Reformed Presbyterian Church (Covenanted) Site, Available at ; [Accessed December 2011]) See also Samuel Rutherford, Lex Rex Question XII. Whether or not a kingdom may lawfully be purchased by the sole title of conquest,

Assert. 3. — Mere conquest by the sword, without the consent of the people, is no just tide to the crown.

Arg. 1. — Because the lawful title that God’s word holdeth forth to us, beside the Lord’s choosing and calling of a man to the crown, is the people’s election, Deut. xvii. 15, all that had any lawful calling to the crown in God’s word, as Saul, David, Solomon, &c., were called by the people; and the first lawful calling is to us a rule and pattern to all lawful callings.

Arg. 2. — A king, as a king, and by virtue of his royal office, is the father of the kingdom, a tutor, a defender, protector, a shield, a leader, a shepherd, a husband, a patron, a watchman, a keeper of the people over which he is king, and so the office essentially includeth acts of fatherly affection, care, love and kindness, to those over whom he is set, so as he who is clothed with all these relations of love to the people, cannot exercise those official acts on a people against their will, and by mere violence. Can he be a father, a guide and a patron to us against our will, and by the sole power of the bloody sword? A benefit conferred on any against their will is no benefit. Will he by the awesome dominion of the sword be our father, and we unwilling to be his sons — an head over such as will not be members? Will he guide me as a father, a husband, against my will? He cannot come by mere violence to be a patron, a shield, and a defender of me through violence.

Arg. 3. — It is not to be thought that that is God’s just title to a crown which hath nothing in it of the essence of a king, but a violent and bloody purchase, which is in its prevalency in an oppressing Nimrod, and the cruelest tyrant that is hath nothing essential to that which constituteth a king; for it hath nothing of heroic and royal wisdom and gifts to govern, and nothing of God’s approving and regulating will, which must be manifested to any who would be a king, but by the contrary, cruelty hath rather baseness and witless fury, and a plain reluctancy with God’s revealed will, which forbiddeth murder. God’s law should say, “Murder thou, and prosper and reign;” and by the act of violating the sixth commandment, God should declare his approving will, to wit, his lawful call to a throne.

Arg. 4. — There be none under a law of God who may resist a lawful call to a lawful office, but men may resist any impulsion of God stirring them up to murder the most numerous and strongest, and chief men of a kingdom, that they may reign over the fewest, the weakest, and the young, and lowest of the people, against their will; therefore this call by the sword is not lawful. If it be said that the divine impulsion, stirring up a man to make a bloody conquest, that the ire and just indignation of God in justice may be declared on a wicked nation, is an extraordinary impulsion of God, who is above a law, and therefore no man may resist it; then all bloody conquerors must have some extraordinary revelation from heaven to warrant their yielding of obedience to such an extraordinary impulsion. And if it be so, they must show a lawful and immediate extraordinary impulsion now, but, it is certain, the sins of the people conquered, and their most equal and just demerit before God, cannot be a just plea to legitimate the conquest; for though the people of God deserved devastation and captivity by the heathen, in regard of their sins, before the throne of divine justice, yet the heathen grievously sinned in conquering them, Zech. i. 15, “And I am very sore displeased with the heathen that are at ease; for I was but a little displeased, and they helped forward the affliction.” So though Judah deserved to be made captives, and a conquered people, because of their idolatry and other sins, as Jeremiah had prophecied, yet God was highly displeased at Babylon for their unjust and bloody conquest, Jer. 1. 17, 18, 33, 34; li. 35, “the violence done to me and to my flesh be upon Babylon, shall the inhabitants of Zion say; and my blood upon the inhabitants of Chaldea, shall Jerusalem say.” And chat any other extraordinary impulsion to be as lawful a call to the throne as the people’s free election, we know not from God’s word; and we have but the naked word of our adversaries, that William the Conqueror, without the people’s consent, made himself, by blood, the lawful king of England, and also of all their posterity; and that king Fergus conquered Scotland.

Arg. 5. — A king is a special gift from God, given to feed and defend the people of God, that they may lead a godly and peaceable life under him, (Psal. lxxviii. 71, 72; 1 Tim. ii 2;) as it is a judgment of God that Israel is without a king many days, (Hos. iii. 4,) and that there is no judge, no king, to put evil-doers to shame. (Judg. xix.1.) But if a king be given of God as a king, by the acts of a bloody conquest, to be avenged on the sinful land over which he is made a king, he cannot be given, actu primo, as a special gift and blessing of God to feed, but to murder and to destroy; for the genuine end of a conqueror, as a conqueror, is not peace, but fire and sword. If God change his heart, to be of a bloody devastator, a father, prince, and feeder of the people, ex officio, now he is not a violent conqueror, and he came to that meekness by contraries, which is the proper work of the omnipotent God, and not proper to man, who, as he cannot work miracles, so neither can he lawfully work by contraries. And so if conquest be a lawful title to a crown, and as ordinary calling, as the opponents presume, every bloody conqueror must be changed into a loving father, prince and feeder; and if God call him, none should oppose him, but the whole land should dethrone their own native sovereign (whom they are obliged before the Lord to defend) and submit to the bloody invasion of a strange lord, presumed to be a just conqueror, as if he were lawfully called to the throne both by birth and the voices of the people. And truly they deserve no wages who thus defend the king’s prerogative royal; for if the sword be a lawful title to the crown, suppose the two generals of both kingdoms should conquer the most and the chiefest of the kingdom now, when they have so many forces in the field, by this wicked reason the one should have a lawful call of God to be king of England, and the other to be king of Scotland; which is absurd.

Arg. 6. — Either conquest, as conquest, is a just title to the crown, or as a just conquest. If as a conquest, then all conquests are just titles to a crown; then the Ammonites, Zidonians, Canaanites, Edomites, &c., subduing God’s people for a time, have just title to reign over them; and if Absalom had been stronger than David, he had then had the just title to be the Lord’s anointed and king of Israel, not David; and so strength actually prevailing should be God’s lawful call to a crown. But strength, as strength victorious, is not law nor reason: it were then reason that Herod behead John Baptist, and the Roman Emperors kill the witnesses of Christ Jesus. If conquest, as just, be the title and lawful claim before God’s court to a crown, then, certainly, a stronger .king, for pregnant national injuries, may lawfully subdue and reign over an innocent posterity not yet born. But what word of God can warrant a posterity not born, and so accessory to no offence against the conqueror, (but only sin original,) to be under a conqueror against their will, and who hath no right to reign over them but the bloody sword? For so conquest, as conquest, not as just, maketh him king over the posterity, If it be said, The fathers may engage the posterity by an oath to surrender themselves as loyal subjects to the man who justly and deservedly made the fathers vassals by the title of the sword of justice; I answer, The fathers may indeed dispose of the inheritance of their children, because that inheritance belongeth to the father as well at to the son; but because the liberty of the son being born with the son, (all men being born free from all civil subjection,) the father hath no more power to resign the liberty of his children than their lives; and the father, as a father, hath not power of the life of his child; as a magistrate he may have power, and, as something more than a father, he may have power of life and death. I hear not what Grotius saith, “Those who are not born have no accidents, and so no rights, Non entia nulla sunt accidentia; then children not born have neither right nor liberty.” And so no injury (may some say) can be done to children not born, though the fathers should give away their liberty to the conquerors, — those who are not capable of law are not capable of injury contrary to law. — Ans. There is a virtual alienation of rights and lives of children not born unlawful, because the children are not born. To say that children not born are not capable of law and injuries virtual, which become real in time, might say, Adam did not any injury to his posterity by his first sin, which is contrary to God’s word: so those who vowed yearly to give seven innocent children to the Minotaur to be devoured, and to kill their children not born to bloody Molech, did no acts of bloody injury to their children; nor can any say, then, that fathers cannot tie themselves and their posterity to a king by succession. But I say, to be tyed to a lawful king is no making away of liberty, but a resigning of a power to be justly governed, protected and awed from active and passive violence.

Arg. 7. — So lawful king may be dethroned, nor lawful kingdom dissolved; but law and reason both saith. Quod ui partum est imperium, vi dissolvi potest. Every conquest made by violence may be dissolved by violence: Censetur enim ipsa natura jus dare ad id omne, sine quo obtineri non potest quod ipsa imperat.”

[17] Pages 37-38

[18] Pg. 244

[19] Ibid. 5

[20] Ibid. 126

[22] Deut. 19:15-21

[23] Exo. 20:15, 22:1-15

[24] Deut. 24:10-11

[25] Deut. 25:1-3,

[26] Deut. 21:22-23

[27] Lev. 20:2, 20:27, etc.

[28] Lev. 21:9

[29] 2 Samuel 12:31

[30] Drake, Defense of the South

[31] Jud 1:3  Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

Act 15:25  it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

1Ti 6:21  Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen

Rom 14:19  Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace

Rom 15:5  Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus:

1Co 1:10  Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

1Co 1:11  For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

Act 4:32  And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

2Co 13:11  Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.

Phi 4:2  I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.

Zep 3:9  For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

Gal 1:8  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Gal 1:9  As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

[32] Tit 2:15  These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

Gal 1:8  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Gal 1:9  As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

1Ti 1:3  As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine

1Ti 1:4  Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

1Ti 1:5  Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

1Ti 1:6  From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;

Tit 1:13  This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

Tit 1:14  Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

Tit 1:10  For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:

Tit 1:11  Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.

1Ti 6:3  If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

1Ti 6:4  He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

1Ti 6:5  Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Rom 16:17  Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

[33] Gal. 5:2, Mat. 22:30-33, Jer. 9:13-14, Deut. 32:18, 1 Cor. 15:16

[34] Isa 29:9-14, 1Co 2:8, Act 2:23, Joh 15:22, Num 15:27 -28, 2Pe 3:5

[35] Psa 19:7-8, Psa 51:13,Isa 6:10, Mar 4:11, Mar 4:12, Jer 31:19  Rom 6, John 12:40, Acts 28:27

[36] Phil 2:9  Elohim, therefore, has highly exalted Him and given Him the Name which is above every name, Phil 2:10  that at the Name of יהושע every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, Phil 2:11  and every tongue should confess that יהושע Messiah is Master, to the esteem of Elohim the Father. 

Dan 2: 44 In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. 45 Inasmuch as you saw that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will take place in the future; so the dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.”

Dan 7: 13 “I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14 “And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.

Rev 1:5 and from Yehoshuwah Hamashiach, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood. 

Ps. 89:27 “I will make him my first born, higher than the kings of the earth.” 

1 Cor 15: 24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.

Luk 22: just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you 30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Yehoshuwah, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. 31 He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Psalm 110:1 Yahuwah says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” [Compare with-DS] Hebrews 1:13 But to which of the angels has He ever said, “ SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”?

Acts 2:  29 “Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 And so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE, 31 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY. 32 This Yehoshuwah God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34 For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: ‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,  35 UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET.”’ 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Yehoshuwah whom you crucified.”

As he was anointed the King and ruler of all the Earth Yehoshuwah received the anointing of the Holy Spirit by which he bequeaths the benefits of the Covenant of Grace.

Heb 1: 8But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O elohim, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.13But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? (kjv)

[37] Isa 60:12  For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.

Psa 2: 7 “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. 8 ‘Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession. 9 ‘You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware.’” 10 Now therefore, O kings, show discernment; Take warning, O judges of the earth. 11 Worship the LORD with reverence And rejoice with trembling.12 Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!

Isa 49:23 “Kings will be your guardians, And their princesses your nurses. They will bow down to you with their faces to the earth And lick the dust of your feet;  And you will know that I am the LORD;  Those who hopefully wait for Me will not be put to shame.

[38] Deut 17:14,15, Jud 8:22,  Judg 9:6, Judg 11:11, 1 Sam 11:15, 12:25, 1 Chron 11:3, 12:38, 2 Sam16:18, 1 Kings 1:38-39, 16:16, 2 Kings 10:5, 11:17-18, 14:21, 2 Chron 23:3, Judg 8:22, 9:6 Ecc 8:2

Nick, Catholic Apologist Simply Horrified to Face my Judaizer Arguments

Maybe this is why we were so suppressed during the 1260 years. These people simply cannot face these arguments to save their lives.



catholic nick 3