Various Topical Discussions

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information or DONATE HERE!

  • Christogenea Internet Radio
CHR20150911-TopicalDiscussion.mp3 — Downloaded 4653 times

Our streams are set to cut over to re-runs at 10:30 PM EST, and we ran twenty minutes past that without even realizing it. We are sorry for the inconvenience to those who were listening!

Some of the topics discussed:

Does Acts 16 teach Personal Salvation? Not by any means!

Why did John the Baptist rebuke the Edomite Herod according to the law?

Is there a cookie-cutter method by which to introduce people to Christian Identity?

Russians and White

Brunettes and White

Who may be Jew: the de Medicis, Calvin, Putin, the questions often raised.

A short answer to Calvin's error, and that of Arminius as well.

Here are my notes on Calvin and Arminius, from the Christogenea Forum:

While Calvin and his defenders claim the inspiration of Paul, Calvin's predestination is not the predestination which was taught by Paul. Calvin is compared to Arminius, and the basis of his predestination contrasted to that of Arminius, and there is a false dichotomy. Arminius described God's foreknowledge as being the basis of predestination, meaning the foreknowledge which God has in relation to the behavior of men. Calvin rejected this, and based his idea of predestination on the “good pleasure” of God.

Both men are wrong. Paul said that whom God foreknew, those He predestinated. Paul did not say that it is whom God foreknew that would do either good or evil. Paul said it was whom God foreknew, and that he would have mercy upon those whom He foreknew if they did do evil.

To find out who God foreknew, we must go to the prophets of the Old Testament, as Paul had also said that it was for “them who are the called according to his purpose.” Going to the Old Testament, we find that God only foreknew the children of Israel.

Neither men understood that salvation is actually in accordance with God's law, and that there are men planted by God according to his law, and there are so-called men planted by the devil contrary to God's law, as described in the parable of the wheat and the tares.

But Paul said it was whom God foreknew that were those whom He predestinated, and that he would have mercy upon those whom He foreknew if they did do evil, to “them who are the called according to his purpose.” Therefore foreknowledge and predestination cannot be separated. The Old Testament reveals the foreknown, and the New Testament assures their destination.

And Calvin is mostly right, but the wrong part is this: the predestination and foreknowledge only pertain to the Old Testament children of Israel, as Paul had spoken in Ephesians chapter 1 of redemption, pre-ordination, transgression and the remittance of sins, all things which only pertain to the children of Israel of the Old testament, since where there is no law, according to Paul in Romans, sin is not imputed and thereby there is no transgression and no need for forgiveness.

In Ephesians chapter 2 Paul says that his readers were among “the nations in the flesh”, meaning that they were indeed one of those nations promised to Abraham which would come from his offspring, as Paul described at length in Romans chapter 4. For that same reason Paul told the Ephesians in chapter 2 that they had been alienated, but were now being reconciled. They were Israelites according to the flesh, from the ancient dispersions of Israel. Like all other Judeo-Christian commentators, Calvin ignores the meaning of all of these statements, and cherry-picks the scripture in order to fit it into his own universalist understanding.

And God had already chosen the children of Israel, whereas the descendants of Esau are all rejected, for which Paul calls them “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” in that chapter, and using the plural he must be referring to all of Esau's posterity in general.

And all of this ignores the fact that the promises of God to Abraham would not fail, and that they were carried down to his seed after him, to which nobody else could be added. This is the problem with Calvinism, that just like every other universalist interpretation of Scripture, it attempts to make void the promises to Abraham assured in turn to Jacob-Israel, promises which can never be voided.

I have not read Calvin. But the fruits of Calvin on any dimension are wrong. The mainstream Calvinists believe in an anti-Biblical type of predestination which transcends race and creates a Frankenchrist - a body of Christ stitched together out of the pieces of all races, no different from that of the modern Roman Catholics. On the other hand, most so-called Kinists are Calvinists, but think that there can be multiple bodies of Christ. So while claiming to be nationalists they can still cling to Calvin in spite of Scripture.