....courtesy of Anthony Bradley. Yes, Obama's pastor isn't the ordinary hue of those who would (pretend to) reach out to only those of their own race or ethnicity, but he's a kinist every bit as much as the "Little Geneva" crowd we knew and cringed at. Observe how he's doing everything BUT preaching the Scriptures. Playing racial politics in the pulpit will do that to you.
It may be exactly what his flock wants to hear, but I do think the Scripture says something about preaching to "itching ears" instead of the Word of God. It also says something about bringing the Good News not only to Jerusalem, but also Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. Kinists of all colors would do well to remember Matthew 28.
Podcast #1047: The Roman Caesars’ Guide to Ruling
-
The Roman caesars were the rulers of the Roman Empire, beginning in 27 BC
with Julius Caesar’s heir Augustus, from whom subsequent caesars took their
nam...
4 hours ago
8 comments:
What's so scary and so sad is hearing Wright say that he loves Jesus who was a black man who was oppressed by the white society around him also, and saying how much he loves him, basically, because he was black, nevertheless saying how he loves that name Jesus, just like other pastors would, but it's in a different context. And you can see how he has deceived himself.
Kinists of all colors would do well to remember Matthew 28.
They do. That's why they're kinists. You're not being logical, you betcha.
- Fr. John
Exactly how does one reach out to Samaritans, and to the ends of the earth, by staying within one's racial or ethnic group, "Fr. John"?
"Bubba" - One: It was a parable, a 'story' for children- or child-like minds- it was to serve a didactic purpose, not to be the mantra for multiculturalism. Two: The Samaritans were ethnically RELATED to the Hebrews. They were formed as a result of sin and conquest, to be sure, but they were of the same ETHNIC stock as the Hebrews. Sort of like how the Anglicans and the Presbyterians viewed each other. Three: The "Great Commission' WAS fulfilled, in reaching out to the 'ends of the Earth' --as the Apostles and the human Christ knew it (which the Divine Son of God agreed with, seeing as the two wills are never in opposition to one another!). When the Gospel was preached to the ends of the 'earth' i.e., the Roman Empire, the focus and locus of the Apostolic preaching were accomplished.
To read INTO the Scriptures (which, one must admit, were written in a different time, with a different worldview) one's own multiculturalist mania, is to practice 'eisogesis.' IT is to make the Scriptures say what YOU want them to say, instead of WHAT THEY ACTUALLY say. All commentators, Roman, Protestant alike note that 'Scripture interprets Scripture.' Thus, the Gospel WAS preached to the 'ends of the earth' - the Earth as the first century world knew it, when it was taken to the PIllars of Hercules, and far Hibernia, for Rome WAS 'the earth.' Even St. Paul was 'prevented' by the H.S. to take the gospel into Asia, but rather, into EUROPE.
Such was the predestinating will of God, and Christ's words about His coming to ONLY 'the lost sheep of the House of Israel' and all of 'his own' [Matt. 1:21] being saved in Matt. 10:6, is NOT abrogated by Matt 28 and the 'universal call to the Gospel.' Both items were fulfilled by the taking of the Gospel in the early days of the Church to Europe primarily. It is a fact of Church history, that only in Europe was the Ecumene (meaning 'the whole world', gave us the Ecumenical Councils). All other 'missionary endeavors' outside the 'bounds of their habitations' [Acts 17:26] resulted in heretical and schismatic groups (Armenians, Monophysites, 'Thomas Christians,' etc.). Only in Europe was the Catholic (or 'universal') faith to take root; only in Europe did the great Patriarchates come to flower; only in Europe (and eventually, only in Christendom) did the Faith sustain itself.
Thus, Matt 10:6 and Matt. 28 are not contradictory, or even 'broader in scope' as the latter supercedes the former. The one (Chap. 10) merely is fulfilled by the other (Chap. 28). God in Christ BOTH saved 'the lost sheep of the [ethnic] "House of Israel," promised in Matt. 2:6, and confirmed via Christ to the Apostolic band in Matt. 19:28, and given 'marching orders' in Matt. 28..
God is most decidedly NOT a 'universalist' when it comes to those (and only those!) whom he is going to save, but IS the God [ONLY] of the "House of Jacob and the House of Israel". None other- no other race, kith or kin but the "House of Jacob and the House of Israel." Not even 'those who say they are Jews and are not" [Rev. 2:8,9] can 'enter in' to this covenanted kith and kin- cf. Heb. 13:10 to note that eternal fact!
To say that such an idea is merely 'spiritual,' that God wills 'all men (of any race, and everywhere) to be saved,' is to deny the Incarnation- the enfleshment of the Son of God into ONE Ethnos, ONE Flesh, ONE genetic structure FOR ALL ETERNITY, thus becoming the 'kinsman-redeemer' for 'His People' [Matt. 1;21] and to thus, lump ones' self with the Nestorians, or the Eutychians, and be an heretic.
That is why St. Paul's words were prophetically FULFILLED in Romans 11:26, and both St. Peter and St. James corroborated it , in I Pet. 1:1, and Jas. 1:1. This 'ingathering of Israel' was effected during the apostle's lifetimes, and does NOT await some dispensational heretical Jewish blasphemous 'third temple.'
Or the multicultural mania that is the 'mark of the beast' foretold, where decent men go whoring after 'strange flesh' to 'satisfy their lusts' - even if it is done 'for the spread of the Gospel.'
Good day
-Fr. John
Western Good Friday
Let's try this again; how do you get the Gospel to the ends of the earth without going across ethnic and cultural boundaries?
I'm sorry, but you can't, and the basic reality of a church composed significantly of slaves is that you would have Jews and many different brands of Gentiles in the same room, worshipping together. Kinism is heresy.
This racially motivated dustup got me to thinking about all the mudslinging that took place last year between kinist icon Harry Seabrook and Doug Phillips' defender and professional political hatchet man Matt Chancey (see http://mrsbinoculars.com ). Ever since all the mudslinging started it came out that Doug Phillips is a Neo-Confederate closet-racist (Google on "Doug Phillips racist" and "Doug Phillips white supremacist"). Doug Phillips sings the praises of "the good old Antebellum days" of black slavery. Doug Phillips' favorite theologian is Robert L. Dabney. His second favorite theologian is R.J. Rushdoony, a holocaust "revisionist." If you search his Vision Forum web site you'll find many glowing praises lifted up to them and other racists, such as Otto Scott. Phillips even wrote a book and dedicated a poem to Dabney praising Dabney's book "In Defense Of Virginia And The South." That book was written for one reason and one reason only, to defend slavery. Even for his day Dabney was considered an extreme racist. He despised blacks and considered them fit for just one station in life, to live in perpetual slavery to whites. This is the man of whom Doug Phillips said, "Hail Dabney."
Through his Vision Forum business Doug Phillips sells more old timey racist books than any "Christian" business of its kind. Kind of an odd thing that a racist like Doug Phillips would have been accusing anyone else of being "racist". Are kinists racist? Yes, and they don't seem to have a problem with being called that, but who is a racist like Doug Phillips to be calling the kettle black?
"Let's try this again; how do you get the Gospel to the ends of the earth without going across ethnic and cultural boundaries?
I'm sorry, but you can't."
Umm, I never said you could.
I merely said that 'all the races and tribes, ethne (which is what the Greek word for 'nations' means) were contained within the boundaries of Caucasoid Magna Europa.
To call someone a 'racist' is to use a term developed by an apostate Jew (Trotsky) whose sole purpose was to deflect criticism of the Jewish takeover of Russia, and via her, the world, back in the 1920's.
What the kinists are saying, is that they want to be consistent biblicists, and consistent historicists, when it comes to their Church's self-attestation, and the race's praxis before the Unitarian Lincoln and the heretical Abolitionists sought a 're-education' of the West, and Whites in particular, that would have made Stalin proud. Both you and Ms. Vestal don't get it. It is not 'kinists' who are departing from their history, race, and theology, but YOU GUYS. Therein lies the difference, and it is a 'great gulf fixed.'
That's part of the reason many Southrons call themselves 'unreconstructed'- they have un-brainwashed themselves of the heretical racial egalitarianism that masquerades as "Evan-jelly-goo" theology, and are recapturing the vision of their forefathers; which means they, at the very least, are not p***ing on their father's graves.
Sorry to be blunt, but sometimes you have to 'answer a fool according to his folly.'
Good day.
- Fr. John
"To call someone a 'racist' is to use a term developed by an apostate Jew (Trotsky)"
Then John, instead of calling kinists racists, let's call 'em what they really are -- apostates and heretics.
Adam was the father of all men, and Jesus is the New Adam, through whom all may be reconciled to our Heavenly Father.
Any person who refuses to be in communion with all other Christians, regardless of race or nationality, also refuses to be in Communion with Jesus.
Kinists are not SENT to Hell, they choose it for themselves.
Post a Comment