Free-will or Gods Will?

Calvinist83's picture

"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent." – John Calvin

FREE-WILL OR GODS WILL?
In Defense of John Calvin

By Ezekiel Christianson
Church of Jesus Christ Kinsman
(With forward by Elijah Christianson)

Forward

America was founded from the city of Geneva, Switzerland, in the mid sixteenth century. The founder, John Calvin; best known as a comprehensive theologian who founded a Protestant government in the city of Geneva begining in the year 1540 anno domini.

 

Interestingly, the tapestry of history is well woven with men who went up to and even beyond proclaiming John Calvin the founder of America. One particularly admiring biographer, at the dawn of the 20th century, felt himself justified in proclaiming Calvin "the founder of the modern world."


It is, of course, the case that Calvin never set his feet upon this fair land. The legacy he bequeathed to this nation was one of politics and theology. Calvin explored the world in the context of religion and found no sector rightly free therefrom. John Calvin unleashed deep religious principle upon the world wherever there were men to contemplate and stand for it. The men who founded this country are considered among the bravest and brightest the world has ever seen, and they protected their beliefs with religious vigilance. Concepts such as Responsibility and freedom were things the world had been so seemingly deprived of, that to this day America stands out in history as a unique harbinger of hard work, devotion, courage and liberty. America was founded mostly by men who proudly claimed the title Calvinist, and it is clearly seen in their works.
There were other influences upon the founding generation besides a naked line springing from the head of John Calvin and landing in this country. My interest in the fundamental roots of all things first has lead me up to John Calvin, and perhaps not so far beyond yet. Patriotism, religion, morality, and meaning have been the focus of the devotion of my life and I have have had some oppertunity to dealve into those areas. But, fear not that that my view is myopic, I have stood upon the shoulders of giants, and there can be no doubt it is beside them I stand to inform you upon the influece of this one man.

Upon the American concept of liberty, there have been other influences besides those of John Calvin. I will touch on them. But what I wish to impart to you, above all, is how American ideology filed neatly down the path of Calvin's theology, and how dominant Calvinist thought was in the founding generation.
Let us start by exploring the diverse traditions from which America, either has, or has supposedly drawn on for its origin.

It appears there should be little question but that the American Revolution derived itself to some degree from a wealth of causes.

The American concept of liberty invited classical Greek and Roman culture over for ananlysis. There have been parallels drawn between Greek and Roman government and the American stystem. Republican government is associated with classical governments. Courage and patriotism were certainly idealized in the classical world. Sphere law seems to have been recogized in ancient Greece and Rome. Americans, without question, studied the classics of the Greek and Roman eras. The founders acknowledged their debt to the richness of those cultures forthrightly. As Washington D.C. was born and began to grow, architectural influence from Greece and Rome became obvious. Pantheistic symbolism from those cultures would come to be utilized at times as well.
The American concept of liberty drew even deeper from such classical English minds as Sir Francis Bacon, John Locke, and Thomas Paine than it did from the ancient. Sir Francis Bacon was a deeply religious man however, and his philosophy drew, itself, upon that of John Calvin. John Locke, as well, drew upon the work of Calvin. As for Thomas Paine, the influene of his early works like Common Sense was tremendous. However, it might be noted that the Age of Reason II which Paine wrote from prison was virtually outlawed in this country and the authorship of that frontal attack against Christianity in general turned the man into a near parriah in this country.

The American concept of liberty drew at least as heavily from the common law of England as it did from England's philosophers. The men known for codification of common law are Sir William Blackstone and Sir Edward Coke. Both of these jurists professed the Protestant religion. Calvinism is readily seen in their writings. Their writings recognized for one that no law was to be above the divine. The common law of England was influenced by the demands of Calvistic theological developments.

It ought to be remembered that Calvinism was not the invention of John Calvin. Calvinism was an at times dormant view of the world which, Calvin would say, went at least as far back as the time of Christ. Interposition refers to the right of grievance upon the principle that just authority derives from God. This is essentially a non-Catholic religious claim. The common law document, the Magna Charta, based itself on the Calvinistic principle of interposition. The concept of common law itself is Calvinist in that it recognizes responsibility, independence, stability, predestination, and liberty.

The American concept of liberty drew upon other stores as well which included medieval Christian minds, as well as the Bible.

There have been schools of thought which have held to the belief that discussion of the American concept of liberty is of secondary importance in discussion of the causes of the American Revolution. These schools of thought teach that the American revolution was conceived of such origins as pragmatism, destiny and even a sort of Machivelian view of reality.

It has been theorized the American Revolution was conceived in divine destiny. It seems this theory is rather organicly nationalistic. The outcome of the revolution was good and intangibly glorious and the rest is irrelevent, I suppose, is this theory.

It has been theorized that America grew into her own culture and the time came when it was natural to seperate. The love that binds a people, was presumably, no longer present with England.

It has been theorized the American Revolution was conceived in a kind of class warfare. The theory seems to be that the rich king taxed the the poor commoners of America. The theory might go that the common American people rose up against the wealthy and powerful King, with the King bearing comparison to the presently wealthy.

It has been theorized that the American Revolution was conceived in a variety of pragmatic motivations centered on economic neccessity.

The purpose of this historical primer is neither to affirm, nor deny, the various causes posited as motive for the American War for Independence, but to highlite the contributions of one man and the thought he espoused. It could be because Calvinists have left the mark upon history of their resolute determination to manifest what they firmly hold as their divine destiny, but in researching the material for this speech it was much more difficult to find evidence for the more modern views upon the American Revolution than it was to affirm the plain influence of Calvinism.

The evidence for the influence of John Calvin upon the foundation of America is as simple as opening up a history book. The seekers of religious liberty who found their way to this country were for the most part religious zealots influenced directly by John Calvin, that lightening bolt from heaven of the reformation. They held the beliefs of John Calvin and felt themselves motivated to act.

Among the tenets Calvism stresses are divine sovereignty, the fallen nature of man, a strict adherence to Biblical commands, and what is called election.

Calvinism taught the idea of Divine sovereignty. Divine sovereignty simply refers to the idea of God as king. The cry of the revolution was "no king but king Jesus." This was not a cry for theocracy or what is better refered to as priest-craft. Calvinist doctrine represents itself as quite the opposite of that. Calvinism simply denied that a church could enthrone itself through temporal power. Power was to be nothing more than a tool; neither right, nor wrong. The idea was exactly that as bequeathed to America in Jefferson's statement of seperation of church and state. Calvism also represented a new concept of responsibility. Every man was responsible, not to any king, but, directly to God.

Calvinism taught the idea of the utter depravity of man. Man was fallen in Adam and saved in Christ. Man could by no means save himself through any actions of his own. Utopia was out the door for John Calvin. Man was to be vigilant at all times. Men could not console themselves with illusions of a final priest-hood. Men would put faith in God and he would see to such things as peace, order and victory.

Calvinism admonishes strict adherance to Biblical commands. This was to lay a great burden of responsibility on men. Realizing themselves quite accountable, men would have no patience for otheres interferance in their own hard service. Calvin taught hard responsibility that could not be shirked, not even for the sake of purple or vesture. The king was to obey as were all others. If any doubt that such a doctrine of legal Biblical responsibilty laid in the hearts of the soldiers of the American War for Independence; they should be reminded that in the colonies, and later the states, at the dawn of American history, Biblical law was surely enforced. The confederation which became the United States of America was a diverse group and an alliance. Theonomic rule did not imminate from the federal government. It is not claimed that it did. The truth is John Calvin would have had none of such a thing and neither would the Calvinists whose toil gave that government its birth. Calvinism did not teach that governments breed men of constitution. Calvinsim teaches that governments were created by populations according to their breed. When the Declaration of Independence relates a concept of "consent of the governed," it is thuroughly Calvinistic.

John Calvin taught election, that men are chosen for salvation or damnation before birth. Thus, the conclusion that there were indeed various breeds of men. This concept could only act like a sledge upon the china of equalitarian dogma. The laissez-faire economic system of American, as well as the freedom of association, owes its origin in no small way to the Calvinist doctrine of election.
It was denominational Calvinists who forced their rights and demands upon the country they founded when they set out upon Plymouth Rock. Calvin was well studied by the founding generation, and his influence had dyed deeply the ethos of the Protestant founding generation. It was not coincidence that America fit the pattern of Calvinism. Even among the very few who perhaps had "choice words" for the theology of John Calvin, there was a respect for the man and what was viewed as the positive contributions he made.

Two-thirds of Americans in the colonial period professed denominations which acknowledged a heritage of education from John Calvin. Calvinist denominations represented in that day included Presbyterians, Puritans, and Huguenots, Scrooby Seperatists, and Scottish Covenanters.

There has not been any shortage of historians from all persuasions willing to witness the influence of John Calvin upon the American concept of liberty and the determination to fight for it in the American War for Independence.
It is documented that the English refered to the American War For Independence as the Presbyterian rebellion. The King and parliament layed the blame for the whole thing squarely at the door of Calvinist Presbyterians. They were not far off the mark. The only institution with independent political power in the days before the Revolution was the Presbyterian Church.

The American concept of liberty and the War For Independence would have been stunted from birth and would likely never have arrived if it were not for the influence radiating through history from John Calvin. Men perhaps exercised themselves with classics--they may have adorned themselves with classics--but the lives they lived were Calvinist.

This has been a historical primer upon, and overview of the influence of, John Calvin upon the American War For Independence and the American concept of liberty. Nothing expressed has been controversial. Contrawise, the facts are simply incontravertable.

And so it was that the German historian, Leopold von Ranke, gave us, "John Calvin was the virtual founder of America."

Elijah Christianson, Church of Jesus Christ Kinsman


Introduction

The following article will outline the basic tenets of Calvinism and address recent attacks on the great John Calvin. "Calvinism" derives its name from John Calvin who was one of the great Christian theologians of the 16th century. He broke with the Roman Catholic Church in 1530 to become one of the most influential Protestant reformers, preaching and fighting to make the truth of Gods Sovereignty become widely known to those masses of Gods sheep kept ignorant of it by the Romish confounder. We will discuss some of his teachings in the following article, particularly focusing on the Calvinistic foundation, "The Sovereignty of God", which means that YHVH God is in complete control of everything, in Heaven and on Earth. The Sovereignty of God totally obliterates such false doctrines as free-will, something a lot of folks can’t seem to stomach. Based upon the fact that the majority of people who deny Gods Sovereignty do so because of this conjured up "free-will doctrine", it will behoove us to also examine: "Free-will as opposed to Gods-will". Free-will is a doctrine that claims: "men are in control of their own destinies" whereas Gods-will proclaims: "there is no power but of God". There is much muddled thinking regarding this issue. Our goal is to prove the latter of the two doctrines to be in alignment with the Word of God.

Calvinistic Foundation

It is rare to find a man within our Christian Identity kawhawl/ekklesia that cannot recount for you the ancient Israelite's migration over the Caucasus Mountains and into Europe. What may be even rarer is to find a kinsman that can tell you the meaning of the acronym T.U.L.I.P. The basic tenets of Christian Identity could be summed up as: The True Israelites are the Aryans, Jesus died for the White Race only and "Death to the Jew!" Christian Identity is not some "new religion," it is a "new revelation" as was Protestantism in Catholic Europe. Of course Protestant-Christian and Identity-Christian theology were what the early Christians practiced and what Jesus taught, therefore, referring to "Protestantism" or "Identity" as "recently revealed mystery" would be more appropriate than calling it "new". If we believe that all false brands of "Christianity" are merely True Christianity infused with a measure of paganism then we understand that searching for "higher truths" will consist of first dispatching the lies that those who've "crept in unaware" have implanted and perpetuated. Likewise, we must also keep and maintain the foundational truth delivered to us by Yahveh God through our ancestral prophets. Every house must have a solid foundation if it is to stand, likewise, so must a "belief system". If Identity-Christianity is synonymous with "White Power Protestantism" then it would behoove us to become more acquainted with our Reformed theology, which is the Identity's doctrinal foundation.


Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)


Also known as the "Five Points of Calvinism" these basic foundational truths known as T.U.L.I.P. are the essential building blocks of any solid Christian Education. Below is a brief synopsis of each.


Total Depravity:

Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin.

The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that reveal human character: Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick (Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). The Calvinist asks the question, "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot; God must predestine."

Because of our fallen nature we are saved not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13) God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29) Faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29) God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48) God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23)


Unconditional Election:

God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the intention of His merciful will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).


Limited Atonement:

Jesus died only for the elect. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect. Support for this position is drawn from such scriptures as Matt. 26:28 where Jesus died for ‘many'; John 10:11, 15 which say that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, per Matt. 25:32-33); John 17:9 where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him, not those of the entire world; Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27 which state that the Church was purchased by Christ, not all people; and Isaiah 53:12 which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of many (not all).


Irresistible Grace:

When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers the Gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration whereby they willingly and freely come to God. Some of the verses used in support of this teaching are Romans 9:16, which states that "it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy"; Philippians 2:12-13 where God is said to be the one working salvation in the individual; John 6:28-29 where faith is declared to be the work of God; Acts 13:48 where God appoints people to believe.

Perseverance of the Saints:

You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ. Some of the verses for this position are John 10:27-28 where Jesus said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have passed out of judgment; 1 Corinthians 10:13 where God promises to never let us be tempted beyond what we can handle; and Phil. 1:6 where God is the one being faithful to perfect us until the day of Jesus’ return. If one turns from the Faith it is because he was never really a part of it. (examples: David Lane, Tom Metzger, Richard Scutari, Judas Iscariot)

Dear Christian brothers and sisters see to it that you study these points thoroughly and memorize them as well. As the Scripture saith: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Tim. 2:15)



Attacks on Calvin


In order to better illustrate our stance on the matters of predestination, free-will, and God’s Sovereignty we will use an article written by Dr. Ken Cratchley of the Christian Separatist Church Society, who teaches the opposite of what we do regarding these subjects. He believes in the free-will of man while we vehemently oppose this doctrine. Dr. Cratchley goes so far as to write a paper on the topic which must have taken some imagination, to be sure, as the doctrine he purports is biblically non-existent.


Our church truly appreciates Dr. Cratchley’s articles exposing the perverseness of the World Church of the Creator, however, after reading his "Predestination and Pre-existence"(Separatist Brief Vol.3 #2) we must point out its errors. First of all, the 1st century Christians never believed in such nonsense as a free-will. The invention of some "free-will doctrine" was and is nothing more than mans attempt to rob YHWH of absolute power also known as Sovereignty. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if man is inherently evil and the only good in man is God then obviously he will always obey his lusts unless the Spirit steps in and makes him holy. It is not our choice, it is God’s. He controls both ends either directly or indirectly through satan (read Job). A man doesn’t wake up one day and say "oh I’m going to believe in Jesus and go die for my race" just because he’s so selfless—he does it because God chooses him to. ALL glory is Gods! The "Creatards" spout a good line about believing in their race but Christians know that this is merely vanity, as is everything without Christ—so too is free-will.


(Bible verses bold /Emphasized Scripture underlined/ Cratchley’s quotes italicized/Christianson commentary standard.)

Cratchley:

"The fact that events occur that are not God's will is not a denial of His sovereignty, as these things occur in His permissive will."

Talk about mixing apples and oranges.

The Holy Bible:

"And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD." (Job 1:7-12)

So, because Yahveh only permitted Satan to persecute Job, and did not do it Himself, it was not God’s perfect Will that Job should be put to test? Judging from the above Scripture, it was at Yahveh’s mention that the name Job was even brought up. The train of thought that God just happened to bump into Satan, that Satan challenged His pride and, in a sense, tricked God into letting him screw with Job is on the exact same railway as those who think God actually asked Satan where he was because He did not know.

Cratchley:

"Calvinists contend for unconditional election. They say God predestined some men to be saved, not based on their worthiness to be saved, but instead based on no conditions whatsoever. They believe that it is not by falling into line with the demands of God's justice that we are brought to Him, but by His choice alone."

"Blessed is God and the Father of our Master, Jesus the Anointed, Who blessed us with every blessing of the Mentality in the Heavens with the Anointed; according as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, for us to be pure and without blemish before Him in love, predestining us to adoption to Jesus the Anointed through Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will. ... in Him, in Whom also we have been chosen to an inheritance being predestined according to the purpose of the One working all things according to the counsel of His own will." (Ephesians 1:3-5, 11 AST)

"Yahveh hath made all things for Himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." (Proverbs 16:4)

"This Scripture does not say what so many judaized and Calvinized Judeo-Christians try to make it say. It simply confirms the omniscience of Almighty God, declaring that God knew Jeremiah and his character when (emphasis mine) he was formed in the womb of his mother."

The Scripture does not say "when", it says "before". The Greek word used in Jeremiah 1v5 is πρό (pro=before). Any Greek Lexicon defines πρό (pro) as: Before, in front of. If the Judean translator in Alexandria wanted to convey the concept “when” instead of “before,” he would have simply used ὅτε (hote=when), which he did no fewer than 7 times in the Septuagint book of Jeremiah. Because of this blatant deception, Cratchley’s entire article is suspect. Cratchley:

"Now, all you Calvinists listen real carefully to this next Scripture and hear the Holy Spirit of Truth:

 ‘Brothers, if anyone among you errs from the truth, and anyone turns him back, know that the one turning a failure from the error of his way will save the life from death, and will hide a multitude of failures’ (Jacob 5:19-20 AST).

Notice that this person erring was among the truth-lovers. This person was therefore a brother or sister. Notice that he obviously had been in the way of truth because the believer is admonished to turn him back, that is, back to the path of righteousness and life. Notice that the one turning back the failure from the error of his way will save a life from death. So the living can die and do die, for the life spoken of is the life that is Christ Jesus and the subject is the second death, which is defined as everlasting punishment in the Lake of Fire.

 

The Calvinists say, when confronted with the obvious paradox of their profession, that is, when one of their followers abandon their faith, that the person was just not predestined to be saved in the first place; however, the above verses said that the "brother" had "become partners of the Mentality of Separation." Therefore these people definitely did have the Christian persuasion and then abandoned it."

 


Now this is just purposely twisting Scripture hoping the reader has a low intelligence level. The Scripture says "anyone among you." Does the fact that one is merely "among" the congregation mean they are authentic? Apparently to Cratchley it does. What of all the agent provocateurs? What of the mongrels that have infiltrated? The Scripture does not say "those who err from the truth were saved and now they are not" it in fact states the opposite, for we read:

Holy Bible:

"They left us, but they were not part of us, for if they had been part of us, they would have stayed with us. Their leaving made it clear that none of them was really part of us" ( 1 John 2:19).

 



Cratchley:

"So, we see God's desire and will for His chosen people is for them to live and thrive in a heaven upon earth, but how soon this shall come to pass is left up to be determined by the dedication and obedience of God's people."

 

 



If our Father were going to predestinate only those worthy to be saved, He’d have a hard time finding anyone at all since none are worthy except for Christ. We "Calvinistic Christian Identists" believe our salvation is ultimately based on "the good pleasure of His will" as Scripture states. While Cratchley claims we believe it is "based on no conditions whatsoever" we have to wonder where he derived this piece of information or if it is merely another false assertion of his.

Cratchley:

"The truth is that it is the tasks and the events of history that are predestined, not necessarily the persons".

The Holy Bible:

"For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory," (Romans 9:15-23)Two more Scripture’s in direct opposition to Cratchleys statement. Does this sound like a God that is waiting to find out what’s going to happen with man? The Omnipotent Creator knows everything—that includes all past, present, and future events of history. Not only does He know it but He predestinates it. Therefore it is His Will that compels EVERYTHING to happen and everyone to be. The very hairs of our heads are numbered—God controls the universe and even the electron in the smallest atom of every molecule of every plant, beast, and man is energized by Him and purposely made to revolve around its nucleus. If He controls the minutest force of nature, how can man be as vain and self-important as to think that God does not control the actions of men?

Take a man who looks at his watch for instance. Now we all know God has facilitated the watch as well as the man and if the man looks at his watch its either because God made him do so (if he’s trying not to be late for church) or because God made him do so via satan (if he’s trying not to be late for a rendezvous at the strip joint). If a man chooses or chooses not to do a certain action it is because God compelled him to make the decision, period. What the preachers of free-will do is disregard all the extenuating circumstances and only focus on the action, which is fitting and a worldly thing to do, as free-will is a worldly doctrine. Free-will sounds like something the hippies or communists preach. Free-will is childish. Free-will is a lot of things, but it is definitely not Biblical. Cratchley’s article attempts to debunk the many scriptures that teach the opposite of what he claims, instead of citing even one verse that says there is free-will—certainly because such scriptures do not exist. How can men be so vain as to think that they have anything to do with their own salvation?

Those that are given to Mediterranean fits of romanticism may wonder then why God "allows bad things to happen?" Boo-hoo. He is the Almighty—He does what He pleases for His heavenly purpose because it is wise in His sight. Our Father creates the darkness for the sake of Light alone. God gave us our genes and to some He gives His Spirit; others He chooses not to. He put non-Adamic races on earth and allowed the Jewish spirit to manifest in a mongrelized body. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid (Rom.9v14). Whether we mortal men understand why God does anything is completely irrelevant—we are here only to obey His commands, worship Him, and slay His enemies by the sword, so that we may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted us by the Creator of the universe.

The Holy Bible:

"And the word of the Master came to him saying, before I formed you in the belly, I knew you: and before you came forth from the womb, I sanctified you; I appointed you to be a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:4-5 LXX).

Cratchley:
The Holy Bible:

 

 

The Holy Bible:

"All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, "What have you done?" (Daniel 4:35)

It appears Cratchley is saying that heaven will be on earth when we decide, and YHVH God is just a casual spectator. It is very clear that God chooses when we decide. The heathen may say "The White Race finally decided to take back the planet" but Gods people will always say "Jesus Christ has returned." This is by no means an excuse to lounge around and just "wait for Christ’s second coming". Those who truly love Christ follow Him out of love and are inspired to obedience, while those who only feign love will find any excuse to "avoid the draft". His work may be finished on this earth as a physical being but He works through His church daily.

Cratchley contends: "Moreover, Calvinism historically has done little for the White Race except lead it into greater captivity and deception."

Unless you are from Mars, or purposely covering up facts, there is no denying the God inspired action that the doctrine of John Calvin has driven men to.

As the German historian Leopold von Ranke observed: "Calvin was virtually the founder of America."

Our pilgrim forefathers were staunch Calvinists who weathered the storms of starvation, disease, war and death in order to establish themselves on this continent and when all was said and done they gave the glory to God. Was America founded upon "captivity and deception" as Cratchley claims, or freedom and truth?

By mongrelizing authentic Christian doctrine with fable and heresy and by combining a sovereign God with a people of God who possess free-will, Cratchley mixes apples and oranges in a vain attempt to satisfy God and man, while simultaneously elevating the righteousness of man and stealing the glory of YHVH God. The rejection of God’s Sovereignty is not only a Scriptural fallacy, but a criminal offence in the Kingdom of God.

Cratchley:

"In other words, we know what God's desire and ordained destiny is for the sons of Adam, but whether men realize God's desire for them on earth is truly up to the actions and decisions of men, for men have freedom and will to choose"


Read this once again:

"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." (Romans 9:16)

Cratchley:

"The fundamental error of Roman Catholicism as well as the former Roman priest and lawyer John Calvin, was the fact that racial calling was left out of their theology. Some may argue that there was no need to labor the point of racial choosing during the lifetime of Calvin. No Christian believed blacks had a soul, but rather that they were the highest manifestation of the animal kingdom. This is what science taught until recently. While there is some truth to this observation, nevertheless, unless a person is willing to acknowledge the clear teaching that God Almighty chose as His portion of the earth, from the beginning or foundation of the world, the white, Adamic, Israelite race, then they cannot ever hope to understand the clear teachings of the Bible…"

Now we see Cratchley perhaps stretching his farthest. First off, if one is a 16th century European which believes in Christ, believes blacks have no soul and that white is synonymous with Christian, what is the problem? Are we going to defecate on the teachings of John Calvin as well as Martin Luther based upon the fact they may or may not of realized we were Israel as Cratchley has? Are we going to presume that "being blinded" to one certain aspect of Scripture disqualifies us from speaking about any of it? If that is the case then only one who has ever been revealed Gods full Truth can write sermons. I ask you dear reader, what is more expedient: the revelation of the Protestant Reformation that we are not saved by paying the pope but by having faith in the payment of Christ, or, the revelation that we are the lost Israelites? And furthermore, if John Calvin did truly believe the Jews were Gods chosen, he must have believed they were His "chosen for destruction," for he states of the Jew:

"…rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone."[

"I have had much conversation with many Jews: I have never seen either a drop of piety or a grain of truth or ingenuousness – nay, I have never found common sense in any Jew." – John Calvin

Once again, by destroying John Calvin and his teachings, Cratchley destroys the Protestant reformation, which would bring us back into Romish darkness. In his zealousness to dismantle false Judeo-Christian philosophy he attacks Calvinism as Judeo doctrine when it is the furthest thing from it. In this he errs and treads into dangerous ground. Shaking the foundations of Reformed Theology, he destroys the basis for not only his own existence, but the existence of the greatest Aryan Nation, America, built by God under Calvinistic Protestantism. By claiming that human free-will is compatible with God’s sovereignty he travels the path of John Wesley and reanimates the dead teachings of Jacobus Arminius, the heretic that Cratchley’s church so vehemently condemns.

Clearly, free-will is an illusion conjured up by men with earthly minds. The mentalities of the world leave Yahweh out of the equation to varying degrees while seeking to supplant His omnipotence with Humanistic philosophy. Free-will is no doubt a derivative of this faulty and diseased mindset. The Mentality of Yahweh, on the other hand, does the exact opposite and instead leaves the world out of the equation altogether, i.e. absolutely powerless. Of course, weak men will always attempt to shirk their duty and use Gods Sovereignty as a scapegoat for their inaction. So be it. God is not mocked. Those of us who truly love our Father do not make excuses, we break them!

When the spiritual and material intersect in the form of the noble Calvinistic- Christian Identist, the honorable Weltanschauung is established: "All sin is man’s, while all glory is God’s."


Conclusion

Scripture must never be twisted—not even bent—to better fit ideology. When

God reveals to us a mystery or shows us a glimpse of His infinite truth, our mentalities conform to it, not vice versa. If for years someone has taught error and is later reproved by the Scripture then he is to harmonize his thinking with the Bible’s truth. Instead of engaging in prideful dispute and sophist argument simply one should simply recant his prior stance and pray to our Merciful Christ—asking Him for guidance and wisdom. In the Name of Jesus Christ, this is our hope for Dr. Cratchley.

So the next time some base-defiler tries to attack you and push free-will upon you, saying, "Well, if God controls everything and there is no power but of Him, then how is it my fault if I sin?" Rebuke him sharply: "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" Then punch him in the face and say, "His Will be done."

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer