Mosaic Covenant as republication of the Covenant of Works, once again, and once...again

Forgive me, but my God these Reformed academics are idiots.

Allow me to summarize in one sentence what this 'fool that hath a desire to teach' can't comprehend:

The Mosaic Covenant is a covenant of works for Jesus Christ, and national Israel (as unique a player in God's plan of redemption as the first Adam himself) is a type of Jesus Christ; *therefore*: that makes the Mosaic Covenant a covenant of grace for God's elect.

See? Not difficult. When a Kline or any other Reformed theologian says the Mosaic Covenant is a republication of the Covenant of Works in the garden *he is not saying it is not therefore a covenant of grace or not a part of the covenant of grace.* It is both (stop teaching for a moment and ponder, geniuses). It is a covenant of works for Jesus Christ (and national Israel was a type for Jesus Christ, i.e. kept the royal bloodline pure and brought to birth the Messiah Himself; even their histories correlate, if you ever get around to actually reading the Word of God) and in that it is part of the Covenant of Grace for God's elect.

This subject is obviously a stumblingblock for many. It tends to expose who does and who doesn't have real understanding of Federal Theology.

ps- OK, postscript: how is the Mosaic Covenant part of the Covenant of Grace for God's elect? Because it is what Jesus followed (to a 't') thus accomplishing what the first Adam failed to accomplish. Was Jesus suppose to not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? No, that tree represented all the law of the Covenant of Works, and the republication of that law on Sinai was for the purpose of Jesus having that law to be born under so that He could *keep it* and succeed where the first Adam failed. (Jesus is the 'second Adam.') So that republication of the Covenant of Works called the Mosaic Covenant given on Sinai *is* a covenant of works...for Jesus. And for Israel before the birth of Jesus because Israel *was Jesus* as type.

National Israel *does not correlate* to fallen man. Repeat: national Israel does not correlate to fallen man. National Israel correlates to the first Adam and to the second Adam. The first Adam, Adam in the Garden, and national Israel *are unique players in God's history of redemption.* (Get it through your heads one way or another --- please.) This is why the apostle Paul has difficulty explaining in Romans just *why* Israel is a bit different in God's plan than all other people. He says, don't judge them, they basically had a unique role to carry out, and God will deal with them a bit differently for that reason. Yet they are still only saved by faith alone, in their case, faith in the coming Messiah. Yet just like the first Adam they were a unique player and thus have a bit of a unique status in God's overall plan of redemption.

No, Zwingli was not an 'anabaptist', he just knew ritual didn't regenerate

The Romanist-style re-writing of history happening within Reformed seminaries continues apace.

What are the 'Reformed' academics protecting? Their baptismal regeneration (needed when you don't have the Spirit and disdain the Word of God that actually has the authority of God and not the 'authority' of scholars in it). Their clericalism (needed to defend their false doctrine; i.e. it's difficult to defend Romanist Beast doctrine without being able to have recourse to policing actions within your deathly domains).

Zwingli and Calvin both, in the midst of a vicious war, conceded bad doctrine in the areas of ecclesiology and sacramentology so as to win the war overall. Their followers have no such excuse for holding to the bad doctrine.

Our King Jesus Christ knows his followers. He sends His Spirit into our hearts. The death zones of the Roman Beast church and the man-centered, man-fearing Reformed seminaries are roach motels that will be dealt with upon the return of the King. (Reformed seminaries are singled out because Reformed Theology is doctrinal biblical truth, and that is always where the devil's followers infiltrate and set up camp - where the truth resides. Their reward will be painful, amen.)

Think about this regarding atheists

Atheists basically subscribe to the puppet theory of history; and people who subscribe to the puppet theory of history have been known to have I.Q.s similar to puppets.

You won't hear Obama's teleprompter talking about this

Good work, Canadian government health care. What would have been a routine life-saving operation in the United States turns into death-by-bunny-hill in a government run health care system.

Read carefully, churchians, this is a Christian talking to you

There are a handful of subjects in Scripture that confound the easily confounded churchians. One is so-called 'sacraments', another is the Sabbath, another is church polity, etc. These subjects confuse churchians usually because the Bible is giving warrant for these subjects to be seen differently in different eras of the history of redemption. If the Bible is not clear and dogmatic on a subject it is not clear and dogmatic *intentionally* (pilgrims).

Another such subject is the place of women among Christian gatherings.

This article is typical of the churchian approach:

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=253

Read it. Now I'll explain the subject to you in a sentence:

Once regenerated there is no male or female in Christ.

That's right, churchian pilgrims, the context for understanding the subject is that oh so hated subject of regeneration (which is effected, when it is, by the Word and the Spirit, by the way, not by ritual and clerics). Obviously churchians refuse to see regeneration as the clarifying context of this subject because the apostle Paul implies that there are unregenerate people in Christian gatherings. Including the good 'reverends' and other such self-appointed 'church leaders' who are more womanish, usually, than a Fourth of July 'patriot' parading in assless leather pants in San Francisco with perhaps a clerical collar topping off his special outfit.

A good article on the imprecatory psalms

The 'problem' of the imprecatory Psalms (the psalms where the psalmist is calling for the destruction of his enemies and so on) is explained perfectly here in this short article:

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=260

The final quote by Geerhardus Vos sums it up well. This article first gives a list of off-the-mark views that have been developed by people ashamed of these particular psalms, then gives the biblical view of them.

Gail Riplinger takes another liberal to the woodshed

Here, once again, is the rare, bold voice of a Christian. Critical Text scholars and the liberals that follow them shiver with hatred when they come across Gail's voice because Gail exposes the devil in these liberals. Liberals who like to self-identify as Christian really (really) don't like being exposed. The devil's children like to live and do their thing *in the dark.*

God bless Gail Riplinger, and may the enemies of our King Jesus Christ continue to shiver in anger all the way to the moment they must face their Judge and answer for their vain, prideful rebellion.

Of course, they can also humble themselves and turn from the devil's filth and corruptions and perversions and recognize the very Word of God pure and whole (in English the Authorized, King James, Version, based on the Masoretic Hebrew and the Received Text Greek, i.e. the Traditional Text) as something that is above them and not something they determine it to be. That's asking a lot. The children of the devil really would rather not recognize *anything* as being higher than them.

Atheist psychology 101

Also, there's a huge hole in the argument that looking at DNA proves intelligent design - if you think it proves god then fine, which god? There isn't a little stamp on the DNA that says "Made in heaven by God the father of Jesus Christ our lord and savior" You see intelligent design and assume it was your god - while people of other religions see DNA and to them, it proves their god.

Your situation is not that you don't know your Creator ("which god" as you put it), your situation is that you are in rebellion to your Creator. Your Creator put in your heart knowledge of Him. You have no excuse at your judgment.

I.e. you say "Which god?" The God you most don't want to acknowledge, pilgrim. The God you rail against every day of your atheist existence.

The Dutch, the economic crisis, and John Calvin

Despite a couple of gargantuanly stupid statements this article on the Dutch, the economic crisis, and John Calvin is interesting.

That saying church christians think is from the Bible

A saying of the devil: "There is no salvation outside of the church." OK, so I have to congregate with a lot of man-fearers to be called a Christian? I don't think so, devil-polisher.

Gail Riplinger's approach that goes over the heads of her critics

The comment below was written to self-identified 'anti-critical text bible' people who yet could not but help themselves in being man-fearing and obsequious towards inane critical text scholars. In the comment is also some information on Gail Riplinger they didn't know, and that critical text scholars are incapable of understanding, being shallow with regards to literature and art and similar influences in general...

If by your definition of English preservationist you are calling Riplinger an English preservationist then you are wrong. In that case you’d have to also call her a German preservationist and a French preservationist and a Dutch preservationist, etc.

One point: I make a distinction between the underlying manuscripts as one subject, and the translation of those manuscripts as another subject (Riplinger does as well). But in truth the two bleed into each other (and Riplinger writes based on this fact, which may be what is making you see her as a so-called English Preservationist), again, in truth the two bleed into each other more than that distinction recognizes, and it is also a concession to dumb, mocking critical text academics to even make that distinction.

The English language is more at the bedrock of God’s preservation of His Word(s) starting with the Gothic than is being recognized here. The Traditional Text (Hebrew and Greek) and the English language are more intertwined (in terms of carrying the meaning of the words themselves) than it is currently ‘cool’ for you all to even begin to hint at or accept publicly or privately given the fear I see here of seeming ‘non-academic’ in the face of empty, dumb, inane critical text scholars and their mocking.

What I’m seeing here is people who feel a need to stake out a middle ground between ‘embarrassing unwashed non-academic’ believers and critical text scholars (who by default you consider to be less embarrassing even though by your own standards - biblical - they are empty and inane and dangerous fools.

This is a form of worldly fearing of man.

Think about this regarding the connection of English with the Traditional Text in terms of carrying the very meaning of the words down through history: critical text scholars unthinkingly and necessarily (and really, actually, shamelessly) use that English document (the English Bible that culminated in the AV1611 that was refined through the history of God’s people from the Gothic) as their ‘base’ and ’standard’. They would be lost at sea without it. They don’t *just* use it to give themselves and their products derivative seriousness or to actively defile the standard. They really *have* to use it. Their products would be babylonish in a most revealing and extreme way if they didn’t stick to the foundation of the English Bible refined to the culmination that is the AV1611. They are shameless in this sense, and they aren’t called on this enough if ever.

To make the point of the last paragraph clearer: the Critical Text industry doesn’t just need the English Bible that culminated in the AV1611 to be able to make any translation *at all* that isn’t babylonish, but they *also need it* to have the meaning of the very words themselves (and also thus to provide the standard to make their dutiful-to-Satan deviations from, not only in their finished bible products but also in the language reference products they make authoritative). If they didn’t have it for that their bible products would be so doctrinally unorthodox based on the standard of the Reformation (recovered apostolic biblical doctrine) that they would be exposed for what they are: liberal, unbelieving, children of babel and disobedience.

Books About the Cold War

Five central books of the Cold War. Look at #5 and how it relates to our dimwit-in-chief.

Interesting event regarding prayer

I was walking down a street and a young girl (18 or so) basically started a conversation with me. She was 'crazy.' All over the place. It was the usual situation where you are half thinking how do I get out of this without being taken for a ride (she was asking me to drive her to somewhere, I couldn't get a clear answer where) and how do I help her. It turned out she lived nearby. She was across the street from a hospital, and had just been in the emergency room but had left without getting help. So my main game plan was to convince her that that was the best place for her for now. People in there could help her.

Here's the main point: I wanted to say something regarding evangelization. So I kind of lamely threw in in a part of the conversion "Read the Bible." It was awkward and out of context of the conversation. But I wanted to just say 'read Bible' in some way. But then as she decided to cross the street and go back into the emergency room I said: "I'll pray for you."

I could *feel* a calm reaction it produced in her at those words. She didn't respond with words, but I could feel a response. It surprised me. Before she was all hyper mentally, changing topics, paranoid.

Now, today I was looking through a book on spiritual practices written by Donald Whitney (Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life). I'd opened it to a random page where he was saying (paraphrase) "I've noticed that when I tell somebody I will pray for them it always has a profound effect on them. People like hearing it. It shocks them." That's a paraphrase because I don't have the book at hand.