NOMINALISM AND THE REFORMATION
The following is a brief excerpt from an article on Nominalism in McClintock and Strong’s “ Cyclopedia”. It serves well as a definition and historical background of the Philosophical concept to which William of Ockham, Martin Luther and the majority of the Reformers, subscribed.
(from Lat. nomen, “a name”) is the doctrine that general notions, such as the notion of a tree, have no realities corresponding to them, and have no existence but as names or words, and nothing more (flatus vocis). Sir William Hamilton says, “The doctrine of nominalism, as it is called, maintains that very notion, considered in itself, is singular, but become, as it were, general, through the intention of the mind to make it represent every other resembling notion, or notion of the same class.
Take, for example, the term man. Here we can call up no notion, no idea, corresponding to the universality of the class or term. This is manifestly impossible; for as man involves contradictory attributes, and as contradictions cannot coexist in one representation, an idea or notion adequate to nidan cannot be realized in thought. The class man includes individuals, male and female, white and black, and copper-colored, tall and short, fat and thin, straight and crooked, whole and mutilated, etc.; and the notion of the class must, therefore, at once represent all and none of these.
It is therefore evident, though the absurdity was maintained by Locke, that we cannot accomplish this; and this being impossible, we cannot represent to ourselves the class man by any equivalent notion or idea. All that we can do is to call up some individual image, and consider it as representing, though inadequately representing, the generality. This we easily do; for as we can call into imagination any individual, so we can make that individual image stand for any or for every other which it resembles, in those essential points which constitute the identity of the class. This opinion, which, after Hobbes, has been in modern times maintained, among others, by Berkeley, Hume, Adam Smith, Campbell, and Stewart, appears to me not only true, but self-evident.”’ The doctrine directly opposed to nominalism is denominated realism (q.v.), and must be traced back to Plato’s system of ideas, or the eternal and independent existence of general attributes, from which the concrete embodiments were derived.
There existed in the divine mind, according to Plato, patterns, models, or archetypes, after which individuals were formed. The archetype circle was the origin of all actual round things. Aristotle denied the separate existence of these general forms, and held that they existed only in connection with matter, or with objects in the concrete. The Stoics repudiated universals in both senses. The Aristotelian views constituted the scholastic realism, and prevailed until the 11th century, when a reaction took place in favor of the Stoical doctrine, headed by Roscelin of Compiegne and John the Sophist, and thus gave a vigorous life to the doctrine of nominalism. The doctrine naturally excited great consternation among the schoolmen (q.v.), with whom hitherto all that was real in nature was conceived to depend on these general notions or essences.
The leading object of the schoolmen was at first not so much to stimulate a spirit of inquiry as to write in defense of the ancient dogmas of the Church. In this capacity they undertook to show (1) that faith and reason are not inconsistent; or, in other words, that all the supernatural elements of revelation are most truly rational; they labored (2) to draw together all the several points of Christian doctrine, and construct them into one consistent scheme; and (3) they attempted, the more rigorous definition of each single dogma, pointed out the rationale of it, and investigated its relation to the rest.
This method of discussion was extended even to the most inscrutable of all the mysteries of faith-the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity; and some of the scholastics did not hesitate to argue that the truth of it is capable of rigorous demonstration (comp. Klee, Gesch. d. christl. Lehre, pt. ii, ch. 2:§ 11). The promulgator of nominalism, who was a churchman at Compibgne, underwent much persecution for his opinions, and was even ultimately compelled to retract them as inconsistent with the doctrine of the Trinity, as it was then stated, and all who accepted the nominalistic notions were subject to much suspicion for heresy for touching so serious a question as the Trinity.
The realistic notions came to be regarded as synonymous with religious orthodoxy, and nominalism with unbelief. The controversy raged with great violence all through the 12th century. Roscelin argued boldly that if, according to the current language of the Church, the essence of the Godhead might be spoken of as one reality (una res), the personal distinctness of the three divine hypostases would be constructively denied. To view the Godhead thus was (in Roscelin’s eye) to violate the Christian faith; it was equivalent to saying that the persons of the Trinity were not three distinct subsistences (non tres res), but names, and nothing more, without a counterpart in fact. He urged, accordingly, that, to avoid Sabellianism (q.v.), the doctors of the Church were bound to call the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost three real Beings (tres res) of equal majesty and will.
A council held (1092) at Soissons instantly denounced the author of these speculations, on the ground that they were nothing else than tritheism (q.v.); while Anselm, as the champion of realism, took up his pen to write in its behalf (comp. Schrockh, Kirchengesch. 28:376-384). According to this great Realist, the genus has a true subsistence prior to and independent of the individuals numbered in the class it represents; particulars arise from universals, being fashioned after these (the universalia ante rem), or modelled on a general archetype that comprehends the properties of all (comp. Milman, Hist. Lat. Christ. 3:247 sq.).
But, though for a time suppressed, the Nominalists soon replaced their loss of Roscelin by a man of far more extraordinary power, the learned Abelard, who induced large numbers to desert the realistic standard I by his dialectical skill and eloquence; and, with his followers, whom he led in a body to Paris, was the occasion of founding the celebrated university of that city. After his death, the ancient realism was, however, restored to its former supremacy. Thomas Aquinas (q.v.) and Duns Scotus (q.v.) then gave their adhesion to it. Indeed we do not meet with a prominent Nominalist until the 14th century, when William Occam, an English Franciscan friar, and a pupil of Scotus, revived the advocacy I of nominalism, which was once more maintained by i number of eminent men, in spite of the hostility of the Church, which went as far as persecution.
The controversy assumed in this 14th century a theological character; the principal point of difference between the two parties being “the nature of the divine cooperation with the human will,” and “the measure of divine grace necessary to salvation.” The dispute was so rancorous at one time that the disputants accused each other of having committed the sin’ of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and the public peace was seriously disturbed. An edict of Louis II of France prohibited all disputation on such subjects.
The Reformation put an end to the controversy on ecclesiastical ground, and it has since been a question simply in philosophy (q.v.). A middle view between nominalism and realism was held by a few persons when the contest was at its height; which was that, although general properties have no separate existence in nature, they can be conceived in the mind apart from any concrete embodiment. Thus we may form an idea of a circle irrespective of any individual round body. This view is specious, and is tacitly implied in many opinions that have never ceased to be held.
To the intermediate doctrine of conceptualism, nominalism is closely allied. It may be called the envelope of conceptualism, while conceptualism is the letter or substance of nominalism. “If nominalism sets out from conceptualism, conceptualism should terminate in nominalism,” says M. Cousin (Introd. aux ouvrages inedits d’Abeilard [Paris, 1836, 4to], p. 181). “Universalia ante rem,” is the watchword of the Realists; “Universalia in re,” of the Coniceptualists; “Universalia post rem,” of the Nominalists. The Nominalists were called Terminists about the time of the Reformation (Ballantyne, Exam. of the Human Mind, ch. 3, § 4).
It should be borne in mind, too, that of nominalism itself there are manifest in the history of philosophy two varieties, according as stress is laid on the subjective nature of the concept (see above allusion to conceptualism), or on the identity of the word employed to denote the objects comprehended under the concept (extreme nominalism, or nominalism in the narrower sense of the term). All these leading types of doctrine appear, either in embryo or with a certain degree of development, in the 9th and 10th centuries; but the more complete expansion, and the dialectical demonstration of them, as well as the sharpest contests of their several supporters, and also the development of the various possible modifications and combinations of them, belong to the period next succeeding.
With the appearance of Occam as the leader of Nominalists they may be recognized as the school of progress, inquiry, and criticism, out of which the Reformation arose: a school which, however, so far tended towards skepticism that it overvalued the truth which it arrived at by reasoning, and undervalued that which it received by revelation; thus being disposed to believe only after demonstration. In later times the Nominalistic theory was, as has been stated above in the’ extract from Sir W. Hamilton, adopted by Hobbes (q.v.), Hume (q.v.), and Dugald Stewart (q.v.). See Thomasius, Oratio de Secta Nominalium (Leips. 1682-1686); Meiners, De Nominalium ac Realiuin initiis (“Commentatt. Soc. Gott.” 12:12); Baumgarten-Crusius, Progr. de vero Scholasti-‘ corum Realium et Nominalium discrimine et sententia Theologica (Jena, 1821, 4to); Chladenius, Diss. (res. Jo. Theod. Kunneth) de vita et hceresi Roscellini (Erlang. 1756, 4to). See also Thesaurus Biog. et Bibliographicus of Geo. Etr. Waldau (Chemnitz, 1792, 8vo); Erner, Ueber Nominalismus u. Realismus (Prague, 1842); Kihler, Realismus u. Nominalismus in ihrem Einflusse auf die dogmat. Systemne des Mittelalters (Gotha. 1858); Barach, Zur Gesch. d. Nomin. von Roscelin (Vienna, 1866); Lewes, Hist. of Philos. (see Index in vol. ii); Ueberweg, lHist. of Philos. vol. i, especially § 91; Haag, Hist. des Dogmes, 1:209 sq.; Hagenbach, Hist. of Doctr. 1:391, 457, 46C; 2:51; Mercersb. Rev. April, 1869; Bapt. Qu. Jan. 1868, p. 31 sq.; Moeth. Qu. Rev. April, 1871, p. 315; Jour. Spec. Philippians No. i, art. ix; Stud. w. Krit. 1871, No. ii, p. 297 sq.;
The following “PATHEOS” website article on Lutheran Origins and Influences by Ted Vial, with my own comments on that article included in brackets, is herein submitted as an illustration of the fact that the Protestant Reformation was a product of the Nominalist Movement in Europe…
“Influences 1. Written by: Ted Vial:
There are at least two important intellectual and cultural movements with a strong influence on Luther: Renaissance humanism and nominalism. In addition, there are several historical developments that created a fertile context for Luther’s reform. The Renaissance is a period in western cultural history lasting from roughly the 14th through the 16th centuries. The word literally means “rebirth.” One of the characteristics of the Renaissance is an interest in the classical culture of ancient Greece and Rome, rather than the scholastic tradition that dominated the Middle Ages. Humanism is an intellectual movement within the Renaissance that takes as its motto ad fontes!-“to the sources!” This “humanism” is associated with what we today call the Humanities, the study of the liberal arts. The idea is that a study of classical texts (in their original languages) can change lives, producing scholars and civic leaders who live a life of virtue for the greater good. Luther was strongly influenced by humanism. As a Bible scholar, he relied on the critical edition of the New Testament in Greek published by Erasmus (the greatest of the humanists) in 1516, rather than the Church’s official Latin version of the Bible (called the Vulgate).An example of the effect of close attention to original languages is Luther’s argument that marriage is not a sacrament (eventually Protestants will have two sacraments rather than the Catholics’ seven).Paul had written in Greek that marriage was a “mysterion,” which had been translated into Latin as “sacramentum.” Use of the original Greek convinced Luther that marriage was not sacramental.”
[ This is another Nominalist fallacy which Martin Luther used in order to justify bigamy and divorce..]
The following excerpts from Wikipedia articles on Polygamy and Polygyny are here used to illustrate the errors to which Luther adhered regarding matrimony…
“Periodically, Christian reform movements that have aimed at rebuilding Christian doctrine based on the Bible alone (sola scriptura) have at least temporarily accepted polygyny as a Biblical practice. For example, during the Protestant Reformation, in a document referred to simply as “Der Beichtrat” (or “The Confessional Advice” ), Martin Luther granted the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, who, for many years, had been living “constantly in a state of adultery and fornication,” a dispensation to take a second wife. The double marriage was to be done in secret, however, to avoid public scandal. Some fifteen years earlier, in a letter to the Saxon Chancellor Gregor Brück, Luther stated that he could not “forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture.” (“Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis.”)
“On February 14, 1650, the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that, because so many men were killed during the Thirty Years’ War, the churches for the following ten years could not admit any man under the age of 60 into a monastery. Priests and ministers not bound by any monastery were allowed to marry. Lastly, the decree stated that every man was allowed to marry up to ten women. The men were admonished to behave honorably, provide for their wives properly, and prevent animosity among them.”
“The trend towards frequent divorce and remarriage is sometimes referred to as ‘serial polygamy’. In contrast, others may refer to this as ‘serial monogamy’, since it is a series of monogamous relationships. The first term highlights the multiplicity of marriages throughout the life-cycle, the second the non-simultaneous nature of these marriages.
Martin Luther, the German reformer, believed that Christianity did not prohibit polygyny. He predicted that future Christians would have multiple wives. Writing to Gregor Brück, Luther said that marrying several wives did not contradict Scripture. (“Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis.”)..”
[The Scripture clearly teaches that “ What God has joined together let NO MAN put asunder….” Christian Marriage is sacramental in nature and efficacy, and may be interpreted justly, along with Confirmation, etc., as a genuine sacrament in the Church, since it is something that “ God Does” and not merely something that “ Man Does”.. Outside the Church, it still remains the union of bones AND flesh ( “ bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh”… Genesis), and cannot be dissolved until one of the consenting party’s bones are laid to rest… Divorce is allowed in the instance of fornication only, but remarriage is not permitted until the annulment of the “ bone union” P.C.]…
“Luther was trained at the University of Erfurt in nominalist theology. Nominalism is a development of the theology of Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225-1274). Nominalism rejected a widely accepted philosophical idea that behind every object is a divine essence and that we know what objects are because our minds contain a complete set of essences by which we recognize the objects. The most famous nominalist is William of Ockham (ca. 1287-1348).”Ockham’s Razor” is the principle that, all things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best. Ockham used this “razor” to argue that there is no divine essence “behind” any object; our minds simply lump objects together and we give the groups a name (so, “nominalism”).In the world there are just objects and our minds, not objects, minds, and essences. This impacted theology by arguing that, since there are no divine essences in the world, it is impossible to know anything about God just by looking at the world. Though God created the world, the world does not reveal God.”
[ This position is, once again, diametrically opposed to Scripture:
……..18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, 19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. Acts 14:17; 20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. Ps 19:1; 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. Deut 28:28; 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. 2Kgs 17:29; 24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. ( NET BIBLE TRANSLATION. Romans 1: 18)
Clearly Scripture tells us that God is “knowable” in His eternal POWER as well as His DIVINE NATURE from the created world around us. We therefore KNOW that God exists in nature and essence. We can KNOW His nature, but we cannot know His ESSENCE, even though the ESSENCE is known to exist in reality. Ockham and Luther both taught falsely that God’s Nature and Power ( namely, His Divine attributes) were entirely “ UNKNOWABLE”. John Stuart Mill and his Utilitarianism taught the very same fallacy. The early Church taught that God’s nature, power and attributes were entirely knowable..P.C.]
John of Damascus, writing in the mid eighth century, had the following Apostolic Teaching to relate on the Divine Nature:
Book 1 Chapter XIV.—The properties of the divine nature……..Uncreate, without beginning, immortal, infinite, eternal, immaterial , good, creative, just, enlightening, immutable, passionless, uncircumscribed, immeasurable, unlimited, undefined, unseen, unthinkable, wanting in nothing, being His own rule and authority, all-ruling, life-giving, omnipotent, of infinite power, containing and maintaining the universe and making provision for all: all these and such like attributes the Deity possesses by nature, not having received them from elsewhere, but Himself imparting all good to His own creations according to the capacity of each. The subsistences dwell and are established firmly in one another. For they are inseparable and cannot part from one another, but keep to their separate courses within one another, without coalescing or mingling, but cleaving to each other. For the Son is in the Father and the Spirit: and the Spirit in the Father and the Son: and the Father in the Son and the Spirit, but there is no coalescence or commingling or confusion . And there is one and the same motion: for there is one impulse and one motion of the three subsistences, which is not to be observed in any created nature.Further the divine effulgence and energy, being one and simple and indivisible, assuming many varied forms in its goodness among what is divisible and allotting to each the component parts of its own nature, still remains simple and is multiplied without division among the divided, and gathers and converts the divided into its own simplicity . For all things long after it and have their existence in it. It gives also to all things being according to their several natures , and it is itself the being of existing things, the life of living things, the reason of rational beings, the thought of thinking beings. But it is itself above mind and reason and life and essence.Further the divine nature has the property of penetrating all things without mixing with them and of being itself impenetrable by anything else. Moreover, there is the property of knowing all things with a simple knowledge and of seeing all things, simply with His divine, all-surveying, immaterial eye, both the things of the present, and the things of the past, and the things of the future, before they come into being . It is also sinless, and can cast sin out, and bring salvation: and all that it wills, it can accomplish, but does not will all it could accomplish. For it could destroy the universe but it does not will so to do..
[ According to William of Ockham and Luther]:
“The only things we can know about God are what God chooses to reveal in scripture, and God tells us only what we need to know for our salvation. God is otherwise completely hidden.”[ Once again, this fallacy is refuted by the above scripture passages].
John Damascene, once again, in his Fount of Knowledge, relates the early Church/ Apostolic teaching on the “ knowable and the unknowable” in relation to Divinity:
Book 1Chapter II.—Concerning things utterable and things unutterable, and things knowable and thing unknowable:
….It is necessary, therefore, that one who wishes to speak or to hear of God should understand clearly that alike in the doctrine of Deity and in that of the Incarnation fitting terms, but on things above us we cannot do else than express ourselves according to our limited capacity; as, for instance, when we speak of God we use the terms sleep, and wrath, and regardlessness, hands, too, and feet, and such like expressions.We, therefore, both know and confess that God is without beginning, without end, eternal and everlasting, uncreate, unchangeable, invariable, simple, uncompound, incorporeal, invisible, impalpable, uncircumscribed, infinite, incognisable, indefinable, incomprehensible, good, just, maker of all things created, almighty, all-ruling, all-surveying, of all overseer, sovereign, judge; and that God is One, that is to say, one essence ; and that He is known, and has His being in three subsistences, in Father, I say, and Son and Holy Spirit; and that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects, except in that of not being begotten, that of being begotten, and that of procession; and that the Only-begotten Son and Word of God and God, in His bowels of mercy, for our salvation, by the good pleasure of God and the co-operation of the Holy Spirit, being conceived without seed, was born uncorruptedly of the Holy Virgin and Mother of God, Mary, by the Holy Spirit, and became of her perfect Man; and that the Same is at once perfect God and perfect Man, of two natures, Godhead and Manhood, and in two natures possessing intelligence, will and energy, and freedom, and, in a word, perfect according to the measure and proportion proper to each, at once to the divinity, I say, and to the humanity, yet to one composite person suffered hunger and thirst and weariness, and was crucified, and for three days submitted to the experience of death and burial, and ascended to heaven, from which also He came to us, and shall come again.
And the Holy Scripture is witness to this and the whole choir of the Saints. But neither do we know, nor can we tell, what the essence of God is, or how it is in all, or how the Only-begotten Son and God, having emptied Himself, became Man of virgin blood, made by another law contrary to nature, or how He walked with dry feet upon the waters 1421 . It is not within our capacity, therefore, to say anything about God or even to think of Him, beyond the things which have been divinely revealed to us, whether by word or by manifestation, by the divine oracles at once of the Old Testament and of the New .
( Ted Vial continues):
“While Luther rejected some parts of his training in Roman theology, this emphasis on revelation, particularly the revelation conveyed through the Christian scripture, as the only secure route to knowledge of God clearly had a strong influence on him, resulting in his doctrine of “scripture alone” (sola scriptura)….”
Nominalism teaches that REVELATION in Scripture is the equivalent of personal INTUITION. Both Ockham AND Luther, as well as the other Reformers such as Calvin, believed and taught this falsehood.. Divine Revelation is NOT an “ intuition” but is intricately linked with “ Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth”. As well as the WRITTEN and ORAL exposition of this Truth by the Apostles and their immediate disciples. According to Nominalism, Reason is BYPASSED by intuitive revelation, where every man is left to himself to interpret Scripture.. Scripture, however, teaches the opposite with the express statement and call from God Himself to “ Come, let US reason together….” 2 Thessalonians 3: 6,7 clearly states that the TRADITION of the Apostles must be followed:
“3:6 But we command you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from any brother who lives an undisciplined life and not according to the tradition they received from us. (2Thess 3:14; 1Cor 5:11; Titus 3:10; 2Thess 2:15); 7 For you know yourselves how you must imitate us, because we did not behave without discipline among you, (1Cor 11:1; 1Thess 1:6-7; 1Thess 2:10);”
Paul goes on to tell us that the Apostolic TRADITION is both WRITTEN ( Scripture) as well as ORAL ( Tradition of the Apostles as embodied in the “ Apostolic Constitutions and Canons”) in 2 Thessalonians 2:15:
“Therefore, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold on to the traditions that we taught you, whether by speech or by letter.( 2Thess 3:6);”
NOMINALISM was enlisted by the humanist movement to destroy the power of the Papacy and restore the Imperial Supremacy. The historical battles waged in Europe for such supremacy, that of the Guelphs and the Ghibellines ( between “ Emperor and Pope”) were one of the major factors both Ockham and Luther appealed to, and BOTH chose the side of the Emperor ( Imperialism) over that of the Papacy.. The Papacy, however, is NOT rejected by Nominalism, but is placed in service of the Emperor..
Our total rejection of Nominalism must be tempered with a like total rejection of Aristotelian SCHOLASTICISM.. Nominalism largely flowed through the schools of liberalism such as Cambridge and Tubingen, whereas the Scholasticism of Oxford was and remains of a Papist Aristotelian conservative type to this day.. It must be noted that Luther’s entire theological stance, particularly in relation to the supposed “ doctrine of imputed righteousness” as well as the so-called “ bondage of the will” ARE NOT Scriptural or sound, nor do they stem from Apostolic teaching or tradition, but entirely stem from the Nominalism of William of Ockham, either in a verbatin format or occassionally in a slightly modified one.. Luther personally and publically admitted, and NEVER renounced the fact, that he was a stout NOMINALIST with the very words “ I am an Ockhamist”…)
The influence of Nominalism on the Reformers was inestimable.. One and all embraced it in varying degrees, following the train of Ockham and Luther. As a reaction to the fallacies of the Scholasticism of the day, Nominalism laid the groundwork for even greater errors such as the subsequent schools of Higher Criticism, which in turn led the adherent to outright denial of the innerancy and inspiration of Scripture, and eventually Deism itself.. Secret Societies of the 17th century such as the Rosicrucian Order, which early on threw their lot in with Protestantism, wholeheartedly gave their doctrinal allegiance to the philosophy of Nominalism, as can be seen by Rosicrucian writings of Jacob Boehme and Robert Fludd and Francis Bacon. It is to Nominalism that we owe even seemingly innocent theological adages such as the famous ” KISS” maxim ( ” keep it simple stupid”)…
Though Nominalism laid the knell of death to sound theology during the times of the early Reformation in Europe, it also formed ( or re-established infact) the political philosophical bridge between Emperor and Pope, and in a way paved the path for the union of Democracy with Imperialism in subsequent Hegelian Theories of the final ” synthesis” of the “right” and “left” in politics.. This Hegelian synthesis was later developed by Saint Yves D’Alverdye as the tenet of ” SYNARCHY” which sought to revive the ancient pagan government and worship of the EMPEROR under the supporting fatherly hand of the PONTIFEX MAXIMUS ( the POPES) in a syncretistic political doctrine of “ Joint Rule”]..
The Blasphemous nature and tendency of and in Nominalism paved the way to the horrors of Lutheran and Reformed Theology, particularly as it concerns sin, good works, and righteousness… Luther’s infamous dictum to ” sin boldly” because the Grace of Christ abounds more, is a devilish reverse parody of the express warning in Scripture by Saint Paul AGAINST antinomianism in the Church. Though we are all born with a TENDENCY to sin ( original sin), none are imbued with a NECESSITY to sin… This was the teaching of the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic Christian Church.. ALL succumb to the defilement of sin except Christ Jesus, and therefore cannot save themselves from the penalty exacted on free-willed sinful actions, which is death and separation from God.. NO ONE is able to ” save themselves” by good works or ” self-transformation”. Good works can only occur after conversion and may find reward in Heaven, but can NEVER save of their own or LEAD the individual to a state of salvation.. Prior to conversion, they are often a hinderance to salvation… After conversion they are a commendation, blessing and a reward..
We must be saved by the Grace of God THROUGH Faith, but are no longer bound by the shackles of sin or necessity, even though original sin does not leave us until the dissolution and death of the body.. Only one name is given under Heaven by which we may be saved: that of Jesus Christ… Yet at the same time, a Christian is empowered by the Holy Ghost to overcome sin and to live a righteous life… Christians are no longer ” sinners” ( even though they are capable of sinning and occasionally do sin), but are strictly the ” congregation of the SAINTS” ( on earth) as Scripture constantly affirms… Luther and the Reformers threw this primordial teaching out in order to make conversions to their cause swift and easy.. It was a numbers game; quantity rather than quality of conversion.. The following extract from Luther’s letter to Melanchton on this subject is a frightening introduction to the diabolical nature of Nominalist Antinomianism, and highlights the pathetic and dangerous nature of Lutheran and Reformed Theology in general.
We must, on the other hand, stress that Scholasticism and Roman Catholic Theology is just as bankrupt, and equally distant from the Apostolic teachings….:
The following excerpt is here added as proof of the somewhat blasphemic nature of Luther’s beliefs and Theology:
“Let Your Sins Be Strong: A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon Letter no. 99, 1 August 1521, From the Wartburg (Segment) Translated by Erika Bullmann Flores from: _Dr. Martin Luther’s Saemmtliche Schriften_ Dr, Johannes Georg Walch, Ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.), Vol. 15,cols. 2585-2590.:
Of course, you can only know and absolve those sins which have been confessed to you; sins which have not been confessed to you, you neither need to know nor can you absolve them. That is reaching too high, dear gentlemen.”
You cannot convince me that the same is true for the vows made by priests and monks. For I am very concerned about the fact that the order of priesthood was instituted by God as a free one. Not so that of the monks who chose their position voluntarily, even though I have almost come to the conclusion that those who have entered into that state at an age prior to their manhood, or are currently at that stage, may secede with a clear conscience. I am hesitant, however, with a judgment about those who have been in this state for a long time and have grown old in it.
2. By the way, St. Paul very freely speaks about the priests (1.Tim: 4, ff), that devils have forbidden them to marry; and St. Paul’s voice is the voice of the divine majesty. Therefore, I do not doubt that they must depend on him to such a degree that even though they agreed to this interdiction of the devil at the time, now–having realized with whom they made their contract–they can cheerfully break this contract.
3. This interdiction by the devil, which is clearly shown by God’s Word, urges and compels me to sanction the actions of the Bishop of Kemberg. For God does not lie nor deceive when He says that this is an interdiction from the devil. If a contract has been made with the devil it must not endure since it was made in godless error against God and was damned and repudiated by God. For He says very clearly (1. Tim. 4:1 Vulg.) that those spirits are in error who are the originators of the interdictions.
4. Why do you hesitate to join this divine judgment against the gates of hell? That is not how it was with the oath of the children of Israel which they gave to the Gibeons. They had it in their laws that they must offer peace or accept peace offered to them, and accept into their midst proselytes and those who adhered to their customs. All this took place. Nothing happened there against the Lord or by the advice of spirits. For even though in the beginning they murmured, later on they approved.
5. In addition, consider that the state of being unmarried is only a human statute and can be readily lifted. Therefore any Christian can do this. I would make this statement even if the interdiction had not come from a devil, but from a devout person. However, because there is no such statement by God concerning the monks, I am therefore not certain that I should make the same pronouncement concerning them. For I would not dare to presume, neither advice another to do so. Would God that we could do this, though, in order to prevent someone from becoming a monk, or leaving his order during the years of his virility. For we are to avoid vexations if there is no relevant scriptural passage available to us, even when dealing with things which are permitted.
6. Good old Carlstadt is also citing St. Paul (1 Tim.5:9-11), to let go of the younger widows and select 60-year-olds, wish to God this could be demonstrated. Quite easily someone might say that the Apostle referred to the future, while in reference to the past (V.12) they are condemned because they have broken their first troth. Therefore this expression has come to naught and cannot be a dependable basis for the conscience. For that is what we are searching for. Moreover, this reasoning that it is better to be married than to burn with vain desire (1 Cor.7:9), or to prevent the sins of immorality (1 Cor.7:2), by entering into marriage while committing the sin of the broken troth, that is nothing but common- sense. We want the scripture and the witness of God’s will. Who knows if the one who is very enthusiastic today will still be so tomorrow?
7. I would not have allowed marriage for priests for the sole reason of “burning” had not St. Paul called this interdiction devilish and hypocritical, condemned by God. Even without the burning he urged that this unmarried status be cast aside simply for the fear of God. However, it is necessary to discuss these things more thoroughly. For I too would love to come to the aid of the monks and nuns. I very much pity these wretched human beings, these young men and girls who suffer defilement and burning.
8. Concerning the two elements of the Holy Supper I will not give an example, but give testimony with Christ’s words. Carlstadt does not show that those who have received only one element have sinned, or not sinned. I am concerned that Christ did not command either one of the two, just as He does not command baptism if the tyrant or the world withhold the water. So also the violence of persecution separates men and women, which God forbids to separate, neither do they agree to be separated. Therefore, neither do godfearing hearts agree that they should be robbed of one of the elements. However, those who do agree and approve: who can deny that these are not Christians but Papists who are sinning.
9. There HE does not demand it, and here the tyrant oppresses, I therefore cannot agree that those who receive only one element are sinning. For who can exert power to take something when the tyrant is not willing? Therefore it is only common-sense which observes here that Christ’s institution is not adhered to. Scripture makes no definition by which we could declare this act a sin. It is Christ’s institution, given in freedom, which cannot be incarcerated as a whole or in part.
10. It happened to Donatus, the martyr, where several people could not participate because the cup broke or the wine was spilled. What if this happens and there is no other wine available? There are other similar situations. In short, because Scripture does not speak of sin here, I therefore say there is no sin involved.
11. I am quite pleased, though, that you are re-establishing Christ’s method. For it was just that which I planned to take up with you first of all upon my return to you. For now we recognize this tyranny and can oppose it, in order not to be forced to receive only one of the elements.
12. From here on I will no longer conduct private mass. Rather we should pray God to give us more of His Spirit. For I am expecting that the Lord will soon ravish Germany–which she deserves because of her unbelief, godlessness and hate of the Gospel. However, we shall be blamed for this chastisement, as we are made out to be heretics who have provoked God to this action. We shall be scorned by the people and disdained by the nation. Those, however, will make excuses for their sins, through which He will manifest that the hard- hearted do not become godly neither by mercy nor wrath. Let it happen, let the will of the Lord be done. Amen!
13.”If you are a preacher of Grace, then preach a true, not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. For he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here we have to sin. This life in not the dwelling place of righteousness but, as Peter says, we look for a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. . . . Pray boldly-you too are a mighty sinner.” (Weimar ed. vol. 2, p. 371; Letters I, “Luther’s Works,” American Ed., Vol 48. p. 281- 282)
13. If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.
On the day of the Feast of St. Peter the Apostle, 1521..”
This text was translated for Project Wittenberg by Erika Flores and is in the public domain.
Ted Vial continues:
Influences 2. Written by: Ted Vial:
“Luther was not the first church reformer by any means, nor the only one of his day. The Gregorian Reform headed by Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) tackled precisely the same issues of moral integrity of clergy and church that Luther did. John Hus (ca. 1370-1415) was excommunicated and burned at the stake for placing the authority of the Bible over that of the church, attacking indulgences, and questioning papal infallibility. But Luther came at a unique moment in history, and the confluence of several factors meant that his reform became a movement that formed a church separate from the Roman Catholic Church for the first time in the West.This unique convergence of factors include the following: Luther came at a time of rapid urbanization (and the early Reformation was largely a city affair).He came soon after the invention of the moveable type printing press. (It is estimated that 6 million books were printed between 150 and 1500, more than in the previous thousand years. From 1517 to 1520, however, about 300,000 copies of books and tracts by Luther alone were printed.)
Luther came at time when there was a middle class growing in size and prestige between the nobility and the peasants. He came at the time of the first stirrings of nationalism; he was protected by German princes, and part of his anger came from the idea that the Italian Church was taking advantage of Germans. He came soon after the plague and the Hundred Years’ War had devastated a huge percentage of the European population, creating great anxiety. He came soon after the Avignon papacy and the Great Western Schism put into power two and then three popes at once, calling into question the ordination of priests and the efficacy of sacraments performed by them. All of these shifts created religious unease, and a kind of tinder box into which the match of Luther’s theological claims were thrown. …..”
The following references and quotes of Luther’s own admissions of being ” an Ockhamist”, and of William of Ockham being his ” dear teacher” etc. are taken from Philip Schaff’s classic work on the History of the Christian Church.. Luther, being taught at the Ockhamist University at Erfurt, based most ( if not all) of his errors on Nominalism.. Rosicrucians in Germany, such as Jacob Boehme and his circle, were avowed Ockhamists and Neo-Platonists…
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH – VOLUME VI
LEADERS OF CATHOLIC THOUGHT.
(BY Philip Schaff. Scribner & Sons 1910 edition)
“…..Ockam’s views on the authority of the civil power, papal errancy, the infallibility of the Scriptures and the eucharist are often compared with the views of Luther.364 The German reformer spoke of the English Schoolman as “without doubt the leader and most ingenious of the Schoolmen”—scholasticorum doctorum sine dubio princeps et ingeniosissimus. He called him his “dear teacher,” and declared himself to be of Ockam’s party—sum Occamicae factionis.365 The two men were, however, utterly unlike. Ockam was a theorist, not a reformer, and in spite of his bold sayings, remained a child of the mediaeval age. He started no party or school in theological matters. Luther exalted personal faith in the living Christ. He discovered new principles in the Scriptures, and made them the active forces of individual and national belief and practice. We might think of Luther as an Ockam if he had lived in the fourteenth century. We cannot think of Ockam as a reformer in the sixteenth century. He would scarcely have renounced monkery. Ockam’s merit consists in this that, in common with Marsiglius and other leaders of thought, he imbibed the new spirit of free discussion, and was bold enough to assail the traditional dogmas of his time. In this way he contributed to the unsettlement of the pernicious mediaeval theory of the seat of authority.
364 For example, Kropatscheck, especially p. 66 sqq., and Seeberg, p. 289.
365 Weimar, ed. VI. 183, 195, 600, as quoted by Seeberg.
STÖCKL: Die Philos. des M. A., II. 986–1021, and art. Nominalismus in Wetzer-Welte, IX.—BAUR: Die christl. Kirche d. M. A., p. 377 sqq.—MÜLLER: Der Kampf Ludwigs des Baiern.—R. L. POOLE in Dict. of Natl. Biog., XLI. 357–362.—R. SEEBERG in Herzog, XIV. 260–280.—A. DORNER; D. Verhältniss von Kirche und Staat nach Occam in Studien und Kritiken, 1886, pp. 672–722.—F. KROPATSCHECK: Occam und Luther in Beitr. zur Förderung christl. Theol., Gütersloh, 1900.—Art. Nominalismus, by STÖCKL in Wetzer-Welte, IX. 423–427..”
During the 18th and 19th centuries, many travellers to the Orient from the Occident, such as the Jewish/ Anglican convert; Reverend Joseph Wolff, composed journals which listed numerous encounters with the Lost Tribes of Israel, and gave minute details of their whereabouts. Some of these “ Journals”, particularly by Reverend Joseph Wolff, are are mine of information on the traditions and current beliefs of these “ scattered tribes”. Though the Victorian and Edwardian Englishman, Scot, Welshman and Irishman HAD all this knowledge readily available via the labours of others, they still chose to follow the racial “ PRIDE OF LIFE” tack, and wholeheartedly accepted the theory of British/ Aryan/Celtic-Israelism over and above ALL the evidence to the contrary. It is no wonder that Hitler inherited his economic doctrines from Scottish ( and NOT German) sources; that of the Scottish economist “ MacKinder”, and his racial theories from the Scottish/British pen of “ Lord Bulwer Lytton”; a very famous Rosicrucian of the day…
Lord Bulwer Lytton had espoused the teachings of a “ SUPER-RACE” in his book titled “ The Coming Race”.. The Germanen Order ( of which Hitler as a budding Artist was a member), studied the Rosicrucian works of Lord Bulwer Lytton and Jacob Boehme ( both famous Rosicrucians) as well as Nietzsche and Hegel ( who was a student of Jacob Boehme, the “ Teutonic Theosopher”), and from their interests and researches the doctrines of National Socialism were born. Hegel’s famous political doctrines of “ Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis” and the division of world politics into “Right-Wing” and “ Left-Wing” factions, come straight out of Boehme and his Rosicrucianism.. It may just as easily be stated, therefore, that all modern politics is doctrinally governed by Rosicrucian ideology through the labours of Hegel and Boehme.
The various Nationalistic Movements in Europe have in the main served the cause of European Unification by appeal to “ common descent” and a “ common heritage”..
The fact that Calvin’s Geneva would eventually become the headquarters of the United Nations and its affiliated organizations, is a telling fact that modern history does not desire us to dwell on. The Historical emphasis on Replacement Theology has greatly escalated the desire of European Reformed Nations to seek a common bond and union based upon the kabbalistic / Rosicrucian doctrines that seek to identify the European Nations with the Lost Tribes of Israel. These theories underpin all Masonic racial beliefs ( as may be found in the open support the Orange Order; a leading Masonic Protestant/ Calvinistic Order, gives to British/Aryan/Celtic- Israelism).. Any differences between the various Grand Lodges of Masonry are merely cosmetic and incidental, and are little more than false flags waving in the very same “ wind of change”.
With the revival in Europe during the Renaissance of Hermeticism and Kabbalism came, as we have seen, not only the Replacement Theology of old, but the revival of Rabbinical Kabbalistic speculations concerning the Lost Tribes of Israel; which were until then deemed by the Kabbalists to be residing racially and nationally in Europe; even though the ancient travelers and adventurers spoke of their residing mainly to the East and North East of the Holy Land of Palestine. The juggernaut of European Unionistic aspirations: the attempt to revive the ancient Roman Empire of the West under ONE Pope and ONE Emperor, had to take a more ecumenical turn in order to form a common bond for future unification of not only Europe, but the Pope’s “ scattered brethren” as well.. Just as the principle of “ Divide and Conquer” was the great military stratagem of the ancient Romans, so it was that in order to conquer existing resistance to the open unification of Europe, Western Europe TOO had to be “ divided” in every sense of the word..
For this reason the European Imperial “ powers of the day” sought, according to the false prophecies of Joachim of Fiore, men who would be useful in their new strategy of “ Dividing and Conquering” Europe; and by reflex, the entire globe itself.. They found the men they sought in Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, and, particularly, Thomas Muntzer.. The stage for the intentional division of Europe was set.. The Protestant Reformation would prove to be the means of accomplishing this political “ great work”. Their motto was “ OUT OF CHAOS, ORDER”…….
Luther, Muntzer and Calvin, basing their delusions (concerning the supposed coming “ Reformation of the Church”) on the false prophecies of Joachim of Fiore, ( which were popularized by the later Franciscan “ Spiritual” order) ALWAYS sought to dethrone the supposed “ Roman Antichrist ( according to them; the Roman Catholic Popes), of which Joachim prophesied in the 12th century, and place in their stead a “ Reformed Pope”, which the entire world would serve, who in turn would cause all the world to worship the Revived Roman Emperor of Europe, and by extension, the entire globe…..
“…..Joachim, Abbot Of Floris,
was born at Celico, in the diocese of Cosenza, about 1130. After a short residence at the court of Roger of Sicily, he journeyed to Jerusalem, and on his return joined the Cistercians, and became abbot of Corace (Curatium), in Calabria. This office he resigned, however, some time after, and founded himself a monastery at Floris, near Cosenza. Joachim died between 1201 and 1202. He enjoyed great reputation during his life: he was reverenced by many as a prophet, and stood in high consideration with popes and princes, but since his day he has been very variously judged. Praised as a prophet by J.G. Syllanaeus, and defended by the Jesuit Papebroch, he was accused of heresy by Bonaventura, and called a pseudo-prophet by Baronius. His partisans claimed that he worked miracles, but it appears better proved that he wrote prophecies, and denounced in the strongest terms the growing corruption of the Romish hierarchy.
He endeavored to bring about a reformation. His character has perhaps been best delineated by Neander (Ch. Hist. 4, 220), who says of him: “Grief over the corruption of the Church, longing desire for better times, profound Christian feeling, a meditative mind, and a glowing imagination, such are the peculiar characteristics of his spirit and his writings.” He complained of the deification of the Roman Church, opposed the issue of indulgences, condemned the Crusades as antagonistic to the express purpose of Christ, who had himself predicted only the destruction of Jerusalem, decried the simonious habits of the clergy, and even argued against the bestowal of temporal power on the pope, fearing that the contentions in his day for temporal power might ultimately result, as they eventually did, in the assumption of “spiritual things which do not belong to him.” Joachim’s doctrines, however, are somewhat peculiar. His fundamental argument is that the Christian era closes with the year 1260, when a new era would commence under another dispensation.
Thus the three persons of the Godhead divided the government of ages among them: the reign of the Father embraced the period from the creation of the world to the coming of Christ; that of the Son, the twelve centuries and a half ending in 1260, and then would commence the reign of the Holy Spirit. This change would be marked by a progress similar to that which followed the substitution of the new for the old dispensation. Thus man, after having been carnal under the Father, half carnal and half spiritual under the Son, would, under the Holy Ghost, become exclusively spiritual. So there have been three stages of development in society, in which the supremacy belonged successively to warriors, the secular clergy, and monks (comp. Neander, Church History, 4, 229 sq.). As Joachim found many adherents, the third Lateran Council, at the request of Alexander III, condemned Joachim’s “mystical extravagances ;”
Alexander IV was still more severe in opposition to Joachim; and in 1260 the Council at Arles finally pronounced all followers of Joachim heretics. Joachim’s ideas were chiefly presented in the form of meditations on the N.T. He strongly opposed the scholastic theology, which aimed at establishing the principles of faith dialectically, and also the manner in which Peter Lombard explained the doctrine of the Trinity. Towards the middle of the 13th century these views had gained a large number of adherents. Among the many works attributed to Joachim some are undoubtedly spurious, while others have probably been subjected to additions, etc., in consequence of his popularity (compare Neander, 4, 221, note). The Expositio super Apocalypsim (Venice, 1517, 4to, often reprinted), Concordioe Veteris ac Novi Testamenti libri v (Venice, 1519, 8vo), and the Psalterium decem Chordarum appear to be genuine. Among the others bearing his name are commentaries on Jeremiah, the Psalms, Isaiah, parts of Nahum, Habakkuk, Zechariah, and Malachi; also a number of prophecies concerning the popes, and predicting the downfall of the papacy. All these were published at Venice (1519-1524) and Cologne (1577)…..” ( McClintock and Strong: Cyclopedia)
Joachim of Fiore’s hold on the mind of Richard the Lionheart was immense. Richard’s contribution, however, was significant. The introduction of Druze Ismailism ( Rosicrucianism) into Calabria and Europe via the syncretistic tenets of the Hashishim ( Assassin) Order in the East, with which he was intimately associated, laid the foundation for eventual European Revolt .The “ Protestant Reformation” would afterward be the ensuing result of this Ismaili Druze infiltration into the Courts and Colleges of Europe…
As complex as this may sound, in essence it is simple and true… The Reformation was infact a call to European Union, under ONE Emperor, whose right-hand “ prophet” would eventually be a REFORMED POPE; most likely of a Carmelite and/or Franciscan persuasion. The Carmelite Order, which claimed direct descent from the Prophet Elijah at Mount Carmel in Palestine ( though in reality more likely to be descended from the opponents of Elijah; the “ Priests of Baal” which also resided at Mount Carmel and environs), has a strong history of Mysticism, and particularly of the Montanist Sybilline type due to its popularity amongst Carmelite nuns.
The main reasons why one might suppose a Carmelite Pope or a Franciscan Pope may serve in the cause of European Union, concern the historical affinity between the Lutheran and Reformed “ mystical traditions”, which held in great esteem the old Carmelite ( and Rhineland Dominican) mystics, such as John of the Cross and Theresa of Avila, as “ proto-Reformers”, and would very easily accept an Ecumenical Pope of Rome from the Carmelite order for this reason; whereas a Franciscan Pope would not only Ecumenically unite the Protestant/ Reformed sects due to Francis of Assisis’ disciples’ hatred of the abuses of the Papacy ( they actually styled, like the Waldenses, the Pope “ Antichrist”, and sought to Reform the Papacy on the same lines as Pope Gregory the Great, Luther ,Calvin and Zwingli), would offer a rallying call to unity to all the doctrinal heirs of the Franciscan Tertiary tradition, who were hoping for the “ Third Age of the Spirit” as prophesied by the mentor of King Richard Lionheart: the Calabrian false prophet Joachim of Fiore.
The Franciscan Tertiaries were an order of Franciscan laymen and laywomen who were intimately associated with the Beghard and Beguine tradition in Western Europe.. Joachim of Fiore’s Franciscan descendants, the Anabaptists, particularly the “ Radical AnaBaptists”, absorbed the entire Franciscan theological and political perspective but, contrary to Luther and Calvin, and like their predecessors the Franciscan Spiritual Order, did so NOT by the sword of “ Caesar” as with Luther and Calvin, but under the banner of “ peace” ( the rainbow). It was under the banner of the rainbow that the first Swiss and German AnaBaptist “ revolt” took place. The historical evidence for the descent of the AnaBaptists from the Franciscans is ably demonstrated more recently by Dr. Peter C. Erb ( an AnaBaptist minister in Canada, historian and theologian) as well as during the early eighteenth century by the formative historical works of Gottfried Arnold ( who was likewise favourable to the Franciscans and the various AnaBaptists, in opposition to the various state churches of the day)..
So in a nutshell, the purpose of the Papacy was, and still is, at least since the time of the Emperor Constantine in the early 4th century AD, to serve as the Ecumenical “ BRIDGE” ( the Popes to this day style themselves by the Roman pagan term “ Pontifex Maximus”, which means the “Great Bridge Builder”) between ALL the so-called “ scattered brethren”; a term which the Papacy uses for their version of Replacement Theology ( which the Reformers, particularly Calvin, also embraced), since “ scattered brethren” is in their minds simply another term for the “ scattered tribes of Israel”…
So logically, since the Reformers as well as the Radical AnaBaptists believed that the Jews as a Nation were done with prophetically, and since in their minds the Church had taken over all prophecy concerning temporal rule in recent history, it was almost inevitable that their wayward assumptions would lead to a total “ spiritualization” of the promises to the literal Jews, and a search for the “ scattered lost tribes of Israel” amongst the so-called “ blessed Reformed Nations” of Europe, became the great “ Ecumenical Pursuit” of both the Papacy ( which the Reformers did not reject as long as a Reformed Pope sat on the throne of the Apostle Peter) AND the Reformers.. In this quest even the Jewish expositors Rashi and Maimonides, appeared to lend their weighty support, by giving credence to the falsehood of the supposed location of the scattered tribes of Israel in Europe, among particularly, the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic-Latin-Aryan-British nations which eventually populated the region of the Western Roman Empire ..
The Reformed Countries are currently reviving the ancient empire and claims of Caesar on the continent of Europe, whereas Caesar’s right-hand-man; the Pope of Rome who presents himself as the Ecumenical Bridge Builder and speaks and looks like a lamb but is a ravening wolf, is hell-bent on causing the entire world to worship the coming world emperor from the Jewish tribe of Dan,yet no doubt of Islamic Ismaili Druze ideology and faith… The game is real and the stakes high for the children of disobedience, whether they style themselves Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or otherwise.. The end of the game is European Revival and, by extension, world union; as it was in the “ days of Noah” before and after the great Deluge.. Here we may hearken back to the start of this little treatise, and once again recapitulate the facts:
a) The Papacy, being of Montanist descent, is the great “ False Prophet” of prophecy, and has employed Replacement Theology as a tool to INGATHER and REVIVE the 10-horned BEAST of Europe, by universal appeal to the so-called “ 10 European scattered tribes ( sects) of Israel” according to the earlier teachings of Rashi and Maimonides, and according to the influence of the Islamic Ismaili DRUZE Freemasonry, which the Crusaders, particularly the Knights Templars, conveyed back to Europe during the early middle ages. The Popes are not to be confused with the Roman Universal Church and her daughters ( the state churches and various sects and denominations), over which they merely preside. The Roman Universal Church was known as the “ Whore of Babylon” by Bishop Hippolytus of Porto ( near Rome) in the late 2nd century/ early 3rd century AD, and openly delineated as such in his excellent treatise “ On Christ and Antichrist”. As the title “ Pontifex Maximus” in the ancient Pagan Roman vocabulary intimated the office of the “ Prophet of Rome and the Whole World” ( the great social “ Bridge Builder” of the known world), so it is that the Roman Pontiffs must be regarded in this light as the great supporters of Imperial Rule; that of Ceasar, and are to be understood as fulfilling the prophecies of the great “ False Prophet” which would eventually anoint, and “ cause the whole world to worship the Beast ( Antichrist/ Emperor of Europe);
b) The Reformers, including Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, as well as the AnaBaptists, did not actually “ Reform” Rome and the Church, as we all know, but enacted the process of revival of the Roman Empire THROUGH the abuse of Theology ( particularly the NOMINALISM of William of Ockham) in order to get the popular vote and transfer political power back from the Papacy to the Emperor, yet simultaneously paved the way for the absorption of all European nations into some form of Reformed allegiance in the expectation that the FINAL Pope will be of Reformed-Carmelite-Franciscan persuasion;
c) The Jewish people of Europe are indeed Jews, and NOT Khazars as some of the National Socialist Conspiracy Theories allege ( based upon the writings of Arthur Koestler, particularly the book titled “ The Thirteenth Tribe”) and have claimed, and that only the leading tribe of DAN is actively cooperating with Islamic Ismaili Druze ( Hashishim Order) infiltration of Christendom; in the great “ mystery of iniquity” which seeks to enthrone one of their own as the new European and World Emperor, who will place his final seat at Jerusalem and will be eventually received by the Jewish Nation and the disciples of the Ebionite/Gnostic Cerinthus as their false promised kingdom-building Messiah, in imitation of the failed attempts to this effect by the favourite son of Rabbi Akiba ( early 2nd century AD), namely, the “ false messiah”: Bar Cochba, the “ son of a star”…….
What we sow we must reap.. Bad theology reaps bad practice and bad politics.. And so it rolls on, like a juggernautic steam train; like a swelling Tsunami, throughout the passage of time and history; culminating in a final and inevitable historical climax which is about to be realized in our very lifetime….
Albeit, when our rose-coloured glasses are removed from viewing history according to the bias of victory, we are truly confronted with a great dilemma. Do we follow the errors and prejudices of temporal safety, or do we let our light shine forth and scatter the surrounding darkness? Do we join the ranks of deceit and conceit, or do we unequivocally stand for the truth? Do we seek to cower and save our lives only to lose all? Whosoever is a mere friend of this world is the enemy of God… We know the enemies of our Faith by their fruits… And should we in the name of God resort to the “ sword of Caesar” and raise up arms against the foes, we are struck down by God again with the awful warning that if we should live by the sword, we shall die by it… Our only course is to suffer for the truth, and stand firm in the face of even false brothers and sisters in the faith; false spirituals; the children of this wicked and vain world…..
….” 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Matt 24:23; 1Tim 4:1; 1John 2:18; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Dan 11:36; 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.2 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Job 4:9; Isa 11:4; 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, Deut 13:1; John 8:41; 2Cor 4:4; Eph 2:2; Rev 13:13; 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 2Cor 2:15; 2Cor 4:3; 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: Rom 1:24; 1Tim 4:1; 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness….
( 2 Thessalonians 2: 3-12)
….” If my people, who belong to me, humble themselves, pray, seek to please me, and repudiate their sinful practices, then I will respond from heaven, forgive their sin, and heal their land”…. ( 2 Chronicles Ch.7: 14)
….” And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever”…
( Daniel Ch.12: 3)