Saturday, December 31, 2016

Calvinist Predestination & Genesis Account: incompatible.

and now a little excerpt taken from:

The Genesis Account
This loss of ability to receive spiritual truth is one of the consequences of Original Sin, we are told. If this is true, we would surely expect to find some mention of it in the Genesis account. Yet there is no record there of God imposing this curse of Total Inability on man's nature. There are other curses listed. God pronounced the death sentence, which He defined as a return to the dust (Gen. 3:19). Such language obviously denotes a physical death, not a loss of spiritual ability or a death to God.
God decreed the presence of "thorns and thistles" to make toil more difficult (v.18). He told the woman that she must endure great pain in childbearing (v.16). Both of these curses are trivial compared to what would be the most debilitating curse of all: the removal of all ability to respond to God. Of this we haven't the slightest mention. George Burnap comments:

 "If this doctrine is true, God did not tell man the true penalty, neither the truth, nor the whole truth, nor a hundredth part of the truth. To have told the whole truth, according to this hypothesis, He should have said, 'Because ye have done this, cursed be that moral nature which I have given you. Henceforth such is the change I make in your natures: that ye shall be, and your offspring, infinitely odious and hateful in my sight. The moment their souls shall go forth from my hand...if they are suffered to live, such shall be the diseased constitution of their moral natures: that they shall have no freedom to do one single good action, but everything they do shall be sin....What an awful blot would such a curse be on the first pages of Scripture!"6
Calvinists usually answer to that with a "this is not your businness, to ask yourself about blah blah blah". So they openly confess that (their) God is a liar. We only have "not to dare to ask why". Calvinist Predestination is a path naturally aimed to the occult. I am not the first to say that.

See also:
Saturday, December 31, 2016
Calvin had no sense of irony


Calvin had no sense of irony

Probably Calvinistic Predestination is born from jokes among Catholic scholar at the school frequented by Calvin. They were trying to stir to the extreme consequences the Only Faith salvation (the righteous Biblical one from Genesis to Revelation) doctrine, and considering the faith as also an human concept, necessarily it had to be a work, therefore could have not saved men. Therefore - such hypotetical Catholic professors, the Faith Salvation doctrine was impossible. Well, the laughter of the Catholic scholars ended, but some students, behind the door or the pillar, could have grasped too much seriously the gag, and, years later, remembered it to build on it a doctrine and a church, where faith was considered also a sort of human work, therefore "not able to save". And solved the problem with the Predestination, of a monstrous God who decides who goes to Hell and who is saved. Giving the birth of another doctrine of Satan.
So don't worry about the so cursed Catholic Work Salvation doctrine. Openly denied from the pulpits, in the Calvinistic TULIP flower it comes at the surface immediately after one feel to be saved.  We, who are saved by faith, know when we are saved, because God told us clearly the condition. We are saved when we put our faith on Jesus and His blood. But Calvinists cannot know if they are saved, except through..... good works:

One member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians writes:If anyone can be fooled about their conversion, no Calvinist can say they ARE elect with impunity. They ‘feel’ elect, maybe, but they have no idea if Christ died for them or not, since Christ only died for a select few. The irony is most Calvinists tout this as one of their distinctive advantages, in that they KNOW they are saved; but we can see there is really no grounds for this.” (SEA, emphasis mine)

See the entire text in:

Calvinism and Arminianism:
Myths & Realities

In particular, Calvinistic Predestination, denying human free will, denies we have been created in the image of God. 
Just think this absurd doctrine: if we have the same level of free will of an ant or a fish or a bacteria  (= Zero), it descend that also ants and fishes and bacteria have been created "in the image of God":
Friday, October 14, 2016
Avoiding the extremes [doctrine]


Wednesday, December 28, 2016

"Hubmaier's distaste for the doctrine of predestination" [link]


Hubmeier was put at the stake in 1528, not so much cause the RE-BAPTISM, but for his view of the civil liberties, where the maximum freedom was proposed for a righteous state. An about 20 years young Primoz Trubar, witnessed the murder of Hubmeier together with the one of his wife, drowned by the Catholic "piety" of Hapsburg.

His view on Calvinist predestination are well exposing such doctrinal perversion:

Hubmaier's distaste for the doctrine of predestination is unconcealed.  He wrote, "It were a false God who should day words, "Come here," and yet in secret in his heart should think, "Sit yonder."  It would be an unfaithful God who should publicly offer grace to man, and should clothe him in new raiment, yet in secret take it away from him and prepare hell for him." (Vedder, Balthasar Hubmaier, p. 197.)

Balthasar Hubmaier


Saturday, December 3, 2016

Bridge To Babylon [DVD Chick Publications]

Beware of the One World Religion and One World (Catholic) Bible. 
The KJV is the Bible and since the publishing the thorn in the eyes of the occultist Jesuits, and of the whole occult world:

Above video: Excerpt - "Bridge To Babylon"


Rome, Ecumenism and the Bible
Here's proof that modern Bible versions are not designed to make the Bible easier to understand. Rather, they are designed as a bridge to bring unity with Rome.
Find out how Satan used people from early Gnostics through modern text critics influenced by the Roman Catholic Jesuit Order, to make all modern Bible translations agree with the Roman Catholics' Bible.
What is the goal? One world Bible for one world religion.

In 1881, two scholars named Westcott and Hort published a revision of the New Testament that would send shockwaves through the academic world.
Their new textual theory declared that the King James Version (which had been trusted for centuries) was full of errors. Sacred readings, long cherished by the faithful, were now declared to be forgeries. The world was informed that the book, which had been called the inerrant Word of God, was in need of correction.
The new theory claimed that recently recovered manuscripts revealed a truer version of Scripture. Yet others warned that these manuscripts were, in fact, the creation of early Gnostic heretics that had been rightly abandoned centuries before. Was the new revision filled with ancient corruptions?
Follow the story of the Bible’s controversial history into the twentieth century, as the work of Westcott and Hort would transform biblical scholarship, inspire the work of various Bible Societies, and pave the way for the cause of ecumenical unity between Evangelical Protestants and Rome.

Featured experts: Dr. Phil Stringer, Dr. David Brown, David Daniels, Dr. D.A. Waite, Dr. Jack Moorman, Dr. Kirk DiVietro, Dr. H.D. Williams, Dr. Ronald Cooke & Dr. James R. White.

Warning: Dr James R. White is a Calvinist  - see one comment below the video: 

55 57 hey man. I'm not Daniels, but below is one of my articles on one of the worst points of Calvinism - limited atonement. If that's true, then the gospel and evangelism has no purpose or power. They believe life is a preprogrammed game with no free will. We are saved by believing, and God just so happens to know who will respond to the gospel and repent. I wouldn't say this about just anyone I disagree with, but I am convinced White is a high level occultist. Those who understand the occult pick up on signs and signals. Flee from him and fast. Below is my limited atonement article. Peace:

Friday, December 2, 2016

Internet World Wide Censorship [2 articles]


..........."Max Read asks whether theories about the democratizing force of the internet may have been misguided, citing Chinese and Russian online public opinion guidance and espionage, and attempts by American tech companies to appease Chinese censors as evidence that early optimism was indeed misplaced "

  Mark 13:10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

Remember that the two countries pushing now to transform Internet in a global cage to suppress freedom, are the greatest persecutors of Christians, Russia with Yarovaya law, and China with the persecutions of independent churches. Forget ISIS, this is just a bait created by Satan, to divert the attention from Russia & China:

Moscow Learns From Beijing on Internet Censorship

and China have in recent years taken steps towards shoring up their historically fraught relations on several fronts. While the two powers’ warming relations have been explained by commentators as based largely on opportunism and convenience, there does appear to be at least one area of principled agreement: the management of cyberspace. As China was launching its ongoing campaign to promote the controversial principle of “internet sovereignty” to the world, Russia was quick to offer support, and the two sides signed a sweeping agreement on international information security. Earlier this year, former Chinese cyberczar Lu Wei and architect Fang Binxing headed to Moscow for the 7th International Safe Internet forum, where the two sides’ convergence was on display, and the Russian event leader called for his colleagues to learn from the Chinese about . Shortly after, Presidents Putin and Xi met in Beijing for talks, and signed a bilateral agreement touching on several cyberissues, and promising to increase cooperation.
Following years of collaboration between the two sides, and after Russia has taken legislative steps to increase the Kremlin’s control over the internet accessed by citizens, Moscow appears to be directly incorporating Beijing’s innovations on internet control. The Guardian’s Irina Borogan reports that Russia has been integrating parts of China’s Great Firewall into the “Red Web,” Russia’s own system of internet filtering and oversight. Borogan notes similarities in motivation and legislative actions to reinforce state control of the web, and also notes coordination between state-linked firms on both sides of the border:
A group of Kremlin and security officials is driving the offensive against internet freedoms. The government fears the web could be used to mobilise protesters and disseminate dangerous ideas and information and it is looking for ways to switch off connections in times of crisis.
[…] What the Russians want most from China is technology. Russia has no means of handling the vast amounts of data required by Yarovaya’s law, and it cannot rely on western technologies because of sanctions.
However, the Chinese are willing to lend a hand. In August it was reported that Bulat, the Russian telecoms equipment manufacturer, was in talks with Huawei, the Chinese telecoms company, to buy technologies for data storage and produce servers to implement Yarovaya’s law [passed over the summer, and requiring Russian internet companies to store user’s data and metadata].
The Chinese officials also ensured senior Huawei staff were present at key information security conferences in Russia, and the company was the major sponsor of the Russian information security forum held in Beijing in October. […] [Source]
More on recent legislative and technical steps to reinforce control over the internet in Russia, and on coordination with Chinese experts, from United Press International’s Elizabeth Shim:
New laws in Russia give the government dominion over the Internet space, including exchange points, domain names and cross-border fiber-optic cables, the report said.
A policy known as Yarovaya’s law also requires Russia’s telecommunications companies and Internet providers to store users’ data for six months and metadata for three years.
But Yarovaya’s law requires the government to cope with a deluge of information about users.
Russia cannot look to the West for technologies to handle the workload because of sanctions, but China’s system could offer an alternative solution for Russia’s censors. [Source]
At MIT Technology Review, Michael Reilly identifies two potential motives behind Russia’s attempts to shore up internet control—strikingly similar to those held by Beijing—and also notes that a majority of the Russian public appears to support censorship of the internet, as pointed out earlier this month by The Washington Post:
Whether such moves represent politically motivated censorship or a broader attempt to bring foreign Internet firms in line with Russia’s sense of “digital sovereignty” is unclear. And in some ways, it doesn’t matter—they’re two sides of the same coin. Putin and his lieutenants are clearly trying to exercise more control over the digital lives of Russian citizens. Something that, interestingly enough, there is broad public support for in the country. [Source]
At New York Magazine, Max Read asks whether theories about the democratizing force of the internet may have been misguided, citing Chinese and Russian online public opinion guidance and espionage, and attempts by American tech companies to appease Chinese censors as evidence that early optimism was indeed misplaced:
Powerful undemocratic states like China and Russia have for a while now put the internet to use to mislead the public, create the illusion of mass support, and either render opposition invisible or expose it to targeting. The paid bureaucrats in the Communist Party’s “50-cent army” flood debates on Chinese social media and message boards with nationalist propaganda. Russia’s armies of trolls smear critics, spread propaganda, and sow paranoia — both nationally and abroad, as when a cache of leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee drowned real news in innuendo and conspiracy.
[…] Silicon Valley is, slowly, coming to terms with the way its products have enabled the revival of illiberal populism around the world. Only a week after the election, Twitter finally introduced some simple anti-harassment tools that its users had been requesting for years. It’s not encouraging, by any means, that we’re reduced to begging powerful CEOs to institute changes to their popular products for the sake of democracy. At Facebook, frustrated employees formed a secret working group aimed at dealing with “fake news”; eventually, Zuckerberg declared that the company would take several concrete steps to address it. A week later, the New York Times reported that the company had been working on a censorship tool in an effort to reenter the Chinese market. [Source]
For more on successes in Beijing’s campaign to globally normalize its internet censorship and surveillance measures, see “China’s Scary Lesson to the World: Censoring the Internet Works,” by The Washington Post’s Simon Denyer, and “Behind the Great Firewall, China is Winning its War Against Internet Freedom,” from the International Business Times’ Orlando Crawford.
November 30, 2016 3:57 PM
Posted By:

'Great Firewall' being extended to Russia as Moscow asks China for help in controlling the internet

Are you an authoritarian state struggling to control the internet within your borders? Well, just ask the master for help.
Russia has worked hard to build its own wide-ranging system of internet filtering and control; however, there are still some serious kinks to work out and some big gaps to fill. Over the summer, the country passed an extremely controversial measure known as the Yarovaya Law. This regulation mandate that Russia's telecom and internet providers store user data for six months and hold on to metadata for three years. After it was passed, Edward Snowden referred to it as the "Big Brother law."
But, Big Brother had a problem. Turns out it's really hard to store and handle all that data, and the Kremlin obviously can't just go to the United States for help. So instead, Russia has asked China about incorporating elements of the infamous "Great Firewall" into its own system.
A report from The Guardian gives a rundown on how the two countries have been working together recently:
The strategy is being developed in close cooperation with China after a string of high-level meetings in Beijing and Moscow this year. At their first cybersecurity forum, in April, top Chinese officials and their Russian counterparts gathered in Moscow for the talks. Delegates included Lu Wei, the head of China’s state internet information office, Fang Binxing, the so-called father of the Great Firewall and Igor Shchyogolev, President Vladimir Putin’s assistant on internet issues and former minister of communications. Earlier this year, the security council secretary, Nikolai Patrushev, who was head of the Russian Federal Security Service during Putin’s 2000-08 presidency, had two meetings with Chinese politburo members on information security; and in June, Putin went to Beijing to sign a joint communique about cyberspace.
In August it was reported that Bulat, the Russian telecoms equipment manufacturer, was in talks with Huawei, the Chinese telecoms company, to buy technologies for data storage and produce servers to implement Yarovaya’s law.
The Chinese officials also ensured senior Huawei staff were present at key information security conferences in Russia, and the company was the major sponsor of the Russian information security forum held in Beijing in October.
And who knows, perhaps the student will someday surpass the master. In this year's Freedom House survey on internet freedom, Russia ranked 65th out of 88 countries, while China took the dead last spot for the second year in a row. But just this month, Russia blocked its internet users from accessing LinkedIn -- something that not even China has done. Still, it's important to remember that no censorship system is ever perfect, so you should always follow Great Firewall architect Fan Binxing's example and keep a VPN handy just in case.