Showing posts with label Satan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Satan. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 19, 2025

Some Observations

Some Observations

Thomas Allen


The following describes the ideal state and its government and comments on Europe’s lust for war with Russia.


The Ideal State and Its Ideal Government

What follows is a description of the ideal state and its ideal government according to most left-wingers, especially progressives, socialists, fascists, and many nationalists.

In an ideal state, bureaucrats rule. Bureaucrats are isolated from special interests — so they believe. However, as COVID-19 and the Black Lives Matter riots illustrate, special interests have as much control over bureaucrats as they have over politicians. Nevertheless, statists are correct that bureaucrats are more difficult to replace than elected politicians. For statist, difficulty in replacing bureaucrats is a good thing and, therefore, bureaucratic rule is the ideal government for the ideal state.

Bureaucrats are supposed to be guided by the common good, which is what is best for the community. Yet, the concept of the common good is highly subjective. For example, some believe that a disarmed citizenry is for the common good, while others believe that a heavily armed citizenry is for the common good. In the end, personal prejudices and biases, the lust for power and wealth, and ideology guide most bureaucrats, especially those at the higher levels, in deciding what is the public good. Many lower-level bureaucrats are guided by the notion of doing their jobs.

The state is an abstraction that cannot exist without people. What is the state? The people who control the government. (See “The State” by Thomas Allen.) When bureaucrats rule, the state is the high-ranking bureaucrats and the people who own or control them, i.e., the oligarchs, who are ultimately the state.

Of course, people who promote the bureaucratic-ruled state are convinced that the bureaucrats who control the government think like they do. The bureaucrats will promote policies and agendas with which these promoters agree and suppress those with which they disagree. While progressives, socialists, fascists, and other statists find the bureaucratic-ruled state desirable, traditional conservatives, constitutionalists, libertarians, and other libertists find it deplorable.

Unfortunately, the United States are close to achieving the ideal state and its ideal government.  As the statists rejoice over their coming victory, the libertists are mourning the death of their country and its Constitution. (For the differences between a statist and a libertist, see “Statists Versus Libertists” by Thomas Allen.)


Europe’s Lust for War with Russia

Many of the European political leaders are working diligently to start a war with Russia. Following the example of most modern belligerents, they are trying to provoke Russia to fire the first shot so that they can blame Russia for starting the war and, thus, draw the United States into another useless European war. (The leadership of the United States either is stupid enough or controlled enough to carry the United States into another no-win war, but this war will totally destroy the United States.)

These European leaders are beginning to prepare their countries for war with Russia. Several countries are increasing their production of war materials and increasing the size of their armies. Moreover, they are telling their citizens to prepare for war. Some are considering reinstituting the draft.

With whom or what do they plan to fight such a war? They have completely demobilized their native White ethnicities. Whites have been taught that they are the cancer of the universe and do not deserve to exist. Their political leaders have relegated them to second-class citizens in their own countries. Such a demoralized people make a poor army that can be easily defeated.

Do these European leaders plan to use the immigrants from the Middle East, South Asia, and Northern Africa who have flooded Europe over recent decades? These immigrants owe Europe no allegiance. Most came to plunder and conquer. Why should they risk their lives to defend Europe?

Consequently, Europe cannot rely on these immigrants or the demoralized native Whites to fight Russia. Additionally, Europe has depleted much of its war materials by sending them to Ukraine.

Apparently, using Russia’s war with Ukraine as their model, some of these European leaders act as though they will fight Russia for months, if not for years. If the war goes nuclear, which it most likely will, Russia could utterly destroy all major cities in Europe in less than 10 minutes. (If Russia thought that the United States would retaliate, it could destroy the US missile silos before they could fire and take out most of the bombers on the ground. Moreover, it could destroy many major cities, airports, and military and naval bases in less than 30 minutes. Its hypersonic missiles can travel from New York to Los Angeles in less than half an hour. Neither Europe nor the United States have any defense against Russia’s hypersonic missiles. Moreover, Russia also has nuclear torpedoes that can flood much of coastal Europe.)

Do these European leaders believe that they can defeat Russia? Probably not. However, defeating Russia is not the objective. It will not be fought to defeat Russia but to annihilate the Whites of Europe.

Being possessed by Satan’s demons, these European leaders seek to obliterate the White race from the planet because the White race (species) is the race created in God’s image. (See “What Race Was Adam?” by Thomas Allen.) Eradicating the White race with massive nonwhite immigration is taking too long. What better way to achieve their goal than a nuclear war?


Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.


Wednesday, August 20, 2025

The King James Only

The King James Only

Thomas Allen


The King-James-only adherents claim that the King James Version is the only true translation of the Bible. It is the inerrant word of God and is 100 percent accurate without error. A few adherents go as far as to suggest that God sat King James on His lap and dictated the Bible to him word for word. Some even imply that translations of the Bible to other languages need to be made from the King James Version instead of from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Moreover, they believe that any translation or version that is not identical to the King James Version is heresy and the work of Satan.

Which inerrant edition of the King James Version do these adherents use? There are many editions (revisions):  1613, 1616, 1617, 1618, 1629, 1630, 1633, 1634, 1637, 1638, 1640, 1642, 1653, 1659, 1675, 1679, 1833, 1896, and 1904. Do they use the:

– 1611 (“Judas” Bible) where Matthew 26:36 reads, “Then cometh Judas [instead of Jesus] with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder.”

– 1631 (“Wicked” Bible) where Exodus 20:14 reads, “Thou shalt [“not” is omitted] commit adultery.”

– 1653 (“Unrighteous” or “Field’s” Bible) where 1 Corinthians 6:9 reads, “Know ye not that the righteous [instead of unrighteous] shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,”

- 1711 (“Profit” Bible) where Isaiah 57:12 reads, “I will declare thy righteousness, and thy works; for they shall [“not” is omitted] profit thee.”

– 1716 (“Sin On” Bible) where John 5:14 reads, “Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin on [instead of “no”] more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.”

– 1792 (“Denial” Bible) where Luke 22:34 reads, “And he said, I tell thee, Philip [instead of “Peter”], the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.”

–  1801, (“Murderers” Bible) where Jude 1:16 reads, “These are murderers [instead of “murmurers”], complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.”

– 1802 (“Discharge” Bible) where 1 Timothy  5:21 reads, “I discharge [instead of “charge”] thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.”

– 1806 (“Standing Fishes” Bible) where Ezekiel  47:10 reads, “And it shall come to pass, that the fishes [instead of “fishers”] shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many.”

– 1810 (“Wife-Hater” Bible) where Luke 14:26 reads, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own wife [instead of life] also, he cannot be my disciple.”

– 1829 (“Large Family” Bible) where Isaiah 66:9 reads, “Shall I bring to the birth, and not cease [instead of “cause”] to bring forth? saith the Lord: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.”

– undated (“Fool” Bible) where Psalm 14:1 reads, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is a [“a” is substituted for “no”] God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”

Thus, the translation of the Bible that King-James-only adherents believe is the only “inerrant” and unchangeable translation has undergone more changes and revisions than any English translation on today’s market.  Over the years, this inerrant Bible has contained many errors. Further, some of the best Greek manuscripts were not used.

If the King-James-only adherent’s Bible contains the letter “J,” it is not an original copy of the 1611 edition. “J” was not used in the Bible until the 1629 edition.


Reference

Amirault, Gary. “The King James Bible is ‘Inerrant?’”


Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Friday, March 11, 2022

Two Creation Stories

Two Creation Stories
Thomas Allen

In Pre-Adamite Man (1866), Mrs. George John C. Duncan argues that the creation described in Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis are two different creations. Genesis 1:27 describes the creation of the pre-Adamite while Chapter 2 describes the creation of Adamic man.

According to Chapter 1, God created plants and animals before He created the pre-Adamite. Moreover, He created the pre-Adamite and the plants and animals ex nihilo. Yet, according to Chapter 2, He fashioned man from the dust of the earth. Furthermore, He also fashioned the plants and animals from preexisting material after He had made Adam. Thus, Chapter 1 describes God creating ex nihilo while Chapter 2 describes God creating with preexisting material.

Unlike the pre-Adamite, whom God created fully and instantaneously, He created Adamic man in stages. First, He molded Adamic man; then He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Finally, He animated his whole frame and gave him understanding.

The pre-Adamite came into the world complete and had power and dominion over all the earth. On the other hand, Adamic man’s power and dominion were limited. Moreover, God taught him humility and dependency. While pre-Adamite entered a world fully created, Adamic man entered a world that was blank and sterile, which was void of plants and animals.

Duncan believes that the “days” in Chapter 1 are eras of various long lengths and not literal 24-hour days. (Before the Reformation, most clergymen held the notion that the “days” in Chapter 1 were eras and not literally 24-hour days.) Moreover, the creation of Chapter 2 occurred on the eighth day. During the seventh day, which was the day of God’s rest, the earth was a paradise until the rebellion of Lucifer, Satan.

According to Duncan’s argument, the pre-Adamites were sinless, and they were angels. However, they became extinct on earth before God made Adamic man. Instead of dying like Adamic man, they were spiritualized and etherealized or caught up like the saints of the rapture and removed to another world. This event probably occurred when Michael defeated Lucifer. (The geological features that proponents of a young earth credit to the Noachian Flood, Duncan credits to the war between Michael and Lucifer.)

Duncan refers to Chapters 18 and 19 of Genesis and to Chapter 19 of 1 Kings to support her claim that pre-Adamites were angles. They looked like a man and ate like a man. Luke 24:4 gives another example of an angel looking like a man. Further, resurrected humans are similar to angels. Consequently, she contends that if saints and angels are alike in heaven, then in an earlier earthly life, pre-Adamites could have been like Adamic man.

After the war between Michael and Lucifer, God reformed the world as described in Chapter 2 of Genesis. He made a paradise in Eden in which He placed a new man, Adam, who is the father of Adamic man and whom He formed from the dust of the earth.

Further, God created for the first time animals and plants or recreated animals and plants that failed to survive the catastrophic war of Lucifer’s rebellion (Genesis 2:19, 20). God formed these plants and animals from preexisting material and for the benefit of Adam. However, many types of plants and animals that had survived the war lived outside Eden.

In addition to some of the differences discussed above, Duncan notes several other differences between the pre-Adamite and Adamic man. Unlike the pre-Adamites, the family of Adam, Adamic man, is federal and united under one head and is dealt with as one, i.e., all suffer from Adam’s curse.

Another difference is that the pre-Adamite saw all of the earth as an unlimited sphere that was to be filled and subdued. Adamic man was limited to a garden in the eastern part of Eden with no sea and only one river.

Further, God created both male and female pre-Adamites at the same time. For Adamic man, God formed woman from Adam after He had formed Adam and after He had finished preparing Adam’s sphere of life.

Thus, Duncan discusses two different creations: one is depicted in Chapter 1 of Genesis and the other, in Chapter 2. Chapter 1 describes the original creation of the earth and the pre-Adamites, who are angels. Chapter 2 describes another creation, which is the creation of Adamic man. These two creations refer to two distinct species: the pre-Adamite and Adamic man. The pre-Adamites passed away after an indefinite period of inhabiting the earth. Some time afterward, God created Adamic man.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Tuesday, February 15, 2022

A Letter: Christian Zionism

A Letter: Christian Zionism
Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a letter written in 2003 to Mr. Rick Wiles, American Freedom Net, Inc., about one of his radio programs where he negatively discussed British or Anglo Identity organizations. Identity folks believed that the ten lost tribes of Israel migrated to and settled in northwest Europe, primarily the British Isles.]

    I agree with you that the same people who control the U.S. government probably control many (perhaps most) of the Identity organizations — the Globalists, Elite, Establishment, Illuminati, Illuminists, etc. The Globalists also control most, if not all, mainline orthodox denominations, organizations, and churches. The mainline denominations are far larger and have much more wealth, power, and influence than the Identity crowd. So, you would get more bang for your minute by vehemently attacking the mainline churches instead of the small almost insignificant Identity crowd.
    The Christian Zionist are a much greater threat to our few remaining freedoms than the Identity crowd. Like the mainline denominations, Christian Zionists far outnumber and have much more wealth, power, and influence than the Identity folks. Furthermore, most of the Christian Zionist organizations are probably fronts for the Mossad or at least controlled by the Mossad, which, like the CIA, is merely a tool of the Globalists.
    Christian Zionists live under the delusion that today’s Jews are God’s chosen people (I always thought Christians were God’s chosen people). They seem willing to defend Israel to the last American. Many even want to rebuild the temple and reinstate the old sacrificial system — both of which God destroyed. (Is not this apostasy?) Christian Zionists are guilty of the same heresy of which you accuse the Identity crowd. The only difference between them is that Christian Zionists have substituted today’s Jews for the Identity’s Northwest Europeans.
    Based on my anti-Zionist comments, I am anti-Semitic. To add to my anti-Semitic commentary, Jewish influence in this country far exceeds their numbers — and if you deny that, you are a liar, and if you admit it you are an anti-Semite. But, then, I am in good company, for Jesus was one of the greatest anti-Semites. He harshly criticized the Jewish leaders of his day. To criticize Jews, especially Jewish leaders as a group, is by definition anti-Semitism.
    Furthermore, I am a racist and a segregationist. Again I stand in good company, for God is a racist and a segregationist.
    To prove that I am a racist, I contend that Negroes (Blacks) are superior to Aryans (Whites) at reproducing at low latitudes. Why? Because dark skin retards ultraviolet light from destroying vitamin B-12, which is essential for reproduction. To proclaim one race is superior to another race in at least one trait is by definition racism.
    To prove that God is a racist and segregationist, He told the Israelites after they left Egypt that he had separated them from other people (Lev. 20:26), which makes Him a segregationist. He told them that He put a difference between them and the Egyptians (Ex. 11:7), which makes Him a racist. Moreover, He created the races.
    Furthermore, God disdains interracial marriage and breeding so much that in Dt. 23:2 He proclaimed that “no half-breed may be admitted to the assembly of Yahweh” (The New Jerusalem Bible). The KJV uses the word “bastard” instead of “half-breed.” However, it uses “bastard” in the sense of “spurious” and “mongrel,” not in the sense of “being born out of wedlock.” (Jephthah was born of a prostitute and out of wedlock. Since he is among the list of heroes in chapter 11 of Hebrews, he is part of God’s congregation.)
    Apparently, you contend that all the races of men descended from Adam. If you believe that, then you are an EVOLUTIONIST. You have accepted the basic premise of evolution: “like beget unlike.” You reject the Biblical principle of “after his kind” or “like beget like.”
    As I reject evolution, I must accept that Adam was the father of only one race. According to his name and the descriptions given to his descendants (they were ruddy and fair: 1 Sam. 16:12, 17:47; 2 Sam. 13:1; Gen. 12:11, 14; 24:16, 26:7; Lam. 4:7), I must conclude that he was the father of the Aryan race.
    God created each race at a different time (“having determined their appointed seasons”) and place (“[having determined] the bounds of their habitation”) — Acts 17:26. To condone interracial marriages and interracial sexual relations is to condone breeding out of existence the races that God created, which is genocide.
    As for Hitler, he was an occultist, whom the Globalists, among whom were Jewish bankers, brought to power to aid them in bringing about a world war. He was also a great benefactor to the Zionists. Zionism would not have advanced nearly as far as it has without him.
    Beyond their advocation of violence with which I disagree, the Identity crowd does have some flawed teachings. The evidence refutes that salvation is available only to Aryans. (Not all Identity folks claim that only Aryans are saved.) Many of them blame all of the world’s problems on Jews. Jews are guilty of causing much of the world’s problems and of pushing the New World Order with its one-world totalitarian government and one-world Pantheistic religion. However, far more non-Jews are involved. (Most Jews are like most Freemasons, and most Democrats and Republicans, for that matter. They do not have a clue about what is going on. They are puppets being used by the New World Order puppeteers and do not even know it.)
    Although some Identity folks claim that Satan is the literal genetic father of today’s Jews, many (perhaps most) Identity folks reject this doctrine. (There is no fundamental difference in this doctrine and the orthodox doctrine that the “sons of God” who married the “daughters of man” in Genesis 6 were fallen angels. Both claim that spiritual beings can interbreed with man. [As a side note, is not it strange that the Nephilim, whom the KJV calls giants, who were supposed to be the product of this unholy union and were supposedly destroyed by the Noahic Flood, were in Palestine at the time of the Israelite invasion?])
    I am not convinced that the Northwest Europeans are the lost tribes of Israel. The lost tribes were submerged into a much larger Aryan population, most of whom now live in Europe. However, I suspect that more chromosomes of the lost tribes are in Europeans than are in today’s Jews. (Most of today’s Jews, the Ashkenazim, are descendants of Turks of the Turanian race and Armenians [and Alpines] of the Aryan race and their hybrids. A small number, the Sephardim, are descendants of the Idumeans, who were mostly of the Melanochroic race and Melanochroic-Aryan hybrids.)
    If you want to learn more about race and the true Biblical view on race mixing, you may purchase my books [Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Mankind; Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis; Integration Is Genocide; and False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of Races and Interracial Marriages] in which I explain them in some detail. Enclosed is my book list. [Editor’s note: Not unsurprisingly, he never bought a book.]

Copyright © 2003, 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen

More religious articles.

Friday, November 26, 2021

More Random Religious Thoughts

More Random Religious Thoughts

Thomas Allen


Discussed below are eternal and immortality, Lucifer, Revelation, Saul’s age when he began his reign, Mariology, a time without the Moon, and the Philippines and the Baptists.


Eternal and Immortality

Many people confuse “eternal” with “immortality.” They are different. An eternal being has no beginning and no end. An immortal being has a beginning but no end. Once born or created, an immortal being never dies or ceases to exist.

Are humans naturally immortal? Daniel 12:2 suggests that they are not. Daniel 12:2 reads, “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” According to this verse, only many dead are awake, resurrected; the others remain asleep, dead, in the grave. Those who are not resurrected appear not to be immortal. Once they die, their bodies and souls appear to remain dead forever.

Furthermore, the Hebrews believed that the body and soul were so intertwined that when the body died, the soul died with it. Consequently, the soul is not naturally immortal. It remains dead and unconscious until God resurrects it to immortality.


Lucifer

Many theologians teach that Lucifer, Satan, the Devil, is a pure spirit being. Therefore, he is indestructible and must live for all eternity. First, Lucifer is a created being. Since he is created, he has a beginning. An eternal being has no beginning. Consequently, he cannot be eternal. Second, to claim that he must live forever declares that God is not omnipotent. If God is omnipotent, can He not uncreate (annihilate) what He has created? Third, God is omnipresent. Therefore, wherever Lucifer is, God is also. (Being omnipresent, God fills every particle, wave, frequency, or whatever Lucifer is made of.) How can a being as holy as God tolerate the eternal presence of a being as evil as Lucifer? At some point, God must terminate and annihilate Lucifer. Fourth, God is omniscient. Therefore, God always knows the existence of Lucifer. How can His Pure Holiness tolerate knowing the existence of Lucifer, who is pure evil, forever? What God does not know cannot and does not exist. Consequently, at some point Lucifer must vanish because God ceases knowing him, knowing about him, and knowing of him. Contrary, to what most theologians teach, Lucifer is not indestructible and does not live forever.

True Luciferians, such as Albert Pike, consider Lucifer to be Yahweh’s, Jehovah’s (Adonai or Adonay as Luciferians call Him), equal. Lucifer is their god, and Satan, who is a different being and Lucifer’s subordinate, is the prince of the world. Luciferians believe that Lucifer is the God of Light and the God of Good; Adonai (Yahweh) is the God of Darkness and the God of Evil. Lucifer is or was the highest, brightest, and most intelligent of God’s creatures and held the highest office in heaven next to God Himself. They also believe that Satan is the elder brother of the Archangel Michael and that God sent Michael to earth as Christ Jesus. (Jehovah’s Witnesses also believe that the Archangel Michael and Jesus are the same person.) Both Satanists and Luciferians believe that Jesus failed in his mission when he was crucified. Unfortunately for the Luciferians and Satanists, but fortunately for the followers of Christ, Lucifer and Satan lose.


Another Look at Revelation

In Mysteries of Ancient South America, Harold T, Wilkins cites H. S. Bellamy, who argues that Revelation is the history of a great cataclysm caused by a pre-Lunar satellite of the earth coming to close to earth and being destroyed by the earth, which caused large parts of the satellite to crash into the earth.


How Old Was Saul When He Began to Reign

How old was Saul when he began to reign? The number is lacking in the Hebrew text, so many translators guess at the number. The American Standard Version and several other translations guess 40 years.  The New International Version and other translations guess 30 years. Several translations, such as the Revised Standard Version, leave the number of years blank. A few follow the King James Version and claims that Saul reigned one year; thus, they avoid giving his age when he began his reign.


Mariology

Mariology is the body of beliefs or dogmas concerning the Virgin Mary. It is a set of doctrines that Catholics accept and advocate, which Protestants reject.

Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Mary is the mother of Jesus. Moreover, except unitarians, both agree that Jesus is God. Therefore, if Mary is the mother of Jesus and if Jesus is God, then logically Mary is the mother of God. However, Protestants reject the idea that Mary is the mother of God. Therefore, Catholics are logical, and Protestants are illogical. (For unitarians, this issue is not a problem since they reject the notion that Jesus is God. Thus, they hold that Mary is the mother of Jesus, but she is not the mother of God because Jesus is not God.)

When Jesus was promoted to God, his office as the mediator between man and God became vacant. Catholics promoted Mary, the Mother of God, to the office of the mediator. Since Protestants reject the notion that Mary is the mother of God, they logically have not recognized her as the mediator. Consequently, they had to find another solution. For the most part, they use mental gymnastics to explain this problem away by making God the mediator between God and man.

Thus, both proclaim that Paul erred when he wrote, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Both covertly claim that Paul was too ignorant to understand and express deep theological ideas. Whereas, the Catholics assert that Paul should have written “the woman Mary” instead of “the man Christ Jesus,” Protestants believe that Paul should have written, “the God Christ Jesus.”

If Jesus is God as both Catholics and Protestants maintain, then Catholics believe logically about Mariology, and Protestants believe illogically about it. Moreover, both disagree with Paul about who is the mediator between God and man. Is the mediator Mary or God? Both concur that the mediator is not the man.


Was There a time without a Moon

Some allusions to the time before there was a Moon may be found in the Scriptures. In Job 25:5 the grandeur of the Lord who “Makes peace in the heights” is praised and the time is mentioned as “before [there was] a moon and it did not shine.” Also, in Psalm 72:5 it is said: “Thou wast feared since [the time of] the sun and before [the time of] the moon, a generation of generations.” A “generation of generations” means a very long time. Thus, much time elapsed between the appearance of the sun and the appearance of the moon.


The Philippines and the Baptists

One good thing came from President McKinley’s war to steal the Spanish empire from Spain. He stole the Philippines and, thus, gave the Baptists a retirement home. Where else can a good Baptist retire and have maids, cooks, gardeners, and other servants and live a lifestyle that he could not afford if he remained at home in the United States and have all of it paid for by the folks back home? As long as he tells them about the great missionary work that he is doing, they gladly and gracefully support him.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.


Wednesday, February 24, 2021

Comments on Wilkin’s The Ten Most Misunderstood Words in the Bible

Comments on Wilkin’s The Ten Most Misunderstood Words in the Bible
Thomas Allen

With The Ten Most Misunderstood Words in the Bible (2012), Robert N. Wilkin has written an interesting and enlightening book. He discusses and explains in detail faith, everlasting, saved, lost, heaven, hell, repentance, grace, gospel, and judgment. Also, he briefly discusses eleven other often misunderstood words. Below are several questions, observations, and comments about his discussions.

1. One of the attributes of God is that He is omnipresent: He is everywhere simultaneously. Nowhere and no place exists where He is not. Nothing exists where He is not. If there is somewhere or something where He is not, then He is not omnipresent.

Therefore, He has to fill every void, every particular, every wave, every energy, every force, every spirit, and every whatever simultaneously, including the Lake of Fire (what most people mistakenly called Hell) and even Satan himself. Since the inhabitants of the Lake of Fire, the unbelievers, are tormented forever, then beings tainted with a sin nature exist forever. They have everlasting life. How can God, whose holiness is beyond our comprehension, tolerate the everlasting sin nature of unbelievers? Further, how can He tolerate the everlasting existence of Satan and his gang of fallen angels?

2. Wilkin is an adherent of the free grace doctrine of salvation. Thus, he claims that everlasting life is obtained by believing in Jesus for it. Then, he claims that unbelievers are tormented forever in the Lake of Fire. To be tormented forever requires unbelievers to have everlasting life so that they can endure everlasting torment. Consequently, based on Wilkin’s description of believers and unbelievers, all humans have everlasting life once they are conceived. This means that humans must be innately immortal. Though the physical body dies, the conscience essence lives forever.

If belief in Jesus and a lack of belief in Jesus determine where believers and unbelievers spend their everlasting lives — the New Earth or the Lake of Fire — then believing in Jesus does not guarantee everlasting life. Humans already have that. Therefore, believers do not obtain everlasting life by believing in Jesus. Being innately immortal, they already have everlasting life. Belief and the lack of belief merely determine their ultimate destination, where they will spend their everlasting life. (If a believer obtains everlasting life by believing in Jesus, does an unbeliever obtain everlasting life by not believing in Jesus?)

Some of the doctrines that Wilkin condemns, such as annihilation, overcome the problem of humans being innately immortal, having everlasting life. Contrary to Wilkin’s doctrine, they really do have Jesus giving everlasting life to people who believe in him for it.

3. I have always been told that the New Earth (what most people mistakenly called Heaven) is a place of everlasting happiness, joy, bliss, contentment, serenity,  peacefulness, etc. It is a place without sorrow, sadness, suffering, etc. How can one live forever in peaceful bliss, etc. knowing that one’s spouse, children, siblings, parents, and other relatives and close friends are tormented forever? Such a person would naturally feel sadness, sorrow, etc. Moreover, how can a truly compassionate empathic believer find peaceful bliss void of sorrow in the New Earth while knowing unbelievers are tormented forever in the Lake of Fire?

(According to Wilkin, Heaven or more correctly Paradise is not the permanent residence for believers; the New Earth is. Before Jesus’ ascension, Paradise is that part of Hades or Sheol where believers stay temporarily, and after Jesus’ ascension,  Paradise is that part of the third heaven where believers stay until their judgment. Furthermore, Hell is not the permanent residence for unbelievers; the Lake of Fire is. Hell is that part of Hades or Sheol where unbelievers stay temporarily until their judgment.)

4. Wilkin argues that repentance refers to temporal life and never to avoiding eternal condemnation in the Lake of Fire. Further, he claims that repentance leads to a longer and better physical life.

This conclusion seems questionable. If people who abuse recreational chemicals and pharmaceutical drugs are omitted, the “good” seem to live no longer than  unrepentant “bad” persons. On the contrary, the opposite often seems true. The old saying that “the good die young” came into being because people noticed that many good people die young while really evil people, including Satanists and Luciferians, live into their late 70s and 80s and even 90s.

This rule that repentance leads to a longer and better life seems to have as many exceptions as the “‘i’ before ‘e’ except after ‘c’ or when sounding like ‘a’, as in neighbor or weigh” rule. This rule has more words that are exceptions than words that comply with it. Perhaps, someday someone will do a study to find out if repentance results in a statistically significantly longer life and a more healthy, prosperous, and joyful life.

5. Wilkin notes that in the world to come, the police, jailers, lawyers, thieves, and other occupations related to the criminal justice system cease to exist because they are not needed in a sinless world. He also notes that some believers will be rulers. The legitimate function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property from trespasses from others, and, much beyond this, the government morphs into a state, which is a form of idolatry. (For example, public works not paid for by user fees, public education, and public welfare are the actions of a state.) Since no real government will be needed, what is the function of these rulers? Is it to feed their egos by giving them people to boss?

Moreover, being God the Son, Jesus is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Therefore, why does he need anyone to assist him in ruling? If Jesus does not need any assistant rulers, what is the purpose of making some rulers, other than feeding their egos so that they can boast “I made the cut and you didn’t?”

6. Since the streets of the New Jerusalem are paved in gold, women will not be able to wear high heels when they cross a street. Moreover, transportation will be difficult, unless some kind of antigravity form of transportation is used. Because of its malleability, Gold is too soft for pavement.


Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Thursday, March 7, 2019

The Beliefs of the Early Anabaptists -- Part 1

The Beliefs of the Early Anabaptists
Thomas Allen

    The following is a brief presentation of the beliefs of the early Anabaptists as presented in The Dutch Anabaptists: The Stone Lectures Delivered at the Princeton Theological Seminary, 1918-1919 by Henry Elias Dosker (published by The Judson Press, Philadelphia, 1921). Page numbers enclosed in parentheses are to Dosker’s book referenced above.
    According to Doctor Harnack, the Anabaptists “‘were three hundred years ahead of their time’” (p. 1). “Doctor Vedder calls them ‘the radical Reformation’” (p. 2).
    Initially, two primary factions of Anabaptist existed: the radical and the conservatives. The radical faction lasted only about two decades before it burned itself out. However, their violent behavior left such a disdainful taste in Europe that Protestants and Catholics would persecute the Anabaptist for most of the sixteenth century and even beyond. Some of the beliefs of a few leaders of the radical Anabaptists are presented in the appendix.
    Furthermore, many beliefs of the conservative Anabaptists, such as their rejection of infant baptism and taking oaths, terrified both Catholics and Protestants alike. Thus, both persecuted even the conservative Anabaptist. Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Zwingli, and other Protestant leaders condemned them as disciples of Satan (pp. 44-45). Seldom did the persecutors distinguish or even attempt to distinguish the various factions of the Anabaptist. They were all the same: heretical enemies of Church and State.
    Unlike the radical Anabaptists, the conservative Anabaptists had no political aspirations or millennial dreams and shunned carnal lusts (p. 94). For the most part, the conservative “withdrew from the world with almost ascetic austerity” (p. 94). However, many of them manage to acquire a good deal of wealth. Unlike the radical Anabaptists, who paid little or no attention to the Scriptures, the conservatives “depended absolutely on the Scriptures for their faith” (p. 94).
    In their practices, the Anabaptist had “[n]o regular priesthood, great simplicity of worship, no bearing of arms, no oath, but simple affirmation, separation between Church and State, and rebaptism of those who joined them from the old Church” (p. 16). They did not recognize infant baptism; they only accepted “adult baptism, based on the confessed faith of the candidate” (p. 17). Anabaptists “were well versed in the Scriptures, exceedingly strict in their lives, and rigorous in their church discipline” (p. 33).
    They believed themselves to be the chosen people; all others were gentiles. Only they were true Christians (p. 189).
    Anabaptists had no fixed ecclesiastical organization. Each congregation was autonomous (p. 201).
    Anabaptists believed in the absolute authority of the Holy Scriptures. They relied “on the Scriptures and on them alone” (p. 151). Each individual decided for himself what the Scriptures meant. However, they gave little weight to the doctrine of inspiration. Furthermore, “they spiritualize the Scriptures . . . [and] believe them explicitly” (pp. 152-153).  Nevertheless, they tended to read the Scriptures extremely literally. Still, the Scriptures “have an inner meaning, which may or may not be the same to different individuals” (p. 153). Following the Church of Rome, nearly all Anabaptists seem to accept the Apocrypha of the Old Testament as canonical (p. 153).
    Baptism was a distinguishing characteristic of the Anabaptist. The distinction was not in the form or method of baptism. The Anabaptists followed the common practices of the day of using affusion, i.e., pouring water over the head, or sprinkling (pp. 32, 180). (Baptism by immersion was not used until the mid-seventeenth century when their Baptist descendants adopted immersion, which was the form used by the early Christians, as the only appropriate method of baptism [pp. 176-177, 182]) Initially, rebaptism was optional (p. 32).
    Their distinction was their refusal to baptize infants and to accept the baptism of infants. To the Protestants and Catholics of the sixteenth century, such treatment of infants made them child-murders because “the age-long doctrine of the Church of Rome anent the absolute necessity of baptism to secure the salvation of the child” (p. 44). (Most Anabaptists did not even accept the baptism of children or teenagers.) Thus, the distinguishing characteristic “is the status of the child in the church of God. . . . It is the question of the immutability of the God of the covenant [Old Testament] and of the permanency of the covenant of grace [New Testament] and therefore of the true Scriptural significance of the sacrament of baptism” (pp. 183-184).
    Anabaptists believed in “adult baptism on confession of a personal faith in Christ” (p. 176). According to Anabaptist teaching, faith must precede baptism. As infants and young children lack the capacity to understand the gospel, the baptism of infants and young children was rejected. Moreover, “[i]nfant baptism is anti-Christian and of Satanic origin” (p. 185).
    The Anabaptists were not Trinitarians in the orthodox sense of the Trinity. They objected to the Trinitarian teachings of “consubstantiality” and “person” because of their lack of Scriptural support. However, they freely used the term “Trinity” by which they seem to mean God’s impenetrability or an expression of God’s being (pp 153-154).
    They may not have been Trinitarians in the sense of the Athanasian Creed. However, many Anabaptists believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were so intertwined that they were inseparable — the “one is not without the other,” that is, the “one must be conjoined with the other, or the entire Deity is denied”  (p. 156). Others held that only one God existed, and in the New Testament, this God is called the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (p. 156).
    For most, “the Holy Spirit has no independent personal existence. He is merely the ‘inspiration,’ ‘the inward moving of the heart to things that are good’” (p. 155). Moreover, “God’s Spirit cannot thus separate itself from God” (p. 155). Besides, “God’s Spirit can [not] be conceived apart from himself . . . [or else the Spirit] would form a separate, self-existent, personal being” (p. 155). Also, the Father is a self-existing being, but the “Holy Spirit is no independent or personal being” (p. 155).
    In summary, the Anabaptists lacked a clear idea of the Trinity. Some approached the Catholic Trinity Doctrine whereas others resembled  Modalism (God, who is one person, exists in three modes or manifestation: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Yet, others approached Unitarianism or Socinianism (p. 157).
    Some Anabaptists believed that Jesus Christ had two natures: divine and human (p. 157). Others denied Christ divine honors (p. 159). Still, for others, Christ had only a divine nature.
    On the incarnation, most Anabaptist believed “that Christ had not taken his human body from Mary” (p. 82). They rejected the notion that Christ was incarnated of the Virgin Mary because of her sinful flesh (p. 160). Christ, the Word, did not take “his flesh and blood from the Virgin Mary; but has become flesh and blood in Mary’s womb, that is, he has been changed into it” (p. 160).
    God “‘has sent his own eternal word of power into this world, in the flesh, which has become flesh and a body, in form like any other man, without sin, and that he has been a bodily, visible word of God. . . . He has not taken flesh unto himself, but has become flesh and a body’” (pp. 160-161). Thus, Christ did not take his flesh and blood from Mary. He, as the Word, was made flesh and blood in Mary. Therefore, Christ did not possess two natures (p. 162).
    Whereas the Mennonite Anabaptists and most other Anabaptists accepted the notion of a preexisting Christ and, by that, an incarnation similar to that taught by the Church of Rome, some rejected it. For those who rejected the incarnation, Jesus was a natural but a sinless man. However, “‘God’s word, God’s will, God’s spirit, [and] God’s nature’” (p. 163) indwelt Christ along with an imminent conversation with God, which made him more than Adam’s flesh. Christ was the Son of God, “in so far as he was like God, in all the operations of heart and soul and mind, and thus felt himself to be the Son of God” (p. 164).
    However, most Anabaptists accepted the divinity of Christ. As for his humanity, most believed that the “‘Word within the body of Mary was changed into flesh, without taking over anything from the nature of Mary’” (p. 165). Christ had abandoned “his first, eternal, divine substance or essence . . . [and] was changed into another, i.e., a human substance and thus became man, able to suffer and to die, and has lost his first essence’” (p. 166). Thus, Christ had no human father or mother or relations. Nevertheless, many embraced the Catholic concept of the incarnation (p. 170).
    Anabaptists believed “that sin entered this world through Adam’s disobedience” (p. 171). However, Christ removed everything that Adam’s sin introduced, including death, into the world. As for children, the obedience of Christ, not baptism, liberates children from the liability of eternal damnation. Thus, “‘they deny absolutely that original sin, in young children, tends to eternal death’” (p. 172). For most Anabaptists, the atonement of Christ wiped out original sin.
    Anabaptists believed that all have sinned, but most believed that all “are called to salvation, because Christ died for all. This universal call presupposes the power to answer it. The cause of one’s damnation never lies with God” (p. 174).  Although God forces no man, he desires all to turn from self to him. They contend that all “salvation is from grace, but that grace is common to all” (p. 175). Like the Church of Rome, “they saw in justification a medicinal rather than a forensic act of God” (p. 175).
    Anabaptists “believed in salvation through Christ, but they glorified the Christian life” (p. 152). This stress was the result of “the legalistic character of their theology” (p. 152). Many so overemphasized the Christian life in the present that little regards were given to heaven or hell (p. 175).
    Anabaptists opposed “the mass, with its altars, images, garments, and, all its
heathenish ceremonies” (p. 151). Most followed the teachings of other Protestants on the Lord’s Supper. However, a few modified it (p. 185). Their churches lacked musical instruments (p. 214).
    A major cause of strife among the Anabaptists was the “ban”, i.e., excommunication. One congregation would ban one of its members or even another congregation over matters ranging from important doctrinal issues to such trivial matters as how one walked. Although the Anabaptists were “governed by the principle of individualism” (p. 190), the ban became popular and was a major cause of controversy among the  Anabaptists and the primary cause of schisms.
    Anabaptists were “a body of believers who had deliberately turned their backs on the world and now were a people separate unto the Lord” (p. 189). Any member who failed to live up to the ascetic standards of the congregation was banned, excommunicated. Whereas some congregations were fairly tolerant, others were extremely strict and would ban a member for any deviation.
    An example of the rigorousness of the ban was a marriage between a church member and a nonchurch member. For some, only marriages between members of the Anabaptist church were recognized (in this regard, they were similar to the Church of Rome). Anyone who married someone outside the church was banned and could never be reconciled or readmitted to the church (p. 190).
    Besides an inappropriate marriage, a person could be banned because his house, furniture, clothing, or ornamentation was above the standards of the congregation. (Although the Anabaptists did not condemn wealth, they did condemn ostentatiousness [p. 199].) Likewise, one could be banned for social contact with nonchurch members or a banned person or for attending the funeral of a nonchurch member (p. 194).
    Members of the church were not to have anything to do with a banned person, even if the person banned was a parent, child, spouse, or sibling. The ban prohibited all intercourse with the banned person, including buying, selling, eating, drinking, or conversing (p. 193).
    Although eschatology was important to many Anabaptists in the early years, the fanaticism that it caused resulted in the Mennonite descendants of the Anabaptists virtually to ignore eschatology, the future, heaven, and hell (p. 196).
    Women were not allowed to speak in their meetings and were not allowed to vote in the election of elders and deacons (p. 17). However, women occupied an honored place in their church life (p. 214).
    Some beliefs peculiar to a small minority of Anabaptist were polygamy (because “the Bible saints had practised it” [p. 82]) and the refusal to wear clothes (because “they were the naked truth, the image of God, and therefore were ashamed of nothing” [pp. 88-89].
    As shown above, the Anabaptists lack uniformity in their beliefs. They were highly variable on many important doctrines of Christianity, which should be expected from its decentralized structure and individualism with each congregation and even each individual free to decipher the truth from the Holy Scriptures.
    Because of the fanatics, the name “Anabaptist” had become synonymous with “violence, outrage, rebellion, sensuality, and every kind of outrage” (p. 92). Because of the stigma attached to “Anabaptist,” most Anabaptists rebranded themselves under different names. They became the Baptists and Mennonites. Many faded into the nonconformist movement in the Church of England (p. 46). Also, included among their descendants are the Quakers, English Independents, and Congregationalists (pp. 292-293).

Copyright © 2018 by Thomas Coley Allen

Part 2: Appendix

More religious articles

Monday, June 20, 2016

What Race Was Adam?

What Race Was Adam?
Thomas Allen

The following is an excerpt from Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man by Thomas Allen (Franklinton, N.C.: TC Allen Co., 1998), with some grammatical corrections. The footnotes in the original are omitted.

Creation of Adam
    The last species of men whom God created was Adam, the father of the Aryans. Adam was created about 8,100 B.C. on the Pamir Plateau. With Genesis 1:27 begins the cultural history of man with the creation of Adam.
    Genesis 1:26 reads, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over . . . all the earth.” The Hebrew word in this verse translated as “man” is ̓âdâm. This word is translated as “Adam” in the second chapter of Genesis. More than five hundred times, 'âdâm is translated Adam. If this word had been translated as “Adam” instead of “man,” there would be no doubt that the Bible deals only with the Adamic race. The Adamic, Aryan, or White race, is the race created in the likeness of God and given dominion over the earth.
    A more literal and correct translation of Genesis 1:26 and 27 is “. . . God said, Let us make Adam (̓âdâm) in our image, after our likeness . . . And God created the Adam [or, the Adamite](ha-̓âdâm) in his own image . . . .” This translation clearly shows that Adam and the Adamite are the race whom God created in His own image. If the traditional translation of  ̓âdâm as man is used, these verses should read, “. . . Let us make a man in our image . . . And God created the man in his own image. . . .” Such a literal translation clearly shows that a particular man is being created, not mankind in general. This record of Adam’s creation strongly suggests the existence of other races of men at the time of his creation.
    God created the Adamic race to “have dominion over all the earth.” He created the Adamic race to civilize mankind. As shown below, the Adamic race is the source of civilization. He exalted this race, and other races have recognized it as God’s chosen (Acts 13:17). God also chose the Adamic race as the race from which He would bring His Son, who would be man’s savior.
    The Scriptures do not claim that Adam was the first man or that he is the father of all the races of man. On the contrary, the Scriptures present evidence that other people already existed before Adam was created.
    When God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden, He gave Adam two duties to perform. First, he was to tend or dress the Garden of Eden. Second, he was to protect (keep) it.
    The word translated “keep” in the King James Version is shâmar (Strongs O.T. #8104), which means “to hedge about (as with thorns), i.e., guard; generally to protect, attend to, etc.” Although most versions translate this word as “keep,” the Amplified Bible translates it as “guard and keep,” and Moffatt translates it as “guard.” Those who translate shâmar as “keep,” translate it in the sense of preserving, watching over, and defending if they translate it according to the root meaning of the word.
    From whom was Adam to defend the Garden of Eden? His enemy appeared not to be wildlife, for God brought them to Adam to name. That he was to defend it from Satan is also unlikely. God would not have asked Adam to protect the Garden of Eden from a being more powerful than he. The Bible clearly illustrates that man lacks the power to protect himself, much less anything else, from Satan. (He must rely solely on the power of God for such protection.) So, who was the enemy from whom Adam was to guard the Garden? The most logical answer is that he was to defend it from other men—most likely the ones to whom Cain fled in Nod.
    Another indication that the world was well populated at the time that Cain slew Abel is that Cain lured Abel into the countryside to kill him. He goes into the countryside away from any population center, so no one would witness his murder. If the only people on Earth were Adam, Eve, Cain, and Able, and an unnamed daughter with whom Cain could flee, as the traditionalists claim, Cain would not need to take his brother into the country to kill him.
    Furthermore, in Genesis 4:14, Cain claimed that he would be a fugitive and expressed fear that anyone who found him would slay him. Whom did Cain have to fear if Adam and Eve were the only people alive at that time? From whom would he be a fugitive? No evidence is given in the Bible that Adam and Eve had another child until after Cain had fled. Even if they did, Cain had no more reason to fear his brothers and sisters than his parents — perhaps even less fear since, according to the traditionalists, he married one of his sisters. Cain was not expressing fear of his family. He was expressing fear about people of other races who existed before Adam’s creation. God affirmed this conclusion in His response to Cain in Genesis 4:15 when He told Cain, “Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” Then He placed a mark on Cain. God was acknowledging that many other people were then living who could have slain Cain, and that He would avenge Cain’s death if any of them slew him. If only Adam and Eve were living, and some brothers and sisters, as the traditionalists claim, what purpose would the “mark “ have served? After all, his parents knew their own son. If he had any siblings at the time of his flight, surely they knew their own brother. The “mark” was so that the other people then living could recognize that Cain was under God’s protection. Cain was certainly aware that other people were then living who would delight in killing him.
    Genesis 4:17 provides more evidence that Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman. This verse shows that Cain found a wife, who bore his children. If Adam and Eve were the only people at this time, then how was Cain able to find a wife? No evidence is given in the Scriptures that Adam and Eve had any daughters to whom Cain could marry at the time the Bible describes Cain's marriage. In fact, Adam and Eve do not appear to have had any daughters until well after Cain's marriage. His marriage, the birth of his son Enoch, and his building of a city all occurred before Eve gave birth to Seth. According to the Bible, Adam and Eve had no daughters until after Seth's birth.
    The conventional explanation for Cain’s wife is that he married his sister. If Cain's wife was a daughter of Adam, why should she be punished along with Cain for a crime of which she was innocent? Why should she be banished along with him and forever separated from her parents? Why should her children be denied proper religious training and righteous rearing? The answer to these questions is that Cain’s wife was not a daughter of Adam. The scriptural evidence that Adam and Eve had any daughters for Cain to marry at the time the Bible describes his marriage is lacking.
    Cain did not marry his sister. He married a woman of another race, probably a Turanian. Jude supports the belief that Cain married outside his race. In verses five through eleven, Jude condemns old and new apostates. He compares the new apostates with the old. The most common sin that he identifies with the old apostates is the sin of miscegenation. In verse seven, he states that Sodom and Gomorrah had “given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh.” That is, they lusted after people of a different race. In verse eleven, he states the apostates had “gone in the way of Cain” and had followed “the error of Balaam.” The error of Balaam was his advice to Balak, King of Moab, to destroy Israel by having his mongrel people integrate with the Israelites and intermarry with them. Using Cain’s name in parallel with Balaam, Jude strongly suggests that both of them were guilty of the same sin, miscegenation.
    Further evidence that the world was populated at the time God created Adam is that Cain built his son Enoch a city (Genesis 4:17). The building of a city certainly implies the presence of a large population. Even if this city were no more than a village of huts, as some commentators claim, it still implies a population much larger than would have been the case if all mankind were descended from Adam and Eve. The building of a city strongly suggests that the land to which Cain fled was already inhabited. Why would he bother building a city if the area to which he fled was uninhabited? The dwelling that he, his wife, and son had would surely have sufficed.
    In an attempt to prove that Adam was the first man of all mankind created and the father of all races, theologians who preach the doctrine of the unity of man quote Genesis 3:20, 1 Corinthians 15:45, Acts 17:26, Galatians 3:28, Romans 10:12, and Colossians 3:11. None of these verses, however, support their claims.
    Quoting Genesis 3:20 (“. . . Eve . . . was the mother of all living”), these theologians claim that Eve is the mother of all the species of men. As discussed in detail in the chapter on the Flood, “all” does not always mean the whole number of or every last one. It frequently means many or a large number. In this passage, Eve is being called the mother of the Aryan race, the mother of all Adam’s descendants. She is the mother of all with whom the Bible is concerned, i.e., the Aryans. Expressions like this one that appear to refer to all the inhabitants of the Earth, nearly always only refer to those created in God's image, i.e., Adam’s descendants, the Aryans.
    These theologians are fond of quoting the first half of 1 Corinthians 15:45: “So it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul.” Then they argue that all men are descended from Adam. They overlook the last half of the verse: “The last Adam became a live-giving spirit.” They omit it because it makes no sense considering their doctrine. It immediately raises the question: Who is the last Adam? (The answer, of course, is Jesus Christ, with which nearly all, if not all, theologians agree.) The correct reading of this passage is that Adam was the first man of the Adamic line, not of all the racial lines existing today. Then the answer that Jesus Christ is the last Adam becomes clear. Jesus was born out of Adam through Abraham, Judah, and David. Verse 47 supports this conclusion: “The first man [Adam] is of the earth, earthly: the second man [Christ] is of heaven.” Adam was the “first man” only in the same sense that Christ was the “second” man. Adam was the figure of Christ (Romans 5:14). If these verses are to be interpreted consistently, they cannot be understood as describing Adam in a physical sense. If they are referring to Adam in a physical sense, then Jesus was, according to verse 45, the last man, which is absurd. These verses outline a basic theme of the Bible: death in Adam and life in Christ. This is the light in which these verses should be understood—not as proof that Adam fathered all the races of men.
    Perhaps the favorite verse of the preachers of the doctrine of the unity of man is Acts 17:26: “And he [God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” This is the King James Version. The American Standard Version, New American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, Berkeley Version, and The Holy Bible in Modern English, translated by Ferrar Fenton, omit the word “blood.” Weymouth, in his New Testament in Modern English, gives in a footnote the literal translation, “from one,” and notes that “from one blood” is an alternative reading found in some manuscripts. “One blood” appears only in some later manuscripts and, therefore, probably is not in the original.
    This verse does not prove that all the races of men descended from Adam. It does show that God created each race of man. He created them at different times or by “the times before appointed.” He placed each of them in their own specific zoological zone or geographical area (“bounds of their habitation”).
    The preachers of the doctrine of the unity of man also like to quote Galatians 3:28, Romans 10:12, or Colossians 3:11: “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew.” The Jew and the Greek referred to in these verses are both descendants of Adam. They are both Aryans. These verses are referring to one race, the Aryan race, living in different countries and conditions, and being united under Christ. They do not prove the doctrine of the unity of man.
    Thus, the verses often quoted to support the doctrine that all races of men descended from Adam fail to support this doctrine. Only the White race descended from Adam.

What Race Was Adam?

    Adam was created White. The name “adam” is ̓âdâm in Hebrew and means a “ruddy human being” (Strong's O.T. #120). It is derived from “adam” (Strong's O.T. #119), or ̓âdam in Hebrew, which means “to show blood (in the face), i.e., flush or turn rosy.” Only one race has the characteristic of blushing or showing blood in the face or skin, and that race is the White or Aryan race.
    Adam was named “Adam” because he possessed a ruddy or rosy complexion. He was fair and White and, therefore, the hemoglobin showed through his nonpigmented skin, giving a ruddy or flushed look. His name described his physical appearance. It is a physical characteristic that appears only in the White race.
    The Bible further proves that Adam and Eve were of the White race with fair and ruddy or rosy complexion by the way it describes their descendants. 1 Samuel 16:12 and 17:43 describe David as being “ruddy and of fair complexion.” 2 Samuel 13:1 describes David’s daughter, Tamar, as “fair.” Genesis 12:11 and 14 describe Sarah as “very fair,” and Genesis 24:16 and 26:7 describe Rebekah as “very fair.” They are descendants of Adam. In Songs of Solomon 5:10, Solomon is said to be “white and ruddy.” In Lamentations 4:7, the Nazarites (consecrated persons) of Judah are described as “whiter than milk” and “more ruddy in body than rubies.”
    Adam and Eve were White. The church has historically always depicted them as White and correctly so. As recorded in the Bible, Adam’s descendants end up being White or at least of a light complexion. This is a fact that no one seriously denies. Yet traditional creationists also claim that all the other races are also descended from Adam.
    Adam was not the father of the human race. He is only the father of the Aryan race. Each race is a distinct and separate creation. God created each race independently of the others and at different times. Hence, each race is a distinct species.
    Scientific evidence suggests a high antiquity of man, along with evidence of definite anatomical differences. Each race of man is descended from a different human pair whom God created with different external and internal characteristics.
    The Scriptures and science agree. The fossil record supports the Bible, and the Bible supports the fossil record. Adam was not the first human that God created. Adam was only the first individual of a new species, the Aryan race of man.
    Although traditional creationists and evolutionists view each other’s theories with enmity, their theories have much in common. Both claim that all races of men have a common origin. Both claim that early man possessed a wide variety of genetic traits that allow for the different races. Both claim that only minor variations exist among the races today. Both claim that the races are the result of climate, environment, natural selection, and group isolation. Both claim one species, race, or kind can produce others—the principle of speciation. Both claim that God did not create the individual races of men. Both claim that no pure race exists because gene flow can and has occurred among the races.
    Only two areas of any real disagreement exist between the traditional creationists and evolutionists. First, the creationists believe in the Divine creation of the initial pair. Evolutionists, for the most part, believe in some sort of spontaneous generation. Second, the creationists believe that the races of men evolved (or developed, as they prefer to say) over a few generations. The evolutionists believe that they evolved over tens of thousands, if not several hundreds of thousands, of years.
    Both the traditional creationists and evolutionists ignore the fact that man can only invent falsehoods in science and religion. True science is nothing more than God’s revelation through His work in nature. New discoveries in science may conflict with religious errors preached over the centuries. With religious truths, however, they can never conflict. Both science and Scripture have the same Author.

Image of God
    “And God created man [Adam] in his own image, in the image of God he created him. . . .”(Gen. 1:27). Adam had the physical nature of the Universe. He possessed life as found in other animals. But he was more. God had made Adam distinctly different. Like other races of men, Adam possessed reason, personality, and free will. Unlike the other races of men, he was created in the image of God. He possessed special qualities of God lacking in other races. Adam was the first man that God made in His own image.
    Pre-Adamic men were not created in the image of God — at least not in the sense that this phrase is used in Genesis. Pre-Adamic men had no closer union with their Creator than do their untutored descendants (Turanians, Negroes, Melanochroi, Khoisans, and Australians) have today.
    Adam, however, was unique. God had made him as a special image of His own eternity. God made Adam immortal (this immortality Adam lost through sin). He was a creature, a species of man, with whom God could visit and have fellowship and communion (this unique fellowship with God, the Adamic race lost when Adam sinned). He possessed a spiritual quality lacking in others. This spiritual quality was directly related to kinship to God. He had the ability to think God’s thoughts in purity and holiness without corruption. Adam had the capacity to commune with God as no other race could. He could reach spiritual heights unattainable to the other species of men. God gave Adam a moral and spiritual nature that enabled him to understand his Creator, to commune with Him in this life, and to look forward to eternal bliss.
    Among the Divine qualities identified by Campbell that God gave Adam was a conscience or moral sense. This conscience in the Adamic race differs entirely from that in the other species of men. In the other races of men, conscience is a perceptive faculty. It provides them with some idea of right and wrong, but it never causes them to feel as though they must do right except where doing right is expedient. When they do wrong, they seem to lack an inward accuser or judge. They seldom show remorse about their crimes or sins; they only have remorse about being caught. In Adamic man, conscience provides moral guidance and protection from sinning. It is an innate part of his moral and spiritual constitution. His conscience convicts him of sin. The conscience of Adamic man is entirely different from that of other men
    Adam’s unique privilege before God was conditioned by his obedience and responsibility to God. God had created Adam and the Adamic, Aryan, race to be his representative and steward on the Earth. God had delegated to Adam a share of His own authority. He made Adam a responsible being. The Divine purpose for the Adamic race was world dominion. (Because of sin, the Adamic race can now only achieve its Divine purpose by the intervention of Christ Jesus.)
    “And Jehovah God formed man [Adam] of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7) Thus, God breathed His spirit into Adam and made him a living soul. This, God did not do for the other species of men. This is what separates Adamic man from the other races. The other races do not possess the ever-living spirit of God as does Adamic man. Unlike other beings, he shared something in common with his Creator.

Copyright © 1998 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on religion.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

A Call to Action: Recapturing the South

A Call to Action: Recapturing the South
Thomas Allen

    The war that Southern nationalists wage against Yankeedom and its New South sycophants is ethical first and foremost. It is a war between good and evil, between God and Satan. It must be fought principally on ethical grounds.

    The enemies of the South have no guiding principles except pragmatic relativism. They lust for wealth and power. They seek self-aggrandizement. Satan is their father. They are morally bankrupt.

    The doctrines of the enemies of the South are false. Its enemies look to man to perfect man. The state is seen as the savior of man, and man is saved through education (indoctrination). Individuals are not responsible for their acts. The state is to replace the family. Its enemies are led by envy. They advocate a one-world government in the name of peace, prosperity, freedom, equality, or democracy. They are the thought police of political correctness. Above all, they seek to concentrate and consolidate all power into their hands. One is hard-pressed to find any of their doctrines that is not contrary to the Bible.

    Any program to rescue the South from the death grip of Yankeedom must be built upon a Scriptural foundation. Southern nationalists need scripturally sound ethical, social, economic, and political programs. They cannot merely oppose the destructive programs of Yankeedom. Southern nationalists must offer replacements for the programs of the enemies of the South. (This does not mean that they must propose replacing one governmental program with another. Most of the time it means replacing a governmental program with the church, family, or voluntary private organizations.)

    Southern nationalists need to recognize that they are engaged in a war that far transcends liberating the Southern States from the oppression of Yankeedom. They are engaged in a war between Christ and Satan. If they are of Christ, they have already won. If not, they have already lost.

    Southern nationalists need to acquire knowledge about the enemies of the South. They need to acquire knowledge about history, free market economics, federalism, republicanism, free society, the Holy Scriptures, and other subjects that are necessary to develop a free society in a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States. However, the acquisition of knowledge cannot be the end. If one stops with the acquisition of knowledge, he has accomplished nothing — except perhaps depressing himself with hopelessness. Southern nationalists need to transmit their information to others. They need to act upon their knowledge and also persuade others to act accordingly. Knowledge in and of itself liberates no one. It relieves no one of responsibility. In fact, the opposite is true. It makes one more responsible.

    Southern nationalists need to understand that their enemies worship power. Their enemies are experts at capturing, retaining, and using power. Such is their way of life.

    Southern nationalists need to realize that the enemies of the South are not omnipotent. They are not all that smart. One need only witness the caliber of men serving as presidents, governors, Congressmen, and state legislators. One need only observe the financial problems of the multinational banks and many multinational corporations. Academicians and liberal theologians are not that “swift” either. Nearly all are ethically bankrupt and morally corrupt.

    Southern nationalists need to concentrate their efforts on removing people’s confidence in the false ideas of their Yankee-sanctioned scalawag and carpetbag rulers before they attempt to replace them. Otherwise, all they will achieve is replacing one set of evil rulers with an even more vile set (replacing Establishment President Bush with an Establishment President Clinton or Establishment President Bush with an Establishment President Obama).

    Southern nationalists need to work to throw the rascals out once a sufficient number of people lose confidence in them. Removing the enemies of the South from positions of influence and power (both in and out of government) is paramount. It is more important than informing people of the ineptness, immorality, corruptness, and vileness of the enemy. In fact, only enough knowledge has to be transmitted to move a sufficient number of people to act to remove the oppressors.

    Southern nationalists should not place their hopes on replacing the enemies of the South in one or two general elections. They need a grass-roots movement. They need a bottom-up rather than a top-down movement. They need to capture local governments and then State governments. They need to work continuously and steadily to replace the enemy. Not only must Southern nationalists work to replace the enemies of the South who are in government, but they must work to replace them in all other aspects of society — business, religion, academia, media, etc.

    Southern nationalists need to initially concentrate their efforts on capturing county and city governments. These governments can be captured more easily and cheaper than others. They can use these positions to gain experience in governing and to say “no” to the numerous programs in which government is involved that are not the proper functions of government.

    Southern nationalists can next work to capture their State governments. They should not waste any resources in trying to capture any positions in the federal government, for this is the government of the empire from which they seek to secede. (This does not mean that they should ignore the federal government. To the contrary, they need vigilantly to watch the federal government and to oppose and resist its despotism.)

    Southern nationalists need to build up their organizations. They do so by praying, studying, recruiting, confronting, collecting intelligence, monitoring government and schools, building mailing lists, building local support, and cooperating. They should pray, for without God’s succor, they will fail. They should study, individually by reading and meditating on useful books and articles and collectively in discussion groups and meetings. They should recruit. Preferably they should recruit stable people who are in a leadership position or will assume a leadership position someday, who study and get involved, who donate time and money, and who are a credit to the Kingdom of God. They should avoid recruiting burned-out conservatives, the apathetic, those who take but do not give, compromisers, disturbers, the confused, advocators of violence, etc. They should confront those who seek to destroy the South. They should create intelligence files from newspapers, magazines and Internet articles, and other sources. Monitoring local and State government meetings and informing others of anti-Southern or pro-Southern action taken at these meetings should be part of their program. Likewise, they should monitor public school books and curricula. Local supporters and potential supporters should be identified for each issue of importance. A mailing list, which could be an e-mail list, should be built for each issue. They should unite and cooperate with each other. Thus, they build their organizations.

    Southern nationalists need to remove their children from public schools and place them in a good private school, preferably a Christian school, or teach them at home. To leave them in public school is to give them to the enemy. (Southern nationalists should not seek to reform public schools. They should seek to abolish them because education is not a proper function of government, and to trust education to a government is too dangerous. Education is a proper function of the family supported by the church.) Southern nationalists have gained nothing if their posterity is lost to the enemy.

    Southern nationalists need to attend a Bible-believing church and be fed the Word of God. They need to read, recite, and mediate on the imprecatory Psalms, i.e., the Psalms that call on God to punish or destroy His enemies. These Psalms are 73, 83, 94, and 105. They may even have to educate their pastors on various issues. However, Southern nationalists need to be aware that most pastors do not believe that Christians are able to reverse the world’s decline into a Satanic cesspool. The pastors of most Bible-believing churches believe that the world will become worse and worse, that man will become more and more evil, and that there is not much Christians can do about this decline until Christ returns and ends history.

    Southern nationalists need to become self-disciplined and learn to commit themselves for the long term. They must acquire organizational skills. If at all possible, they must acquire a computer and learn to use it. They must develop personal communication skills, both oral and written. They must become politically aware, which means reading and understanding many political news sources. They must learn techniques needed for political actions. They must become involved in local politics.

    Southern nationalists should join, support, and become active in organizations that seek to save the South and the Southern way of life.

    Southern nationalists should never appease the enemy. Appeasement is a waste of resources and detrimental to the cause, for the enemy can never be appeased without the death of the Southern nationalist. Southern nationalists should avoid compromise unless they are sure that they will gain more than they will lose. But under no circumstances should Southern nationalists ever compromise their fundamental principles. (The enemy has little problem with compromise because he has no real principles to compromise.)

    Southern nationalists should be as open and honest as Jesus was. They should avoid deceit, deception, duplicity, secrecy, and other conspiratorial tactics, for these are the tactics of their enemy. By the tactics that they use, Southern nationalists distinguish themselves from the enemies of the South.

    Southern nationalists need to develop a scripturally ethical program. They must resist further attacks on the South. They must educate themselves. They must obtain dominion. They need to have the organization, program, vision, expertise, and ethics to fill the void that will be left when the enemies of the South collapse. They need the moral courage to act when the time comes. In short, they need an abiding faith in Christ.

    Southern nationalists need to prepare for a long-term struggle, perhaps several decades, although victory could come as rapidly as the collapse of the Soviet Empire. In the interim, they must continue to pressure the enemies of the South until they completely collapse. In the interim, they must be prepared to fill and must fill every void left by the enemy in every aspect of society wherever the void occurs. The enemies of the South must not be allowed to fill any void. Southern nationalists must press the enemy until all have fled the South.

    Above all Southern nationalists need to cooperate with one another. They need to accommodate their differences where it is not a question of fundamental principles. No single individual has all these skills, and even if he did, he would not have the time, to do all the things outlined above, which is why it is important that Southern nationalists unite and cooperate. They should always present a united front against the enemies of the South.

    By following this program, and with God’s aid, Southern nationalists will be able to liberate the South from its oppressors. One day Southerners will live free in a free and independent confederation of free and independent Southern States where they will be governed by Christian principles, where family, church, and state will be co-equal governments, and where civil government will be a limited republican government.

Copyright © 1993, 2010 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on the South.