The Reformed principle is that Scripture interprets Scripture, and nowhere in Scripture is there a hint of a reference to the creation-story as being allegorical. The only reasonable explanation could be that one wants to bring in infallible Word of God in harmony with the teachings of modern scientists, working EXCLUSIVELY for the desctruction of Christ’s kingdom, and for the expansion of Satan’s.

God was there when He created the universe, you and I weren’t. Luckily for us, in the modernist and postmodern eras, we’ve finally become smarter than God. We can now educate God on how exactly He created all things visible and invisible! His revelation to us of what He did was incorrect. God lied to us, or at least did not understand modern science as well as we do today. For Scripture says: in God there is only lies and darkness and there is no truth and light outside the United States geological survey. (I just couldn’t find the exact passage, so I hope I quoted correctly!)

So yes, God created the entire universe in six days through Christ (John 1) for his own pleasure. He is the surpreme Lord of all that exists and directs all things to the glory of his name! Yet, we fallible, sinful and weak humans have the arrogance to doubt Him and his Word…. For if we believe, accept and trust like a child in the gracious and loving acts of God described to us in his inerrant Word, we will inherit the Kingdom of heaven. And it is by this faith, generated in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, that we can confess that Christ has truly risen and lives!

As indeed He has…

Now you’ve made me wanna search for that in my libarary..where is it?

Now here are a few assumptions of my own –

* The silence of the Book of Acts on Paul’s trial means it was penned no later than around A.D. 62. It would have been penned two years after Paul’s arrival in Rome in 59/60. Its positive view of the Roman authorities strongly suggests it was written before the Neronian persecution of 64.

* There are plenty of good reasons for thinking the gospels were all composed between the 30s and the 50s. James Jordan and Peter Leithart have argued persuasively that the conversion of Paul came in the year 30, shortly after the death, resurrection and ascension of the Messiah, and they have also argued persuasively that James was written in the 30s. But James is clearly referencing the Gospel of Matthew, which means that Matthew predates even this early letter.

* It makes sense that the composition of the gospels would have started early. The idea that the apostles would have waited more than a full generation before starting to compose the gospels is absurd on its face. Everything in the history and culture of Israel would have encouraged the early Jewish Christians to produce a written record of the crowning event of salvation history. It is difficult to imagine any compelling reason for delay — why would Matthew have waited a decade to compose a gospel?

Here is an interesting thought, quoting from Peter Leithart –

‘As James Jordan has pointed out, the four gospels correspond nicely to major stages of Old Testament history. The Matthean-Jacobin stage corresponds to the Mosaic covenant. James is the most “legal” epistle in the New Testament. Matthew too presents Jesus as a new Moses, who flees Egypt, is baptized in the river, resists temptation in the wilderness for 40 days, and then preaches about the law from a mountain (Mat. 1-7).

‘Mark corresponds to the Davidic covenant. Mark shows Jesus as a man of action, a man on the move, a conquering king (cf. “immediately” in Mark’s gospel). Davidic emphasis in Peter’s epistles is not immediately obvious. Perhaps, however, the following points are worthy of further study: Peter exhorts his readers to act the part of Christian soldiers by girding their minds for action (1 Pet. 1:13; 5:8-9); he calls Jesus the “cornerstone” laid in Zion, using a quotation from Isaiah 28 that may have reference to the house of David (1 Pet. 2:6); and he writes a great deal about suffering for righteousness, with which David was well acquainted (1 Pet. 2:12; 3:13-17).

‘Luke shows us Jesus in a more cosmopolitan setting. He dates Jesus’ birth by reference to the reign of Augustus Caesar (2:1), records statements and quotes Old Testament passages about the conversion of the nations (2:32; 3:4-6), traces Jesus’ genealogy back to Adam (3:38), and tells that Jesus sent out 70 disciples (cf. the nations of the earth, Gen. 10). Similarly, Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul was a Nehemiah, building the walls of a new city in the face of persecution by the “people of the land.” The Lukan-Pauline stage of New Testament history corresponds to the restoration period. This was a period of Old Testament history during which the Jews were scattered among the Gentiles and called to bear witness, and during which many Gentiles were converted (cf. Esther; Daniel).

‘Irenaeus wrote that Jesus’ life was a recapitulation of the history of man and of Israel. Without committing ourselves to everything Irenaeus meant by that, we can agree his insight was sound. Jesus fulfilled all the Old Covenant types and shadows, renewing them and transforming them in the process. What I am suggesting here is that the first generation of the church, united to the Risen Christ as the Firstfruits of the New Creation, relived His reliving of the Old Covenant, passing through Mosaic, Davidic, and restoration stages. During the first generation, the Old Covenant was worked into the church and transformed into a New.

‘In this scheme, the Johannine stage of New Testament history was the climax of the New Testament and brought the church fully into the new covenant. John shows us Jesus as the Son of God. The four gospels and the four stages of New Testament history, as Jordan has pointed out, correspond to the four faces of the cherubim. James/Matthew is the priestly Mosaic ox; Peter/Mark is the kingly Davidic lion; Paul/Luke is the imperial restoration eagle; John is the apostle of the new covenant, the covenant with a human face, the covenant of the New Man.

‘This scheme highlights the decisive importance of the destruction of Jerusalem. The New Testament was finished by A.D. 70. The first generation had recapitulated the whole history of Israel. Throughout these decades, the old was fading and the new was coming into being. God offered the Jews a new Moses, a new David, a new Nehemiah, but the Jews did not receive Him. With the destruction of the temple and city, the old was finally destroyed and the new emerged in fullness. Writing shortly before the shaking of heaven and earth, John, in his gospel and Revelation, pointed ahead to the radical newness of the new covenant.’

You assert I’m doubly wrong, both in my statement that if not for incontrovertible modern scientific revelations of extreme antiquity there wouldn’t be any Old Earthers, and that until these facts became widely known, there were none, or very few, Christians (laity or clergy) that interpreted the Genesis “days” as anything other than 6 literal 24 hr. days. Well, I don’t think I am wrong! The former claim is not reasonably disputable, but if you can offer any names of OE Creationists prior to, say, the 17th-18th centuries, I’d be very interested to learn of them, and especially on what basis they held to their views.

Re: Matt. 24, I didn’t know you had adopted a preterist position. I take it, then, that if you see the (alleged) fulfillment of “Christ’s coming in judgement” in the 70 CE destruction that you do not hold to the idea of another, future 3rd coming. My own view is that even if Matthew could somehow be demonstrated to have been written before 70 CE, equating that, bad as it was, to the cataclysmic events described in chap. 24 is a bit of a stretch, to say the least, though, obviously, establishing a nexus between them is the Bible advocate’s only real hope.

However, since the gospels were almost certainly penned much later than 70, if that is what it’s referring to, what we have is a simple case of prophecy after the fact. If it’s not referring to the year 70, then it must have a different Second Coming in view which, as you pointed out, would also show the passage false and disprove inerrancy. Either way, it’s a bum steer.

Forgive me, but I can’t locate my sources. I’ve heard he is Protestant by some trad catholics, and I just assumed it was in writing somewhere. He’s a mystery. I’ll do some more digging. Sorry for the broken promise.

Hesperia- “I doubt he is a committed Traditionalist, if he IS a Catholic, because he tends to defend Protestantism.”

I just read an article on a traditionalist RC Website that showed the Vatican honored the 500th anniversary of John Calvin! Now, they were upset over it, but when you read Calvin in light of the excesses of the time, you can understand that HE was more ‘catholic’ than his successors. Wallace’s ‘Calvin on the Eucharist’ is an interesting book, but where it shines is quoting Calvin’s own words on the ‘real presence.’ He’d make any Anglo-Catholic proud! LOL

I see our battle as one between Christendom (Adherents of traditional Trinitarian creedal Christianity) and the OTHER- be they liberal “Xians,” Deicides, Sodomites, or just merely non-White; they are all engaged in an ‘envyfest’ of White Culture, Religion, and Racial privilege not because of our skin tone, but because of our Elect status. After the war is over, THEN we can begin to engage one another in theological minutae…though on a forum such as this, the issues WILL come up…

Admin, yes, you are completely right! But Hoffman says this by way of schadenfreude, you and I are trying to say it with apologetics, edification, (and probably anger and prayer)! We WANT the Whites around us to rally!! I am reading his latest (Judaism Discovered), and it is full of great information, like this particular passage that speaks to the current plight of immigration-inundated Europe:
“In 1449, Pedro Sarmiento fulminated against the deeds of Iberian Judaics. Chief among the charges was the idea the Judaics of Toledo, had opened the gates to the invading Moors. “when Toledo was first taken by the Moors it was filled with Hebrews… they, resenting the Gothic persecution, facilitated the progress of the Berbers…”.” -Judaism Discovered, pg. 334.
I just don’t “get” him (Hoffman), but he will never listen, and in the end all I can really do to help the West is to have some babies and bring them up in the way they should go (Christian and racially-realist).

To take the example of France – the nation of the Bretton and Frankish people and their country, that nation was overthrown in the JudeoMasonic Revolution of 1789. What was installed is a republican political machine and a democracy. The Catholic aristocracy and much of the clergy went to the guillotine. Only the Jewish aristocracy was left – that is cryptos who had married into the French nobility. The French republic and its democracy is not a working government of the people, like all such modernist artifacts it is merely the curtain of politics generating issues and crises behind which the real work of brainwashing, taxing, penalizing with rulz, rulz, rulz, oppressing and looting the population continues via the unelected covert rulers who came to power through overthrow or infiltration and overthrow of the traditional regime.

Under Natural and Common Law recognized by all Western jurisprudence a people have a right to defend the integrity of their nation and its territory. Like America, France is not a terra nullius that is just open to the invasion of entire populations to migrate and settle. But of course, this is what the covert rulers of both populations machinate – invasion by immigration, no borders and destruction of the homogenous population and occupation of its territory.

In America, to JudeoMasonry – its liberals and political apparatus, the term racist is just a code word for white or an American of European ethnicity.

Everybody else can invade, form their own neighborhoods, communities, enclaves what have you. It is politically correct for any ethnic neighbourhood (other than white) to have or extend its boundaries, enjoy its culture and religion and insist upon tolerance and respect for that as well as legal protection and government assistance. This is multiculturalism.

A white neighborhood doing the same thing is, of course, racist and may invoke the federal jurisdiction of anti-discrimination laws against itself.