11) “And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim:
12) And they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that were round about them, and provoked the LORD to anger.
13) And they [Israel] forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth.”
Joshua had died. Israel had served the LORD all the days of Joshua. And they had continued to serve the LORD all the days of the elders that had out-lived Joshua. The elders had known all the works of the LORD that He had done for Israel.
31) “And Israel served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the LORD, that He had done for Israel.”
So, for the thirty years that Joshua was in Canaan and afterward during the few years of the elders who out-lived him, Israel served the LORD. The elders remembered the works that the LORD had done on behalf of Israel while they were freed from bondage in Egypt, when they were in the wilderness and when they had entered Canaan. What happened when these elders died?
Ethno-nationalism,also known as Ethnic Nationalism, is a form of nationalism wherein the nation or country is defined in terms of ethnicity (or race). The central theme of ethnic nationalists is that political nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, faith, culture, and ethnic ancestry; and tends to be exclusive.
In contrast, Civic Nationalism is based on political membership and tends to be inclusive. Thus, the various countries of the world differ on how they define their version of nationalism.
Herodotus was the first who stated the main characteristics of ethnicity, with his famous account of what defines Greek identity. He lists kinship, “of the same blood,” language, “speaking the same language,” cults and customs, “of the same habits of life.”
William Finck informs us that, “Ethnic nationalism is the only valid form of nationalism, and civic nationalism is entirely artificial, unnatural, and can only be enforced by tyranny. It is empiricism and not nationalism at all.”
There is a whole host of different options that a person hears from the Judeo-Christian churches regarding how a person is saved. Does God save you, or do you save yourself, or is it a partnership? If God saves an individual, what individuals does He save?
Most Judeo-Christian churches today would say that salvation is a partnership. I have heard in my past, many sermons that said, “Jesus votes for you, Satan votes against you, and you have the deciding vote. Come up here at the end of my sermon and say the sinner’s prayer and be saved.”
In the country’s early history, almost all the Christian churches were Calvinistic in their theology. Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Puritans, Pilgrims were a major part of the churches who taught that God was sovereign; that it was He, alone, that saved individuals. If God elected you, you were saved. If God rejected you, you were condemned to hell. You were born totally depraved, meaning you were going to hell, until the Holy Spirit came and saved you.
It is like the hymn that says: “Born a child of hell, comforted by the Holy Spirit.”
The churches of America taught that every individual of the world was born a child of hell. They had to be turned into a person who was “born again.” Whether God did it alone, or it was done in partnership, it had to be done. In the early days of our nation, it was God who “saved” an individual. The person didn’t do anything. God elected who was going to be saved before the foundation of the world. Their mistake? They ignored the blood of the covenant. They preached that God could save any one of any race. They were universalists.
But by the early 1800s, the process changed completely. Instead of God being sovereign, the individual was sovereign. It was up to man to choose to be saved. God elected those who were going to be saved? It followed the theology of a man and they called it Arminianism.
Who do you think the “they” are in this verse? Some interpret the word to mean the “Roman soldiers”; others to mean “the band of chief priest, Pharisees and scribes of Israel(i).” Was it the Roman soldiers who took His garments after the Roman soldiers crucified Him or was it the chief priests, Pharisees and elders of Israel(i) who crucified Jesus and then the Roman soldiers took His garments. Which one do you think it is?
There were two separate articles that appeared in the Cincinnati Enquirer and the USAToday newspapers on Friday, August 17, 2018. The first article was about the death of the “Queen of Soul”—Aretha Franklin. It was titled: “Aretha Franklin’s Civil Rights Legacy.” It wasn’t about all the gold records that she recorded, but it was about her support of her Baal preacher father’s anti-Christian civil rights movement. Aretha was needed in the civil rights struggle that her father, Negro preacher, C. L. Franklin, helped lead. Aretha had helped fund the Communist movement quietly and anonymously for decades.
Being here [at FGCP] in March after the death of Pastor Mark Downey, and now passing through again after the burial of Clifton Emahiser, I thought I should seek to offer our community some encouragement.
Disaster and Death: Why Do We Suffer?
This is a broad topic. I won't ever be able to discuss every detail. But Yahweh willing, here we will hit on the important aspects. Perhaps anyone who hears this will stop blaming God for our woes.
In modern times when we have floods and drought, when we have pestilence and disease, very few people who are affected by these things ever even consider what manner of sin they have committed, or what manner of sin they have allowed to exist in their communities, that they should suffer such things. But as our ancient ancestors believed, when such calamities befall us, they are clearly punishments from Yahweh our God. The proof that such a concept was prevalent even in relatively recent times is found in the very origin of the word that is used to describe such calamities, which is crisis. In English, a crisis is a time of danger or trouble. But in Greek the word is decision or judgment, and in our Scriptures it describes the judgment of God. While modern secularized dictionaries attempt to obfuscate this connection, it is the true origin of the modern English use of the word.
Scripture Reading: John 2:16: “Make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.”
Andrew and I went to Grand Rapids, Michigan to witness the Law case of the two Michigan prisoners vs. the State of the Michigan Department of Corrections. The case was held on Monday, August 13, 2018. It was an eye-opening experience for me. It gave me a vivid impression of what the federal court system was all about. It is not about the truth, at all.
We went first to an Christian Identity service on Sunday in Indiana, had dinner afterwards, and then traveled the three hours to Grand Rapids. We found the federal court house in downtown and then drove to the suburbs to find a motel.
On July 20th, 2018, I received an email from the lawyer of the two prisoners in the Michigan jail system, who had filed a law suit against the state of Michigan for their decision in not allowing them the opportunity to participate in a separate Bible study and worship group in the prison. This email came about a month after I had a short talk with the lawyer about my being the “expert witness” in the case in the place of our co-pastor, Mark Downey. Even though everything seemed to be a go, the lawyer and his associates had determined from our short talk on the phone that I would not be a good “expert witness” in the case. I didn’t think that I was auditioning for the role.
Compiled from the sermon notes of Pastor Don Elmore
August 5, 2018
Scripture Reading: John 8:44
This is the second part of the Michigan Law Case in which I am to be an “expert witness” that will be held in August of 2018. Another “expert witness” will be Pastor Everett Ramsey of Missouri. Pastor Ramsey will be ideal for this case. He has some experience with the legal system and will be a faithful representative for the case of Israel’s racial exclusivity.
I am interrupting my Deuteronomy series to compile some of my arguments I will be using in this case which is just next month. After talking with the prisoners’ lawyer by phone, he said that the judge was open-minded. The prosecutors had asked that the case be dismissed, but the judge refused. The upcoming court case in the state of Michigan is to determine whether the prisoners in Michigan will be allowed to hold services under the Christian-Identity banner. There are jewish synagogue meetings, Muslim worship meetings, Judeo-Christian services, Roman Catholics have their mass, but no Christian-Identity meetings are allowed in Michigan reformatories at the present time.
The biggest error of the Reformers was that they had no Covenant in their theology. They all came from their former church of Rome – the Catholic Church. The word “catholic” means universal. The Bible has never taught universalism; just look at what happened at the Tower of Babel. We can only unite under God’s Law. The Catholic Church has no Covenant and neither do the protestant churches today. The Reformers missed the key element of the Bible because of their time in the pagan Roman church. And even Protestantism, as good as it was, remained catholic.
Perhaps the reason the Reformers missed the racial context of Scripture was that in their day the Christian church was White. Historically speaking, there never was a multi-racial church. Christianity had been exclusively White up until about the fifteenth century, so the idea of applying the gospel to all races simply was not in the forefront of the minds of the early Reformers – it seems to have been an oversight. The Reformers were imperfect and many of them disagreed in doctrine and church-political relationships. But they made a good start and we owe them our appreciation. Many of them died for their faith.
“I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”
It is my intention to present a series of sermons on the Protestant Reformation. 2017 marks the 500-year anniversary of the launch of that Reformation (and we are still within that year). I feel small when compared to these giants of the Reformation period.
While the Israelites were in the wilderness, they did not eat the flesh of any of the clean animals that were used in role of a sacrifice. For the sacrificial animal was killed at the door of the tabernacle, and part of it presented to God and the priests as a peace-offering.
The penalty for failing to bring the sacrifice to the door of the tabernacle was to be cut off from the kingdom. What exactly does that mean? Was the person forbidden thereafter to come near the tabernacle? Was he ostracized? Did all his family and friends eliminate all contact with him? Or did it mean that the person had to be executed? It probably meant the latter, as I don’t know how it could have been done when they were traveling in the wilderness.
But when the Israelites finally took possession of Canaan land, where many were given land that was a great distance from the one tabernacle and later the one temple, they might kill what they pleased for their own use of their flocks and herds, without bringing part of the sacrificed animal to the altar.
The unclean Israelite, who might not eat of the holy sacrificed animal, was allowed to eat of the same animal when it was only used as common food. The distinction between clean persons and unclean was sacred, and designed for the preserving of the honor of their holy feasts, and therefore must not be brought into their ordinary meals.