Five Hundred Years Since the Reformation - Part 3



By Jim Jester

September 23, 2018

Scripture: Deuteronomy 17:14-15

And when thou shalt enter into the land which the Lord thy God gives thee, and shalt inherit it and dwell in it, and shalt say, I will set a ruler over me, as also the other nations round about me; thou shalt surely set over thee the ruler whom the Lord God shall choose: of thy brethren thou shalt set over thee a ruler; thou shalt not have power to set over thee a stranger, because he is not thy brother.” – Deut. 17:14-15 Brenton

In Recent News

With the recent funeral of Senator McCain and all the accolades to him, it makes one wonder if they will build him some kind of memorial, as they did president Lincoln, who also was lauded as someone great.

McCain all by himself nearly sank a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier… over $72 million in aircraft damage. Deadliest fire in history of the Navy.

Crew members fight a series of fires and explosions on the U.S.S. Forrestal after flight deck, in the Gulf of Tonkin, 29 July 1967. The conflagration took place as heavily-armed and fueled aircraft were being prepared for combat missions over North Vietnam thanks to a Zuni rocket fired into them from John McCain’s aircraft across the deck of the ship. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A Letter to CBS


To: CBS News, 10/12/97

You did not do your homework well enough on “Hanoi John” McCain. If you had read the lengthy article about him in the April 1973 issue of U.S. News and World Report, you would have seen that in none of his quotes did he allege torture, except from the irate civilians at the scene of his crash. Once in captivity, he lived in relative splendor compared to his hapless cohorts who refused to denounce America on the radio and paid for their patriotism in blood, literally. Here are some other facts your sloppy journalism omitted:

(1) USAF Major Overly could not have cared for McCain’s “wounds” for very long; he collaborated and accepted early release in less than five months from shootdown.

(2) Another of McCain’s roommates “disappeared” and was not released at Homecoming I. McCain was kept in the camp for “progressives” (collaborators) and away from “reactionaries” (John Wayne types who spit in the face of their torturers). Other roommates were Day and Flynn, both of whom made propaganda broadcasts [30-38] along with McCain urging pilots to return to carriers and soldiers to surrender.

(3) McCain returned from communist captivity 10 pounds heavier.

(4) Patricia O’Grady, daughter of a POW/MIA, on a visit to Hanoi to look for her father, was given a tour of the “Hanoi Hilton” prison. They showed her McCain’s cell. It had a writing desk, a large bed, a goldfish bowl, a flush toilet and a nice window of downtown Hanoi out the window.

(5) Both North Vietnamese Generals Giap and Bui Tin met with McCain in his cell. No other returned POWs reported meeting with high-ranking generals. I have a picture of McCain enjoying a large plate of food while talking to a Soviet KGB officer in the Foreign Ministry. A Soviet doctor was rushed to Hanoi to treat his wounds.

(6) In personal conversations I have had with General Bui Tin, he assured me they never touched McCain, saying that since he was the son of the CINCPACFLT Admiral, “He too important”.

(7) McCain said in 1973, he sustained his ordeal with his “love for his wife”. In a matter of months, he had dumped her for a woman 1/3rd his age whose father owned the Coors Beer franchise in Phoenix. (His good friend Senator Kerry, about the same time, dumped his wife after fornicating with Jane Fonda.) McCain also has a secret “wife” in Hanoi and an illegitimate son.

(8) McCain would sit beside with army officers at a table when newly-captured pilots arrived and urged them to cooperate.

(9) McCain viciously fought against the formation of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA and then got on it and sabotaged any hopes of finding real answers. He called me and others crooks profiteering on the issue, yet he is the biggest loot recipient of the Keating Five.

(10) If the “Crowned Prince” of the “Plantation” does not stop his outlandish lies about his “torture”, several of his fellow POW’s “will” soon break their “code of silence”. McCain is a brainwashed Manchurian candidate who has fawningly supported Hanoi and the Communist Bloc countries ever since he entered congress. The man is a liar, a traitor and a crook. Any senator who uses the word “scumbag” 20 times a day addressing his employees is not fit to serve.

Also, CBS, you went on to a segment of a Latino who was on death row (wrongfully) in a “miscarriage of justice”. The biggest “MOJ” of this decade would be for traitor and Hanoi lover McCain to continue in office after the 1998 elections.

Joe L. Jordan

USN Squadron VQ-1

Da Nang 1967-68

National Vietnam P.O.W. Strike Force

P.S. McCain is the only returned POW NEVER TO BE DEBRIEFED.

[End of Letter]

Back in May of this year, Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney (retired) was interviewed on Fox News and said, concerning torture, “The fact is, John McCain—it worked on John. That’s why they call him ‘Songbird John.’” Other officers referred to him as “the Canary.”

John was not a partisan politician – he played both sides of the aisle by many times voting with the Democrats.

There is so much more on McCain but it would take too much to cover. Trump is correct when he says McCain is not a hero. It is possible he did some sort of heroic type survival efforts like living through torture as did so many others during their capture–but that does not make one a hero. That is only doing your duty. A real hero is one who does something above and beyond the call of duty – something exceptional.

Robert E. Lee – War Hero

Lee was a top graduate of the United States Military Academy (second in his class; McCain was among the last) and an exceptional officer and military engineer in the United States Army for 32 years. During this time, he served throughout the United States, distinguished himself during the Mexican–American War, and served as Superintendent of the United States Military Academy.

Presidential advisor Francis Blair offered Lee a role as major general to command the defense of the capital. Lee replied:

“Mr. Blair, I look upon secession as anarchy. If I owned the four millions of slaves in the South I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native state?”

Lee immediately went to Winfield Scott, who tried to persuade him that Union forces would be large enough to prevent the South from fighting, so he would not have to oppose his state; Lee disagreed. When Lee asked if he could go home and not fight, the fellow Virginian said that the army did not need uncertain soldiers and that if he wanted to resign, he should do so before receiving official orders. Scott told him that he had made “the greatest mistake of your life”.

Lee agreed that to avoid dishonor he had to resign before receiving unwanted orders. 

People on the street noticed Lee's grim face as he tried to decide over the next two days, and he later said that he kept the resignation letter for a day before sending it on April 20. Two days later, the Richmond convention invited Lee to the city. It elected him as commander of Virginia state forces before his arrival on April 23, and almost immediately gave him George Washington’s sword as symbol of his appointment. The rest is history.

In an address before the Southern Historical Society in Atlanta, Georgia in 1874, Benjamin H. Hill described Lee in this way:

“He was a foe without hate; a friend without treachery; a soldier without cruelty; a victor without oppression, and a victim without murmuring. He was a public officer without vices; a private citizen without wrong; a neighbor without reproach; a Christian without hypocrisy, and a man without guile. He was a Caesar, without his ambition; Frederick, without his tyranny; Napoleon, without his selfishness, and Washington, without his reward.”

This is a real hero.

Adolf Hitler - War Hero

During WW I, the young Hitler asked to join the Bavarian Army. For most of his tour he was a messenger. Hitler was twice decorated for bravery. He received the relatively common Iron Cross Second Class in 1914 and the Iron Cross First Class in 1918, an honor rarely given to a Gefreiter (Lance Corporal). Hitler's Iron Cross was awarded after an attack in open warfare during which messengers were indispensable and on a day in which the depleted regiment lost, 60 killed and 211 wounded.

During the Battle of the Somme in October 1916, Hitler received a wound in his left thigh when a shell exploded at the entrance to the dispatch runners’ dugout. He begged not to be evacuated, but was sent for almost two months to the Red Cross hospital at Beelitz in Brandenburg. Thereafter, he was ordered to the depot in Munich. He wrote to his commanding officer, Hauptmann Fritz Wiedemann, asking that he be recalled to the regiment because he could not tolerate Munich when he knew his comrades were at the Front. Wiedemann arranged for his return to his regiment on 5 March 1917.

On 15 October 1918, he and several comrades were temporarily blinded.  Hitler also lost his voice due to a British mustard-gas attack. After initial treatment, Hitler was hospitalized in Pasewalk, Pomerania. While there, on 10 November, Hitler learned of Germany's defeat from a pastor, and—by his own account—on receiving this news he suffered a second bout of blindness. Hitler was outraged by the subsequent Treaty of Versailles (1919), which forced Germany to admit to starting the war, deprived Germany of various territories, demilitarized the Rhineland (which was occupied by the Allies), and imposed economically damaging sanctions. Hitler later wrote: “When I was confined to bed, the idea came to me that I would liberate Germany – that I would make it great. I knew immediately that it would be realized.”

And that he did (much like Trump) – this is real heroism.

David’s Prayer of Gratitude (2 Samuel)

Our Scripture reading reveals that our national leaders are to be of our own race, “…of thy brethren thou shalt set over thee a ruler; thou shalt not have power to set over thee a stranger, because he is not thy brother.” – Deuteronomy 17:15

King David was certainly a great king over Israel. He was of our kin as can be shown from the genealogies of the kings of England, Scotland, and other Celtic nations, which records are located in the British museum.

The books of 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles records David’s prayer of gratitude after he was informed by Nathan of God’s message to him.

Then King David went in to the presence of the LORD, sat down, and said: “Who am I, Lord GOD, and what is my household, since you have brought me to this? And this is still a small thing to you, Lord GOD, and yet you have spoken to your servant’s household for a great while to come, and this is the charter of mankind, Lord GOD.

What more can David say to you, and you surely know your servant, Lord GOD. For the sake of your word and consistent with your desire, you have done all of these great things, informing your servant. And therefore you are great, Lord GOD, there is no one like you, there is no God except for you, just as we’ve heard with our own ears.

And who is like your people, like Israel, the one nation on earth that God went out to redeem as a people for himself, to make a name for himself, and to carry out for them great and awe-inspiring accomplishments, driving out nations and their gods in front of your people, whom you redeemed to yourself from Egypt?

You have prepared your people Israel to be your very own people for ever, and you, LORD, have become their God! And now, LORD God, let what you have spoken concerning your servant and his household be done—and let it be done just as you’ve promised. May your name be made great forever with the result that it is said that the LORD of the Heavenly Armies is God over Israel, and that the household of your servant David may be established before you. For you, LORD of the Heavenly Armies, the God of Israel, have revealed this to your servant, telling him, ‘I will build a dynasty for you,’ so that your servant has found fortitude to pray this prayer to you.

Now therefore, Lord GOD, you are God, and your words are true, and you have spoken to your servant these good things. So may it please you to bless the household of your servant, so that it might remain forever in your presence, because you, Lord GOD, have spoken, and from your blessing may the household of your servant be blessed forever.” – 2 Samuel 7:18-29, ISV

David’s prayer is full of devout affection towards God.

  1. He speaks humbly of himself and his own merits. Who am I, Lord God, and what is my house?” (v. 18). David’s house or dynasty is referred to as the “charter of mankind.” That tells me we already have a system of government for our people. This is the Kingdom of God.
  2. He speaks very highly of God’s favors to him. “You have brought me to this” – this great dignity and dominion. God has helped him.
  3. He ascribes all to the free grace of God (v. 21), both the great things He had done for him and the things He had made known to him.
  4. He adores the greatness and glory of God (v. 22): You are great, Lord God, for there is no one like you.”
  5. He expresses a great esteem for God’s chosen people, (v. 23 & 24). As among the gods, there was none like Yahweh, so among the nations, there was none like Israel. These verses are no doubt a “racist” statement in the opinion of the world today.
  6. He concludes with humble petitions to God. He grounds his petitions upon the message that God had sent him (v. 27), “For you, LORD of the Heavenly Armies, the God of Israel, have revealed this to your servant, telling him, ‘I will build a dynasty for you,’” otherwise, he would not have been able to pray this prayer. David prayed within the will of God.

That dynasty was spoken of by Nathan, God’s prophet in verses 11-13,

“…The LORD will himself build a house [dynasty] for you. When your life is complete and you go to join your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who will come forth from your body, and I will fortify his kingdom. He will build a Temple dedicated to my Name, and I will make the throne of his kingdom last forever.”

It is important to pray within the will of God, for that is where our faith lies.

The Preacher’s Homiletical comments:

The same connection between Divine promises and human prayers is taught and practiced in the dispensation of the New Testament. We know that the kingdom of God will “come,” and His will, one day, “be done, as in heaven, so on earth,” yet our Lord commands His disciples to pray constantly for this blessed result. Paul declares in Romans 10:1, that his “heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved, and in the next chapter says that it is the purpose and plan of God when the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, that “all Israel shall be saved.” Promise and petition are indissolubly linked together in the Divine economy, and as Dr. Chalmers remarks, “God’s prophecies tell us what ought to be the subject of our prayers.”

We can expect a positive answer from God when we pray according to His revealed will. The Bible grants us a great promise, “And this is the confidence that we have in him: if we ask for anything according to his will, he listens to us” (1 Jn. 5:14 ISV).

What is Ethno-nationalism?

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.” He continues:

“Properly, nations are people groups, ethnicities, and not governmental or geographical entities. We have a historic basis for Nationalism, and here we have a traditional Christian basis for Nationalism. But from a secular perspective, nationalism has no moral basis by itself, because outside of an acceptance of the God of Scripture, morals become relative. So, this proper interpretation of the Christian Scriptures is the only sound moral basis for Nationalism. This is why to the Jew, Christians are ‘Nazis’ and must be eradicated, and Identity Christians are the biggest ‘Nazis’ of all. Once we realize the true intentions of our enemies, only then do we realize that there is no middle ground for us to stand on.”

In other words, true nationalism is defined by God. There is no civic nationalism in the Bible. In Bible usage, words such as ethnos (Greek), nation, kin, family, and people all signify the substance of race. The people are primary and the political/geographical states are secondary. Therefore, we believe in White nationalism.

Ethnic Evangelism

The covenantal means of redemption by God is why Christ commanded the disciples to go evangelize and baptize the nations (ethnos), rather than mere individuals (Matthew 28:19). We know them biblically as the “lost” ten tribes of Israel (the northern House) defined in the N. T. as “Gentiles.” This is why it is foolish to send missionaries indiscriminately to all nations of the world in an attempt to “win them to Jesus.”

This covenantal-redemption model along genealogical lines continues into and beyond the New Testament period in the Christian church (Acts 2:38-39; 16:14-15, 31-34).

And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.”

Furthermore, God also pours out His covenantal punishment and blessings along genealogical lines, “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me” (Ex. 20:5).

Ethno-nationalism in Scripture

  1. God has revealed the privilege of private property and multi-generational inheritance.

    Exodus 20:15, “Thou shalt not steal.”

    Numbers 27:8-11, “And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it: and it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment, as the LORD commanded Moses.”

  2. Individual property, such as each man dwelling under his own vine and fig tree, is celebrated as a blessing from Yahweh. Jesus also illustrates this principle by teaching his disciples that there are many mansions in his Father’s house. Zechariah 3:10, “In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbor under the vine and under the fig tree.”

  3. God also commands that property boundaries of family, tribe, or nation, are not to be transgressed. Proverbs 22:28, “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.”

  4. God divided the nations, giving each a distinct national inheritance.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9, “When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD’S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.”

Thus, the Bible supports ethno-nationalism; and ours is White.

Ethno-nationalism of the Reformers

John Wycliffe (1320-1384). Wycliffe is famous for being the first man to translate the Bible into the English language. Connecting the Christian principle of ethno-nationalism to man’s chief end of glorifying God, he argued that the English people, with their distinct national character, necessarily “learn Christ’s law best in English. Moses heard God’s law in his own tongue; so did Christ’s apostles.”

Wycliffe was skeptical of the large number of alien clergy in the English Church at the time. These clergy were appointed by Rome, and Wycliffe opposed this as an infringement upon the rightful sovereignty of the English Church as a national church. He believed that the English church structures should reflect natural racial bonds. He also connected this principle to the biblical mandate to take care of one’s own people first (I Tim. 5:8), “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” He said, “The English nation . . . ought to be one body, the clergy and the commonality being alike members thereof.”

John Hus (1369-1415). This Czech theologian was a key predecessor to the Reformation in continental Europe. His God-glorifying life came to a sad end after he was convicted for heresy and burned at the stake.

Referring in a sermon to the foreign invasion of Bohemia in 1401, Hus proclaimed:

“According to every law, including the law of God, and the natural order of things, Czechs in the kingdom of Bohemia should be preferred in the offices of the Czech kingdom. This is the way it is for the French in the French kingdom and for the Germans in German lands. Therefore a Czech should have authority over his own subordinates as should a German.”

Hus’s appeal to God’s law and the natural order signifies his commitment to divine revelation as supremely authoritative. This, of course, was a central doctrinal pillar upon which the Reformation stood. With this appeal to divine revelation, he argues for the principle of kin-rule (Deut. 17:15) – “from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee” – as the ordained order by which states function optimally, and the best means of achieving prosperity and peace.

His argument is based on the recognition of the nature of God’s created order in establishing families, clans, nations, and races distinctly and separately in order to establish beneficial frameworks for the functioning of God’s law.

Finally, his distinction of Bohemia as the land of the Czechs from the “French kingdom” and the “German lands” exemplifies his commitment to the biblical principle of one ethnicity per political unit, in contradistinction to multiracialism and multiculturalism. Of course, some multiculturalism is good as long as it is within our own kind. For example, there are many flavors of European culture: Swedes, Finns, Celts, Slavs, Anglos, etc. The White race is already the most diverse of all races, both in their culture and within their genetics (such as eye-color, hair-color, etc.).

Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) played a decisive role in starting the Reformation; and what would later become the Calvinist stronghold of Geneva. Fighting in the Second Kappel War between the Roman Catholic and Protestant Swiss cantons, he eventually died on the battlefield at a young age.

Several aspects of Zwingli’s understanding of nationhood are apparent from the following:

1. He took pride in his calling to proclaim the gospel to his own people, i.e. considered it an honor to be doing what St. Paul himself so fervently desired but was not allowed to do (Rom. 9:3, “my kinsmen according to the flesh”).

2. He distinguished the Swiss from the Germans not only in terms of nationhood in itself, but also as being two distinct limbs within the body of Christ.

3. He understood the notions of sin, rebellion, and depravity as applicable not only to individuals, but, within the framework of the covenant, to nations as well. In fact, when describing the sorry state of Western Christendom during his time in his Commentary on True and False Religion, Zwingli hyperbolically wrote: “We have become more shameless in our lives than even the Turks and Jews.” His choice to single out the only two non-white nations that Europeans had frequent contact as the great examples by which to measure radical human depravity is quite telling.

Zwingli was a fervent nationalist who believed the Swiss to be a covenanted nation – an “Alpine Israel,” with its twelve cantons corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel. His ideal was that Switzerland would be reformed both spiritually and politically, as a God-fearing nation, to preserve their Fatherland and become a manifestation of God’s Kingdom.

Willliam Tyndale (1494-1536) was the most prominent Protestant Reformer in Great Britain in the early sixteenth century. He was best known for first translating the Bible from its original languages into English. His was also the first English translation of the Bible to be printed. He joined the Reformation in denouncing the practice of prayer to saints and he believed in the doctrine of justification by faith.

Tyndale was also a nationalistic Englishman, having great love for his kin and country. When martyred, even though it took place in continental Europe, his final prayer was not for the world (or even Europe) to be saved, but instead he prayed for the repentance of his own people: “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.”

Tyndale saw nations in the sense of ethnic groups united, among other ties, by common ancestry, as covenantal units providentially subservient to the sovereign blessings or curses of God. In particular, he saw his own English nation as a covenantal unit in need of repentance for its long-term survival.

John Calvin (1509-1564) is regarded arguably as the greatest theologian in church history by many Calvinists.

Making the argument that some knowledge of God is instinctively present in all human beings throughout all ages, suppressed only by their own depravity, he writes:

“Certainly, if there is any quarter where it may be supposed that God is unknown, the most likely for such an instance to exist is among the dullest tribes farthest removed from civilization. But, as a heathen tells us, there is no nation so barbarous, no race so brutish, as not to be imbued with the conviction that there is a God. Even those who, in other respects, seem to differ least from the lower animals, constantly retain some sense of religion; so thoroughly has this common conviction possessed the mind, so firmly is it stamped on the breasts of all men.”

The heathen cited by Calvin was the Roman philosopher from the first century B.C., Cicero, who wrote in his De Natura Deorum (Book II.4), “it is clear that among all nations, the gods are present in the minds, as if naturally engraven thereupon.”

Calvin interprets and casts this rather simple claim of Cicero in a way that commonly would be referred to today as “racist”, referring to races as “brutish” and differing little from the lower animals. He believed that some races were in some respects inferior to others. He does not explicitly mention the race to which he refers, but he notes that there is a race (or races) within the family of mankind, who are not only duller than his own White race, but in fact differ little from even the lower members of the animal kingdom.

This places Calvin in the pro-kinist camp. He would have had nothing of the modern church and the egalitarian notions of multiracialism.

Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575) is regarded as the most influential second-generation Reformer. As the heir to Ulrich Zwingli in Zurich, Switzerland, he consolidated and continued the Swiss Reformation that his predecessor had started. Philip Schaff writes that Bullinger was “a man of firm faith, courage, moderation, patience, and endurance … [who was] providentially equipped” to preserve and advance the truth in a difficult time in history. During his forty-four years as the chief minister in Zurich, Bullinger’s literary output exceeded that of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Zwingli combined. He was preeminent in the spread of Reformed teaching throughout the Reformation. So far-reaching was Bullinger’s influence throughout Europe and England that Theodore Beza called him “the common shepherd of all Christian churches.”

Bullinger was a tireless preacher. For the first ten years of his ministry in Zurich, he preached six or seven times a week. After 1542, he preached twice a week, on Sundays and Fridays, which allowed him to devote himself to a rigorous writing schedule. Bullinger followed Zwingli in the lectio continua method of preaching, moving verse by verse through whole books of Scripture. His expository sermons were biblical, simple, clear, and practical. In all, it is estimated that Bullinger preached over 7,000 sermons in Zurich. These expositions became the basis for his commentaries, which covered much of the Bible.

A Covenant Theologian

Bullinger was famous for his contributions to covenant theology. In one of his most famous works, A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God, Bullinger emphasized the continuity of the one covenant of grace throughout two administrations (the old and the new), countering as erroneous any sharp distinctions made between the covenantal principles of the Old and New Testaments (we in C. I. certainly agree with this).

Bullinger also recognized the important role reserved for nations as covenantal units in God’s will. In 1528 Bullinger wrote a short tract addressed to the Swiss people, Indictment and Earnest Admonition of God Almighty to the Confederation that It Might Turn from Its Sins and Return to Him. In the tract, God addresses the Swiss nation in the first person, reminding them of their special covenantal relationship to Him as their Heavenly King.

Bullinger directly applied the biblical covenantal principles, first revealed to ancient Israel. Regarding the Swiss nation of his day, he insisted on national repentance as a condition for receiving national blessings from God:

“Your land [must] be a land of liberty for the oppressed and a house of righteousness. . . . You should rule not at your own discretion but according to the common laws and in fear of God. . . . Therefore, abandon your ways and serve God with faith, love and innocence. . . . If you remain unfaithful, if you do not protect the good and punish the evil, if you do not forsake your wars and sins and establish a Christian government, then I will punish you as I did Judah and Israel.”

Bullinger saw a covenantal connection between his nation’s forefathers, his own generation, and their posterity. He emphasizes the importance of racial lineage in God’s covenant. Furthermore, he understood his nation’s national separation in serving God’s Kingdom. This is also seen in his emphasis on the distinct common law of the Swiss Confederation alongside biblical law as the only just way by which the confederation is to be ruled according to God’s will.

Understanding the Swiss people as covenantally related to God, he proclaimed that their national sins, as covenantal sins, would be followed by a just national punishment from God, whereas God rewards national repentance with his gracious blessings. For Bullinger, the seemingly international character of Christ’s New Testament Church in no way undoes the racial element of God’s covenantal relationship to mankind. The principles of God’s engagement with man are eternal and unchanging.

The Prayer of King Edward

King Edward VI reigned in England and Ireland from 1547 to 1553, sadly dying at the very young age of 16. He would be succeeded by Bloody Mary. If Edward had lived to reign longer, the horrendous persecution of Protestants under Mary’s reign could potentially have been avoided. The English nation probably lost some of the best elements of their gene pool due to Mary’s persecution and execution of leading Protestants, which possibly has had a long-term detrimental effect on the English nation. This makes Edward’s premature death doubly regrettable.

On his deathbed, Edward prayed for the continued flourishing of his English nation:

“Lord, I commit my spirit to Thee. O Lord, thou knoweth how happy it were for me to be with thee. Yet for thy chosen sake, send me life and health, that I may truly serve Thee. O, my Lord God, blesse thy people, and serve thine inheritance. O Lord God, save thy chosen people of England. O my Lord God, defend this realme from papistry, and maintain thy true religion, that I and my people may praise thy holy Name, for thy Sonne, Jesus Christ’s sake.”

Edward saw it as his divinely appointed duty to lead God’s chosen English people, a covenant nation with a distinct purpose in serving Christ’s Kingdom. He was determined to see the true religion established, penetrating and sanctifying every aspect of English public life. Furthermore, kinship and national identity was, to this noble king, not merely trivial matters as it is to the godless European leaders of today. He even placed his own desires and comforts subordinate to that of his nation. He saw his own nation as a covenantal cornerstone for the preservation of the Christian faith.

May God once again grant us godly leaders like King Edward; who was much like King David, who asked, “who is like your people, like Israel, the one nation on earth that God went out to redeem as a people for himself.”


From the reformers, to our kings, and from the scriptures, racial lineage was central to national identity. This was the doctrine of race and nationhood adhered to and proclaimed during the Reformation. Of course, the reformers, having just come out of Romanism, did not see that salvation was racial in scope as Christian Identity does. But they had enough scriptural influence and common sense to understand racial differences.

The Reformation churches made a good start. It is sad that today’s churches have not stayed with their protestant roots.

Another Recent Story

An example of a church not keeping their theological roots.


Mega-pastor Andy Stanley caught a lot of theological flak back in May for telling his congregation it was time for them to “unhitch” from the Old Testament.

This weekend, however, Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, hit back hard by comparing Stanley’s continuing controversial comments on the matter with an ancient heresy.

Writing in Salem Communications’, Mohler alluded to error of Marcion, who claimed the God of the Old Testament was not the same as the God of the New Testament. For his part, Stanley recently suggested they were the same God but “he was doing two different things.”

“We are looking here at the ancient heresy of Marcion, who argued that the Old Testament must be repudiated by the church,” wrote Mohler.

“Marcion, who lived about the years 85-160, taught that the Old Testament revealed a Creator deity who is not even the same God who sent Jesus. Unsurprisingly, he also held to a heretical Christology. The Old Testament deity was repugnant to Marcion, who argued that Christianity just make a clean break from Judaism. The Old Testament, he taught, reveals a vindictive law-giving Creator deity who bears no resemblance to the merciful redeeming God revealed in Jesus Christ. As Irenaeus, one of the most significant church fathers argued, ‘Marcion himself divides God in two, saying that one is good, the other judicial, and in so doing takes God away from both.'”

He continues: “Marcion was embarrassed by the Old Testament, and so are many modern people. Andy Stanley, at the very least, seems to fear that embarrassment in others, even if he does not identify with it himself.”

It’s rare for American evangelical titans to clash publicly over basic theological doctrine. But that’s what’s happening here.

It all started months ago when Stanley, delivering a sermon to his flock of mega-churches in suburban Atlanta where some 32,000 followers listen attentively every Sunday, suggested the Christian faith must be “unhitched” from the Old Testament. He claimed that “Peter, James, Paul elected to unhitch the Christian faith from their Jewish scriptures, and my friends, we must as well.”

There was shock, wonder, bewilderment expressed by many in the church. Later, in answer to the ensuing controversy, Stanley, the son of Pastor Charles Stanley, told Relevant magazine, “Well, I never suggested we ‘unhitch’ from a passage of Scripture or a specific biblical imperative. … Again, I was preaching through Acts 15 where Peter, James, and Paul recommended the first-century church unhitch (my word, I’m open to an alternative) the law of Moses from the Gospel being preached to the gentiles in Antioch.” …

Other quotes by Stanley:

  • “What Jesus meant when He said He had not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17) was that He came to “replace it.” He insists Jesus’ words should be interpreted: “I am in fact replacing. I’m not going to change what you’ve always been taught. I’m going to challenge you to abandon what you have been taught.”

  • “The Law and the Prophets, the old covenant, had an expiration date.”

  • The Gospel of Jesus “is completely detached … from everything that came before. … God has done something through the Jews for the world. But the ‘through the Jews’ part of the story is over, and now something new and better and inclusive has come.”

  • “God’s arrangement with Israel should now be eliminated from the equation.”

My Comments

Well, the judeo churches are certainly in a pitiful condition. It was inevitable for this to happen, sooner or later. It was the next logical step for the type of thinking we have in churches today. So what kind of thinking am I talking about?

  • The kind of thinking that says God’s Law is not necessary or has been totally abolished.

  • The type of thinking that assumes the New Testament is totally different (multi-racial) from the Old Testament.

  • The kind of preaching that depicts Jesus in opposition to His Father (the loving God vs. the vindictive God).

  • The assumption that our country doesn’t need borders (“we are all the same”).

  • The kind of theological juggling that says, “the Jews are God’s chosen people” (Israel).

  • The idea that the Old Testament is “Jewish scripture.”

  • The type of Protestantism that has no Covenant.

We need another Reformation. But, we need one that includes the Covenant; for without the Covenant there is no anchor to prevent our churches from drifting into deadly waters.

Lord, we pray for a reformation that will not just reveal some of the truths of Bible, but one that will reveal all the truths of Thy holy Word. Amen.