Covenant, Election and Salvation

Is the covenant between God and man to be identified with election unto eternal salvation? Is it to be construed rather as something only very loosely related to salvation? Or is it to be viewed in yet a different manner? This issue has been answered in many ways by different Reformed thinkers over the centuries.

In Scripture, God is unafraid to call His covenant people His "elect." This does not mean that covenant and election (in the sense usually understood) are identical. Rather, because Christ is the preeminent Elect One, all those in Him are addressed by God as His chosen ones. This address is historical and not identical with the eternal decree of predestination to eternal glory. Thus, even though the apostles wrote to churches which doubtless contained members who were not chosen to eternal glory, nonetheless they identified their readers as the elect of God, because they really were a part of the body of the Elect One. This does not lead to false confidence, because these same writers, in the same epistles, provided warnings regarding the necessity of persevering in faith (e.g. 1 Cor 9.24-27). Ultimate benefit, arriving at the final goal of eternal glory, will only come about by way of one route: persevering faith granted and renewed by preserving grace.
To whom does the covenant of grace belong? Closely related and intertwined with the issue of the relationship between covenant and election is the question of who really belongs to the covenant, and to what degree. Numerous writers argue that according to Scripture and early Reformed theology, the covenant embraces a visible community. (Hence, this question relates too to that of the Church.)

In Scripture, there is a much more marked connection between God and an identifiable community than is frequently made today. God associates His name with even wicked people in a remarkable fashion. For example, in 2 Chronicles 36.15-16, we are told that God “had compassion on His people,” but that “they mocked the messengers of God, despised His words, and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against His people, till there was no remedy” (NKJV). Even though Judah in this instance was under divine wrath, they were identified as God’s. His name was upon them by virtue of His covenant.

Nor is this a situation unique to the Old Testament, as is sometimes suggested. Peter says that false teachers will “deny the Lord who bought them” (2 Peter 2.1), implying some kind of redemptive connection between Jesus and teachers who stray from the truth. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 10, Paul employs the wilderness generation of Israel, which fell under divine judgment, as “types” (Greek tupoi - a word which refers to something which sets a pattern) for the present people of God (1 Cor 10.6, 11), who are therefore to take the warning to heart, not to imitate them. Just as Israel was baptized into Moses, ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink - and in fact partook of Christ (1 Cor 10.4) - and yet perished, so the present people of God are to take heed lest they fall (1 Cor 10.12).

Bibliography
Disclaimer: inclusion of material in the bibliography implies neither endorsement of all views expressed in the material, nor that the author of the material endorses (or, if deceased, would have endorsed) the views of this web site. The criterion for inclusion of material in this list is genuine helpfulness to the discussion, not uniformity of viewpoint.

John Barach: “Covenant and Election.” (In The Federal Vision; Steve Wilkins and Duane Garner, eds. Monroe, LA:  Athanasius Press, 2004, pp. 15-44.) A pastoral reflection upon how Scripture addresses the people of God, and a plea to do our preaching and theologizing in imitation of that pattern.
John Calvin, “Special and Common Election.” An excerpt.

Tim Gallant: “Covenant and Election:  A Brief Introduction to Various Views.” A very succinct overview to issues under discussion.

Thomas Goodwin:  “The Covenant Seed: That the Children of Believing Parents Are Included in the Covenant.” An argument from a well-known Puritan regarding the status of believers’ children.

Peter A. Lillback: The Binding of God:  Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.) A highly important study in the original sources, tracing the genesis and shape of early covenant theology.  The section on Zwingli is particularly pertinent to the question of the relationship between covenant and election.

Rich Lusk: “Covenant and Election FAQs.” Responses to various frequent objections or questions raised by the relationship between covenant and election.

Dr. J. Van Genderen: Covenant and Election. (C. Pronk, trans.  Neerlandia, AB: Inheritance, 1995.) Argues that covenant and election are related but not to be identified.

Quotations
What then of Esau if he had died as an infant? Would your judgment place him among the elect? Yes. Then does election remain sure? It does. And rejection remains also. But listen. If Esau had died an infant he would doubtless have been elect. For if he had died then there would have been the seal of election, for the Lord would not have rejected him eternally. But since he lived and was of the non-elect, he so lived that we see in the fruit of his unfaith that he was rejected by the Lord.
- Ulrich Zwingli, Refutation of the Tricks of the Anabaptists 1527

But he makes a special covenant with Isaac, which rises above the world and this frail life: not for the sake of cutting Ishmael off from the hope of eternal life, but in order to teach him that salvation is to be sought from the race of Isaac, where it really dwells.

- John Calvin, Commentaries on Genesis at 17.20

SOURCE: CovenantRenewal.com

The Work Of The Trinity In The Salvation Of Sinners

BY Michael L Gowens

"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." Galatians 4:4-6

The Bible, because it is the word of the eternal, righteous, and immutable God, never contradicts itself. When properly understood, there is an amazing symmetry and consistency in the historical facts it cites, the ethical standards it upholds, and the theological truths it champions. Whenever an apparent contradiction occurs, the disharmony is not in God’s book, but in man’s mind. The interpreter’s challenge, consequently, is essentially a matter of synthesizing each verse with its immediate context, then with the particular book in which it appears, then with the other inspired writing of that same human author, and finally, with the many other claims the Bible makes as a whole. He does this by comparing scripture with scripture. When a level of consistency is achieved so that the truths fit together in a unified way, like the many pieces of jigsaw puzzle go together to form a big picture, then he can be reasonably certain that his view is correct.

Admittedly, accurate interpretation is not easy. But neither is it impossible. Divine help notwithstanding, the more you know- the better grasp you have of the big picture-the easier it will be to understand how all the theological pieces fit together. Remember, the goal is to understand every truth in the light of every other truth so that a kind of theological unity, consistency, harmony, and symmetry prevails.

With that premise, I proceed to state a hypothesis which I will then endeavor to prove: The Biblical doctrine of the Trinity makes the doctrines of unconditional election, particular redemption, irresistible grace, and eternal security a necessity. In other words, "the doctrine of grace" is the only theology of salvation that is consistent with the revealed truth that God is triune. That’s my hypothesis. Let’s attempt to establish it Scripturally.

God is Tripersonal 
Scripture teaches unequivocally that God is triune. The Godhead is composed of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (I Jno. 5:7). Few tenets of the Christian faith have come under greater attack than the doctrine of the Trinity, and few verses of Scripture have been the subject of greater technical scrutiny that I John 5:7, no doubt because it is so unmistakably clear.

First John 5:7 defines the Trinity in terms of "three Persons within the unity of one God:" "There are three that bear record in heaven… and these three are one." God is, therefore, triune, for "trinity" means "tri-unity." This doctrine is, in Pauline language, a Divine mystery. There is more to it than finite minds can comprehend. From passages like Matthew 28:19, however, where the Lord commissions the church to baptize " in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," a formula for expressing this mysterious doctrine emerges. Note the distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost implied by the use of the conjunction "and" : "…in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The language implies that there is a distinction of persons in the Godhead. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father. They are distinct, the one from the other. Now note that the word "name" is singular. Jesus did not say "in the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit," but "in the name…", singular. This suggests that there is a unity of essence within the Godhead. From this verse, the Christian faith derives the formula expressing the doctrine of the Trinity in terms of "a distinction of Persons but a unity of essence." In other words, there is within the Godhead three Divine Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Spirit - who are one in mind, in attribute, in design, in purpose, in ability, and in glory. The Father is 100% God; the Son is 100% God; and the Spirit is100% God. Yes, that is a mystery, not unlike the mystery of the two natures of Christ who was at the same time God of very God and man of very man, not half God and half man. Formulae like this are not intended to explain everything so that no mystery remains, but to safeguard the mystery so that God is not misrepresented by those who speak in His name.

Both oneness and threeness are basic to the being of God. When Christians say they believe in the Trinity, they are not saying that there is one Person in the Godhead who wears three masks, like comedian Red Skelton playing his three famous characters - Klemm Kididdlehopper, Freddie the Freeloader, and The Mean Little Kid - all in the same skit. It is not that God sometimes plays the role of the Father, then decides to be the Son, and then puts on the mask of the Spirit. That’s unitarianism! The unitarian model fails to explain how there could be interaction within the Godhead as expressed in John14:16: "I [the Son] will pray the Father and He will send the Comforter, that He may abide with you forever;" and Psalm110:1: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand till I make the enemies thy footstool." God is not a unit, but a unity. Neither are they saying that they worship three Gods. That’s tritheism! But they are saying that there are three Persons in the Godhead, but one God (I Cor. 8:4-7; cf. Deut. 6:4; Jno. 10:30; 2 Cor. 3:17). Biblical and Historical Christianity is unquestionably trinitarian (Lk. 1:35; Jno. 14:16; Jno. 15:26; Eph. 2:18; Mt.28:19; 2Cor. 13:14; I Jno. 5:7; Rev. 1:4-5).

Salvation is the Work of God 
So, God is a trinity. That’s premise one. Now let’s establish a second premise from Scripture, namely, that salvation is God’s work, not man’s: "Salvation is of the Lord" (Jon. 2:9); "so then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy" (Rom. 9:16); "[God] who hath saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" (2 Tim. 1:9).

What does it mean to say that salvation is God’s work? It means that God works alone, apart from man’s assistance in the salvation of sinners; therefore, all glory goes to God: "But of Him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is make unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord" (I Cor. 1:30-31). It also means that the three Persons of the Godhead work together in the salvation of simmers. "Salvation is of the Lord" means that salvation is the work of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, for God is Tripersonal.

Theologians employ a special phrase ("the economy of the Godhead") to describe the united operation of the three Persons. In whatever activity God engages, the three Divine Persons move in perfect unity, harmony, and cooperation. For example, Creation was the work of the Father (Gen. 1:1) by the Son (Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2) through the agency of the Spirit (Gen. 1:2). Compare also Genesis 1:26-27. There was no conflict, difference of opinion, or disunity within the Godhead in the work of Creation. The combined operation of the Godhead is also displayed in the resurrection of Jesus. Scripture attributes Christ’s resurrection to the Father (Acts 2:24; Acts 13:30), the Son (Jno. 2:19; Jno. 10:18), and the Spirit (Rom. 1:4; Rom. 8:11; I Per. 3:18). Although the three Persons of the Godhead have their respective offices and distinct identities, yet a marvellous oneness and unanimity prevails.

The economy of the Godhead shines most brilliantly in the work of salvation. Note the Divine cooperation expressed in verses like Isaiah 48:16, "The Lord God and His Spirit hath sent Me…", and 2 Corinthians 5:19, "…God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself…" Nowhere is this scene more vivid than in rich theological passages like Ephesians 1 and Romans 8, where Father, Son, and Spirit are pictured as a Divine Team in their respective covenant activities. The covenant of grace was planned by the Father (Eph. 1:4-5; Rom. 8:28-29,33; 2Tim. 1:9), executed by the Son (Eph. 1:7; Rom.8:3-4,34; Jno. 6:37), and applied by the Spirit(Rom. 8:2,9,15). From start to finish, salvation is of the Lord, without the slightest hint of inconsistency or incongruity within the Godhead.

Three New Testament passages express the economy of the Godhead in salvation concisely. By comparing them with one another, we can sharpen the focus on the respective roles of each Divine Person in the Work of salvation. The first, Galatians 4:4-6, heads this essay. The second is I Peter 1:2; "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ…" The third is Jude 1: "Jude…to them that are sanctified by God the Father, preserved in Jesus Christ, and called…" Do you see the references to Father, Son, and Spirit in each of the above verses? By putting these verses together, a composite picture of Trinitarian cooperation in salvation emerges.

(1) The Work of the Father - The passages in Peter and Jude present the Father as the Orchestrator of salvation in the covenant. Election, Foreknowledge (I Pet. 1:2a), and Sanctification (Jude 1a) refer to the initial act of God whereby He chose those whom He loved and set them apart to salvation before the foundation of the world. Each term refers to God’s covenant activity. Contrary to popular interpretation, "foreknowledge" is not synonymous with the attribute of God’s omniscience, but a relational term expressing the idea of covenant love (Cf. Gen. 4:25; Mt. 7:23; Jno. 10:27b). In other words, the word does not refer to rational knowledge, but relational knowledge, not to information but to intimacy. In this sense, God foreknew people, not events: "For whom He did foreknow…" (Rom. 8:29a). God’s choice of a people before the world began was based on His own initiative to establish a covenant relationship with those whom He loved: "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God…" Those whom He loved and chose, He also set apart for Himself, that is, He sanctified them (Jude 1a). Again, the reference to sanctification as a work of the Father must be understood in terms of the covenant of redemption before the world began. In the same way that the Father "sanctified" the Son (i.e. set Him apart in the covenant of grace) and sent Him into the world (Jno. 10:36, He also sanctified His people (again, He set them apart in the covenant as His own special people) and "sent redemption" to them: "He sent redemption to His people: He hath commanded His covenant for ever: holy and reverend is His name " (Ps. 111:9). It was precisely this group of people, i.e., those set apart in the covenant, who were redeemed by Jesus Christ: "For by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified" (Heb. 10:14). The Galatians passage presents God the Father as the great Choreographer of salvation, dispatching (sending) the Son (v.4) and the Spirit (v.6) at the precise and appropriate time, in order to bring us into his family as His adopted sons. The Father who initiated the covenant also orchestrates and deploys the covenant requirements for salvation (cf. Eph. 1:5).

(2) The Work of the Son - Galatians 4:4-5 presents the Son as the Redeemer. The verb "to redeem" means to buy back by paying a price. It presupposes prior ownership, for one cannot "buy back" what one never owned. By definition, then, the doctrine of redemption is inseparably connected to the doctrine of election. Are you beginning to see a kind of continuity in the plan of salvation? The Father sent redemption to His people, and the Son carried out the Father’s plan completely, securing redemption for them all. The Son did not merely make men redeemable, savable, or reconcilable. He actually redeemed (I Pet. 1:18). He accomplished salvation (Jno. 19:30). He reconciled (Col. 1:21)! When he ascended back to the Father’s right hand, He had "obtained eternal redemption for us" (Heb. 9:12). In Christ, all the elect "have redemption through His blood" (Eph.1:7). I Peter 1:2c presents the Son as the Purifier, the One who by the sprinkling of His blood cleansed "His own People" from their sins (Heb. 13:12; Rev. 1:5). This is definitive sanctification (Heb. 2:11; I Cor. 1:2). Jude 1b presents Him as the Warden, who guards the souls He has redeemed. Tereo, the Greek word translated "preserved" means "to keep an eye on; to guard like a warden guards a prisoner." Because they are guarded by the Good Shepherd, no man is able to pluck the sheep from Christ’s hand (Jno. 10:27).

(3) The Work of the Spirit - Galatians 4:6 presents the Holy Spirit as the Divine Resident of the soul. The Father sends the Spirit to indwell the same people for whom the Son was sent in redemption: "Because you are sons [that is, by adoption] God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father" (Gal. 4:6). When he takes up residence in the soul, the Holy Visitor promotes spiritual desire for God comparable to a child’s intuitive desire for its parent. Through this "Spirit of adoption" we cry "Abba, Father" (Rom. 8:9). I Peter 1:2 pictures the Spirit as the Sanctifier, the One who personally applies the blood of Christ to the soul, individually and vitally cleansing the heart from personal sin. In contrast to the Father’s sanctifying work, which we called "covenant sanctification," and the Son’s sanctifying work, which we called "definitive sanctification," the Spirit’s work of sanctification in respect to eternal salvation might be expressed by the term "vital sanctification." When a person is born again, he is cleansed and washed within by the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:24; Titus 3:5; Jno. 13:10). Jude presents the Spirit as the Voice, the One who calls the chosen and redeemed individual, though personally dead in sins, into new life by His sovereign, life-giving voice (Jno. 5:25). The Spirit only calls those whom the Father elected: "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose" (Rom. 8:28). But, He calls them everyone: "For whom He did foreknow, them He also did predestinate…moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He also called…" (Rom. 8:29-30). Do you see the unity and consistency that prevails in God’s plan of salvation? Interestingly, the word kletos, translated "called" in these texts speaks of the power, force, and Divine greatness of the call. The word does not speak of an invitation, like "the call of the wild," but of a creative fiat, a Divine imperative. The call of God in regeneration is an effectual call, accomplishing God’s intended objective every time.

Application 
My hypothesis states that the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity makes the doctrines of unconditional election, particular redemption, irresistible grace, and preservation of the saints a necessity. There is no other school of soteriological thought that is consistent with the revelation of the Godhead. If one accepts what the Bible says about the Being of God, he is forced to the conclusion of sovereign grace, if he will be consistent. On what basis can I make such bold (and some may say, dogmatic) claim? On the basis of this fact:

Every other position regarding how sinners are saved disrupts the unity of the Godhead. Take, for instance, the idea of general atonement (i.e. Christ died for all men without exception and offers salvation freely to all who will repent, believe, accept, etc.). I ask, will all for whom Christ died ultimately be saved? General atonement says, "No, for only those who accept His offer will be born again by the Spirit." This position disrupts the unity of the Trinity, for it teaches that the Son died for all, but the Spirit will only call some. What about the popular belief that God chose those He forenew would believe in Him, although He loved the entire human race and made salvation available to them all at the cross? By defining election in terms of the foreseen faith of the believer, a consistency is reached between the work of the Father and the work of the Spirit, but what about the work of the Son? This position says that the Father chose some, the Son died for all, and the Spirit will call some. Again, there is disunity. Many Christians, I venture to say, believe that God the Father loves all people equally, that God the Son died for all people equally, but that the Spirit will only call those who respond in faith to the gospel. Again, this position introduces an element of inconsistency into the Trinity. The idea that some who have been redeemed can backslide to the point that they lose their salvation also interjects an element of uncertainty and incongruity into the Godhead. Whatever form it takes - the Father chose all, the Son died for all, but the Spirit will only call some; the Father chose some, the Son died for all, but the Spirit will only call some - the interjection of a human element into the work of salvation contradicts the Biblical testimony concerning the harmony and unity of the Trinity and makes the outcome of salvation vague and uncertain. The old adage puts it succinctly: A chain is no stronger than its weakest link.

Is salvation uncertain? 2 Timothy 2:19 says, "The foundation of God standeth sure having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His…." 2 Samuel 23:5 says that God’s covenant is "ordered in all things and sure…." Matthew 1:21 says that Jesus "shall save His people from their sins." Language of certainty like this is unintelligible so long as salvation depends on man at any level.

The "doctrine of grace" is the only model of salvation that preserves the unity of the Trinity by maintaining consistency and harmony from start to finish. God the Father chose a people. God the Son redeemed that precise people. God the Holy Spirit calls that same people from death in sin to life in Christ. Not one shall be lost. Everyone the Father intended to have with Him will be with Him. One day Jesus will say, "Behold I and the children that Thou hast given me" (Heb. 2:13), not some of the children or most of the children, but every one the Father loved, the Son redeemed, and the Spirit called. From start to finish, Salvation is of the Lord, by His free and sovereign grace.

Few verses more plainly demonstrate the consistency and continuity of the work of salvation than Romans 8:29-31. Trace the "whom’s" and the "them’s" in the passage: "For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?" Because salvation is God’s work, the "glorified" at the end of verse thirty are precisely the same people designated as the "foreknown" at the beginning of verse twenty-nine. Salvation is of the Lord, by free and sovereign grace! No other school of thought harmonizes with the other Bible doctrines. No other missing piece fits the puzzle. The doctrine of the Trinity makes belief in the doctrine of grace the only option for those who would be true to the word of God.

Source: Sovereign Grace Publications

“Unconditional Election”: “the man whom the Lord chooses shall be the one who is holy”

Originally posted by Bill Hornbeck | July 27, 2014

Today’s devotion comes from Numbers 16:1-7.

“1 Now Korah the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took action, 2 and they rose up before Moses, together with some of the sons of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen in the assembly, men of renown.  3 They assembled together against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, “You have gone far enough, for all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is in their midst; so why do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?”

4 When Moses heard this, he fell on his face; 5 and he spoke to Korah and all his company, saying, “Tomorrow morning the Lord will show who is His, and who is holy, and will bring him near to Himself; even the one whom He will choose, He will bring near to Himself.  6 Do this: take censers for yourselves, Korah and all your company, 7 and put fire in them, and lay incense upon them in the presence of the Lord tomorrow; and the man whom the Lord chooses shall be the one who is holy.  You have gone far enough, you sons of Levi!”  Numbers 16:1-7.

--------------------------------

“Unconditional Election” is shown by today’s Scripture:  “the Lord will show who is His, and who is holy, and will bring him near to Himself;  even the one whom He will choose, He will bring near to Himself” (verse 5) and “the man whom the Lord chooses shall be the one who is holy” (verse 7).  

“Unconditional Election” is the “U” of “TULIP”, the Five Points of Calvinism, the Reformed Doctrine of Salvation.  God unconditionally elects those whom He is going to save.  Or, in the language of today’s Scripture, God chooses those whom He will bring near to Himself to make holy.

“How blessed is the one whom You choose and bring near to You
To dwell in Your courts.
We will be satisfied with the goodness of Your house,
Your holy temple.”  Psalm 65:4. 

“For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;  and these whom He predestined, He also called;  and these whom He called, He also justified;  and these whom He justified, He also glorified.”  Romans 8:29-30.

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him.  In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.”  Ephesians 1:3-6. 

Source:ReformedDoctrine.com

The Apostle's Definition of Election

The teaching that God from eternity, before the world was even created, chose a definite number of people to be saved comes from the pen of the Apostle Paul. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing  in the heavenly  places in Christ, just  as He  chose us in Him before  the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,having  predestined us to adoption as sons by  Jesus Christ  to  Himself, according  to the good pleasure of His willµ (Eph. 1:3-5). This statement is amazing and merits our close analysis. We are told that God the Father has blessed us, that is, Christians or believers, with every  spiritual blessing. These  blessings are  designated spiritual because they  are derived from the Holy  Spirit who applies Christ•s perfect work of  redemption to our souls. When Paul says every spiritual blessing...in Christµ he means that every aspect of redemption that Jesus accomplished for His people (justification, sanctification, adoption,glorification) is ours (i.e. true believers).  

In verse four we come to the section of Paul•s statement that is controversial. Paul says that all  the blessings of  salvation that believers have, have  their source  in the electing  love of  God  the  Father. Divine election is the source  or  origin of  every Christian•s salvation. The word chose (Greek, exelexato) means to elect. God elected us in Christ. This word is frequently avoided or redefined in evangelical churches because if God  elected some (i.e. everyone  in Christ) then by  logical implication others are  not elected.  That is, they  are  left by  God  to perish in their sins. Because many  professing Christians don•t think such a  view  is democratic  or  fair, they  turn this passage  upside down and teach that God  only  chooses men who first choose  Him. This view  will  be considered in a moment. Note  that election is in  Christ. The  elect are  chosen  to be  in Jesus. Everyone chosen  by  God  will  be  united to the Savior  (their federal head  and representative)  and thus will receive everything merited for them by the Mediator (regeneration, the gift of the Holy Spirit, justification, definitive sanctification, perseverance, glorification). Thus,
we see that the ultimate ground of our federal union with Christ is not our faith in Jesus, but rather, our faith in the Savior is ultimately rooted in our federal union with Christ.Although we are not actually justified until we lay hold of Christ by faith in space and time, the gifts of  regeneration (Jn. 3:8;  Ac. 11:18)  and faith (Eph. 2:8) would not be bestowed by Christ without first the divine election of particular sinners.

Paul then gives us the time when election took place. He chose us in Him before the foundation of the worldµ (v. 4). Before time began, before the universe even existed, in eternity God chose those who He wanted to save in Christ. This statement tells some very important things regarding God•s plan of salvation. We see that everything relating to the salvation of sinners is worked out in exhaustive detail in God•s mind before the world even exists. There are no areas or pockets of chance in God•s universe. He works everything  according  to the counsel of  His own will. Nothing  that happens can or  will take God by surprise. What this all means is that in the salvation of particular sinners, the elect ones, there cannot be failure. Their salvation is certain. Thus, salvation is from the Lord (Jonah 2:9). Christians are  not saved by  anything  they  have  done.  They  are  not ultimately  saved because  they  made  a  choice; but, because God  chose  them. In other words, according to His great love and mercy He saved us. What a blessed gospel! God reaches out and saves those who cannot save themselves. 

 This teaching  is supported by  verse  5  which  says  that  God  predestined us to adoption as sons [i.e. to  be  part of  His own family]  by  Jesus Christ…according  to the good pleasure  of  His  will.µ  The  word predestined (Greek, proorisas) means to predetermine or to determine beforehand. In context the word beforehand can only mean before  the foundation of the world. The  word predestined repeats the  same  idea  as contained in verse four:  He chose us…before the foundation of the world.µ God decided before creation began exactly who would be a part of His saved people. Therefore, the number  of  the elect  was set in granite  before  any  humans even existed. To  argue otherwise is to say  that  either God  is not sovereign or  that Paul writing  by  divine inspiration made a mistake. Such ideas are obviously unchristian and demonic. 

 God•s choosing, election or predestination of those people who are to be saved is said  to be  according  to  the good pleasure  of  His willµ  (v.  5). This means that God•s choice of the elect has absolutely nothing to do with anything outside Himself. It is not based on the foreseen faith of  those who would choose  Christ  as Wesley  proclaimed. Indeed, it cannot be based on what man does because: (a) man is dead in trespasses and sins  (Eph. 2:1), spiritually  blind (1 Cor. 2:14), hostile  to God  (Rom. 8:6-8)  and completely unable to choose spiritual good (Rom. 8:6-8; Jn. 15:5; Ps. 14:3). Therefore, God must take the initiative in saving a people for Himself and that is exactly what He does when He  chooses a  people in Christ. Because election has everything  to do with what God  does and is not at all  based on man•s initiative, theologians refer to it  as unconditional  election. The  ground  of  election is God•s sovereign will, not  the will  or choice of men who are spiritually dead and unable to believe in Christ. 

 The  purpose  or goal  of  divine  election is that we  should be  holy  and  without blame  before  Him in loveµ  (v. 4). Commentators are  divided over whether  or  not the word holiness in verse  4 is subjective  and designates sanctification or  is objective  and refers to justification (i.e. Christ•s perfect righteousness imputed to believers). If one believes it refers to sanctification the word blameless would refer to a person•s sinless perfection at the final resurrection. Whatever interpretation one  follows,  one  thing  is crystal clear. Election does not open the possibility of salvation, but guarantees its actual accomplishment. Election does not make salvation possible nor does it take men part of the way to heaven; rather, it takes sinners all the way to paradise to behold the face of God. It does not merely bring him to conversion; it brings him to perfection. It purposes to make him holy that is cleansed from all sin and separated entirely to God and to his service and faultless that is, without any blemish whatever (Phil. 2:15), like a perfect  sacrifice.3 Election is a God glorifying doctrine that ought to be precious to every Bible-believing Christian.  

Extracted from the article of Brian Schwertley entitled Chosen by God: The Doctrine of Unconditional Election. You can download and read the whole article HERE in PDF format or in DOC format HERE.

DEBATE: Dr. Michael Brown Versus Dr. James R. White

Youtube Video: Dr. Michael Brown vs. Dr. James White - Predestination, Election and the Will of God

Dr. Michael L. Brown vs. Dr. James White at Southern Evangelical Seminary, February 14, 2013.

For whom did Christ die?

Dr. James White v. Dr. Michael Brown

In reflecting on this "debate" Dr. White wrote:

First, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the term “debate” in this instance, for a number of reasons. This might be one of those times where “discussion” is really the better term. The actual interaction time was limited, only about 53 minutes total, after which time our discussion was driven by the audience in the main. And though we both attempted to be as brief and concise as possible, still, without specific time controls, complete equality was not possible to obtain. And particularly in the second discussion we (I think quite properly) had more actual personal interaction on a pastoral level.

Whatever term we choose to describe the discussions, they were most certainly unusual for most of Christian television anywhere in the world, and in Europe in particular. While there may be lots of panel discussions recorded for broadcast, this kind of open and honest disagreement based upon the highest view of Scripture and inspiration, by two participants, both of whom have studied the biblical languages (Michael being the expert in Hebrew, and I having the advantage in Greek), is certainly not your normal fare on what is called Christian television. On that level alone I am very pleased that these programs will be available for viewing for at least the foreseeable future.

This is not the first time Michael and I have demonstrated that you can disagree strongly and still do so respectfully...

Regarding the Atonement Discussion

I did all I could to start the debate on the right foot, which is hard to do in less than five minutes. But I focused upon what must be the heart of any such discussion: the vital relationship between the extent of the atonement and the divine intention of the atonement. This element, together with 1) the covenantal nature of the death of Christ as the very ground and source of the New Covenant and, 2) the intimate, necessary, and glorious nature of Christ’s high priestly role and hence the connection of atonement and intercession, formed the heart of my argument. I believe a fair analysis of the encounter would confirm that these arguments were not undercut by anything Michael offered. Instead, it was plain to me that his opening arguments were based not on the provision of a biblical doctrine of atonement, but upon a general denial of particularity in salvation itself. He focused far more upon emphasizing “all” passages than upon providing any kind of positive doctrine of intentionality or accomplishment in atonement. This was not a failure on Michael’s part, it is the nature of non- Reformed soteriology in general. It simply does not go deeply into the biblical revelation at this point, for the deepest most illuminating texts on this topic (Romans 8, the Hebrews chapters) are all connected to sovereignty, election, priesthood and intercession. This is why Michael was forced (and this, to me, was the deciding moment in the debate) to divide, conceptually and practically, the atoning work of the High Priest and the intercessory work. So, Christ dies for every individual, even for those already under God’s judgment, but Michael sees how impossible it is to keep that priestly work unified, so he denied that Christ is interceding for those who are already under judgment. Now if he could just follow that thought to its conclusion and see the power of it! Instead, he seemed to wish to deny the fact that even in Israel you had the physical offspring of Abraham and the spiritual offspring of Abraham, and that it is the remnant (λεῖμμα), those who are of faith, who were in view in the sacrifices and the priestly ministrations. So he wished to insist that the sacrifice of atonement on the day of atonemente was for all of Israel, and hence potential in nature. I disputed this on a few accounts, but time did not allow an in-depth discussion.

I would simply point out that 1) the offering in Leviticus 16 is limited to the covenant people of God; it did not make atonement for the Egyptians or Moabites or Assyrians. It was, by nature, covenantal and hence “limited”;

2) there is good ground for arguing for a limitation even within the Old Covenant context based upon the obedience and faith of the remnant of Israel (many bore in their bodies the covenant sign but were not of the remnant as they were not of faith); but most importantly

3) the New Testament text makes the limitation explicit in the phrase τους προσερχομενους δι αυτου τω θεω, those drawing near to God through Him (Hebrews 7:25). In any case, the powerful argument based upon Christ’s high priestly ministry, together with the inarguable fact that the ones for whom the sacrifice is offered and the ones for whom the High Priest intercedes are identical, was clearly presented and defended. I truly wonder how many who heard that program heard about these wondrous truths for the first time? What a privilege to have the opportunity to proclaim them!

Of course, if someone in the audience does not remain focused upon the topic, they may well be distracted by the other issues raised, especially by the audience interaction. Texts such as 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 4:10, etc., which I have discussed in depth in my published works, again show that the primary objection to particular redemption is found in a rejection of particularity as a whole, i.e., in objections to election. I can only hope that those who found those objections weighty will take the time to dig into the interactions Michael and I had previously on those topics.

Here then is Part 1:

Part 2: Questions and Answers



Taken from Reformation Theology. For more similar articles pls click HERE.

THE OIL BROTHERHOOD

Where did the Saudi monarchy come by a Hitler dagger? That would be from the time our close ally tried to cut a deal with Hitler to kill Jews. MORE...

The OIL Brotherhood I

As the 1932 presidential elections began, Hitler and the Nazi party were almost broke. They were desperate for funds. And then, after meeting with the captains of industry, Hitler was suddenly flush with cash.

According to Hitler's vice-Chancellor, Franz von Papen (34), "the most documented account of the National Socialists' sudden acquisition of funds was contained in a book published in Holland in 1933." It was published "by the old established Amsterdam publishing house of Van Holkema & Warendorf, called De Geldbronnen van Het Nationaal-Socialisme (Orie Gesprekken Met Hitler) under the name "Sidney Warburg."

In that book, "The Financial Sources of National Socialism" it is claimed that Hitler's rise to power was aided directly by Wall Street bankers, industrialists, and oil companies, including Standard Oil, and John O. Rockefeller, who contributed $32,000,000 between the years 1929 to 1932.

In the opening paragraphs, the author, who calls himself "Sydney Warburg" states that: "There are moments when I want to turn away from a world of such intrigue, trickery, swindling and tampering with the stock exchange .... Do you know what I can never understand? How it is possible that people of good and honest character -- for which I have ample proof -- participate in swindling and fraud, knowing full well that it will affect thousands."

The New York Times (11/24/1933), was quick to dismiss the book, but in so doing, revealed its own Nazi sympathies: "Hoax on Nazis Feared."

Feared?

The New York Times. "feared" that not only the Nazis, but the publishers were "victims of a hoax."

The New York Times was apparently a fan of Hitler, for prior to 1933, and during the same time Rockefeller and Standard Oil were contributing millions of dollars, it ran several quite positive stories about Adolf Hitler in 1929, 1930, and 1931 (35) as did the Hearst publishing empire (15).

The author of this "feared hoax" was "Sydney Warburg." However. after the book's publication, not only the New York Times but the Warburg family, which included Max Warburg, a director of IG Farben in Germany, and Paul Warburg a director of American IG. Farben, denounced the book. Of course, we also know that IG. Farben was a major financial supporter of Hitler, and we know the Standard Oil and the Bush-Harriman clique were in business with IG Farben (36). S,. the Warburg denunciation cannot be taken completely seriously.

Nevertheless, James Warburg demanded that the book be destroyed because it contains "a mass of libelous material against various members of my family and against a number of prominent banking houses and individuals in New York." However, Warburg then goes on to say. "I have never to this day seen a copy of the book" (37).

Within days of the books publication. and although those who denounced it have never seen a copy it disappeared from circulation and almost all copies were quickly destroyed (36).

As detailed in Antony C. Sutton's well documented book. Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler (36). the first section of the book explains that in 1929. American banks and investors were concerned that the demands by France on German war reparations, were eating into their own profits. Thus. these American business men called a meeting in June 1929 to discuss the problem and what might be done. Those in attendance included "members of the Federal Reserve Bank and leading American bankers" including the "directors of Guaranty Trust Company. the Presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks. in addition to five independent bankers, young Rockefeller. and Glean from Royal Dutch Shell. Rockefeller" and "Carter" of Guaranty Trust Company. "dominated the proceedings. The others listened and nodded their heads."

Antony Sutton, then goes on to report that according to Warburg's book, "The general consensus at the bankers' meeting was that the only way to free Germany from French financial clutches was by revolution, either Communist or German Nationalist."

Rockefeller argued that the money should go to Hitler. After some negotiation, 10 million dollars was transferred to the Nazis.

During subsequent meetings, it was explained that Hitler's storm troopers and SS, were insufficiently equipped and badly needed machine guns, revolvers, and carbines. Hitler explained that he had two plans for takeover in Germany: (a) revolution (b) legal takeover plan. Hitler is quoted as saying, "revolution costs five hundred million marks. Legal takeover costs two hundred million marks -- what will your bankers decide?"

A legal takeover thus offered the best deal.

Warburg passed these demands to Rockefeller and Guaranty Trust and received the following answer in reply:

"Suggested amounts are out of the question. We don't want to and cannot. Explain to man that such a transfer to Europe will shatter financial market. Absolutely unknown on international territory. Expect long report, before decision is made. Stay there. Continue investigation. Persuade man of impossible demands. Don't forget to include in report own opinion of possibilities for future of man."

After further negotiations, Rockefeller and the American banking and oil interests offered an additional $15 million which would help finance the legal takeover. Revolution would be too expensive and destructive.

In the months after Hitler took power, in 1933, Warburg delivered yet another payment from Rockefeller and Carter and their associates in banking, industry, and oil, i.e. 7 million dollars (37).

Although the New York Times, and the directors of IG Farben -- a company that assisted in the murder of millions of men, women, and children -- have decried this cruel "hoax" which puts the Nazis, Rockefeller, Standard Oil, and the bankers at Guaranty in such a bad light, we do know that these men and these companies were in business with the Nazis (13). And we know that Emil Helfferich, chairman of the Bush-Harriman company, Hamburg- Amerika, was also chairman of Standard Oil's German subsidiaries. Emil Helfferich frequently wrote out checks to Heinrich Himmler payable on a special Standard Oil account. According to U.S. intelligence documents reviewed by author Anthony Sutton (36). Helfferich was still making these payments to the S.S. in 1944 -- the same S.S. which was rounding up. enslaving. and supervising the mass murder of Russians. Jews. Gypsies, Poles, etc., at IG Farben's death camps.

Image taken from - The Muslim Nazi Connection - CLICK HERE TO READ THE BLOG.

The OIL Brotherhood II

From 1927 to 1941, the future director of the CIA, Allen Dulles worked as lawyer and international finance specialist for Sullivan & Cromwell, a Wall Street law firm in New York. Dulles performed work for Bush, Harriman, and Rockefeller in setting up business relationships with the Nazis and with top Nazi industrialists, and served as legal counsel for Standard Oil and the Nazi's IG Farben, who had partnered with the Rockefellers (43).

Allen Dulles played a pivotal role in promoting U.S.-Nazi corporate relations. The Nazis considered Allen Dulles to be "the most influential White House man in Europe" and Dulles had numerous meetings with top ranking members of the SS (6).

In fact both Dulles brothers (John Foster, later Secretary of State, and Allen, later director of the CIA) represented the interests of Bush, Harriman, Rockefeller, and other Nazi collaborators prior tom during and after the ending of the second world war. Whereas Allen served as a spymaster. lawyer and deal maker who brought over a thousand high ranking Nazis into the CIA and found jobs for them in the Republican party and corporate America (43.44), John Foster Dulles was on the board of IG Farben who had partnered with Standard Oil (43).

As was the case with Guaranty Trust, which provided loans to the Nazis and to the Soviet Union, Rockefeller's Standard Oil was also in business with Hitler's nemesis: the Soviet Union. By doing business with both fascist regimes. this guaranteed that regardless of who won the war. Standard Oil would profit. The Dulles' brothers are said to have played a major role in ironing out the Soviet deal.

In 1938, oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia. The king of Saudi Arabia. Ibn Saud, was a supporter of Adolf Hitler. Dulles. acting as a representative of Standard Oil (as well as IG Farben) also played a major role in negotiating and gaining major concessions from Ibn Saud.

As Saudi Prince Bandar explained to PBS Frontline (45): "America has never been a colonizing power as far as we were concerned. Our relationship with America ... started in the 1930s. And when the Americans came to Saudi Arabia. they didn't come as an invader. They came actually as a private sector. trying to help us find oil. They found the oil for us. and they've been our friends ever since."

The result of these discoveries and negotiations was a joint venture between Standard Oil, Texaco. and Mobil. and the formation of the Arabian-American Oil Company (ARAMCO). King Ibn Saud and his family were promised millions in return. whereas the Arabian people received basically nothing (46).

By 1944. Standard Oil had twice artificially created oil shortages as a means of gaining leverage over the U.S. government. Based on the discoveries made in Saudi Arabia, the Standard oil-led cartel successfully lobbied the U.S. Senate. which in turn proposed that the U.S. government should finance the construction of oil pipelines and oil refineries so as to meet future energy needs. With the assistance of the Dulles brothers. this proposal soon became a program to assist Standard oil and ARAMCO in the Persian Gulf.

In February and March of 1944, the "Special Committee Investigating Petroleum Resources" began hammering out the details. As summarized by the United States National Archives: "18.94 In February 1944, the Petroleum Administrator for War, Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes, announced that the Arabian-American Oil Co. would construct a refinery to produce petroleum war products for the Allied Nations, and that the U.S. Government would construct a petroleum pipeline from the Persian Gulf area to the eastern shore of the Mediterranean and would obtain a crude oil petroleum reserve of one billion barrels in the Gulf area." Because of interests pertaining to "national welfare and security" this Special Committee also agreed to "the disposal of Government-owned pipelines and refineries as surplus properties, tidelands oil, and other issues related to petroleum supplies."

In other words, after twice being held hostage by Standard Oil, the U.S. government agreed to give "Government-owned pipelines and refineries" to this Standard oil-led cartel, and to fund the creation of new pipelines and refineries in Saudi Arabia.

The U.S. government and the oil cartel headed by Standard Oil, were now in business with the "royal family" of Ibn Saud. Saud and his family began receiving millions of dollars in payments as their reward for selling out so cheaply (46).

Roosevelt, it is said, had been considering bringing charges of treason against Dulles, Bush, and Rockefeller following the conclusion of the second world war. However, Roosevelt's death put a stop to that. Not only did these traitors get off scott free, but the Dulles brothers also received handsome rewards, Allen becoming the first director the CIA, and John, the Secretary of State.

Nevertheless, although faded by time, and despite the purposeful destruction of incriminating records, the facts remain the same: Prescott Bush, the Harrimans, Rockefellers, the Dulles brothers, and Ibn Saud, had partnered with a terrorist Nazi regime at war with the United States. The Saudi royal family, the Bush family, the Harrimans, Rockefellers, American banks. American Oil, and America's political elite, went into business with Nazi terrorists who murdered tens of millions of innocent, men, women, and children, including tens of thousands of Americans. They partnered with a terrorist regime that was at war with America for three interrelated reasons: money, oil, and power.

Decades later, after Bush was elected vice-president and then President, he, the Saudi royal family, and the CIA, would provide tens of millions of dollars in support of yet another terrorist organization that would declare war with the United States, this one ostensibly headed by Saudi multi-millionaire, Osama bin Laden.

As we shall see. doing business with gangsters, thugs, and terrorists who preach death to America, and who kill Americans, is a Bush family tradition (4,47).

(EXTRACTED FROM THE Online BOOK entitled AMERICA BETRAYED: BUSH, BIN LADEN & 9-11, Chapter 3: THE BROTHERHOOD OF DEATH. You can read the whole book from this website --> PLS CLICK HERE.

JESUITS ILLUMINATI CONSPIRACY AGAINST FREE AND CHEAP ENERGY.

"Bermen heard from Skorzeny that he had personally suffocated Nikola Tesla on January 6, 1943, assisted by fellow-Nazi Reinhard Gehlen. Tesla was then 86 years old.
According to Skorzeny, he and Gehlen had tricked Tesla the previous day into revealing the full details of his most important discoveries. After the murder, they stole the contents of Tesla’s safe, which were delivered to Hitler. (Note, of course, that the US military would have fully repatriated this treasure trove of innovation through Project Paperclip at the end of the war.)

In its entire history, the EPA has not found one single innovation to be effective at increasing fuel efficiency. After thousands (or tens of thousands) of inventions being tested by their protocols, not one has received their vote of approval.  Thousands of inventions proved false? Doesn't this strike you as odd?......An unknown number of solutions have been created to solve our world's problems, and the respected authorities, through application of faulty and inadequate testing methods, shove them (and their solutions) into obscurity.  If they were to agree to adding to the protocols, it would prove conclusively the fraud that has been perpetrated on every fuel-efficiency developer since the mid-70's that has submitted their devices for validation.

The question in the minds of representatives in Washington, DC would have been, “Why should the taxpayers finance the construction of giant reactors to experiment with hot fusion reactions that produce nuclear waste and lethal amounts of radioactivity, when cold fusion research only requires a small fraction of the funding, while producing no waste and little radioactivity?”.....Everyone involved has blood on their hands from all the people on this planet that have died due to the suppression of this technology.  Literally, due to their suppression of cold fusion, children have needlessly starved, millions have suffered dehydration due to a lack of clean water, the environment has been trashed, and the global economy has been almost destroyed.
.....There were enemies of mankind in 1989 that wanted to prevent the proliferation of cold fusion, and there are still such enemies today. Reading about how cold fusion research was attacked from the very start can help us prepare for attacks from these in the future. We cannot let greedy, selfish, and power-hungry monsters and their countless minions suppress cold fusion for another twenty years or more. There are too many lives at risk. Simply put, the future of our civilization is at stake.

Free Energy is real, but "powerful people" spend a lot of money covering this up and suppressing new technologies, it is not a theory, it is a reality.  I have been looking for free energy technologies for a while now, there are many scams out there, but a few concepts stood out from the rest. I have verified and spoken to several witnesses to some of these technologies. i have decided to help the world know the truth by spreading the word about these very amazing devices. In the link below i have information on the working devices. "" I hope you take advantage of these and stop paying the OIL goons  for energy you could receive for FREE." (Extracted from Free or cheap Energy & Transport conspiracy )

YOUTUBE VID: Who Killed The Electric Car? (Documentary)

"The big oil companies and their political allies may hate the very idea of the electric car, but writer-director Chris Paine remains an unabashed fan of the technology. His informative and entertaining documentary, which makes an explicit link between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming, traces the evolution and eventual marketplace failure of the innovative vehicle. Laying the blame at the feet of General Motors (which eventually reclaimed the first models leased to consumers and crushed and buried them in the Nevada desert), apathetic politicians, and an unrepentant oil industry, Paine also gives voice to the car’s staunch defenders, Mel Gibson among them. He may have a clearly defined axe to grind but, in this war-ravaged and environmentally distressed day and age, Paine’s passion is worth attending to. Filmmaker Chris Payne explores the many factors that played into the ultimate failure of the electric car to catch on with consumers, even as gas prices began to skyrocket, in a thoughtful meditation on the increasingly important role that renewable energy plays in modern society. Introduced as a means of providing an alternative to increasing oil consumption and reducing pollution in 1996, the electric car was all but a forgotten memory only a decade later - but why?" - Top Documentary

Of all the secrets being protected by the government on behalf of the coercive-monopolists who control it, none is more important that the flying saucer electrodynamic propulsion technology of Nikola Tesla, which is why there is still such a big hullabaloo over it, over 56 years after the U.S. government acquired it from Nazi Germany. .....My agenda is out in the open: To encourage people to realize that UFO technology exists; that it is free-energy technology; that it is exclusively man-made technology (not of alien origin), which humans were capable of constructing with existing technology at least ninety years ago; that it is ours because we paid for it; that we can build our own ships, using relatively simple technology; that there are many other free-energy technologies; that we can stick together and demand the right to use this technology, since the government has no legitimate right to conceal it, or to withhold it from us, or to prevent us from using it; and that the U.S. constitution required them to disclose the technology to us long ago. Occult Science Dictatorship: The Official State Science Religion and How to Get Excommunicated by William Lyne

JESUIT ILLUMINATI HOUSE OF SAUD. (THE SAUDI SATANIC OIL EMPIRE.)

The Saudis received investments and military protection in exchange for cooperation on lucrative oil deals. The Satanic, sex-obsessed, alcohol-drinking gang of vicious hypocrites, better known as the House of Saud.Have you seen these people? Wanted for mass murder and gross hypocrisy. MORE..CLICK HERE.

SAUDI Arabia was established with the help of a British Jesuit spy!!

The original founder of the Saudi dynasty was a Bedouin Emir named Muhammad ibn Saud (circa 1748- 1765).

In 1744, Muhammad ibn Saud's son, Abdul Aziz, married the daughter of Imam Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (1703-1792):

Here in Dariya, Al-Wahhab won the support of the local chief, Muhammad ibn Saud, leader of a sub-branch of the powerful Aneiza tribe and already admired for his abilities as a warrior.

Muhammad ibn Saud became not only a convert to Wahhabism but, by marrying his eldest son Abd Al-Aziz ibn Saud to Al-Wahhab's daughter, became the founding father of the Saudi-Wahhabi dynasty—the future rulers of Saudi Arabia. (Allen, God's Terrorists, The Wahhabi Cult and the Hidden Roots of Modern Jihad, p. 52).

This marriage alliance of Emir Abdul Aziz ibn Saud with Imam Abdul Wahhab created an alliance between political and religious Wahhabi Islam . . . and remains the basis of the Saudi dynasty to this very day.

Abdul Aziz ibn Saud (1876-1953). Caliph from 1932 to 1953

Emir Abdul Aziz ibn Saud was the founder of SAUDI Arabia. His great-grandmother was the daughter of Imam Abdul Wahhab—a Jesuit in disguise—who took the Koran literally and advocated killing all the "Bad" Muslims.

Harry St. John Bridger Philby. (1885-1960).

This "revival" of Islam came at the very time when Pope Clement XIV permanently abolished the Jesuits!!

Imam Muhammad ibn Abdul WAHHAB preached a fire and brimstone "if you do not fight for Islam, Allah will punish you sternly" message:

In the middle of the eighteenth century, an itinerant Muslim preacher, began crisscrossing the northern reaches of the peninsula and the Fertile Crescent, from Mecca and Medina to the al-Hasa Oasis in the east to Basra, Baghdad, and Damascus. Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, born in 1703, was not a city dweller, and he didn't bother with the kind of learning that occurred in the Arab world's intellectual centers. Spreading the Islamic version of fire and brimstone, Abdul Wahhab thundered that the Muslims needed to purge themselves of everything that had been learned since the days of the Prophet a thousand years before. It was a revivalist movement in the classic sense, with eager followers packing tents thrown up by Abdul Wahhab's organizers.
Abdul Wahhab's most important convert was the founder of the Al Saud dynasty, Mohammed ibn Saud. Ibn Saud apparently saw himself as an eighteenth-century version of the Prophet Mohammed, conquering lands for Islam and imposing his faith on the conquered. To reinforce their message, Abdul Wahhab, Ibn Saud, and their followers had the unfortunate habit of slaughtering anyone who disagreed with them and demolishing their cities, their mosques, and their shrines.
From 1927 to 1932 Ibn Saud continued to consolidate power throughout the Arabian Peninsula. In March 1929 he defeated elements of the Ikhwan, which had disobeyed his orders to cease raiding and had invaded Iraq against his wishes, at the Battle of Sbilla. In 1932, having conquered most of the Peninsula, Ibn Saud renamed his dominions "Saudi Arabia" and proclaimed himself "King of Saudi Arabia."(Dreyfuss, Devil's Game, p. 36).

Philby (top row second from right) with the future Saudi King Feisal in 1919.

Harry Philby (father of the notorious spy Kim Philby) was another British Jesuit secret service agent like Haji Williamson.

Harry Philby a.k.a. Sheikh Abdullah was a British Jesuit spy, convert to Islam, and liaison to the new Saudi Caliph of Arabia.

In this picture, Philby can be seen on the steps of St. Aldro's boarding school with his son Kim Philby and the future King Feisal.

Philby with Aramco lawyer Lloyd N. Hamilton
 negotiating Saudi oil concessions.

Even though Saudi Arabia was MADE IN ENGLAND, the Rockefeller owned Aramco was given the major oil concessions . . . thanks to Philby and friends!!

While representing the top echelon of the British government, Philby negotiated with the Saudis to grant Rockefeller the major oil concessions!

Abdul Aziz ibn Saud in 1943.

These 2 men: one a British Jesuit spy, and an Arab sheikh, created Saudi Arabia dominated by the fanatical Wahhabi sect of Islam.

Harry Philby in 1945

It's back to the Dark Ages with this cult because Wahhabism accepts nothing that was added to Islam after the 7th century.

Rosary beads and minarets are also banned in this so-called "reformed" Islam!!

In Wahhabi Arabia, electricity, the motor car, airplanes, telephones etc., etc., were seen as a NECESSARY EVIL in order to get the oil out of the ground!

The Yom Kippur or Ramadan War quadrupled the price of oil!!

In October 1973, Syria and Egypt launched a surprise attack on the Khazar state. The Khazars call it the Yom Kippur War and the Muslims call it the Ramadan War.

Egyptians soldiers crossing the Suez Canal.

Destroyed Syrian tanks.

Russia supported Egypt and Syria while the Pentagon supported the Khazar state.

The war almost led to a showdown between the United States and Russia.

After the war, OPEC quadrupled the price of oil. It went from 3 dollars to 12 dollars a barrel. It was the best thing that ever happened to radical Islam:

In the 1970s, political Islam was bolstered by the explosion of a parallel force: economic Islam. Part of the vast wealth pouring into the Arab oil-exporting countries found its way into a network of banks and investment companies controlled by the Islamic right and the Muslim Brotherhood. In country after country, these Islamic banks did much more than serve as money-changers. Sometimes openly, sometimes secretly, they supported sympathetic politicians and army officers and funded activists and political parties, Islamist run media companies, and businesses controlled by the Brotherhood. From 1974 onward, the Islamic banking system served as the financial backbone for the Islamic right.

And throughout it all, the Islamic banking system—which went from zero to global powerhouse in the two decades after 1974 depended heavily on the advice and technological assistance it received from a host of American and European institutions, including such major banks as Citibank.
To Western bank executives, International Monetary Fund officials, and free-market ideologues, the Islamic banks seemed ideal. The Islamic right had long made clear that it preferred capitalism to atheistic communism. None of the important Islamist movements, from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to Pakistan's Islamic Group to the Shiite fundamentalists in Iraq, preached social and economic justice. Instead, they opposed state ownership, land reform, and social welfare programs. (Dreyfuss, Devil's Game, pp. 168-169).

U.S. crude oil prices since 1859.

The vast influx of petrodollars enabled Saudi Arabia to buy politicians, TV stations, newspapers, radio stations, universities, publishing houses, sports teams, churches, seminaries, etc., etc.

U.S. gasoline prices since 1947.

With the FALSE PROFITS of billions of petrodollars, Saudi Arabia was able to buy politicians, TV stations, universities, newspapers, radio stations, publishing houses, sports teams, churches etc., etc., and the Caliphate became the center of Wahhabism or radical Islam. (Extracted from Good Muslims VS Bad Muslims - Click Here to read the whole article.