Four Hundred Year Argument - Part 2

Copied from the sermon notes of Pastor Don Elmore

January 24, 2021

Scripture Reading: Acts 26:6, 7

6) “And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers:

7) Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.

Did you recognize what happened last Wednesday on our nation’s country’s inauguration day? Where did Joe Biden go along with a host of other invited Republicans and Democrats? He and his vice-president, mongrel Kamala Harris, the respective leaders of the House and Senate all went to St. Matthews Catholic Church for a prayer service and mass. Joe is called the second Catholic president of the United States.

There were Jews that went into that church service. All who took of the mass drank the supposed blood of Jesus the Christ. One of the prayers was led by Jesuit priest, Leo O’Donovan. What god did he pray to? What god did the Jews pray to? What has changed over the last 400 years?

WHO IS RIGHT?

Calvinism, Arminianism or Christian Identity – which one is correct? Or are they all wrong? Calvinism and Arminianism would both deny that a person who was elected by Almighty God could be a Baal worshipper – he would either be a non-elect or an individual who had fallen from grace. The Calvinists would say that the person was a “non-elect”. The Arminian would say that the Israelites didn’t choose God. They both would state that the majority of Israelites in the Old Testament were “unsaved” or “lost”.

Does a Calvinist say that an Arminian is “lost”? Does a Calvinist say that a Christian Identity person is “lost”? Does an Arminian say that a Calvinist is “lost”? Does an Arminian say that a Christian Identity person is “lost”? Both Calvinists and Arminians believe that everyone on the earth is either in a “saved” or “lost” condition. And you know that this is not even thought about by Arminians and most Calvinists today.

Augustus Toplady, author of the hymn Rock of Ages, had nothing but contempt for a certain pastor. Toplady once described the man as:  “the most rancorous hater of the gospel-system that ever appeared on this island (of Britain).”

On another occasion, Toplady said that the pastor was:  “guilty of satanic shamelessness, of acting the ignoble part of a lurking, shy assassin.”

Who was this depraved pastor? John Wesley, the leader of a revival movement within the Church of England known as Methodism and Arminianism. Today’s Methodist and Wesleyan churches and The Salvation Army all sprung from the societies that Wesley founded.

What was Wesley’s crime? Why did Toplady characterize Wesley as a satanic hater of the Gospel? Toplady was a Calvinist. Wesley was not. Would an Arminian say that a Calvinist was “lost”? But today very few preachers call anyone of either belief “lost”. I wonder what has happened over the years.

But Christian Identity believers would say that it is Israel, the holy covenant seed, who are the elect of God. But they still were the elect of God even though they worshipped other gods. The Old Testament scriptures inform the reader that most Israelites, most of the time, have consistently been worshippers of other gods. The House of Israel got so bad that they were scattered, shown no mercy, and for almost seven hundred years were not the people of God. They were divorced from the Almighty God. They had “no hope” (Ephesians 2:12) for over seven centuries. They had “no hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers.”

The House of Israel and most of the House of Judah were in this situation, i.e., they were “without any hope”, when Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. They died many years before their Savior was born to save them from their sins. Do the Calvinists and Arminians say that these people were “lost”? I think they would, since the gospel was never preached to them. If they were not “saved”, where do they say that they went when they died? Since their sins had not been atoned for, where did they go when they died is a most interesting question.

Most of the House of Judah had been gone from Palestine for over five centuries. There was a small percentage of Israelites of the kingdom of Judah living in Palestine when Jesus was born in Judea and lived a couple of years in Egypt and then lived most of His life in Galilee (northern portion of ancient Israel where the tribe of Benjamin lived). The kingdom of God, i.e. Israel, was in a very bad condition. It had been almost totally destroyed—it was hanging on by a small thread. The kingdom of Judah had almost ceased to exist, and the kingdom of Israel had ceased to exist as a nation for several centuries.

Over 95% of Israelites were not living in Palestine at the time of Jesus’ birth, life, death and resurrection. Most of the Israelites didn’t keep the laws, commandments, ordinances and statutes of God. Most of the Israelites never even saw, let alone enter the Temple of God. Most of the Israelites were separated from each other — one kingdom had split off from the other kingdom for hundreds of years.

I was unaware of these facts in the Bible when I was an Arminian and later when I was a Calvinist. It wasn’t important to both these theologies. It was strictly for Sunday School, if taught at all.

Most of Israel were scattered throughout Europe, including the British Isles, the Middle East, part of western Asia and part of northern Africa. Most of the House of Judah was scattered over most of the earth too; but there was a small part of them that were still residing in Judea. The two kingdoms were separate and had no acceptable fellowship between them. They were enemies towards each other. They were living in different areas of the world and had different talents and abilities. They were forbidden to eat together.

One was circumcised, the other not. One was a stranger from the covenants of promise, the other not. One kept the food laws, the other not. One had the Temple to worship in, the other not. One was alien from the commonwealth of Israel, the other not. One kept the Feast Days, the other not. Etc.

How were they to be united again? They were united by the payment for their sins that they had and would commit. They would be united once again by having all their sins completely paid. They would have no sins – their debt was paid in full. And now all our sins were paid two thousand years before we were born. We are united by the blood of the everlasting covenant of Jesus the Christ.

HOW ISRAEL WAS SAVED BY THE BLOOD

The following section is taken from the booklet, distributed by Pastor Everett Ramsey in 2020, entitled, “Why the Blood Saves.” Many of his ideas and thoughts, as well as some of his quotes are utilized.

It is common today to hear preachers say to their congregations that: 

• “It is not Christ’s BLOOD that saves us, but His dying.”
• “It was Christ’s death for sins that saves, not His BLOOD.”
• “It was not Jesus’ bleeding, but His dying. It was His death, not His BLOOD.”
• “The shedding of BLOOD has nothing to do with it. It was not the BLOOD of Jesus that saves.”
• “Yes, the BLOOD of Christ is precious, but as precious as it is, it could not save.”

Or we hear something like this:

In many churches today, the sermon being preached instructs the listener that: 

• “Jesus votes for you;
• Satan votes against you, and
• You have the deciding vote.

Come up here at the end of the preacher’s sermon and say the sinner’s prayer (about a twenty second prayer led by the minister) and be born again.”

Here is an example of one of the sinner’s prayers:

“Dear God,  I know that I am a sinner and I ask You to please forgive my sins. I believe in my heart that Jesus is Your Son; that He died for me on a cross and You raised Him back to life. Jesus, I declare that You are my Lord and I open my heart to You. Change me and help me to follow You all the days of my life. Help me to be more like You and to do Your will.  In Jesus nameI pray. Amen"

They then add the following:

“If you say that prayer and mean it with all your heart, then I want to be the first one to welcome you into the family of God! I promise you He is the best Father ever!!!”

The supposed “lost” person asks God to “please forgive his sins” and in the next sentence manifests that God’s Son “died for me on a cross.” But wait a minute. Jesus is not going to die next week. He died over two thousand years ago. How can a person now ask God to forgive him his sins? In the Old Testament days, he could. He could ask God to die for his sins because His death was in the future. How can he ask God to die for his sins when His death is in the past? He either died for him two thousand years ago, or He didn’t.

Is that all you must do to become in the family of God is to just repeat a twenty second prayer? When you were born, Jesus had already died for your sins or He hadn’t. If Jesus hadn’t died for you, how can you ask Him to die for your sins?

Can anyone become a member of the family of God? When do they become a member of God’s family? Is it when they are physically born? Or are they born a child of the devil who is then born of God? In other words, can a “tare” become a “wheat”? Can a “wolf” become a “sheep”? Can an “antichrist” become a “Christian”?

Are the Arminians correct? Just say a twenty second prayer. What laws do the converted have to keep? None, especially if they were abolished. What about the Old Testament? Is that why it is thrown out, because it doesn’t mean anything to our “new age Christian” thinking?

What does the Old Testament teach us? It teaches us that it had to be the BLOOD of Jesus. Jesus couldn’t just die without His BLOOD being shed. If Jesus had been stoned to death or thrown down a high cliff to His death or choked to death, His death could not have saved anyone.

What if the Edomite Jews had been successful when they attempted to murder Jesus with stones? What would have happened? Would anyone have been “saved” if Jesus’ dead body laid in an alley in Jerusalem after being stoned to death? That is why Jesus disappeared from them to nullify their attempt to kill him by stoning. It had to be committed at the right time, the right manner, the right fulfillment of scripture and He had to shed His Blood.

But it just wasn’t His BLOOD that saves us either. There had to be other things that happened besides the shedding of His BLOOD. For example, the annual Day of Atonement and Passover were given to the Israelites as the grounds for the actual event that was to take place hundreds of years later.

On Israel’s Day of Atonement, the High Priest would take the BLOOD of the bullock that was killed and then place the BLOOD of that bullock into a basin. That BLOOD was taken by the High Priest into the second room of the tabernacle of God, where only the High Priest was permitted to go. He was the only person allowed to enter that room and he could only go one day a year. That was where God’s very presence dwelt above the mercy seat. That BLOOD on that mercy seat was there in the presence of God’s Shekinah glory – the presence of God Himself. This was where the King of Israel resided.

If that BLOOD of that bullock had just been left at the altar, not one single Old Covenant Israelite would have had one sin forgiven. For it’s not the BLOOD at the foot of the altar; it’s the BLOOD on the mercy seat that counts.

So, it isn’t that the bullock died. If the bullock had died and he hadn’t shed any BLOOD, no sins would have been forgiven. If the bullock had died and shed his BLOOD, that would still not have forgiven one sin either. It would have been all in vain. The BLOOD of the slain bullock had to be taken by the High Priest inside the Holy of Holies and sprinkled seven times on the mercy seat. Once that was completed, the ritual forgave the sins of the Israelites for one year.

Jesus was two things for us: 

1. He was our sacrifice Who shed His BLOOD for our sins, and
2. He was our High Priest Who took His own BLOOD into the presence of God Himself.

Jesus had to die by shedding all His BLOOD. He then had to be buried. And then He had to be raised from the dead. Why was it so important that He had to be raised from the dead? Because He had, as our High Priest, to take His sacrificial BLOOD into the holy of holies.

To get the BLOOD of Jesus on the mercy seat, we’ve got to have a resurrected Savior. That is one reason why the resurrection is critical to the Bible believer. Jesus was not only our sacrifice; he was also our High Priest!

When Jesus was raised from the dead, he was our High Priest whose first job was to take His BLOOD into the Holy of Holies. Before He went to the Holy of Holies, He said some strange words to a woman who He met, i.e. it is strange words if you don’t know what He was going to do. No one was permitted to touch the High Priest from the time he took the BLOOD from the altar and walked to the mercy seat. If anybody touched him, the sacrifice was no longer valid. That is why He said to the woman, Mary Magdalene, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.” (John 20:17a).

Mary Magdalene couldn’t touch Jesus, because He was on His way with His BLOOD to sprinkle His BLOOD on the mercy seat in heaven in the presence of God Himself. Mary could not touch Him, for it would make the offering invalid.

A short time later, after He had taken His BLOOD to the mercy seat, he told one of His disciples, Thomas, to touch him. It was okay for someone to touch him now, because He had taken His BLOOD to the Father and it was accepted.

End of statements taken from the Pastor Ramsey’s booklet.

This is one reason, in my opinion, the new covenant church began to meet on Sundays. It was not the day in which their Savior died, or was buried, or the day He was resurrected, but the day that the sacrifice was accepted by the Father. It is the day that Christians mistakenly celebrate as Easter; it is wave-sheaf offering that was offered during the Days of Unleavened Bread (Leviticus 23:10-12). Easter is a day late, in my opinion. The particular “day after the Sabbath” referred to here is the Sunday that fell during the Days of Unleavened Bread and appeared to His disciples the next morning – the exact same Sunday mentioned here.

The passage describes the same offering that was being waved before God in the Israelite Temple at the same hour on the same Sunday that Jesus ascended to the Father. Christ’s presentation of Himself to the Father as the real “wave sheaf” had been planned long before as a vital aspect of God’s plan of salvation.

Their sins were now forgiven. Not just for one year, like it was in the Old Testament, but it was forever. It was a new covenant. It was a better covenant. The old had vanished away. The Bible teaches that the two covenants were made with the very same people – Israel (Jeremiah 31:31 and Hebrews 8:8).

Down through the ages the people of Israel have been kept in the dark about many things. Today, they are kept from the secrets of the many religions of the world. Most wars were/are caused by the different religions. Most religions are not even of God, but his adversary – the devil. And most doctrines that are in today’s churches are different from what used to be in the churches. There has been much bloodshed over the centuries by one group fighting another group – and it usually was over their religious views.

This is one reason of many that the Catholic Church is wrong. One of their many relics is the crucifix. Many of the priests and nuns wear one as a necklace and the crucifixes are seen everywhere near and in the Catholic cathedrals. It supposedly shows the death of the Savior…but as we have seen, that would not save one person. It was not His death alone, but also His burial and then it would still be all in vain, if the resurrected Savior didn’t offer His own Blood on the mercy seat in heaven. And then His sacrifice had to be accepted. That is the missing piece that the crucifix doesn’t show, and the Catholic Church doesn’t teach its members anything about it.

The main part of every Catholic Church service is its mass. Where is the BLOOD that was shed for them? The false church tells its members that it is in the Eucharist cup. The Romanists say that when the priest says the right words, in the right manner, the wine in the cup is changed miraculously into the actual shed BLOOD of Jesus. Every member drinks the BLOOD along with the priest and then this ritual is repeated every day. Millions of Catholics drink the BLOOD of Jesus the Christ. Jesus must have had billions of gallons of BLOOD!

Many hate the laws the Savior gave (like it is against the Law of God to drink blood) and yet they drink His BLOOD. It, the BLOOD, is not at the mercy seat of God. It is somehow in their stomachs which comes out of their body as urine. This blasphemous practice is performed every day at every service of the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church has been guilty of killing millions of dissenters before the Protestant uprising. Then there have been a multitude of wars between Catholics and Protestants that have gone on for the last 500 years. And now, in the United States, Catholics are considered the largest “Christian” denomination in the world.

But that was not the way it used to be. The Catholics were named as the antichrists of the world by the Geneva Bible, that was used by the Pilgrims and Puritans. It had footnotes that were written by the Protestant reformers who identified the popes as the antichrists. Were they right or wrong?

It used to be if a non-Catholic was to marry a Catholic, the non-Catholic had to sign an official paper that stated that the children that would come from that marriage, would be raised in the Catholic faith. (My grandmother, who was a Southern Baptist on my mother’s side, refused to sign the paper that the Roman Catholic Church required. Her fiancé decided to marry her anyway and left the Catholic Church and as a result was disowned by his parents. My mother, and the other nine children that they had,were not raised in the Catholic Church). If the paper was not signed, the Catholic Church would not recognize the marriage.

This, no longer, is the case. Today, Catholics are considered as being Christian, as well as Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and anyone else who says that they are Christian (including Raphael Warnock’s church). We are now a tolerant society, which is against God’s law. The grandsons and granddaughters of my grandmother mostly married Catholics and went to the Catholic Church.

But what happened four hundred years ago? On November 11, 1620 the Pilgrims wrote and signed the Mayflower Compact. What was that and why is it considered so important four hundred years later?

THE MAYFLOWER COMPACT

The Mayflower voyage was conceived by members of the separatist Calvinistic congregation of Leiden, Netherlands, who had fled religious persecution in England by the Anglican Church under King James I of England. It was the Calvinists who wrote the Mayflower Compact. Why did they flee the Anglican Church?

1. Because the Anglican church didn’t teach Calvinism, and
2. Because the Anglican church was controlled by the monarchy.

The Anglican Church, with its head, King James I of England (don’t we use the Bible that he had translated?) persecuted the Pilgrims, Puritans and other disagreeing groups unmercifully.

“IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honor of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Present, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience.

IN WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini; 1620.”

The compact thereby protected the signers from any charge of treason in trying to establish their own government over an independent settlement while also assuring those among them who had objected to the rule of law, that they had a voice and a vote in any decisions concerning the new colony. In signing, all agreed to abide by the compact and, shortly afterwards, Carver was elected as their governor. Once the compact had been ratified, Carver ordered the expedition to continue, and the Mayflower dropped anchor.

The compact is the first known European agreement by which a government was established by the will and through the consent of those governed. Earlier documents, such as the Magna Carta, (rebellious American colonists in 1776 looked to the Magna Carta as a model for their demands of liberty from the English crown on the eve of the American Revolution and its legacy is especially evident in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution) were forced on a monarch by the nobility, but the Mayflower Compact was drafted and signed by commoners of the same church, all of about equal social status, in the recognition that working together for the common good was more beneficial than insisting on pursuing one’s own to the detriment of others.

STUART KINGS AND QUEENS OF ENGLAND

1. King James I (1603-1625)
2. King Charles I (1625-1649); Beheaded

-------------Monarchy Interrupted-----------

Oliver Cromwell (1649-1658); Puritan

Anarchy (1659)

--------------Monarchy Restored-------------

3. King Charles II (1660-1685)
4. King James II (1685-1688); Catholic
5. William III and Mary II (1688-1702)
6. Queen Anne (1702-1714)

WHO WERE THE COVENANTERS?

Notice in the Mayflower Compact, that King James was king over four nations:

1. England,
2. Scotland,
3. France, and
4. Ireland.

The Covenanters were Calvinists from the nation of Scotland. The nation of Scotland three centuries prior, gave an indication of who they were when they signed the Arbroath Declaration of Independence in 1320 A.D. which was a letter to the pope, after they had defeated the English. This Declaration requested that the pope grant them the right to have Robert the Bruce as their king. It begins like this:

“Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown.

They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules and dwell for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous.

Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today.”

Where are the pillars of Hercules?  The Strait of Gibraltar is a narrow opening that separates the continent of Africa from Europe; it is also the only point where the Mediterranean Sea connects to the Atlantic Ocean, and therefore an important passageway for sea travel to the west of the Iberian Peninsula, Africa, and beyond. This is where the pillars of Hercules were located.

The Scots say that the traveled from southern Russia, sailed thru the Tyrrhenian Sea, sailed thru the Gibraltar Strait and landed in Spain. From there, 1200 years after the Israelites had fled Egypt, they landed in Scotland.

Israel crossed the Red Sea in 1447 B.C. or somewhere near that date. Twelve hundred years later would mean that the Scots came to their new land around 247 B.C.

It was just eighteen years after the Pilgrims landed in Plymouth [1638; King Charles I (1625-1649)], that the Covenanters, signed another national document -- the National Covenant of Scotland. This Covenant confirmed their opposition to the interference by the Stuart kings, (King Charles I, and later Charles II and James II) in the affairs of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

The Stuart kings harbored the belief of the Divine Right of the monarch. This meant to the kings that God wished them to be the infallible rulers of their kingdom (same as the Catholic pope). They also believed that they were the spiritual heads of the Church of England and Scotland. The monarchy wrongly believed that no man, or parliament had any right to tell them that they were acting in a wrong manner. That they were the head of the Church was not accepted by the Scots. No man, not even a king, could be the spiritual head of their church. Only Jesus Christ could be spiritual head of a Christian church. In Scotland, it was the Protestant Presbyterian Church.

This was the main difference between the Covenanters and the monarchy. It caused a great deal of suffering, torture, imprisonment and executions. It lasted from the signing of the National Covenant (1638) until the Glorious Revolution (1688—50 years), when Prince William of Orange made a bloodless invasion of Great Britain. King Charles I had introduced the Book of Common Prayer in 1637 in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. In 1638, Archbishop William Laud ordered the exclusive use of a “papistical” liturgy upon the Church of Scotland. It became known as “Laud’s Liturgy.” King Charles I’s belief in his divine right to rule upon the church of Scotland was designed to achieve his ends:

• He bestowed Episcopal office upon a few select clergy,
• Changed the communion table into an altar,
• Compiled a prayer book for ministers to pray by,
• He gave the clergy liturgies to chant and surplices to wear, and
• He refused the General Assembly permission to meet.

King Charles I had consistently promoted high churchmen to prominent positions in the English church. Among these appointees was homosexual Archbishop William Laud, an Anglo-Catholic priest. He was deeply opposed to Calvinism and sought to re-establish the pre-reformation liturgical practices of the English Church. Laud drew up a new liturgy for Scotland, based loosely on the Book of Common Prayer, and with a heavy Anglo-Catholic emphasis. It had embedded within it the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, the very essence of Romanism.

This started the trouble. The populace resented this Common Prayer Book and was in a state of fury against it. But the king declared that opposition to the new liturgy would be considered treason, and this resulted in the National Covenant.

Here is part of the National Covenant of Scotland that was written and signed in 1638:

“To the which confession and form of religion we willingly agree in our consciences in all points, as unto God’s undoubted truth and verity, grounded only upon His written Word; and therefore:

• We abhor and detest all contrary religion and doctrine, but chiefly all kind of papistry in general and particular heads, even as they are now damned and confuted by the Word of God and Kirk [church] of Scotland.
• But in special we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist upon the Scriptures of God, upon the Kirk, the civil magistrate, and consciences of men;
• All his tyrannous laws made upon indifferent things against our Christian liberty:
• His erroneous doctrine against the sufficiency of the written Word, the perfection of the law, the office of Christ and His blessed evangel;
• His corrupted doctrine concerning original sin, our natural inability and rebellion to God’s law, our justification by faith only, our imperfect sanctification and obedience to the law, the nature, number, and use of the holy sacraments;
• His five bastard sacraments, with all his rites, ceremonies, and false doctrine, added to the ministration of the true sacraments, without the Word of God;
• His cruel judgments against infants departing without the sacrament;
• His absolute necessity of baptism;
• His blasphemous opinion of transubstantiation or real presence of Christ’s body in the elements, and receiving of the same by the wicked, or bodies of men;
• His dispensations, with solemn oaths, perjuries, and degrees of marriage, forbidden in the Word;
• His cruelty against the innocent divorced;
• His devilish mass;
• His blasphemous priesthood;
• His profane sacrifice for the sins of the dead and the quick;
• His canonization of men, calling upon angels or saints departed, worshipping of imagery, relics, and crosses; dedicating of kirks, altars, days, vows to creatures;
• His purgatory, prayers for the dead, praying or speaking in a strange language; with his processions and blasphemous litany, and multitude of advocates or mediators;
• His manifold orders, auricular confession;
• His desperate and uncertain repentance;
• His general and doubtsome faith;
• His satisfactions of men for their sins;
• His justification by works, opus operatum, works of supererogation, merits, pardons, peregrinations and stations; his holy water, baptizing of bells, conjuring of spirits, crossing, saning, anointing, conjuring, hallowing of God’s good creatures, with the superstitious opinion joined therewith;
• His worldly monarchy and wicked hierarchy;
• His three solemn vows, with all his shavelings of sundry sorts; his erroneous and bloody decrees made at Trent, with all the subscribers and approvers of that cruel and bloody band conjured against the Kirk of God.
• And finally, we detest all his vain allegories, rites, signs, and traditions, brought in the Kirk without or against the Word of God, and doctrine of this true reformed Kirk.”

This was part of the national covenant that was made by a people who had come from southern Russia and eventually arrived in the land of Scotland several hundred years before the birth of their Savor. Have you ever wondered where did they came from before they were in Southern Russia? Why did they state that they arrived in Scotland 1200 years after Israel had left Egypt? What would be in our national covenant if the United States made one?

CALVINISTS REJECT CATHOLICISM

The Scottish Calvinistic Covenanters certainly didn’t mince any words. Are you in agreement with what they said? They accused the king of following the pope’s tyrannous, corrupted, erroneous doctrines, devilish mass, vain allegories, cruel judgments, etc. The Presbyterians hated the Catholic Church. They considered it to be an enemy, not a fellow Christian Church. Why is the Roman Catholic Church considered as a friend today, when the Presbyterians of Scotland considered them as the antichrist four hundred years ago? What changed?

This was going on in Scotland at the same time the Pilgrims were settling in Massachusetts. They both were Calvinists. And they both hated the Anglican and the Catholic Church! That is one reason they refused to celebrate their holidays. For example, they refused to celebrate the Mass of Christ. They considered the mass to be of the devil. They refused to drink the BLOOD of their Savior, they believed that His BLOOD should stay at the mercy seat.

There followed a religious war of very severe repression. Covenant ministers were “outed” from their churches by the state authorities and they were forced to leave their parishes. But what did many of them do? They continued to preach in the open air or in barns or houses. This became an offence punishable by death. Preaching outside or in a barn or in a house became a capital offense in Scotland. We think thing are bad in the United States today. Things in Scotland four hundred years ago were a lot worse than they are now.

Citizens who did not attend their local state churches could be heavily fined, and such offenders were regarded as rebels, who could be questioned, even under torture. They could be asked to take various oaths, which not only declared loyalty to the king, but also to accept him as head of the church. Failure to take such an oath could result in execution. What would we do if we were living in Scotland at this time? Would we take the oath, or would we decline and face death?

And it got worse. The persecutions became more frequent and crueler after the Restoration of Charles II in 1660; [King Charles II (1660-1685)]. Twenty-three years after the Book of Common Prayer was introduced, more and more ordinary folk became involved. There were skirmishes and battles the took place against Government troops. By 1678 the Government raised an army of 6,000 soldiers who fought against the Presbyterians. This army swept through the west and south of Scotland, looting and plundering. The army remained for many years, impoverishing the Covenanters.

CONCLUSION

It was either Calvinism or the doctrine of the Catholic or Anglican Church, with all its statues, holidays, mother-worship, rituals, magnificent cathedrals, Holy Eucharist and universal pagan appeals. This was the decision for most of the world. Then there came the poison of the Jesuits semi-Pelagianism -- Arminianism. The influence of Calvinism was soon to die out.

But there were still some major victories that were poured out on the followers of Calvinism by Almighty God. The most famous one, was the magnificent victory of “Blood River” that was given to the Voortrekkers in their hopeless battle, outside of their faith and divine intervention of God, against the Zulus in 1838. Two hundred years after the Covenanters signed the National Covenant the Voortrekkers said their covenant every night before the battle. May we remember God’s mercy on the Voortrekkers, because He is our only “hope of the promise made unto our fathers.”

Then came into being more knowledge of the Holy Word—who was the people that the Sovereign God elected.

To be continued.

Blessed be the LORD God of Israel.