Wednesday, March 18, 2009


Blogger Omnesius writes me, correctly calling attention to the fact that I do not use the same language and definitions as Arminians and Calvinists do. If you refer to Euclid's Five Postulates, you will realize that you define Geometry with the Postulates you use. If you change Postulates like Lobachevsky, Riemann, or Bolyai did, you get a different Geometry. That was essentially what happened with the 1054 breaks between the Catholics and the Orthodox where there was a disagreement about Pope versus Patriarch; and again with Calvinists versust the Catholics; and yet again with the Calvinists and the Armenians. I am reverting back to the Oldest Postulates.

Omnesius is correct that I do not accept the definition of Total Depravity in the Protestant sense of the word. Total Depravity is a State of Disgrace that must be conscientiously strived for if it is to be achieved. When people say that they have achieved it, backing their words with deeds, I'll take their word for it. Even if I could see into their hearts, I should avert my gaze to avoid compounding my own corruption with theirs. I am willing to accept Original Sin as defined by Exodus 20:5, though a Doctrine of Man's Corruption be sufficient. I am not willing to accept the Calvinist-Arminean Definition of Total Depravity, as our Bibles read differently on that point. Total Depravity can be attained, though to do so, by definition, is Morally Repugnant. As proof that it has been attained, I am willing to accept the words of The Marequis du Sade and Aliester Crowley that they have atained it, but I shant belabor the point by actually investigating their claims. Further, even the common man is capable of aspiring to Acts of Total Depravity, such as the Desecration of the Remains of St. Irenaeus, or rubberstamping the Political Executions of Prince Maurice via the Council of Dordt.

As proof in the Real World that Total Depravity is a state of Disgrace that must be conscientoiusly strived for to attain, I refer you to Heinz Hohne's Order of the Death's Head, where it relates that Concentration Camp Workers were hard to recruit because their natural moral fiber prevented them from performing their "duties". Other "failures" in the Realm of Evil include Father Adolf Martin Bormann, the son of Martin Bormann, who had much Sin to Inherit but instead became a Priest.

Yes, this is an admission that I do not use the same Bible. The Eastern Orthodox Bible, which I use as my standard, differs from the 1599 Geneva Study Bible in that verses were removed and replaced with footnotes in the Calvinist Bible. That was the point of the EDITED, NOT TRANSLATED series. I am asserting, however, that I'm not the one who changed the rules; John Calvin was. I am reverting to an older set of rules that existed before Calvin "reformed" them.

I have hinted at some of the false premises of Calvinism in the past. It mindlessly throws overboard "Tradition" in the Roman Catholic sense of the word, making "Scripture " a Closed System, and in so doing, induced paradoxes and contradictions. The Armenians were the first to spot these problems and started to revert back towards Orthodoxy, John Wesley being the prime example. Unfortunately, Armineans are still encumbered with the Jargon of Calvinist Cant. Meanwhile, the Calvinists themselves are excluding more and more Scripture, replacing more and more verses with footnotes, in a process that will ultimately do away with the Bible itself. In the wake of such building of sand castles in the sky are meaningless acane terms such as supralapsarianism, eisegius, reprobation, and monergism.

I am free to disagree and discard with spurious premises, which entails that I do not accept some of the definitions of Calvinism and Arminianism, ie., Calvinist Cant. I also point out that, following the Council of Chalcedon of 431 AD which repealed the Robber Synod of Ephesus II, I reject the Council of Dordt for roughly the same reason. If anything, I find Dordt an even more eggregious a Robber Synod than Ephsus II. Although The Classical Armenian does not go as far as I in condemning Dordt, Billy Birch has shown his lack of fondness for it. Then, of course, there is the self-contradictory Article XXXI of the Westminster Confession, which had the apparent intent of abrogating any and all previous Church Councils and using "poisoning the well" tactics with respect to the previous precedents of the Church Councils. This blog is about Biblical Integrity, and I reject premises and definitions that lead to the rejection of th Bible and drifting to Nihilistic "Don't Know & Don't Care" Agnosticism.


Onesimus said...

G'Day Constantino,
Thank you for your response on my blog. I have responded to your comments.
However I forgot to thank you for the information regarding the editing of the 1599 Geneva Study Bible. I was unaware of the depths to which Calvinists stooped to support their beliefs in the early days.
Bless you

Constantino della Brazos said...

They messed with Revelation 22:19, the one verse that it was most imprudent to mess with. As that verse pronounces a curse, let it be unto them an Anathema.

Constantino della Brazos said...

To a cetain Anonymous Troll who wants to take me to task over misquoting the 1599 Geneva Study Bible, and further correct my spellings of Theodore de beza & William Whittington:

Yes, I acknowlege that there are other debowdlerized 1599 Geneva Study Bibles. I regard this as Damage Control rather than any serious attempt to study Scripture. So What!

I did not like your nasty disrecpectful tone of voice. An appology is in order, Troll. Consider yourself lucky that I bothered to respnond, this time. I would also suggest you read my posting on profanity before you post again.

While I believe in Civil Discourse and will gladly post what you have to say on Edited, Not Translated, I will do so within the high standards established by this blog.

You offend me with those ridiculous charges of dishonesty, when in fact, I am doing everything possible to quote the 1599 Geneva Study Bible, carefully copying the passages out with Photoshop instead of the right-click method. I cannot be blamed if the parts edited out make this "Bible" cease to be a legitimate Bible. The blame goes to de Beza, Whittington, and John Calvin himself for insinuating the Tulip Agenda into the Bible. I do not see how I could have possibly been any fair to the Calvinists.

I await your appology.