Category: Apologetics

The New Normal …. The New Abnormal

“Wouldn’t it it be great to just be normal, to blend into society?” She wonders aloud. “Put it this way — I’m the new normal.”

Brutlyn Jenner

A member of the perverted 0.4 % of the population which is transgender is telling us that he is the “new normal.” The new normal? How can 0.4% of the population be the new normal? Even if you add the 1.8% of the population that is sodomite or lesbian and the 0.7% who self identify as bi-sexual one is still left with less than 3% of the population insisting that they are the “new normal.” How can 2.9% of the population end up with enough leverage to tell the other 97.1% that they are the “new normal”?

The answer to that is found in the reality that the percentage of those who are driving this agenda are merely using the sexually ill as a conduit to promulgate their anti-Christian agenda. The LGBTQ crowd is merely a weapon being used by the Cultural Marxists in order to over throw the last remaining residual desiderata of Christianity as a social order force. As such, the muscle for the advance of normalcy of the LGBTQ crowd, numerically minuscule as they are, is lodged not in their numbers but in the elite gatekeeper crowd who desire the complete extinguishing of the objective transcendent standards which Christianity brings. However, in the end we do not really give up on objective transcendent standards but rather we merely change out one set of objective transcendent standards for a different set of objective standards. The Marquis de Sade was going after something like this when he posited that the notion of right and wrong was a ignis fatuus. Modern made, entrenched in his Sadeian existence, reasons that the very fact he has a desire is a sign that that said desire exists in nature. Now, the fact that the desire exists means that nature wills the desire and as such it would be wrong (sin) not to act on a desire which nature has implanted within modern man. You pick your god, whether of the supernatural extra mundane variety or of the prometheus ubermensch variety, you dance to His or its tune.

What I really wanted to get to in this post is to tease out a implication in Brutlyn’s statement. This is a  point I have been hammering for a very long time. When Brutlyn insists “I am the new normal,” by necessity he is tacitly affirming that people not like herm are now the new “abnormal.” If Brutlyn is the new normal, then everyone not like Brutlyn or who understand the perversion in Brutlyn’s behavior are now the new “abnormal.” This underscores, in a distinct way, the point I’ve insisted upon repeatedly and that is once the pervert is allowed out of the closet this requires the Biblical Christian to be stuffed in the closet in order to replace the pervert. Brutlyn is now the new normal and now people who share Biblical convictions are the new “abnormal” and as the new “abnormal” Christians are at the same time the new perverts.

This “new normalcy” that Brutlyn speaks of is represented as a legislative bill that just passed the New York state legislature which makes discrimination against transsexuals a crime. The results of this “new normalcy” will be the public stopping of the mouths of Christians in the work place. Transexuals out of the closet. Christians into the closet.

Knowing folks in New York, I know Christians already have it bad when they have to turn down invitations at the office for donating to buy surprise gifts to congratulate sodomites on being married and having successful adoptions. (I know personally friends who have had to stay away from signing congratulations cards and showing up at surprise parties. Their absence at the parties are loudly missed as well as their lack of signature on any card).

With the passage of this legislation in New York, the next abomination will be congratulation parties for the successful transitioning of transsexuals in addition to transsexuals being allowed to use diverse restrooms.

Lastly this bill will apply to all Christian establishments with over 10 employees and woe to the Christian who owns a restaurant.

I hope all y’all are ready for the “new normal.”

One See’s the Strangest Things on the way to Vanity Fair

 So, we have Vanity Fair seeking to create the impression that Transgenderism (TranJennerism?) is normative. By putting “Brutlyn” Jenner on their cover they are, not so subtly, communicating that being Transgender is as normal as your average bombshell babe gracing the cover of your average run of the mill New York sleaze rag.
Of course the transmogrification of Jenner, former All American Stud and Athlete, into “Brutlyn,” the svelte and hubba hubba cover girl communicates that there is not that much distance between Bronco Nagurski and Marilyn Monroe. All of us, really are the same.And yet, in order to pull this off transmogrification off they have to wrap the 1976 Olympic Decathlon gold medal winner in Christian Euro-centric notions of beauty and femininity that have been with us for a very long time. So, they are desperately trying to change the social order but in order to pervert the social order they have to appeal to standards of the social order in order to pervert it. This is a classic example of Van Til’s “sitting on God’s lap in order to slap Him in the face.”One could easily make the case that the photo-shop, make-up, and lighting, creators of “Brutlyn Jenner” are practitioners of racism, trans-phobia and worst of all are guilty of Euro-centric biases. This is seen by their casting “Brutlyn” with a traditional white feminine mien along with the notion of European beauty. How dare they subtly suggest the WASP standard of beauty is the standard of beauty. 

What’s even worse, is the white that “she” is regaled in, on the cover of Vanity Fair.  This demonstrates “Vanity Fair’s” racism perhaps as well as any other component of the cover photo. In the European mind the color “white” is associated with purity and virtue and here is “Vanity Fair” having the cheek to reinforce that shibboleth by clothing “Brutlyn” all in white.

And what of the long hair of Brutlyn? This exudes patriarchy since women have, for centuries, been told by the misogynist Bible that “Long hair is a woman’s glory.” And “Vanity Fair” is supporting all this Christian Euro-centric hatred and misogyny that the West has been burdened with for centuries by placing that vile hateful picture of a shapely Euro-centric “Brutlyn” dressed in white on their cover complete with long flowing hair and feminine come hither smile.

What should we expect next from “Vanity Fair?”  A photo shoot with “Brutlyn” as a traditional stay at home wife and mother baking cookies for the neighborhood children?

Please do not mistake me here. There is no excuses for the perversion here. There is the point that even when the Cultural despisers go pervert they unconsciously still support Western notions of beauty and femininity. The irony is found in the fact that they cannot destroy Western culture without appealing to Western culture.

Some might insist that “Brutlyn” could have been black or mestizo. I don’t think so. Only in using a European is the first step arrived at in making debauchery palatable to the masses. If you can make Christian Europeans debase themselves, then everyone else will follow. That’s been the modus operandi of the 20th and 21st centuries. Doubtless on subsequent covers you will be sure to see an oriental.

The West is dead and continues to integrate downward into the void but the really funny thing is — the thing that should be screaming at all right thinking people — is that the Christian West, in order to destroy itself and strip itself of every smidgen of Christian residue, must appeal to residual Christian and Western standards in order to do so.



The Fusion of Gnosticism and Cultural Marxism in Reformed Alienism

“Seriously though, this embrace of opposite ideologies is welding a religious Dualism among the Alienists. And that irreconcilable Dualism demands an immediate and absolute Irrationalism, the end of which is Solipsism. These folks are on the road to oblivion.”

Dan Brannan

The amazing things about these Reformed Alienist folks is that while they are Gnostic (all real reality is spiritual reality) in their appeal that spiritual truths negate corporeal truths they end up supporting cultural Marxist (all reality is material reality) positions in terms of their support of the idea that there is no such thing as races but only the human race. The Reformed Alienist position that racial or ethnic distinctions don’t exist or aren’t important once someone becomes a Christian puts them in the Gnostic place of insisting that spiritual reality is all reality and yet, as just noted, this leads them to the same place of the Cultural Marxists who are  forever championing the indiscriminate Brotherhood of all men.  Ironically the Reformed Alienists have joined in a choir with both the Gnostics, and Cultural Marxists and are singing together,

“I believe in the Kingdom Come
When all the colors will bleed into one
Bleed into one.
But yes, I’m still running…. 

But I still haven’t found
What I’m looking for.
But I still haven’t found
What I’m looking for.”

So with the Reformed Alienists you have the (hopefully) unintended collision and combination of Gnosticism and Cultural Marxism where in one movement you have existing two polar opposite worldviews.  Seriously, the only difference I find between the Reformed Alienist worldview and the worldview of the Gnostic or Cultural Marxist is that for the Reformed Alienist the “colors all bleeding into one” will be Christian Utopia  while for the Gnostics and Cultural Marxists the “colors bleeding into one” are humanist postmillennial colors. When trying to reason with these people one quickly senses that one is counseling someone who is bi-polar. When interacting with these Reformed Alienists one wonders wh0 will respond, Mr. Gnostic or Mr. Cultural Marxist or both at the same time?

What we need to understand, in order to attempt to comprehend this phenomena, is that the pure spirituality of Gnosticism and the pure ‘matter,’ of materialism, are correlatives of each other. If all is spirit then matter must be interpreted as spirit and if all is matter then even spirit must be interpreted as matter. Since both the spiritual and the material are necessary for proper distinguishing in God’s reality, the Gnostic and the materialist refute each other, yet they must steal from each other to get their faulty worldview off the ground.  They both can point out that the other needs what he has to make his opponent’s view reasonable; and they each must surreptitiously make use of the other one’s principle in some way in order to make each of their own views have some appearance of being reasonable.  As such even though materialism and Gnosticism are philosophically opposite it really is not surprising to find both of them end up being part of the Reformed Alienist worldview, as contradictory as that seems,  since both Gnosticism and materialism each end up advocating, intentionally or unintentionally, knowingly or unknowingly, that all reality is monist.

Since both unity and diversity are necessary for knowledge, the rationalist and the irrationalist refute each other, and they must steal from each other.  They both can point out that the other needs what he has to make his opponent’s view reasonable; and they each must surreptitiously make use of the other one’s principle in some way in order to make each of their own views have some appearance of being reasonable.

With the Reformed Alienist we are right back to Van Til’s rational and irrational wash-women who are forever taking in each other’s laundry, only in this case it is the Gnostic irrationalist and the Cultural Marxist irrationalist who are taking in each other’s laundry and they each have the name of “Reformed Alienist.”

Will the Real Michael Horton Please Stand Up

“Nothing in the 2K view entails that Christians do not, then, pursue their vocation in a ‘distinctively Christian way’ or that neither the church nor individual Christians should be in the business of changing the world or society.” Michael Horton,
December 2011

______________________________

“It is certainly true that America is not a Christian nation and in any case Christians should not seek to promote distinctively Christian doctrines or practices through the properly coercive power of the state.”Michael Horton,
May 2011

Here we have Horton telling us that Christians can 

 

First Horton says that, “Nothing in the 2K view entails that Christians do not, then, pursue their vocation in a ‘distinctively Christian way’ …” and then he turns around and says that, “Christians should not promote distinctively Christian doctrines or practices through the properly coercive power of the state.” 

Of course Horton must be assuming here that it is impossible for Christians to pursue their vocation in a distinctively Christian way if their vocation is law or politics. After all, the vocation of Christian law and Christian politics is all about the attempt to  promote distinctively Christian doctrines and practices (i.e. — the implementation of Legislation) through the properly coercive power of the state.  Legislation, when properly passed, is never ever anything except the promotion of doctrines and practices through the properly coercive power of the state.  So, is Michael telling us here that there is indeed something in R2K which forbids Christian political activists or legislators from changing the world or society in a Christian direction?

Putting the concern in the paragraph above as succinctly and as pithily as possible we ask, how would a Christian Magistrate pursue his “vocation in a distinctively Christian way” (Horton quote #1) and still “not seek to promote distinctively Christian doctrines or practices through the properly coercive power of the state” (Horton quote #2)?
The second quote from Horton is quite breathtaking and convinces me that Michael is just confused and doesn’t really mean what he is saying. Keep in mind that the properly coercive power of the state is always properly coercive in keeping with some religion. Proper coerciveness is never employed without that coerciveness as being derivative of and a reflection of, some religion. So, given that is true, what is wrong with Christianity changing the world via the properly coercive power of the state? The problem here of course is that Michael continues to think that the state can be neutral or common ( largely synonymous ideas). In Michael’s Libertarian world the state is unbiased and is not to be captured for the usage of anyone or any religion, except for the religion that insists that Christianity has nothing to do with the public square. In Michael’s R2K social order the state is set free from all the gods and so rules as god over all the gods to determine how far their adherents can go in the common square. For Michael it is, in the state we live and move and have our being.

That there is the non-Van Tillian idea of neutrality leaking in his thinking is seen by Michael’s call for Christians not to seek distinctly Christian doctrines. Very well then Mike, if Christians are not to seek distinctly Christian doctrines then what is left for them to seek? Non distinctly Christian doctrines? Distinctly non Christian doctrines? Non distinctly non Christian doctrines? Mike is implicitly giving us the idea that we can have neutrality in our public square. We can have laws that come from nowhere, religiously speaking.

In terms of quote #1 above, keep in mind though, that per R2K and Horton any changing of the world or society that might happen will not and can not make the society more “Christian” since it is not possible for society to be Christian. Societies, cultures and social orders, like horses, whales, and bumblebees can not be Christian. To speak of a Christian society for R2K is a confusion of categories. It is to speak an absurdity.And finally, Horton’s 1st quote just is not true. There is plenty that has been published by R2K chaps that forbids the Church from changing the world or society.

 

Random Thoughts On Escondido Republication

“… the doctrine of Republication cannot be harmonized with the teaching of the Westminster Standards.”

Robert B. Strimple
President emeritus & Professor emeritus of Systematic Theology, Westminster Seminary California, Escondido, CA

Recently a prominent Reformed Lawyer, on a social media cite, posted a hypothetical in order to continue the conversation with the Escondido Republicationists.  Our Lawyer friend posited this hypothetical proposition,

“the Passover was in some sense a Republication of the Covenant of Works. Israel’s obedience to the command (“put blood on the doorpost and live — fail to to do this and you die”) congruently merited the reward of deliverance from Egypt.”

Of course this hypothetical could arises due to Escondido’s insistence that the Mosaic covenant was at the same time both a covenant of Grace and a covenant of Works. This is accomplished by introducing language of “upper” and “lower” register into the Mosaic covenant while insisting that the idea of typology sustains that “in some sense” the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of works for Israel.

Of course, one can use this reasoning not only in the Mosaic covenant but also in any of the other covenants which represent the continual maturing and flowering of the one covenant of grace.  For example, one could go back to Genesis 17 and say much the same thing about God’s command/stipulation to Abraham to “walk before Me and be blameless” (Genesis 17:1 ). Given that stipulation language in Genesis 17 one can’t help but wonder, given Escondido predilections for a hyphenated Mosaic covenant,  how is it that the Abrahamic covenant also is not an example of a mixed (hyphenated) covenant? In point of fact Dr. Meredith Kline taught that that Noah and Abraham were themselves under a legal-works covenant?   One thus wonders, if, according to Escondido, whether the covenant of works was republished to Abraham and Noah as well?

In all this I wonder if there isn’t some covenant confusion that was articulated by a Baptist named Philip Cary in 1640 in a debate with John Flavel and other Reformed luminaries. This debate surrounded the issue of the validity of infant Baptism but some of Cary “reasoning” sounds a great deal like Escondido reasoning on covenant republication.  Cary treated Genesis 17 (Abrahamic), Exodus 20 (Mosaic) and Deuteronomy 29 (Mosaic) together under a covenant of works. In doing so, the Baptist, Cary, could treat all these passages as discontinuous in nature, purpose and extent with the covenant of Grace. For the Baptist Cary, no commands from the covenant of works could affect the covenant of grace. For the Baptist, Philip Cary, this meant that Abraham, as well as all the elect in the Old Testament were in both covenants at the same time. This sounds strangely familiar to some of the writings of Escondido adherents.

Keep in mind though that if covenant are both law and gracious at the same time, it is also the case that people living under those hyphenated covenant arrangements lived and moved  by both law and Gospel at the same time. Escondido would have us believe that the Mosaic saints earned, via congruent merit, their stay in the land while at the same time those same saints were saved by unmerited grace. This seems to me to be a “Glawspel” arrangement. If so, it is ironic that the very people (Klinean republicationists) who complain that those who don’t accept their republicationist paradigm are guilty of not distinguishing properly “Law and Gospel,” with the consequence that “Glawspel” obtains are themselves guilty of not properly distinguishing “Law and Gospel” so that “Glawspel” obtains.

Think about it. If you’re living under the Mosaic covenant how do you determine if your obedience to God’s law is motivated by earning congruent merit in order to stay in the land as opposed to an obedience that is motivated by gratitude for God delivering your from your enemies and putting you in the land?

Second, in light of the constant disobedience of Israel under the Mosaic, how can we speak of going back under a covenant of works in the Mosaic when the covenant of works required absolute perfect obedience? If the Old Testament saints under the Mosaic covenant were put back under a covenant of works it was a very different covenant of works then what Adam was under in the Garden where one violation was all that was required to be cast out of the garden. Are we to believe, per Escondido, that the covenant of works was more gracious in the Mosaic covenant then it was in the garden?

________________

For some reading that might kick start thinking on this matter I recommend chapter 45 of Beeke and Jones, “A Puritan Theology; Doctrine for Life.”