Category: Uncategorized

Romans 3:9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.

10 As it is written:

“There is none righteous, no, not one;

11 There is none who understands;

There is none who seeks after God.

12 They have all turned aside;

They have together become unprofitable;

There is none who does good, no, not one.”

13 “Their throat is an open [d]tomb;

With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;

“The poison of asps is under their lips”;

14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”

15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;

16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;

17 And the way of peace they have not known.”

18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become [e]guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

___

We hope to take this step by step this morning. First we want to deal with what the text is doing. We will from there consider the text as informing our Confessions. Then we want to see how the text informs the Worldview category of Christian anthropology. Then we will deal with some ancillary issues connected to this doctrine.

Here we read to St. Paul’s great peroration, by means of quoting from OT texts, touching the sinfulness of fallen man. It is concluding statement drawn from all that he has set forth starting in Romans 1:18. From that point forward Paul has labored to make the point that all men, regardless of classification or nationality are guilty sinners before God.

If we were to work through this section we would see that from Romans 1:18-32 St. Paul has made the case that immoral man is characterized as guilty sinners before God. In that section Paul teases out some of the immoralities of the ancient world and declares their odiousness and sinfulness before God.

When we get to Chapter 2:1-16 we see that man who thinks of himself as moral man does not escape the reality that he is a guilty sinner before God.

In Chapter 2:17-29 St. Paul points a finger at the religious Jews and tells them that they too stand as guilty sinners before God.

The whole thrust of this section is to convince every mouth of its sin that it may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

It is from this section and other sections of Scripture like this section that the Christian doctrine of Anthropology or “the doctrine and nature of man” comes from.

Per this section Christians have insisted that man, in terms of his nature is sinful… or evil … or if you prefer “fallen.” The Scriptural doctrine of Anthropology is that man outside of Christ will always demonstrate his appetite for that which is wicked. Fallen man left to himself will always go from bad to worse.

This is the testimony of Scripture that we find here in Romans 3. Man is, by nature, evil.

Of course this Christian Anthropology based upon the witness of God’s Word has been placed in our confessions and catechisms.

For example the Westminster Confession of faith, relying on texts like Romans 3 teaches,

Section 2.) By this sin, they (Our first parents) fell from their original righteousness and communion with God,(1) and so became dead in sin,(2) and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.(3)

(1) Ge 3:6,7,8; Ecc 7:29; Ro 3:23 (2) Ge 2:17; Eph 2:1 (3) Tit 1:15; Ge 6:5; Jer 17:9; Ro 3:10-18

————————————

Section 3.) They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed,(1) and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation.(2)

(1) Ge 1:27,28; Ge 2:16,17; Ac 17:26; Ro 5:12,15,16,17,18,19; 1Co 15:21,22,45,49 (2) Ps 51:5; Ge 5:3; Job 14:4; Job 15:14

————————————

Section 4.) From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,(1) and wholly inclined to all evil,(2) do proceed all actual transgressions.(3)

1. Ro 5:6; Ro 8:7; Ro 7:18; Col 1:21 (2) Ge 6:5; Ge 8:21 ; Ro 3:10,11,12 (3) Jas 1:14,15; Eph 2:2,3; Mt 15:19

   In our Christian anthropology we then learn that fallen man is born

   1.) Guilty
   2.) Without original righteousness
   3.) A corrupt human nature

   Insert Rabbit trail

   As a brief rabbit trail here let us add that Anthropology is an inescapable category. Either one will own a Christian Anthropology or they will embrace a humanist anthropology. If one embraces a humanist anthropology the doctrine of sin does not go away but is redefined in a humanist direction. Instead of God’s Word being the standard for right and wrong, normative and aberrant, good and bad behavior man becomes the standard.

   The unbeliever will still typically talk about “sin” or “wrong,” or “aberrant” but they use a different standard to define those realities. They will use the standard of some humanist yardstick. For example today the humanist yardstick for “sin,” “wrong,” or “aberration” is some behavior that violates some extra-biblical code.

   On this score RJR has noted,

   “Sin is being defined in terms of crimes against humanity, not against God, and the very obscene and wicked men like Michael Luther King, which was his real name, are being exalted as though they were saviors. When churchmen are doing this, certainly the principle of the Man of Sin is very powerful within the church.”

   ~ Rushdoony

   “Paul’s Prophetic Discourses”

   You see if we will not define sin per God’s revelation then we will allow our enemies to define sin and when God’s enemies define sin they craft it so that Christians are the ones who are always guilty of their humanist sins. It is Christians who are guilty of humanist sins of racism, hate crimes, and blasphemy.

   End of rabbit trial

   So, before the rabbit trail we were talking about how it is that fallen man is born.

   Let us take these briefly one by one

   (1) Guilty

   Our anthropology informs us that as man enters into this world he enters as guilty before God.

   This idea of guilt, in the way we are using it here, means because of our union with Adam man (Romans 5) is under obligation to render satisfaction to God’s justice. It means that man deserves punishment.

   Man is born guilty
   A debtor to God’s law
   Delighting in his flaw

   Theologian A. H. Strong wrote “Guilt comes because of what we have done personally or in Adam – it is a consequence of disobedience – ours or somebody elses.

   So, a Christian anthropology teaches that sin is antagonism to God’s Holy Will. Guilt means the obligation to satisfy God’s outraged Holiness.

   We see that in the text this morning. Consider vs. 19

   19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become [e]guilty before God.

   (2) Man is not only guilty but he is born w/o original righteousness

   That is the whole tenor of the passage in Romans 3. Look at it again and remember that it is a peroration – a synopsis of the points he has made up to this point.

   Review passage

   Over and over we read of the absence of original righteousness and the presence of positive evil. What we are seeing in the text is not some kind of disease or sickness such as we too often label sin today. What we are reading is a nature … a disposition. As fish find water to be their home man apart from Christ finds sin to be their natural environment.

   (3) Man’s Nature is thoroughly corrupt

   We call this in our language “total depravity.”

   This corruption means that all of man is vitiated. Man according to his will, reason, and love is corrupt. All of man’s faculties, passions, and powers of body and soul are corrupt.

   This corruption means that there is no spiritual good in relation to God w/i the sinner at all but only perversion resting in one degree or another.

   So, this is our Christian Anthropology and if this is our Christian anthropology should we be surprised to find that men conform to it? Can we really be surprised when we learn that fallen man once used 50K US Soldiers in Operation Desert Rock in a series of military tests in the 1950s aimed at understanding the effects of atomic radiation on ground troops. In total, over 50,000 U.S. soldiers were exposed to 69 radioactive blasts.

   So this is our Christian anthropology and if this is our Christian anthropology can we really be surprised to find that men conform to it? Can we really be surprised when we learn that fallen men once the US Government took 600 black males w/ syphillis and told them they were being treated when in fact they were merely being observed so that the natural history of untreated syphilis” in black populations could be discovered.

   Two examples. I could spend an hour giving more. This doctrine of Christian anthropology requires us to believe that fallen man is capable of anything. Of anything. Fallen man is capable to creating a false pandemic in order take over the world. Fallen man is capable of using mRNA treatment to download a biological operating system so as to control man by tagging him so that surveillance and finance are easily monitored. Fallen man is capable of being sinful enough to want to turn 99.9% of the world’s population into cattle to be controlled.

   Now… here me. I’m not necessarily saying this is true, though if I was a gambling man I’d be pushing all my chips in the middle of the table. What I am saying is that as Christians, with

   1.) Our Christian anthropology
   2.) A Christian understanding of fallen man’s record in History
   3.) Lucifer’s hatred for mankind

   We should find these kinds of things hardly beyond the pale of being believable. My understanding of Christian anthropology requires me to believe that fallen man is capable of anything… ANYTHING. And all the more so when his fallen-ness is combined with finance, power, and opportunity.

   So… given this is our Christian anthropology why are Christians so gullible… so credulous?

   Well, I think part of the reason is that we tend to believe that everybody is like us. You sitting here today, and most of the people you know – believer or unbeliever – have been influenced by the Christian ethic. You don’t have power plus money plus opportunity and you can’t imagine people being wicked on the scale of adenchrome, comet pizza, and Epstein’s pedo Island. You just can’t imagine anybody being that wicked because you think people are just like you. Fallen people are not just like you. There are lizard people out there and their name is legion. People with no conscience. People with no sense of remorse. People with no sense of shame or guilt. People completely absent the notion of God. Lizard people.

   Nietzsche called them the ubermensch … the men who were beyond good and evil. The Supermen who were responsible to give us a new ethic in a new world since God was dead.

   You have to return to Romans 3 and read it again. Fallen man is capable of any and every wickedness you can imagine and that all the more so when his social-order & culture is fast deteriorating and moving away from its Christians moorings. What … do you think only primitive Aztecs and Zulus are capable of astonishing wickedness?

   So, this is Christian Anthropology. Our doctrine of man. This is one premise upon which all our theology is set. And since it is so fundamental it is a premise that is constantly under assault. It was under assault in the 1^st inaugural address this last week. I wonder if you heard it if you listened to the address. There was the attack, in all its glory, on Christian anthropology.

   (1) “This is a great nation and we are a good people.”

(2) “We can make America, once again, the leading force for good in the world.”

This is the talk of Utopians. All Utopians believe this horse hockey. Believing that man is basically good they then can launch into their sociological projects designed to help man be as good as he can be. They can begin to “social-engineer” man.

And social-engineering means for many of the Davos Crowd transhumanism. The World Economic Forum Billionaire groupies are pushing this great reset which includes this attempt at transhumanism.

Now remember we are talking about man’s sin nature. We have looked at Romans 3. We have considered the confessions. We have defined this idea of fallen man’s sin nature in our theological language.

And now we are considering what all this means concretely. And what we are saying now is that fallen man is more than capable of seeking to social engineer mankind so that he crosses an evolutionary marker and becomes transhuman … human but more than human.

It is all there is the literature. There you find Huxley in his BNW telling us about those responsible for creating the different categories of humans needed for varied tasks.

Huxley caught the transhumanism in the birthing process. In BNW birthing became depersonalized with the use of machines and surgically removed ovaries, which are kept in incubators, to produce fetuses, who are then stored in jars on conveyor belts. These conveyor belts have been engineered to move at 33 1/3 centimeters an hour so their journey along the belt is completed in 267 days. Along the way, they are subjected to X-Rays to kill off the weak. The fetuses are also given chemicals according to there caste to condition them.

Our transhumanism today runs along different rails but it is still animated by the same anthropology. Man has determined that God is absent so man will be his own God and create a transhuman that is not only socially engineered but is also biologically engineered. It’s already happening in China with their system of social credit. Why would you think it would not come here?

You have to understand with our anthropology we understand that for the unbeliever that there is, as the text says, no fear of God before their eyes. Because there is no fear of God before their eyes they believe that all things are open to them. They become their own God. When they are considered as the Technocratic Oligarch crowd that we are dealing with their assumption as God is to see humans as a resource to be managed just like oil, or coal, or copper. Men are not to be free but are to be in bondage to the elitist technocrat. If the technocratic Oligarch believes that humans would be better managed if they were all chipped and part of a central data base then all humans will be chipped.

There is nothing wrong with this since it is the best way to manage the resource called humans. We have to understand that once man has no fear of God before his eyes then there is nothing that is out of bounds in terms of behavior.

Look… either we believe our Anthropology or we don’t. If we believe it then it is easy to believe that Government heads like Pharaoh would throw babies into the Nile river, easy to believe that Government heads like Nebuchadnezzar throw people alive into furnaces because they won’t bow down, and easy to believe that Government heads like Herod would slaughter the innocent just to try to kill Jesus, and Government heads will be more than happy to go all Transhumanism in their Great Reset NWO project.

Conclusion

However, man’s sinfulness is not the final word. Christian anthropology is answered by Christian teleology. We believe that the Kingdom has come and that evil men will be overcome. We believe that Christ having defeated the enemy in His work on the Cross intends to defeat the Fagins and the Raskolnikovs, and the Madame deFarges and the Edward Rolles Westons of the world.

Evil men don’t get the last word because our teleology of the Kingdom reminds us that Christ shall reign until he makes all his enemies his footstool. Victory over wickedness in time and space history is inevitable.

We are reminded that even when evil men wax for a period of time that though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me. Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. We are reminded that even when evil man wax for a period the Lord God Omnipotent reigns and that His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom which will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.

So, we are aware of the reality of our Anthropology but we understand that in Christ victory at the Cross he is now the Christus Victor who triumphs over all enemies. And we triumph in him.

I am critiquing this piece

https://mereorthodoxy.com/jesus-masculinity-america/?fbclid=IwAR1gANY_PbEznVanK57Oh2e5nx8f7dZAa0QsW4nhQtq0-KB2-7vuu9jzUa0

I offer the link so you can make sure that I am not mistreating Dr. Lucas.

I do not like Dr. Lucas. I have read enough of his material, scanned some of his course syllabi, and have viewed some of his teaching sessions online to know that Jude would have labeled him as “a blight among your love-feasts.” If, as Michael Dukakis said about Ronald Reagan in the 1988 Presidential campaign, “a fish rots from the head first,” Dr. Sean Michael Lucas is just one example of how our Seminary Leadership is a rotting fish. This article screams support of all those observations.

In this column, Dr. Lucas is reviewing a book from a Calvin University Professor who teaches Gender studies at Calvin. (Women Professors at Calvin who teach Gender studies is certainly going to be the first place I go to enrich my reading.) The book is titled, “Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation.” Now, even the title here would set off a Geiger counter adjusted to locate radioactive Cultural Marxism. However, our Dr. S & M Lucas wades right in approvingly.

Lucas starts the piece off by informing us that he has the street cred to legitimately hate Biblical Christianity. He attended Bob Jones University. Lucas then spent some time at Falwell’s Liberty University. He did some work under Bill Gothard, He was a Presbyterian Pastor in a denomination that opposed women in office. We clearly get the impression that Dr. S & M Lucas was scarred by his conservative affiliations along the way and that the rest of this piece is going to be his payback for how those terrible people hurt his feelings in days gone past.

Dr. S & M Lucas insists that the book authored by a Gender Studies Professor at Calvin College is spot on in her analysis,

And especially true and irrefutable is Du Mez’s main contention. In trying to explain the pervasive evangelical support for Donald Trump, Du Mez argues that this support “was no aberration, nor was it merely a pragmatic choice. It was, rather, the culmination of evangelicals’ embrace of militant masculinity, an ideology that enshrines patriarchal authority and condones the callous display of power, at home and abroad”

Especially true and irrefutable?

I would refute this as especially false by noting that Evangelicals had just lived through 8 years of Obama’s promise to “fundamentally change America,” and after 8 years they decided they didn’t want Obama’s change. I would refute Du Mez’s especially false claim by noting that in voting for Trump Evangelicals embraced the militant survival instinct. The Economics of the Obama administration was transferring wealth to the top 1% and so wiping out the Middle Class while at the same time showing a profound commitment to elimination of any and all National and social-order identity by an essentially open borders policy.

Also, I would like to point out that Scripture teaches that patriarchal authority is God’s norm for social-orders, starting with God’s patriarchal nature of Father and continuing with creating the woman for the man. So, DuMez’s and Dr. S & M Lucas’ disgust with patriarchy is something they are going to have to take up with God. In point of fact, a healthy Presbytery would be investigating Dr. S & M Lucas’ contretemps for patriarchy by bringing him up on charges. But alas … Presbyteries don’t do discipline any longer.

Finally, concerning that quote above, let’s keep in mind that Trump projected American power abroad fewer times than any President in recent memory and, speaking only for myself, I would have loved to have witnessed some of that alleged callous power at home during the summer of 2020’s riots in American cities.

So, we see that what Dr. S & M Lucas calls “especially true and irrefutable,” is complete bunkum. DuMez’s claims are especially not true and are easily refutable.

Now, keep in mind that I did not vote Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020 and counseled from the pulpit that Christians had no business voting for Trump. However, I understood that many of the people I serve as well as many of my friends would ignore me and vote for Trump because he represented a safe harbor from the escalating cultural Marxism as seen in people like DuMez and Dr. S & M Lucas.

Lucas next complains about Billy Graham. He doesn’t complain about Graham’s Arminianism. He doesn’t complain about Graham’s shallowness. He doesn’t complain about Graham’s parlor tricks to manipulate people to respond to his insipid messages. No, what Lucas complains about is that Billy Graham was trying to “bring revival to America through a restoration of order to families, churches, and eventually nations.” Now, of course, Graham was never going to be successful at that given his methodologies but was it really so bad of Graham to desire a restoration of order to families, churches, and eventually nations? Lucas seems to think it was a bad thing for Graham to want that.

Lucas and DuMez place White Evangelicals in the dock repeatedly. Lucas, citing DuMez approvingly writes,

“At the heart of this realignment (in the ’60s) were attitudes toward civil rights, the war in Vietnam, and ‘family values,’” Du Mez wrote. “For conservative evangelicals, a defense of white patriarchy would move to the center of their coalescing cultural and political identity” (33).

Now keep in mind that in the 1960’s America was 84% white. Should it be surprising that white Christians who love their family and people would defend white patriarchy? Would we fault the Japanese for defending yellow patriarchy? Next, everyone knows of the demonic attack on “family values” that occurred in the 1960s via the sexual revolution. Why would it be untoward for white Christians during this time to defend white patriarchy? What DuMez and Lucas are asking us to embrace is that somehow esteeming Christian white patriarchy was somehow a weakness in light of the Civil Rights movement as animated by a Marxist worldview and in light of the 60’s sexual revolution. DuMez and Lucas criminalize that which is most estimable.

Throughout the piece John Wayne takes it on the chin for being the embodiment of White Evangelicalism. This is humorous given John Wayne and his three marriages. Over life Wayne married a Mexican, Panamanian, and a Peruvian, and so was hardly someone who was a white nationalist, and yet John Wayne is the villain. Go figure.

Dr. S & M Lucas complains that white Evangelicals during the Reagan era 80’s thought;

“The Soviets were evil, Ollie North was a hero, and Americans were under siege. In order to preserve the next generation, the Christian homeschool movement rose up to equip parents in the training of their own children away from the godless factories of public education. The homeschool movement reinforced the linkage between evangelical Christianity, patriarchy, and Christian nationalism.”

This is quote really is quite shocking. Does Lucas think that the Soviets were not evil? Maybe the next book that Dr. S & M Lucas might read is “The Black Book of Communism.” Does Lucas not believe that Government schools are not godless factories that Christian parents in the ’80s were right for eschewing? The literature all across the ideological spectrum testifies to the abject worthlessness of Government schools. I thought it was love and not white patriarchy that motivated parents in the ’80s to home-school their children.

While we are at it, let us note the assumption of Dr. S & M Lucas’ that Christian nationalism is an evil to be avoided. Says who? Dr. Sean Michael Lucas? HA! Would Dr. S & M Lucas prefer Muslim Nationalism or Jewish Nationalism? I’m sure he would. These upside-down presuppositions are shot through this article. White patriarchy is bad. Christian Nationalism is bad. Home-schooling is bad. ‘Family Values’ are bad. Restoration of order to families, churches, and eventually nations, is bad. The 1960’s civil rights movement is good. Do you see the upside-down, inside out, anti-Christ worldview in which Lucas dwells?

Lucas goes on to complain that too often Evangelicals often allow other apriori ideological and cultural commitments to serve as glasses through which they read their bible and form their theologies. Lucas never contemplates for a moment that instead, he is the one guilty of letting his Cultural Marxism apriori commitments and presuppositions to be that which is shaping his theology – such as it is, and which shapes his bitching and moaning about Biblical Christians fondness for white patriarchy, Christian nationalism, home-schooling, and ‘family values.’

Really… I don’t know where Lucas finds all these kinds of Evangelicals he complains about. I suspect that anybody who isn’t as far left as Lucas is is automatically one of these evil Evangelicals. Personally, I find a large percentage of Evangelicals to be as far left as Dr. S & M Lucas.

Lucas sees himself as someone who is “daring to question the status quo.” What a joke. Lucas is the status quo. The overwhelming majority of the leadership in the Church is exactly where Lucas is. They hate all patriarchy, which is to say they hate the whole backdrop that allows the Scriptures to make sense. They prefer either matriarchy or eunuch-archy. Strong white men scare the Hades out of effeminates like Lucas and the Seminary leadership kaffeeklatsch crowd to which he belongs.

Dr. S & M Lucas closes by accusing his mystical Evangelicals of voting out of fear, which Lucas tells us is un-biblical. But I have another explanation for the voting habits of those Lucas loathes. I contend that those who voted Trump, though misguided, were voting in keeping with Romans 12:9; “Hate that which is evil and cling to that which is good.” Those who voted for Trump were voting out of the biblical instinct of hating Cultural Marxism. They voted for Trump because they hated Feminism, hated Globalism, hated “It takes a village to raise a child” thinking, they hated the loss of borders, they hated the thought of disinheriting their children. They were not voting out of fear per Lucas. They were voting out of a Biblically inspired hating of evil.

I think they were misguided in voting that way but I think that because I was never convinced that Trump was a white-hatted champion, who supported patriarchy, ‘family values,’ and Christian nationalism. If he had been I would have crawled over broken glass to have voted for him. Just as I would crawl over broken glass to cast a vote excommunicating Dr. Sean Michael Lucas.

“For Thomas Jefferson, responsible action and a common mind leading to harmony of interests was the factor that could allow for political decentralization. If these factors did not exist, consolidated political administration (authoritarianism) would be necessary to protect and foster order.

“Harmony of Interests and Authoritarianism
Online Article

Our modern outlook thus warps our perspective. For this reason, our federal government thinks nothing of allowing in as immigrants an increasing number of people who are religiously and racially hostile to us. They see no relationship between faith and land. As a result, the United States and the Western world have embarked on a suicidal course. They reject the concept of Christendom and embrace instead the humanistic “family of man,” and thus immigration policies in the U.S. and Europe are based on myths and illusions of a destructive nature.

–R. J. Rushdoony; Numbers: Commentaries on the Pentateuch Vol. 4

All that is being said here by Jefferson and RJR is that a country that is comprised of people from different ethnicities/races and different worldview and religions will be a Balkanized country that requires a totalitarian state in order to keep order.

This explains why I refuse to refer to America as a nation, choosing the word “country” instead. America has no harmony of interests among its competing races and people groups. A nation can exist where there are differing social classes if those social classes share the same kinship and worldview/religion but a nation cannot exist where the unifying point of blood and worldview/religion is non-existent. It cannot even exist for long where even one of the two are absent.

So, what is America’s unifying point as a country? What keeps this country from flying apart in an ongoing conflict of interests? Well, to date the answer to that question has been the fact that America has, historically, been able to maintain a genuine middle class while borrowing against its future in order to mollify (pay off) the lower class. In brief America’s unifying point has been cheap goods cheaply come by but that window is fast closing as our National Debt rockets prices and makes paying off the lower class unlikely.

Now our elite class understands this and is working overtime to eliminate the differentiation that exists as among our various races/peoples and worldviews. Their project has been to push Americans into inter-racial marriages so that all people group, and racial/ethnic group distinctions end. This can be easily seen by advertising, commercials, movie themes, University sales brochures and now church attendance in mega churches. The inescapable theme in all these is that people of different races must miscegenate so that we are no longer a white majority nation. The goal is to once again reach Jefferson’s common mind. It will be the common mind of the lowest common denominator. Such a people will be easier for the elite class to govern.

Failure in this project means that the only option left for a unifying point in America is pure unvarnished governmental force. This was the point that was made by Robert Putnam in bowling alone. Putnam argued that where peoples of vastly different backgrounds and religions are slammed together this results in balkanization and the only option for a balkanized people in terms of creating a stable social order is the force of arms. The more America and the West are flooded with the immigrant, stranger and alien the more Governmental authoritarian force is a surety.

Now, the inconvenient question must be asked; Cui Bono… who benefits? And the answer to that would be the one people group with a shared worldview that can avoid this kind of amalgamation. That people group, if being financially positioned could dominate all the amalgamated lands and rule the world.

America, at this point, is already too far down the drain in order to see it return to its predominant WASP social order. God’s ways are altogether just. The question as Christians we now face in the disintegrating West is, “How can we save our children.”

This is a brief primer that points the way to answers.

1.) We must teach our children our undoubted Christian faith. We must communicate that it is a triumphing faith and that it is not satisfied unless that faith spreads.

2.) We must teach our children that our undoubted Christian faith is a world and life view. We must get a faith in their head that is not singularly tied to the Church as Institution. It is not that we denigrate the Church but we communicate that the Kingdom of God is broader and wider than the visible Church.

3.) If we belong to the heritage of Christian Europe we must communicate to our children that they may not marry outside Christian Eurocentric lines. If we belong to some other people group or race/ethnicity we must likewise encourage our children to marry Christians within that people group who embrace a biblical Christianity.

4.) We must teach our children history from a Christian perspective. A people torn from their historical roots cannot be a people for long. In order for Christians in their people groups to proliferate, they must have Christian heroes both inside and outside the Scriptures. At the same time, we must expose the wickedness of false heroes that have been foisted on us by the enemy.

5.) We must shepherd our children in their friendships. It will do little good for us to teach our children well if they create bonds with those from other families who do not share this world and life view. We must try to seek to make our children familial-centric.

6.) We must also thoroughly teach them that our current government hates them and has every intention of destroying what we and they believe. The government is the enemy that has to be dealt with deftly. We must do all we can to steer them away from any association with the humanist Christ-hating government.

“I hold a traditional understanding of biblical sexual ethics. So I do not support transgender lifestyles as a God-pleasing lifestyle. But that doesn’t mean this person isn’t qualified to be a doctor or one of the nation’s chief doctors. It means they need the Gospel.”

“And not to put it too bluntly, but how in the world can you support or overlook the gross immorality of President Trump AND his near-complete incompetence but commence to whining about this person’s sexual orientation despite their reputation for competence in their field.”

“Ron Burns (Alias Thabit Anybwile)
Protestant Grifter
Wanted in three States for butchering the truth

1.) Let me get this straight. I am having a significant medical problem and Ron wants me to go to a Doctor who has a penis but lives like he has a vagina for a proper diagnosis of my medical problem?

2.) Ron really believes that Trannies should be put in public positions so that they can be looked up to by America’s children. Being a Trannie in Ron’s world doesn’t disqualify one from being a public figure that other people aspire to be like? Ron is an idiot if he thinks that.

3.) Why not just say;

“I hold a traditional understanding of biblical sexual ethics. So I do not support Necrophilic and Bestiality lifestyles as a God-pleasing lifestyle. But that doesn’t mean this person isn’t qualified to be a doctor or one of the nation’s chief doctors. It means they need the Gospel.”

4.) I didn’t vote for Trump and I warned other people off of voting for Trump. As such, I didn’t overlook his gross immorality. However, I did support what Trump represented to most Christian people. I also found Trump’s competence in his job as President to far exceed almost every other President of the last 50 years. I certainly found his competence as a President greater than your competence as a Minister.