Not living by God’s law makes one, over time, mad. As we have noted before and as Scripture teaches

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20

There comes a point when the one who has abandoned God’s Law-Word where they begin to call God’s curses as good and God’s blessings as bad. They see the rising of the Alien as a positive good and the sinking of their own people as likewise good. And so they even begin to pursue that course.

We see it in the Old Testament when they began bringing the false foreign Gods into the temple. We see it in the OT when they began to embrace their own destruction of themselves by sacrificing their children to foreign gods.

2 Chronicles 28:3

Moreover, Ahaz burned incense in the Valley of Hinnom and sacrificed his sons in the fire, according to the abominations of the nations whom the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.

Jeremiah 7:31

They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Hinnom so they could burn their sons and daughters in the fire–something I did not command, nor did it enter My mind.

Jeremiah 19:5

They have built high places to Baal on which to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal–something I never commanded or mentioned, nor did it ever enter My mind.

In all these cases they were embracing the curse to be destroyed and eschewing the blessing of God to be the head and not the tail.

This embracing of being the tail and not the head. This embrace of delighting in being sunk lower and lower in one’s own land. This delight in being destroyed by the Alien we might call Alienism.

Alienism might be defined as the glorification and absolutizing of the stranger, the outsider, the abnormal and the corresponding denigration and hatred of the native born, the majority, the normal.

Alienism: is a prejudice in favor of the alien, the marginal, the dispossessed, the eccentric, reaching an extreme in the attempt to “build a new society” by destroying the basic institutions of the native. The most terrible fulfillment of this principle is Communism which we now see as Cultural Marxism and Political Correctness. The goal of extreme Alienism is just what we find in Deuteronomy 28 – the destruction of the Historic Christian, Historic Christianity and the pulling down of Christ off His throne

Alienism, in a phrase coined by Robert Conquest, is the “residual muck of Marxism-Leninism.”

Alienism, that glorification of the abnormal, the stranger, the misfit and marginal has become a governing force in our social order pursuit today. This Universal Otherization of the normative embraces the derelict over the responsible and offers malcontents and the envious a hermeneutical platform to justify their interpretation of reality where the normative is guilty of oppressing the abnormal for merely insisting that abnormal is not normal, for insisting that the immoral is not moral, and for not mainstreaming that behavior which heretofore had been considered taboo. For the practitioners of social order Alienism oppression has been introduced where boundaries have been drawn between what is normative and what is non-normative.

And so, because of this the non-Western immigrant is loved over one’s own children as seen in the willingness to turn over the children’s Fatherland to the stranger and the alien.

Because of this Alienism our people have become convinced that adoption of the offspring of the stranger and alien is a more noble enterprise than the bearing of one’s own children. A family that has all the earmarks of a United Nations meeting is automatically deemed as more holy than a family that is boringly all White and Christian. This is not to say that adoption is evil. It is to say that adoption of the alien and stranger done on a large-scale basis is not without its downside for the broader social order.

Because of this Alienism the visible church in the West is now a refuge for clergy who think it was a blessing when God warned Israel that “the aliens who reside among you will rise above you higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower.” This is seen by the rush of the visible Church to shed itself of its whiteness in order to invest Cultural Marxist minorities with authority over the White Euro-American Christian simply because “it’s not fair for the White Euro-American Christian to have authority over the Institutions that he himself established.” Modern Churchmen have no problem whatsoever with the Hmong or the Koreans, or the Chinese having their own congregations and even Presbyteries but somehow when the original stock Americans say that they might prefer their own congregations then suddenly the nebulous sin of “racism” is immediately leveled.

And because Alienism — that glorification of the stranger, the abnormal, the outsider — is on the rise Western man is headed to his grave delighted that he could snuff himself out for the sake of integrating downward into the void. So convinced is Western man of the nobility of a ideological, alien, and immoral diversity that Western man is ashamed of the quaint notion of righteous “historic stock” Christians having their own culture and geography.

Because of Alienism we are dancing on the edge of the abyss and it is a dance that we feverishly enjoy and we will be full of laughter and gaiety when we finally fall over the edge. Reality will not hit until our falling turns into landing.

What can stop all this? Only a return to Christ. Politics isn’t the ultimate answer, though surely a people returning to Christ will desire to practice Christian politics. Only by repenting for loving the pagan Alien more than our Christian children, only by repenting for interpreting God’s word as being an expression of the works of Karl Marx or Antonio Gramsci, only by repenting that Christ is a Jacobin Revolutionary storming the Bastille can we be set free from being the tail, from sinking lower and lower, from being destroyed. Only by taking up the Cross can we eschew the Hammer and Sickle.

We can be forgiven for being squeezed into the World’s mode. There is abundant mercy for those who plead forgiveness. There is sanctification for those begging to think God’s thoughts after Him. There is endurance and perseverance for those who will fight the good fight and so fight against both the enemy outside the Church and the fifth column within the Church.

May God grant all of within the sound of my voice repentance.

Nations and Nationalsim — A Biblicial-Theological Consideration

In Genesis 10 we have recorded the table of Nations. Chapter 10 ends with these words:

32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, BY THEIR NATIONS; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood.

Genesis 10 is the effect of the cause that is listed in chapter 10 and is placed out of order in order to put chapters 11 and 12 in stark contrast. (Nimrod and Babel seeking to make a name for themselves and Abraham being promised by God to make a name for him.)

Clearly the emphasis in chapter 10 is the distinction of the Nations as Nations.

In chapter 11 the nations are not explicitly mentioned but given the context of chapter 10 and 11:4 which speaks of the desire to “make a name for ourselves,” as combined with the Unitarian tongue (language) and lip (worldview) it is clearly the case that Babel seeks to integrate what God had intended segregated. The sin of Babel is the attempted destruction of the nations that God had ordained by way of idolatrous uniformity. If Babel had been successful, family, tribe, clan, nation, and race would have been extinguished.

This conclusion is reinforced in Chapter 12 and the calling of Abraham. God promises to make a name for Abraham as well as promising that in Abraham “ALL THE NATIONS SHALL BE BLESSED.”

With this we see that God deals covenantally with Nations and that the maintenance of nations as nations is everywhere implied.

Naturally, Scripture focuses on Israel as a Nation (since it is from Israel that the savior of the Nations will arise), but there are places in the old covenant where we continue to see God’s intent for the maintenance and eventual conversion of the Nations. Of course, “Kings,” implies “Nations,” since no man is a King who is not the King of a people (i.e. – Nation). In Psalm 2 we see the intent of God to deal with nations. The Kings, as representatives of the Nations, though they conspire to throw off God — much like the men of Babel so desired – are told to “Kiss the Son,” though they perish in the way. Indeed, these nations as nations are promised as an Inheritance to the great Son spoken of in Psalm 2. That promise of the Nations as Nations as give to the Son comes to fruition as we shall see in later Revelation.

Elsewhere in Scripture, in the book of Isaiah, we continue to see God’s intent to save the nations as nations. Chapter 2:

2 And it shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the Lord’S house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it.

3 And many people shall go and say, “Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. 

4 And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

And in the book of Revelation this prophecy is fulfilled. Chapter 21:

25 Its gates will never be shut at the end of the day because there will be no night there. 

26 And into the city will be brought the glory and honor of the nations.

The Dutch scholar Doctor Klaas Schilder comments on this:

The universality of this covenant requires that not one race or people be left out. Yet during the old Testament times, there was one nation singled out of the many as the chosen people, such separation was but an ad-interim. We may look upon the covenant as then a march toward fulfillment, towards times when all nations from the uttermost parts of the earth would belong to the covenant.

Calvin Seminary Professor Dr. Martin Wyngaarden was getting at much the same thing when, picking up these themes from a few chapters later in Isaiah, he wrote in his book The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011) on page 94:

Now the predicates of the covenant are applied in Isa. 19 to the Gentiles of the future, — “Egypt my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance,” Egypt, the people of “Jehovah of hosts,” (Isa. 19:25) is therefore also expected to live up to the covenant obligations, implied for Jehovah’s people. And Assyria comes under similar obligations and privileges. These nations are representative of the great Gentile world, to which the covenant privileges will, therefore, be extended.

And again, on pp. 101-2:

More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, though each nationality remains distinct.

For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance.” 19:25.

Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria, and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.

All the way through the old covenant we see that God is a Nationalist, which is to say that God intends to deal with nations as nations. There is nothing in Scripture which suggests that God desires the elimination of Nations. This being the case, we cannot help but conclude that those in the Church who desire to see the Church as the place where the Nations are eliminated have turned the Church into the Devil’s playground in order to rebuild Babel on Holy Ground.

However, we are far from done here with this Biblical Theology of Nations.

The whole account of Jonah is instructive because in Jonah we find in the OT a archetype of Christ collecting the Nations as Nations. Jonah is a Christ figure who goes to an alien people and brings to them the proclamation of judgment and salvation. Upon Ninevah’s repentance Assyria is not joined to Israel but is, at least for a period (Nahum suggests it didn’t last long) a nation with Israel that comprises “the people of God.”

Later in Acts 15 we have a kind of repeat of the conversion of Assyria as James cites Amos to confirm that the Nations are coming in unto God, as Nations, to be what Israel failed to be:

13 After they had stopped speaking,  James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me.

14 Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Nations a people for His name.

15 With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written,

16 ‘After these things I will return,
And I will rebuild the  tabernacle of David which has fallen,
And I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will restore it,

17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
And all the Nations who are called by My name,’

18 Says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago.

This is a key passage, not only to demonstrate that the Church has come of age and now fulfills the role of OT Israel as the singular people of God, so that OT Israel is now obsolete in terms of the necessity to join Israel in order to be numbered among the covenant people, but also to demonstrate that the Church is comprised as a confederacy of Nations, each Nation being covenanted unto God as branches in the Olive tree all with the intent of being the new Tabernacle of God. The Church has reached maturation with a plurality of Nations serving as God’s one covenant people.

Of course, this was always the intent as already noted above. In Abraham the Nations of the Earth are blessed as they themselves as Nations are grafted into the Olive Tree. The Great Commission anticipates this as Jesus commands the disciples to disciple, teach, and baptize the Nations. In the Olivet discourse (Matthew 25:31-46) Jesus speaks of judging the Nations and separating the goat Nations from the sheep nations. Jesus initially is intent on collecting the lost house of Israel, but when national Israel, in their national leadership, refuses their Messiah Jesus speaks very clearly, in John chapter 10:

16 I have other sheep (nations), which are not of this fold (Israel); I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock (Church) with one shepherd (Christ).

Our Lord Christ teaches here that the one Church will be comprised of different folds so as to form one flock. There is, as such, a “one and many” principle in the Church. The Church is one entity that is comprised of many different nations, each retaining their identity as nations though all belong to the same flock.

Consistent with the covenantal thinking we find in the Old Testament about the Nations as Nations streaming to the Mountain of the Lord, Isaiah, envisioning the eschatological end, records:

2 Now it will come about that
In the last days
The mountain of the house of the Lord
Will be established as the chief of the mountains,
And will be raised above the hills;
And all the nations will stream to it.

3 And many peoples will come and say,
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
That He may teach us concerning His ways
And that we may walk in His paths.”
For the law will go forth from Zion
And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

And He will judge between the nations,
And will 
render decisions for many peoples;
And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not lift up sword against nation,
And never again will they learn war.

Note here that the consequence of the conversion of the nations as nations is that the Nations as Nations live at peace. Nations are existent into the Last Days and during those last postmillennial last days the Nations will stream to the Mountain of the Lord.

This is consistent with what we find in the book of Revelation where the Nations are assembled not only as Nations in the Last Days but into the very eschaton itself. Chapter 21:

22 I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 

23 And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb. 

24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. 

25 In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed; 

26 And they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it; 

27 And nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Note here that the Nations have not been folded into a conglomerate church so that they are indistinguishable in the New Jerusalem. The New Jerusalem will, consistent with Jesus’s words in John 10 quoted above, be a city that is inhabited by one fold (the Church) distinguished by many flocks (the nations).

Also note this is not a minor theme as promissory in the Old Covenant or as fulfilled in the New Covenant.

Micah speaks in the same manner as Isaiah. Chapter 4:

1 Now it will come about that
In the last days
The mountain of the house of the Lord
Will be established as the chief of the mountains,
And will be raised above the hills;
And all the nations will stream to it.

2 And many peoples will come and say,
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
That He may teach us concerning His ways
And that we may walk in His paths.”
For the law will go forth from Zion
And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

3 And He will judge between the nations,
And will render decisions for many peoples;
And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not lift up sword against nation,
And never again will they learn war.

And Revelation 22 speaks again of the Nations as Nations being present there in the New Jerusalem in the Escahton:

1 Then he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, 

2 In the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Everywhere in the Scriptures we find the Nations as Nations part of God’s eschatological intent. As such it is necessary to conclude that any goal that focuses on the elimination of nations in the name of a misinterpretation of Ephesians 2 or Galatians 3 or Colossians 2 is a goal that is in contradiction to the intent of the Gospel’s intent to save the Nations as nations. To put it bluntly and without horns or teeth, a Reformed or Evangelical “Gospel,” that is intent on going all U2 and using the Church to aid and assist the bleeding of all colors into one is doing the work of anti-Christ.

As we have seen above, none of this is unique to this author. In point of fact this explanation has been the default position of Reformed theologians throughout history. Here is one such example from the most illustrious Biblical theologian in conservative Reformed history, Geerhardus Vos, exegeting a passage wherein his unexpected championing of the Nations and races lets off a classic Vossian riff. From his Dogmatic Theology:

Romans 11:17, 19, with its “branches broken off” metaphor has frequently been viewed as proof of the relativity and changeability of election, and it is pointed out that at the end of vs. 23, the Gentile Christians are threatened with being cut off in case they do not continue in the kindness of God. But wrongly. Already this image of engrafting should have restrained such an explanation. This image is nowhere and never used of the implanting of an individual Christian, into the mystical body of Christ by regeneration. Rather, it signifies the reception of a racial line or national line into the dispensation of the covenant or their exclusion from it. This reception, of course, occurs by faith in the preached word, and to that extent, with this engrafting of a race or a nation, there is also connected the implanting of individuals into the body of Christ. The cutting off, of course, occurs by unbelief; not, however, by the unbelief of person who first believed, but solely by the remaining in unbelief of those who, by virtue of their belonging to the racial line, should have believed and were reckoned as believers. So, a rejection ( = multiple rejections) of an elect race is possible, without it being connected to a reprobation of elect believers. Certainly, however, the rejection of a race or nation involves at the same time the personal reprobation of a sequence of people. Nearly all the Israelites who are born and die between the rejection of Israel as a nation and the reception of Israel at the end times appear to belong to those reprobated. And the thread of Romans 11:22 (of being broken off) is not directed to the Gentile Christians as individual believers but to them considered racially.

Clearly Vos, like Schilder, like Wyngaarden, and many many others understood and taught that Covenant theology requires us to read the texts in such a way that allows for the maintenance and integrity of the Nations as Nations. Nations do not vanish in Biblical Christianity, and to seek to drive them away in pursuit of a New World Order cosmopolitanism is to enter into the ring to fight against the design and intent of the God of the Bible.

We close by bringing to the stand French Reformed Theologian Pierre Courthial in his book, “A New Day of Small Beginnings”:

In giving the Church a mission to the nations, Jesus does not diminish the importance of the individual… At stake is the salvation, well-being, and peace of the nations, that is, societies as God would have them. The Son of God must ‘rule all nations’ (Rev. 12:5). The nations must bow down before the Lord and come to walk in His light (Rev. 15:4; 21:24). These nations, with their cultures, traditions, and religions turned away from the God of Holy Scripture, are called to be converted to a sure salvation. This conversion of a nation does not happen apart from the individual lives of faithful Christians, but precisely through the influence of such lives. Moreover, each nation’s conversion is to reflect the uniqueness of that nation.

Having considered briefly, the Biblical theological case for Nations in Part I, in Part II of this essay we will examine the case for Nations from a Systematic theological approach and will consider and dismiss a couple common textual objections to the ongoing existence of nations and so the ongoing necessity for Nationalism as the Biblical organizing expectations for social orders.

Marxism… Then and Now

In Classical Marxism the enemy is the Bourgeoisie because owning the means of production they are the oppressor class to the oppressed proletariat. As such the workers of the world must unite to throw off the economically forged chains of the bourgeoisie. Said action, if successful, brings in Utopia where all are economically equal.

In Gramscian Marxism (Cultural Marxism) the enemy is not only the bourgeoisie but is also inclusive of those who are cultural creators or gatekeepers as together they own not only the means of production but also they have the hegemonic power to create and sustain the narrative that keeps the oppressed, oppressed. In Gramscian Marxism hegemony is gained and maintained primarily, not by the bourgeoisie using violence or even economic pressure. For Gramsci hegemony is maintained by the creating and securing of a subjective ideological transcendence which in turns creates culture. This is what Christianity, as carried by the White European, had achieved and if the human race was to enjoy Marxist Utopian-ism, then the hegemony of ideological transcendence as defined by Christianity must be scrubbed clean off the mind of the Western proletariat. To do this required then the now famous long march through the Western Institutions, stripping them of their former subjective ideological transcendence as created by the Christianity of the White European Christian. We might say it this way; ” Gramscian Marxism holds that Christianity is the enemy of Gramsci’s utopian new world order.”

In Gramscian Marxism the proletariat is comprised of all those who, not only are deprived the means of production, but also of all those who are in rebellion to the narrative that the oppressors use to oppress them in their defiance. We might style this new proletariat as “the grievance class.” These are those who have comprised the counter-cultural flotsam and jetsam who have lived in defiance of the culture created by the largely (though not exhaustively) Christian, White, Patriarchal, and morally traditional, cultural creators and gatekeepers.

Classical Marxism and Gramscian Marxism both attacked the foundation of Christianity as the cornerstone problem they believed they needed to rid themselves of. Classical Marxism focused on economic Christianity as its enemy. Gramscian Marxism’s assault was and is much broader, much more inclusive compared to the much narrower proletariat in Classical Marxism, and much more comprehensive in terms of all it stands opposed.

Gramscian Marxism is, by all accounts of Classical Marxism, contradictory because Gramscian Marxism (Cultural Marxism) holds that which is not material to be the chief problem. Classical Marxism, being materialistic, believed that everything was to be understood by the very material economic means of production. However, the Gramscians come along and now appeal to a thing called “culture” as the chief problem that must be conquered. However, culture is the product of man’s spiritual non-material existence. To concede that culture must be the primary obstacle is to concede that the cornerstone of Classical Marxism — dialectical materialism — was an error. Gramsci believed that the dialectical materialism was really positing a god inasmuch as it held to a objective universe outside human history was in point of fact serving as a belief in god. Gramsci exchanged this idea of a transcendent objective universe outside human history for inter-subjective Historicism where truth and meaning are shaped and formed by a history that is self-originating and self-defining that has become absolutized.

This give explanatory power then to who comprises the new proletariat. The new proletariat is comprised of minorities who have been convinced that the European Christian White who uniquely oppressed them in their origins, the pervert who has been convinced that sexuality is not a matter of the structure of the Cosmos, and the female who has been convinced likewise that gender is not a matter of the structure of the Cosmos, together with the remaining Classical Marxist economic proletariat. Throw in the guilt ridden white man and woman conditioned by the cultural zeitgeist, Academia which seems to believe that there is forgiveness to be found for the past in fanning the flames of envy, and now Corporate America which sees dollar weight shifting in favor of the triumph of Gramscian Marxism and one discovers that the new proletariat is the voting base of the Democratic party.

Voting Demographics

“Democrats, in the Georgia Senatorial race to replace retiring Republican Senator Johnny Isaacson are trying to build a rainbow coalition of African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and suburban women that is much easier to envision in theory than in practice.”

Online Article

In this one sentence we see that all our politics have become racial. This has actually been this way for quite some time though main stream media refuses to report on it, or if they do report on it they do so with crocodile tears lamenting that the Republican party is so “waycist.” This racial dynamic of our politics is one reason why the Democrats so earnestly desire more immigrants (legal or illegal). Democrats understand that their political future depends upon the voting prowess of the immigrant nation. When they open the borders they are building up their voting base. (Republicans cooperate with the Democrats on this issue because Republican donors desire cheap labor — see below.)

The coalition that the Dems are seeking to build in Georgia is the same coalition that they used for the election of Obama and the same coalition they have as their base going into the future. With the exception of white suburban women who are feminists the entire coalition of the Dems is non-Caucasian. Both Obama and Hillary completely wrote off the White Middle class traditional voting block in their campaigns and both of them won the popular vote in the three elections they represent.

This means that the only constituency that is left to wise Republicans is the Middle class White traditionalist vote. Republicans must seek to garner larger percentages of the White middle class traditionalist vote. To be successful Republicans must become comfortable with the reality that they need to be the party of the White Middle class traditional American. This means several things,

1.) Republicans, if they want to survive, need to understand that the immigration issue is the only issue. If Republicans fail to halt the swamping of America with the stranger and the alien, Republicans will no longer exist as an alternative party. They will have to become a “me too” party to survive.

2.) Republicans seeking to expand their constituency to include large swaths of the minority vote will lose since moving in that direction, politically speaking, will mean the loss of their base.

3.) Republican candidates have to decide at some point between their Wall Street / Corporatist donors or votes. The Republican Wall Street Corporatist donors don’t care about the White middle class traditionalist voters because said donors can retreat into their gated communities, sending their children to posh private schools where there are no minorities. All the while increasing their profit margin by hiring Juan and Pablo do to their cheap labor in their factories.

We are, demographically speaking, already at a tipping point. Some would say we are already over the falls and that it is just a matter of time before the demographics make us a majority minority nation.

This reality, is what Trump tapped into in election 2016. However, to date Trump has been largely all words and little action. Trump continues to sign huge budgets which represent a continual transfer of wealth from White middle class traditional Americans to the Democrat constituency. Trump continues to drag his heels on seriously dealing with the border / immigration issue. (Why hasn’t he sent the “Dreamers” packing?) Trump continues to surround himself with Wall-Street Corporatist advisers. If only Trump really were the President that the media hyperventilates about.

So, there is a divide between White middle class traditionalist America and the minority community. However, the divide is not only racial or ethnic but it is also between competing theologies, ideologies, and axiologies.

Unless a political party arises to serve as a carrier for the interests of the White middle class traditionalist voter, this country will become even more balkanized than it already is.

From The Mailbag; Baptists and Synergism?

Pastor Bret

Could you tease out why it is that you connect synergism with Baptist expressions of Christianity?

Thank you,

EP in Ann Arbor

Dear EP

Thank you for the question.

If you want to skip to the money part of your question being answered skim down to the italicized paragraph.

The answer comes down to the issue of Baptism. All Baptists, of course, refuse to Baptize infants insisting that they must have a confession of faith from the child before the child is to be baptized. This, of course, is the legacy of their Anabaptist heritage which broke with the Magisterial Reformers on the issue of Infant Baptism.

So, we see, that with Reformed Baptists at least, they have tried to slam together the ecclesiology of the Anabaptists with the soteriology of the Reformed. I have always said this tertium quid makes for some unstable and contradictory theology.

This unstable and contradictory theology is seen no more starkly than on the issue of infant Baptism. On one hand the Reformed Baptists avers that we are saved by Grace Alone (soteriology) but on the other hand membership in the Church can only be extended to people who reached some kind of age of accountability so can articulate a confession of faith (ecclesiology). Without that confession of faith articulated children, while perhaps being saved, should not be received into the Church as saved.

The synergism in the Baptist “thinking” I see is that whatever the adult can bring in order to be baptized and so received as a covenant member in good standing in the Church that an infant cannot bring in order to be Baptized is some kind of work that needs to be exchanged (traded in) for salvation. Baptists, in my estimation, when it comes to infant baptism insist on looking for the subjective response to God’s grace (the giving of some kind of confession) as opposed to just looking to God’s grace found in the promises and commands that God gives. However, just as the children of Israel didn’t have to wait for circumcision before they made a subjective response to grace so our children are covenant members from birth.

The upshot of this Baptist thinking is that when Baptism does finally occur in the Baptist church, the emphasis seems to fall on the decision made as opposed to the God who called and who made promises to us and to our children. Baptism communicates that God does all the saving. Baptism does not communicate the wonder of our decision.

The Baptist seems to assume that the infant of Christian parents isn’t saved until the child opts in, whereupon the child, upon opting in by confession is granted Baptism. To the contrary the paedo-Reformed, believing God includes in the covenant both Christian parent(s) and their seed by virtue of God’s promises brings their children to the Baptismal fount to be showered with the blessing of Christ. The paedo-Reformed extends the judgment of charity to their seed and believes God faithfulness until such a time, God forbid, the child has repudiated the blessings of the covenant. At that point we begin to treat them as rebels against God who need to be evangelized.

This is serious serious error that ought not to be lightly glided over. Yet, we realize how patient God has been and continues to be with us so we embrace Reformed Baptists as brothers in Christ and pray that God would open their eyes to a more Biblical Christianity.

May God be pleased to make the faith of both our families truly generational.

” For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call. ” Acts 2:39