Toby Sumpter’s Insistence That If Luther Were Alive Today He Would Repent

 “This sentiment (that Martin Luther would be excommunicated if he were alive today, which I’ve seen elsewhere) seems to suggest that we should not expect greater maturity over time and history. Many of the great heroes of the faith were immature in theology or morals because the Holy Spirit has been sanctifying the church over history. If a grown man continues to act like an 8 year old boy, that is a problem, don’t you think? But thank God for growth in holiness. I think it’s likely that Luther would not be excommunicated today because if he lived today he would have the benefit of the sanctification of the last 500 years. Cheers!”

Toby  Sumpter
Doug Wilson Lieutenant
Author of Blog — No Legs Still Walking

1.) Toby wants us to believe that the Church today is more mature than the Reformation Church of Martin Luther. That sentiment is to boggle the mind. Keep in mind also that Toby is saying here that not only is the Church today more mature than the Reformation Church of Martin Luther but old Toby is also saying that the Church today is more mature on this subject than the Christian Church has been for 2000 years. Luther’s position on this subject was the same as Chrysostom’s, the same as Augustine’s, the same as Calvin’s, the same as Origin’s, the same as St. Jerome’s, the same as Justin Martyr. If one scans the two books “Who is My Neighbor,” as well as Alexander Storen’s “A Survey of Racialism in Christian Sacred Tradition” one begins to see that Luther’s view on the subject at hand is a view that has been held by the Church in all times and in all places until the post-war consensus. One also has to consider all the Church councils that took place in Church history dealing with the Bagel problem. Old Toby would be wise to try and find a copy of Maurice Pinay’s “The Plot Against The Church,” and give it a read.

2.) Old Toby refuses to consider his other option on this matter. His other option is that Old Toby and his Federal Vision compatriots are the ones who are immature. It is possible that it is the Church today and not the Christian church throughout history that is in error regarding the Bagels.

3.) The idea that Martin Luther would, were he alive today, be a more mature man on the issue of the Bagels leaves one either incredulous or leaves one doubled over in laughter. Keep in mind that Luther only came to his conclusions regarding the Bagels after having great hopes for their conversion. It was only after seeing that they would not come into the Church that Luther wrote the book he wrote.

I would also recommend that Old Toby get a copy of E. Michael Jones’ “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit,” and give it a read.

Addendum;

This is a note left in the comments from Ron that I thought should be added here;

Note to Toby:

“When Luther departed for Worms, his friends warned him that he may lose his life and even the cause of the evangelism will be lost. To this Luther replied, “It is unimportant what happens to Dr. Martin, and I suppose it is possible that I may not be able to save the cause of evangelism, but the point is that the truth be heard.” It is equally inconsequential what happens to each of us personally … but rather that the truth be spoken in our time as well.” pp. 149-50.

Elias Simojoki, ‘The Burning Bush’, trans. Jarno Alander

Hardly sounds to me like a man that needs to grow up to your level of holiness.

Cheers!

Rich Lusk on Luther … McAtee on Rich Lusk

“Martin Luther did not operate with modern racial categories as we know them. Again, his opposition to the Jews stemmed from their theology and resultant practices, not their genetics or physical lineage. He was not a proto-Hitler arguing that Jews were an inferior race. He saw the Jewish religion (Judaism) as a false religion and, because Jews rarely converted in his day, a threat to the Christian society in which he lived.”

Rich Lusk
Heretical Federal Vision Clergy 

1.) Did Luther or did he not loathe the Bagels? If he loathed the Bagels then he was operating with modern racial categories.

2.) Why would Lusk make this kind of hard and fast distinction between a people’s genetic lineage and their theology and resultant practices? Now, to be sure, not all individual Bagels would be or will be Christ haters. Doubtless many individual Bagels love the Christ of the Bible. Praise God for them. But speaking in generalities, it is often the case that when one is speaking of genetic lines that there is overlay between genetic lineage, and theology and resultant practices. This is why, for example, Reformed Theologian Dr. Robert Godfrey could once speak about Dutch Calvinists being suspicious.

3.) Given what Luther says in his book, “The Bagels and Their Lies,” I’m pretty sure Luther, while perhaps not agreeing w/ Hitler about the Bagels being an inferior race would have had little problem with SOME of the actions that Hitler took regarding the Bagels. Luther also would have agreed with Hitler on the necessity of putting an immediate end to Kristallnacht, for example.

4.) And Bagels remain a threat to what is left of the Christian society in which we once lived and they understand that Biblical Christians are a threat to the world they have created.

Someone tell Rich Lusk that he does not understand either Luther or the times in which we are living.

Back When The White Man Understood That Being & Staying White Was Desirable

“The fundamental reason for the adoption of the White Australia policy is the preservation of a British-Australian nationality.

They knew that racial unity, though not necessarily racial homogeneity, was essential for national unity, for true national life. The union of a people depends on common loyalty to common ideals, and on a common belief as to the best course in general to pursue to attain these ideals.

‘A united race,’ said Mr. Alfred Deakin [Second Prime Minister of Australia] in 1901, speaking on the subject of a White Australia;

‘means not only that its members can intermarry and associate without degradation on either side, but implies one inspired by the same ideals, and an aspiration towards the same ideals, of a people possessing the same general cast of character, tone of thought, the same constitutional training and traditions-a people qualified to live under this constitution, the broadest and most liberal perhaps the world has yet seen reduced to writing; a people qualified to use without abusing it, and to develop themselves under it to the full height and extent of their capacity.’

 In the words of Sir Henry Parkes [Premier of New South Wales] it was;

‘a question of policy of the first magnitude to cement society together by the same principles of faith and jurisprudence, the same influence of language and religion, and the same national habits of life.'”

History of the White Australia Policy
Myra Willard · 1923

It’s About The “Nation,” Stupid … Amfest & American Christianity At A Cross-Roads

This past week at the Amfest, put together but TPUSA (Charlie Kirk’s organization) it was made clear that there are exists a serious and obvious split in the organization. This same split is being played out Institutionally across our cultural landscape. The scope and depth of this split is not one that is going to be papered over and it’s presence may result in the Republican party getting soundly trounced in the mid-term elections.

We see this split already being manifested in the “conservative, ” institutional “Reformed” “church”. Indeed, it has been present for several years already but it seems to be coming to a head just at the time when we see Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, Steve Deace, and Doug Wilson frothing at the mouth against Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon who likewise have plenty of froth about their lips.

Some would say the debate is about the answer to the question; “What is an American?” We might refine this by saying that the debate deals with the question; “What is a nation?,” or even more precise, “Is reality a complete social construct?” That the debate seen at the TPUSA event has entered into the church has already played out on several stages but there is another Act in this play brewing as the debate coughs up charges being brought up against Rev. Sam Ketcham for being a “wacist.”

Just to be clear here the split that is entering into not only our politics and churches but also our workplaces and families is a split that has been a long time coming. It was guaranteed to eventually enter into our lives by the seeds that were planted with the 1965 Hart-Cellar immigration act. The broad split we are seeing now began as a hairline fracture and has grown and grown over the decades following the Hart-Cellar immigration act.

As this split gets fleshed out it becomes apparent that this split is primarily defined as a contest between those who believe in the post-modern worldview where men can define their own reality however they want it vs. those who believe that reality comes to us ready made. It is a split between the egalitarians and those who believe in social hierarchy … between those who believe that reality is patriarchal vs. those who believe that men and women can be interchangeable cogs … between those who believe that a nation is defined only by the propositions its citizens adhere to vs. those who believe that a nation not only is defined by a shared worldview but also, just as important, by a bond of blood and soil…. between paleo-conservatives of the Sam Francis type vs. the neoconservatives of the Ben Shapiro type … between the New World Order types vs. the “My country right or wrong but still my country” types… between “Kinism is acceptable for Jews vs. Kinism is acceptable for white people,” …  between those who believe a nation is about the Gross Domestic Product vs. those who believe that a nation is defined not by economics but by people-hood … between those who believe that the idea of borders is a quaint custom vs. those who believe that borders are sacred … between those who remember the history of the contest between Jews and Christians vs. those who say including this definer proves I a anti-Semitic … between those who support Trump and those who would more likely support a 1968 George Wallace … between those who worship in a circus/rock concert atmosphere vs. those who believe in the regulative principle for worship … between those who believe in a polytheistic social order where all the gods are invited into the public square vs. those who believe we should be a distinctly Christian nation … between those who believe that salvation coming to all races means that all races can and should marry vs those who believe that salvation coming to all people doesn’t mean God intends for the world to become a coffee colored brown … between those who have a vision of a Christianized New World Babel Order vs. those who insist that any version, including a putatively Christian one, is an abomination before God.

This is a battle that has been fought before … and lost before. In the 1930s there arose a movement called “The America First” movement led by people like Charles Lindbergh, Gen. Robert E. Wood, Newspaper magnate Robert R. McCormick, “Father” Charles Coughlin, Garet Garrett, John T. Flynn and many others. Like the current pro-America wing of the MAGA movement the America First Movement of the 1930s was routinely accused of Fascism and was made up of anti-communists, former military men, and prominent journalists. Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon are to the modern incarnation of the America First movement now what Garret Garrett and John T. Flynn was to the America First committee was in 1939.

The 1930s version of the American First committee lost out with the rise of WW II. Nobody could sell isolationism in the head winds of the successful propaganda that “America experienced a dirty under-handed Jap sneak attack,” and so the America First Committee died as WW II gained life. I am confident in saying if this version of America First does not win out there will be no future replay because defeat in this contest means the end of America as a White Anglo Saxon Christian nation.

Something else that has to be understood here is that the war described above is not the only war that the America Firsters are fighting. The war described above is a internecine war. Illustratively speaking this war is the war between the Colonial Patriots vs. the Colonial Tories. Once winning that war with the Colonial Tories the Colonial Patriots still had to fight the Red Coats and win. We are fighting a two front war. The first front is against the “neoconservatives.” Our reward for winning against the Socialist neocons is the opportunity to fight against the Communist Democrat One worlders.

So, it is a two front war. A two front war where the only difference between the neocons and the Democrats is the difference that existed between the Montagnards and the Jacobins during the French Revolution. One side is kind of hard left while the other side is the “Two Daddys can adopt babies” hard left.

Frankly, the odds are against us defeating the deep pockets of the Ben Shapiros, Mark Levins, and Doug Wilsons of the contest. These people have access to almost inexhaustible wealth given their Israeli connections. Plus, the leadership of the Old Right is suspect. The things that fall out of the mouths of the likes of Tucker Carlson, J. D. Vance, and Steve Bannon at times makes one wonder if they are really controlled opposition themselves.

In my world, the really sad thing about all this is to see how the “conservative” churches are falling on this contest. Almost without exception the “conservative Churches” are either on the side of the neocons or they refuse to support the conservative cause, thus creating a vacuum for the Communist cause to enter. On the issues surrounding this civil war, the Church, generally speaking, is a rotten place to get one’s bearings. The modern church has, exceptions notwithstanding, cast their lot in favor of the “let’s put all the races into a blender just as long as individuals say they’re ‘Christian.'” Race, for the Doug Wilson expression of the Reformed and Evangelical church, is merely a social construct that has no real meaning just as long as “everyone loves them some Jesus.”

So which way America? You are at a fork in the road and you must decide whether or not, not only your nation but also your Christianity will be in line with Old Narnia or whether your nation will be in line with the Coke commercial of the 1970s singing …

“I’d like to buy the world a home
And furnish it with love
Grow apple trees and honey bees
And snow white turtle doves.

Chorus:

I’d like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
I’d like to buy the world a Coke
And keep it company
That’s the real thing.”

 

 

Doug Wilson @ TPUSA Conference Justifying Israel’s Sinking Of The USS Liberty

“All I’m doing is asking questions, you know, like Candace does recklessly connecting dots. The USS Liberty was an Intelligence gathering ship. LBJ wa President. Israel was in the middle of a hot 1967 war. How confident are you personally that there was no American Deep State in 1967? How confident are you that we weren’t playing both sides and feeding intel to Egypt? How confident are you that America can be only double crossed and can never be the double crosser?

You confidence in the essential goodness of the CIA is endearing. I want to close by saying – and this is crucial – that debates about foreign policy and America’s relationship to Israel and what happened to the USS Liberty are totally inbounds and inbounds at a conference like this.”

Doug Wilson

TPUSA Conference

So, if Doug want’s to ask questions, I figure I can ask questions also.

Recently, some of Doug’s Lieutenants were given an all expense paid trip to Israel. Should we not consider it possible that this “free” trip was part of the pay off to Doug for spreading Israeli disinformation?

Doug keeps building there in Idaho. Is all that money necessary to build coming from Israelis slush funds?

I mean … I’m not coming to any conclusions, nor am I making accusations … all I’m doing is asking questions here.

Secondly, Doug is telling us here that Israel wasn’t really at fault for trying to sink the USS Liberty because someone somewhere in the Deep State was committing treason against President LBJ’s orders to aid and assist Israel? What evidence does Doug have for this?

I mean, when those today have seen malfeasance in the FED Gov’t they bring forth evidence of some kind. Where is Doug’s evidence that the Deep State disobeyed LBJ? Where are the chaps testifying with hoods over their face to protect their identity? Where is the Eric Snowden of the USS Liberty Deep State? Or is Doug just spinning all of this out of his more than ample arse?

If Doug wants to spin all this … it’s all good. However, at the very least let him bring forth at least a little bit of evidence to hang his conspiracy theory on. I mean, even Candace did that when insisting that the First Lady of France is really a Dude. I mean even those that believe the Michelle Obama is really Michael Obama have some evidence (I’ve seen it). Where is Doug’s flimsy but yet “anything’s possible” evidence?

Understand that Doug’s whole argument here is pointing us towards believing that the attempted sinking of the USS Liberty by the Israelis’ was completely justified. Doug is suggesting that the murder of US Sailors may indeed have been a heroic act by our US President.