In Gratitude

Today I received from Amazon a book from a good friend. The gift made me reflect how fortunate I’ve been when it comes to the generosity of friends and books.

My friend Mark Chambers, my most recent benefactor, has gifted me with many previous volumes that has helped me to grow in my understanding of post-millennialism and covenant theology. My friend Joe Graber, upon getting out of the ministry gave me a large part of his library from which I have yet to make a sizable dent. I have read much of the Rushdoony material that Joe gave me and have profited greatly by it. The friends among the people I have been privileged to pastor have been great at gifting to me book money. The Timmis, Trammell, Martens, Martens, Ehnis, and Bacon families all have seen the importance that their Pastor have the opportunity to be well read and have reached into their own pockets to make sure that I am. My friend Bob Heath recently grabbed some great books out of my arms that I was collecting to purchase and brought them to the sales clerk and paid for them. My friend, Carmon Friedrich, who I have never even met, shipped from California a book on paedo-communion that I immediately devoured. My friend Anthony Lombardi (who doubles as my Father-in-law) upon retiring from the ministry just gave me his whole library.

When I received this most recent unexpected book gift in the mail I was once again overwhelmed at how generous people have been to me. I certainly don’t deserve such kindnesses. I only wish I could consume all this material faster and then have the ability to think more deeply about what I am reading. Further, I pray that I will be given the ability to communicate and articulate in an understandable way what I learn from what I read. I sense such a responsibility to be able to adequately express all that is being impressed upon me through my reading.

To all those who have contributed to my education, I thank you. I don’t deserve your tender ministrations on my behalf. I only ask for your prayers that I might be able to both better absorb my reading and be able to better teach what I’ve learned.

Hastings, Anglo-Saxon Courage & America

“We must fight, whatever may be the danger to us; for what we have to consider is whatever may be the danger to us; for what we have to consider is not whether we shall accept and receive a new lord, as if our king were dead; the case is quite otherwise. The Norman has given our land to his captains, to his knights, to all his people, the greater part of whom have already done homage to him for them; they will all look for their gift if their duke become our king; and he himself is bound to deliver up to them our goods, our wives, and our daughters: all is promised to them beforehand.They come, not only to ruin us, but to ruin our descendants also, and to take from us the country of our ancestors. And what shall we do — whither shall we go, when we have no longer a country?”

English Chieftains Response To
William The Conqueror’s Surrender Terms Before The Battle Of Hastings

Chronicled by Augustin Thierry

History of the Conquest of England by the Normans; Its Causes and Its Consequences in England, Scotland, Ireland and On the Continent Part One (Paperback)

When William the Conqueror’s spokesman laid down the terms of surrender before the English court those English nobles realized that they only had two choices. They could one one hand die fighting to defend their liberties as Saxons or on the other hand they could surrender and willingly consign themselves and their descendants to Norman slavery for generations. They decided to fight — and fight they did like men realizing that defeat meant not only personal loss but the loss of all that their fathers had handed them as well as the loss of all that they could ever bequeath to their descendants.

The Norman’s likewise fought like possessed men. Like, the Saxon, they realized that the Battle of Hastings was one in which there could be no peaceful surrender. With the channel at their back there was no returning home. Flight in battle would only mean later being hunted down like wild game by righteously offended Saxons.

And so Christian men of honor on both sides fought for their King, their Fathers and their children. In the end, Harold’s Saxon troops, exhausted from only recently defeating the invading Norse Army of King Harald Hardrada at Stamford Bridge in the North, were themselves defeated. The Saxon King Harold along with his brothers Gurth, and Leofwine were killed at Hastings with the bodies of a great host of their own thanes, knights, and peasants as well as 25% of the invading force laying dead and dying about them.

The battle waged from the early morning well into the evening hours. The Saxon line held until it was broken by Saxon soldiers pursuing what was thought to be Norman retreat. The Normans, however, had used retreat as a ruse to draw the Saxon soldiers from their impenetrable defenses and once the Saxon soldiers had broken their defensive phalanx the Normans turned and breached the Saxon lines, eventually reaching and decimating the house and Nobles of King Harold, as well as the already brutally injured King Himself.

Edward Shepherd Creasy in his book, ‘Fifteen Decisive Battles Of The Western World’ insists that the victory of William the Conqueror though a trial for the Saxon people, in the long run beneficently shaped the West, if only because the oppression that the Anglo-Normans brought upon the Anglo-Saxons was eliminated and the two people made one by their coming together to establish the English liberties by signing the Magna Carta at Runnymede.

For our purposes I want to refer back to the quote with which we began. I pray daily that we alive in this country might be able to summon the Anglo courage to fight, realizing like they did long ago that a refusal to fight means the loss of our country, our heritage, and our ability to pass on a Christian way of thinking and living to our posterity. Our misfortune is that we don’t see the alternatives as starkly as the Anglos of old did. We don’t have an armed host encamped against us and so we think that we have options besides those Anglos in the 11th century. We fail to realize the traitors in our midst who would sell out our country to an unarmed immigrant host in hope of handing us over to globalist overlords. Just as much as the Normans at Hastings these Globalist have promised our land to their captains, to their knights, and to all their people. Should this fascist alliance of Global Corporatism & Statist Politicians succeed in their treachery and should we as Americans refuse to fight, as the Anglo-Saxons did, our goods, our wives, and our daughters will be forfeit to their wicked designs. This Fascist alliance of Republicans, Democrats and Globalists Mega Corportists not only intend to ruin us, but to ruin our descendants also, and to take from us the country of our ancestors. And what shall we do — whither shall we go, when we have no longer a country?

If we are to lose all of this then let us lose it like the brave Anglo-Saxons against William the Conqueror — let us lose it fighting to the last man, woman and child.

Obama Baby

“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

Sen. Barack Hussein Obama

Well, in today’s rapid news cycle this is already old news but I just heard this today and couldn’t resist commenting on it.

I’m just going to go through what I see here in the order I see it.

First, ‘I got two daughters?’

Never mind.

Second, he is going to ‘teach them morals and values’ while at the same time ‘giving them information’ on how his daughters can be immoral girls when they decide to reject the values that he teaches them. If Barack is going to teach his daughters ‘morals and values’ while at the same time ‘giving them information’ on how to best violate what they have been taught isn’t the giving to them information on how best to violate the morals and values they have been taught a moral and a value they are being taught?

Third, notice how sex outside of marriage is just a ‘mistake’ — you know, kind of like putting more sugar in the cake batter then the recipe called for, or setting your alarm clock an hour earlier then what you really wanted.

Fourth, Barack says that babies are a punishment. It is not a wonder that the guy has never met an abortion restriction that he likes. If babies are punishment then by all means let us kill them off in every way we can.

Fifth, having babies and being infected with an STD are considered parallel punishments. Indeed, getting pregnant might be less of a punishment for their ‘mistake’ then being infected with STD since it is easier to get rid of the baby punishment then some STD punishments.

Sixth, I think this confirms that if B. Hussein Obama is Islamic, he is only nominally Islamic. I don’t think a full fledge Muslim would give the information on how to have ‘mistake free sex’ to his young teenage daughters. I think we are going to give up this idea that he is a closet Muslim and be satisfied with the fact that he is a Black Nationalist Marxist.

I’ve been over and over this issue with Government educators but,

1.)Outside of marriage there is no such thing as ‘mistake free sex.’

2.)When you teach children how to have ‘mistake free sex’ you are teaching them to have sex. You cannot consistently, on the one hand, say something is inadvisable (that’s the strongest language Government educators will use about sex) and on the other hand teach someone how to most effectively do that which is inadvisable.

Comparing & Contrasting Two Different Christian Visions

This conversation may be getting old to some. If it is just ignore it. Still, I think it provides the advantage of really teasing out the differences between radical two Kingdom Theology and Biblical Theology. It is interesting, that according to John Witte, in a recent book that he has put out chronicles that the young Calvin embraced Luther’s two Kingdom theology but, Witte points out, as Calvin matured he increasingly moved away from Luther’s Two Kingdom Theology.

It is essential to keep in mind as we examine this that since Two Kingdom Theology hold that only people are Christians that applying the appellation ‘Christian’ to anything else is an absurdity. Therefore they reject the idea of ‘Christian Family,’ ‘Christian Schools,’ ‘Christian Scholarship,’ ‘Christian Law,’ and ‘Christian Culture.’ Now while we agree that the term ‘Christian’ should apply primarily to individuals we think it obscene to suggest that God’s word doesn’t speak to how to establish Christian families, schools, scholarship, law culture, and any number of other areas. What the Two Kingdom types want God’s people to apply to these areas is not God’s Redemptive Word as found in Scripture but rather God’s Creative Word as found in Natural Law. So Natural law holds sway in where we do all our non-spiritual living and God’s Redemptive word holds sway in the Church where we do our spiritual living.

Below I have created by latest conversation with Sean and Zrim. The italicized parts I included from a previous post because they help the conversation make sense. The blockquote is the most recent and input from Sean or Zrim and the non intalicized non blockquote sections are my responses.

I agree that Romans 1 and 2 can’t be made to contradict one another and I haven’t appealed to it as such, i’ve referenced it in just the way Paul makes use of it, to acknowledge commonality with the Gentile(when the gentile does…..). I fear you confuse sin with crime.

It’s true that the there is commonality with those who do not have the law. There is commonality but not neutrality. I fear you confuse the two. The commanality that exists between the two is denied by those who do not have the law, choosing instead to insist that the common ground that belongs to God is in fact their ground that belongs to them and their deity. I do not confuse sin w/ crime but I do recognize that sin often leads to crime. In order to say anymore about that you’ll have to develop just how I am confusing the two.

“Including when it deifies the belief that no god should be the god of the public square. All tribes are equally particular in their civil application of their beliefs about God. (i.e. — Humanismdom, Islamdom, Christendom, Pluralismdom etc.). All cultures have a sense of the ‘taboo’ thus revealing that their culture is an expression of the cultic religious system.”

They all reflect a commonality in that they reflect however imperfectly the imago dei. Again sin and crime needs to be distinguished.

They all don’t reflect equally, however imperfectly, the imago dei. You have just made the multiculturalists argument that all culturals are equal, which is what I would expect a R2Kt pluralist to make. Christian culture (wherever it might exist) does indeed imperfectly reflect the imago dei, just as fallen individuals who have been redeemed imperfectly reflect the imago die, but because it has been Redeemed it is far superior and to be preferred above all other imperfect reflections of the imago dei.

”All culture are organized cultically. The attempt to have a non-cultic culture would result in a cultic culture that is an expression of the non-cultic cult.”

Not in a culture that rightly distinguished common from holy, sacred from secular. In that instance it is not a deifying of the common but rightly distinguishing cult from culture and insisting that cultural and cultic institutions rightly adhere to their respective bounds.

Did it ever occur to you that cult and culture, sharing a root word, are intimately bound up with one another? Certainly one can distinguish between the two but to divorce and compartmentalize between the two such as you are doing is utter nonsense. In a culture that rightly distinguished common from holy, sacred from secular, that ability to distinguish would be a testimony that such a culture that does make such distinguishing is a Holy culture. It is the set apart culture because it is operating the way that God wants it to. It is the culture to be preferred above all other cultures. It is the Holy culture because it makes distinctions between Holy and Secular. It is the sacred culture because it is the true culture. You haven’t avoided what you so desperately want to avoid. All cultures are organized cultically.

“I am confident that disobedience to the State when it positions itself as God in significant non-cultic realms (like deciding some people group are sub-human and are to be liquidated) is biblical reason for obedience to God rather then men.”

I overstated with the “only”, unintended, I have no objection to overcoming certain tyrannical acts, particularly when those acts emanate from a state who is using forcible coercion to apply it’s cultic distinctions(identity movement, naziism) (regard of other ethnicities as sub-human, diminishing the imago dei). This is simply upholding the distinction between common and holy and affirming the imago dei.

Ah, so now, in your non-cultic culture any behavior that that you deem cultic by what is non-cultic is ok. Et Tu Brutus? That is a major inconsistency on your part. Anything that I would advocate the State do to not do would likewise simply be affirming the imago dei and an avoidance of diminishing the imago die. In the end you’re position is not any different then mine. The only difference is that you are willing for a culture to defy God up to a later point then I am. I draw lines way before when they start putting yellow stars on people and you don’t start drawing lines until they actually are putting them in the ovens.

“There is a Theocratic city to come but we must not under-realize our eschatology and forget that there is a Theocratic city that is now. Christ has come. Christ brought His Kingdom. Christ bound the Strong man. The Theocratic city now rules. Our living and advocacy in every area of life should reflect hegemony of our Theocratic King.”

Well, this is an obvious confusion of kingdoms, and the defining of the kingdom as something other than spiritual in this age, it’s a misunderstanding of the nature of the kingdom ala “jewish dreams”, and an example of overrealized eschatology.(christendom)

And here we begin to see your gnostic theology. In your view any aspect that belongs to Christ’s Kingdom cannot be corporeal since Christ’s Kingdom is by definition incorporeal that is to say Spiritual. Christ has brought a Spiritual salvation and that salvation does not apply to things you perceive to be non-Spiritual. Does Christ bring Salvation to our Political structures? ‘No’, you say because they are not Spiritual. Does Christ bring salvation to our economic relationships? ‘No,’ you say because they are not Spiritual. Does Christ bring Salvation to our Families? ‘No,’ you say because they are not Spiritual. Does Christ bring salvation to our understanding of the World as conveyed in Schools? ‘No,’ you say because they are not Spiritual. This is nothing but gnosticism.

“By being obedient to Him in every area. By not only praying ‘Thy Kingdom Come’ but also by realizing that with the ongoing coming of His already present Kingdom opposing Kingdoms must crumble. By resolving that when appropriate they must obey God rather then man. By being willing to endure a theology of the Cross as a result of the opposition to pursuing the glory of God in every area of life.”

Not sure we disagree here, depends if you have in mind a golden age in which cultural institutions this side of the second advent are undergoing reclamation. In that case you’ve violated your theology of the cross.

I do have in mind a Triumphant age in which cultural institutions this side of the second advent submit to Christ’s always present Lordship. And I would contend it is only post-millennialists who have a theology of the cross because it is only post-millennialists that the enemies of Christ would bother to persecute for the Kingdoms sake. It’s easy to talk about a Theology of the Cross when you don’t do anything that would make anybody want to persecute you.

It is interesting that W2K views, in the context of Reformed confessionalism, are often called “Gnostic” or “Fundamentalist” or “Dispensational,” at least to me. I deliberately rejected broad Evangelicalism years ago on the same sorts of grounds. What I find similar to broad Evangelicalism (indeed, most western religion) and the principles of theonomy/transformationalism is that heaven implies earth, that the gospel itself has a direct bearing on and obvious implication for earth, that the eternal and temporal are not really all that distinct. (What’s this mean for something like the Creator/creature distinction?) But if everything is sacred then nothing is.

This is an important observation and it is why I insist that while everything is Holy there must remain a ‘Holy of the Holy’ in the administering of Word and Sacrament. In just such a way your last sentence loses its force. I agree that the eternal and the temporal are distinct. I don’t agree that the eternal and the temporal are divorced and compartmentalized as if heaven and earth have nothing to do with each other. In the end I think there are two dangers to avoid. One danger is conflating the two so that they are indistinguishable. This is the danger that I believe the Church embraced in the Medieval ages. The other danger is divorcing the two so that they are isolated from one another. This was the danger of the Ana-Baptists and frankly it is the danger of the R2Kt people. Only in Reformed thinking was heaven and earth reconciled so that they neither became completely identified with one another on one hand nor were completely divorced from each other on the other hand.

This is why I say that consistent theonomy seems necessarily to have to be co-belligerent with something like the religious right, which is itself simply the conservative version of modern Liberalism; I am not sure why some theonomists, like the ones here, reject the RR. Like I said, I have spoken with theonomists who seem to understand this and readily admit co-belligerancy. It’s also why I think very often in Federal Vision you find deep roots in theonomy and postmill’ism—it seems consistent with the idea of monocovenantalism or the collapsing of kingdoms and covenants.

I reject the christian right because it is not particularly Christian nor definitively ‘right.’ It is, as you say, just a ‘conservative’ version of modern liberalism. Now, there may be some issues with which I will share a co-belligerancy but that is a far different thing then accepting the Christian Right. Shoot, on the right issue Zrim I would even be co-belligerent with you.

And just so I don’t get tarred with that broad brush you’re swinging, I reject the Federal Vision project as it pertains to justification. I’m still working my way through the bi vs. mono issue, but your comment there was insightful and has set me to thinking about some connections.