Category: Uncategorized

U. S. Grant … Robert E. Lee … George Washington … Columbus … Albert Pike.

All recently having their statuary pulled down across the county.

Having read quite a bit on the Reformation there is a parallel here between now and then. In the time frame of the Reformation the Reformers were known as being iconoclasts. This meant that they were smashing Catholic statuary and idols everywhere. They hated the Roman Catholic statues primarily because those statues had violated the 2nd commandment. Still, in my estimation many went overboard in their zeal in destroying statues, paintings, and Christian art in general. Luther even had to rebuke Andreas Karlstadt for Karlstadt’s zeal in burning and destroying art.

The destruction of art, statues, and painting was especially prevalent in the area of the Radical Reformation where the Ana-baptists held sway. However both Zwingli and Calvin were iconoclasts and desired to get the art out of the Churches. A story is told about William Farrell (Calvin’s predecessor in Geneva) that Farrell came across some Priests carrying a piece of Roman Catholic statuary that people would bow down to as it passed. When Farrell came upon them providence had arranged that all were crossing a bridge. Farrell went into a frenzy, so the record goes, and tossed both the statue and the Priests carrying the statue over the bridge into the water below.

Because of such zealousness on the part of the Reformed Leaders the Reformed rank -n- file attacked statues and images. However, in most cases, civil authorities removed images in an orderly manner in the newly Reformed Protestant cities and territories of Europe.

Now, we have to keep in mind that during the Reformation era the statuary and art was being used to keep the people in bondage to the false God of Rome. As noted above, statues would be carried in processions so that people could bow down while the statue passed. Alongside this the Scripture clearly forbids, via the 2nd commandment, the kind of superstition that was being exercised by the Priests over the people. Weeping Madonnas, blood coming from crucifixes, phony miracles connected in some way with relics and art had contributed to the Medieval Roman Catholic destruction of the Christian faith. As such destruction of statuary, paintings and idolatrous art was understandable in the Reformation. Much of it was certainly being used in an idolatrous fashion.

One thing is clearly communicated though in the iconoclasts attack on the Medieval statuary and that was that there was a new God in town and the old art, representing the then considered wicked past was not going to be allowed to stand in the new social order that God was pleased to give in the bringing forth of the Reformation.

The linkage to what is happening now is clear. Though nobody is using statuary to reinforce homage to the old order such as was done in 1518, the Marxist Revolutionaries still understand the power of statuary, paintings, and art in sustaining an order they wish to rip up and destroy. As such the old order has to go and one way to initiate the departure of an order that the anarchists despise is to rip down its icons.

Such has been the action of every Revolution or Counter-Revolution of the past. Come with me to Paris of 1789 and watch the art fall. Come with me to Moscow of 1918 and see the Churches being pulled down and the sacred art destroyed. Come with me to the velvet Revolution in 1989 Czechoslovakia and watch the art come down. The same happened all across the former Soviet Bloc when Communism putatively fell. When Iraq fell before invading American Troops one of the first images that was broadcast over Western Television was the pulling down of Saddam Hussein’s statue. Indeed, so routine is the removal of statuary and art that when one sees it happening on a broad scale one can be sure they are living through Revolution or Counter-Revolution.

And of course what it all communicates is the Revolutionary or Counter-Revolutionary attempt to cut off a people from their past. Marx once presciently wrote, “Hitherto, philosophers have sought to understand the world; the point, however, is to change it.” One way that the world is changed, Marxists have always understood and routinely taught is to cut people of from their historical roots. If people have no past then they will have little ground to understand themselves and little guidance on how their future should look. Ripping down the statuary is one means by which Marxist sever people from their past. Because of this Marxist principle, I fully expect at some point in our current disheveling the anarchist / communist criminal class will start coming after the Churches.

So, for the epistemologically self-conscious among our current Goths, Mongols and Zulus criminal class, the purpose is clear. They are destroying Western Civilization by destroying its history. If they are successful then whatever history that will exist will be the history of the last 5 minutes as controlled by the Tyrant State. Communique will go out from the new American Soviet Supreme and history will be changed with every new communique. Some new art and statuary will slowly arise but even that will only mean whatever the State says it means at any given time. History and truth thus become transitory and mere tools for the State to keep people in line with the Revolutionary thinking. So, you’ll still get a Lenin as art here and there. You’ll get the kitschy Revolutionary “Internationale” or the corny Revolutionary art that finds the youth of the world in the painting bowing and throwing flowers at the feet of the great leader. Any other statues or art will be verboten.

Finally, keep in mind that in the desire to destroy the old order by destroying the art, what will eventually come is some formation of a “Committee on Public Safety,” to protect the new order from those who honored, respected, and cherished the old art. These people who can never be redeemed from their commitment to the old order ways must be destroyed every bit as much as all that old statuary. As such they will be guillotined, or gulag-ed, or just conveniently disappear. They will not rest with statuary destroyed. They will not be placated by your sincere apologies, kneeling, or reparations. They will not be fooled by you suddenly joining in the Revolution. Their desire is to steal, kill, and destroy. They will soon enough be coming for you.

____

Calvinist Minister John Witherspoon, as might be expected, earnestly and eloquently supported every measure adopted by Congress for securing independence. When the important moment came for signing the Declaration, and some of the members were hesitating to affix their names to it, he delivered an eloquent appeal, in which he said:

“That noble instrument upon your table, which ensures immortality to its author, should be subscribed this very morning by every pen in the house. He that will not respond to its accents, and strain every nerve to carry into effect its provisions, is unworthy the name of a freeman. For my own part, of property I have some, of reputation more. That reputation is staked, that property is pledged, on the issue of this contest. And although these gray hairs* must soon descend into the sepulcher, I would infinitely rather they should descend thither by the hands of the public executioner than desert at this crisis the sacred cause of my country.”

All honor to him and to the Church and the principles which he so eloquently represented ! That Church may well be proud of having her clergy so honorably represented among the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

Witherspoon remained in Congress, excepting for a short period, till 1782, and contributed perhaps as largely as any one member to the patriotic cause.

Nathaniel McFetridge
Calvinism in History

How Calvinism has changed. Today if Witherspoon had been so involved in the affairs of State the R2K boys would have, at the very least, censored Witherspoon.

McFetridge gives account after account of Calvinists in American History who would have scorned and mocked R2K even more than I have done. The idea that the Minister had no business being involved in the common realm as a minister would have seen as complete and utter skubala.

McFetridge tells us of the Presbyterian Dr. John Rodgers the leading Presbyterian clergyman in New York city who,

“had to fly from New York city on the entrance of the British troops, who seized his church and turned it into a hospital. Congress acknowledged his patriotism and ability by employing him on an important mission to the South. He was chaplain in the army, and after- ward chaplain of the State convention of New York. He threw all his eloquence, influence and possessions upon the side of the good cause, and did more perhaps, in the beginning, to arouse the people than any other clergyman.”

McFetridge speaks of the Calvinist clergy in America as a whole,

“Thus I might trace through all that severe conflict the spirit of the Calvinists, and find it always the same—true to the cause of independence; indeed, the only unswerving champion of it.“

The Radical Two Kingdom theology of Van Drunen, Horton, D. G. Hart Clark, and T. David Gordon, is a lie. It has no connection whatsoever to the living, breathing Calvinism rooted in history and grounded in Scripture. What the R2K lads are offering up is anti-Calvinism. R2K is not a correction of Calvinism but rather it is a bastardization of Calvinism. The Calvinism of our Fathers was a faith that made men of boys. R2K makes effeminates of boys. The Calvinism of our Fathers put steel in the spine of its adherents and made them tough and unyielding as barbed wire. The Calvinism of R2K puts a “run away and surrender” spirit in the character of its adherents and makes them only tough when it comes to resisting historic Calvinism.

Over here we have Dr. Stephen Turley suggesting that the Left is dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukEBAVXGbWs&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR0y-sFckDSNEv6vd4vsTiFLXL4lefxzY6iiTjQfyCHFNytGc3jQ_MSOzAA

I’m not a big fan of Turley. I find his pollyanna optimism grating. He too often reminds me of “Baghdad Bob” insisting that the Iraqis were going to crush the Americans at the very moment American tanks were rolling into Baghdad. Turley, like Baghdad Bob, has optimism in abundance but it is an optimism not based on facts.

Turley, it should be known, is a champion for Civic Nationalism. Civic Nationalism is the idea that in a multicultural / multi-religious social order the citizen can still find a higher allegiance in their commitment to the Nation-State that allows them to look past the cultural and religious differences and so find a National unity. However, in our current climate Civic Nationalism is a non-starter. We have become so balkanized in America that no one, from the different ethnic and religious outposts, are going to come together and hold hands in a Civic Nationalism that Dr. Turley envisions being restored. Civic nationalism might well survive the heterogeneity of the 1950’s but there is no way that Ilhan Omar, Jerry Falwell Jr. and Jonathan Greenblatt as examples are going to hold hands on the basis of civic Nationalism. The days of Eisenhower are forever gone. Civic Nationalism, in order to work, has to provide rallying points for people of differing faiths and ethnicities to find common ground. At this point in history in our current climate can anyone possibly imagine what those rallying points could be? I can’t.

Second, I could make the case, contra Turley, that Globalism is indeed a form of tribalism. It is the attempt of one Tribe to become the Tribe that rules over all other Tribes by convincing all other Tribes that they have no ethnic identity. Only one certain Tribe can have ethnic identity to the end of ruling all the former tribes who has now lost their respective identities. That has already largely worked here in the States to a large degree so that the majority people group no longer self identify with their people group.

Third, Even if the paragraph above is wrong, Globalism is NOT modernity. Globalism is post-modernity where everyone gets to make up their own truths. Postmodernity teaches that borders are imaginary. Postmodernity teachers that race is a social construct. Postmodernity says get rid of all people group identifiers with the purpose of uniting all people globally. So, I don’t agree with Turley when he implies that Globalism is the child of modernity.

Fourth, Turley says, “The left is dead. They just don’t know it.” Well, for being dead they sure are making a good deal of noise right now. I think we will have to wait for November to see if the Left is dead or not. I hope Turley is right. Everything I see around me suggests otherwise.

Over here,

https://www.evangelicalstatement.com/home/#statement

We have yet another Evangelical statement on “Gospel and Racism.”

Personally, I’m waiting for just one statement from Evangelicals on “Gospel and Marxism,” but until such a statement arises I will have to satisfy myself from dissecting these bouquet of statements on “Gospel and Racism.”

First, an important point should be noted. “Evangelical” no longer has any substantive meaning and as such giving us an Evangelical statement on Gospel and Racism gives me very little indication of what and who I am dealing with? If it is not possible to know what these people mean by Evangelical then it is not possible to know if I should care what they think.

Now a question before we query the text proper. Why is it that the word “Gospel” is always used for these statements and not the word “Christianity?” I am more interested on a Statement on anything that is being made that is based on what Christianity as a whole teaches than the narrow category of “Gospel.” I suppose it is possible that “Gospel,” is to be considered synonymous with “Christianity.”

Now to the text of this Gospel & Racism statement,

(G&R)

“We condemn racism as contrary to Scripture and to the evangelical gospel.”

Iron Ink responds (IIR)

The first problem here is there is no definition of racism given. As such the whole statement is useless because I don’t know what they mean by “racism.”

We have to keep in mind that the very word “racism” has been co-opted and so owned by the Marxists from almost its very inception. Almost from its coinage the word has been weaponized against Christianity. With the continual use of the word over the last 80 years or so as existing in a Marxist worldview I need to know what the word precisely and particularly means. I need a very exact definition. Many if not most of the definitions of racism I have come across are ridiculous and can be demonstrated as such in a few seconds. I honestly don’t know what the word means and so if yet another group of Evangelical gurus is going to condemn it, is it too much to ask for a concrete definition before I sign on?

I know that there are some definitions of “racism” floating around that I could easily demonstrate are found spoken of approvingly in Scripture. So, let’s have a definition please.

You will notice that William Wilberforce is mentioned in the text. Wilberforce is seen as arch-angel when it comes to the issue of race but not all thought so highly of Wilberforce. For example,

“(Wilberforce) preaches vital Christianity to untutored savages, and tolerates the worst abuses of slavery in civilized states” (as existing among the native population). — William Hazlitt

G&R

In this gospel, everyone must come to God on the same terms (Rom 1:16; 3:22-24; 10:12-13; Gal 3:28; Rev 5:9; 7:9), and become one body in Christ (Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 12:12-13; Eph 4:4; Col 3:15).

IIR

It is true that all Christians are “one body in Christ.” However, being “one body in Christ,” does not translate into all the creational categories God created Christians with disappears. Paul was in the one body of Christ but still identified as “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Phil. 3:5). Paul, as being one in Christ with all believers, still identifies himself as having a deep and abiding love for his people (Romans 9:1-4). So, by all means we become one body in Christ but being one body in Christ doesn’t mean creational distinctions disappear.

The reason I bring this up here is because being “one body in Christ” is being increasingly interpreted as meaning that if we are not worshiping with people of varied hues and ethnicities then there is something wrong with our Christianity. This is not true.

As many scholars in history have demonstrated the unity of the body of Christ is not a uniformity but rather is a unity that includes national diversity. Just as there are many members but one body (I Cor. 12) so there are many nationalities but one body (Rev. 22:2).

G&R

In reconciling Jew and Gentile in Christ (Eph 2:16), surmounting a barrier that God himself once established, God in Christ summons us to surmount every barrier erected merely by human sinfulness.

IIR

Again, we agree, as long as we understand that surmounting every barrier erected merely by human sinfulness doesn’t mean that the Gospel requires us to sink our creational identities into the abyss of the multiculturalism ocean.

G&R

and to love all our neighbors as ourselves

IIR

Again, we are left to reading into the exact intent of this statement. If we are to love our neighbors as ourselves who could disagree? However, if this means we aren’t to prioritize our affections (do good to all men but especially to the household of faith) then we pause before agreeing. The Scripture teaches us to prioritize our affections,

8If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially his own household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

So, loving all neighbors means loving the household of faith and our own family first. As a Christian I do not love the neighbor alien and stranger at the cost of loving my family and the household of faith.

G&R

and to join them in acting for justice on their behalf

IIR

As long as justice is defined by God’s Law-Word and not on modern notions of “justice.”

In a cruelty that was both useful and cynical Islamic Sultans would forcefully implement a “blood tax” on the peoples of Byzantium. This “blood tax” found the Islamic Infidel seizing from the people of Byzantium their finest very young sons in order to take them back to Islamadom in order to turn these sons into the most elite special forces military units called Janissaries. Fearful of these “blood tax” raids it was not uncommon for the parents of Byzantium to disfigure or cripple in some way their sons knowing that in being disfigured or crippled those sons would escape “the blood tax.”

Once arriving at their Islamic destination these “Janissaries” were not allowed to marry and were considered personally owned by the Sultan. They were provided the very best of foods and drink and were highly educated and then trained in the arts of war. Eventually, they would be used as the shock troops against their former land from which they were kidnapped — Byzantium.

Today much the same is done by the Marxist conditioning as accomplished in our K-12 government schools and then our Universities all augmented and supported by our Marxist Churches. Only instead of having to kidnap the children Christian parents freely turn their children over to the enemy to be brainwashed into a faith that is contrary to the Christian faith. Like the Janissaries of old these children eventually turn on their parents and their former Christian lands in order to conquer them for the cause of Cultural Marxism.