I get by with a little help from my friends — Rev. JS Lowther on Gnostic Nations

“The supposed ‘nation’ of which modern Christianity, to which group the authors of the book listed above (Torba & Isker’s ‘Christian Nationalism’) belong, is a ‘gnostical nation’ a ‘quasi-nation’.

The supposed ‘nation’ which ignores boarders of race, is no different than a gnostical religion which must ignore the boarders of doctrine and religion.

It has struck me, in the same way, that we know what a ‘brother’ really is in generative terms (2 or more male siblings of the same father and mother), and by that natural truth we then apply the concept of ‘brotherhood’ to non-natural spheres of life, albeit: military, sports or work and so on. Eventually the concept of brotherhood is estranged from the meaning of ‘brother.’ In the modern Christian sense, we have suppressed the consciousness of a natural brotherhood and nationhood from the pulpit and pen in its entirety in order to establish an idealistic quasi-spiritual brotherhood and nationhood devoid of all natural boundaries. Interestingly enough, this gnostical establishment looks no different than the world’s model of a ‘united brotherhood of man’, and for the same ends.

To the modern church a brotherhood and nationhood of non-natural relativity has become the primary meaning of the words ‘brother’ and ‘nation’ , though the fact remains that without the former natural meaning, which we all know, there is no basis to rest the later meaning upon.

Thus, the meaning of ‘brother’ and ‘brotherhood’, ‘nation and nationhood’ becomes in need of mental maintenance from an external force, the terms are now in our consciences a sociological struggle between the quasi meaning and the nature meaning; This struggle of definition and identification will be maintained by a tyranny, they will oppress in order to impose an illegitimate definition upon our minds and emotions, pummeling our conscience into submission- because it rebels against the falsehood of the claim by nature.

A ‘Christian nation’, without natural ethnic and racial cohesion will be a tyranny; and such a tyranny will push for amalgamation as a means to form a hybrid ‘nation’ in order to bring the natural in conformity to the quasi.”

Examining Michigan’s Proposal 3 On Abortion — Part I

This election cycle Michigan voters will be voting on whether to be a state that allows the torture and murder of the judicially innocent or whether Michigan will end the scourge that is abortion.

The scales in this state are already tipped in the favor of the baby murderers as the proposed bill was seemingly turned over to Mephistopheles to write the language of what is being proposed. Plus, we here in Michigan have already had Michigan Supreme Court Justice Bernstein stating publicly that;

“Ultimately, it is the Michigan Supreme Court that will make the absolute final determination, it will be the Michigan Supreme Court that will have the final word, in a woman’s right to choose in the state of Michigan…”

Please understand dear reader what is being said here. Michigan voters could resoundingly turn down proposal 3 and it will make no difference because “ultimately it is the Michigan Supreme Court that will make the absolute final determination.” If the baby murderers are defeated at the ballot box they will just run to the courts to force infanticide on the whole state.

Be that as it may, I thought it would be good to give a series looking at how bad proposal 3 really is. We will break this down little by little.

Article 1, Section 28 Right to Reproductive Freedom

(1) Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom,

Bret responds,

I am just curious as to where this fundamental right to reproductive freedom comes from? Who has granted us this right? Where can I look it up to find the details? This is the “Who says so” question. I mean if this whole proposal is premised on the idea of a “fundamental right to reproductive” freedom it ought not to be too much to ask where in the hell this right comes from. I’d prefer to see it in writing if it is not too much trouble. Keep in mind also, that the SCOTUS ruled in Buck vs. Bell decades ago that every individual does not have a fundamental right to reproductive freedom.

Secondly, here allow me to not how amusing it is to be talking about “reproductive freedom” when in fact what is being advocated is the erasure or reproductivity. I mean, this is an abortion proposal after all. So, are we really talking about freedom of reproductivity or are we talking about the freedom to not reproduce — to kill our offspring?

(2) which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care.

Here we find a new, unlimited constitutional right inasmuch as we are using the language “all matters relating to pregnancy.”

All matters relating to pregnancy? Now, I don’t want to get to pedantic but as newborns could be said to be a matter relating to pregnancy does this language allow Mommies to kill their babies after they are born since the birthed child remains a matter relating to pregnancy?

Now, don’t you respond with “that’s obvious.” It’s obvious to me that killing in utero children deserves the death penalty for those who practice such heinousness. As such, nothing is “obvious” to me.

We would note that by creating a right “to all matters relating to pregnancy,” abortion, sterilizations, and a myriad of other matters (like sex) can have zero restrictions. Since sex is still related to pregnancy the language of this proposal could make any number of current sexual crimes open to legality. All a defendant (rapist?) would have to say is that “Hey, all matters related to pregnancy are my rights under the amendment of reproductive freedom”

It used to be Called Freedom of Association

“We would all agree that the traveler is and should be free not to buy. He can pass a motel he doesn’t like in town, if he doesn’t like the color, or he doesn’t like the name. He can stop and go in and when he sees the owner he can decide he doesn’t like him because he doesn’t like his mustache, or his accent, or his prices, or his race, or his customers. He can turn around and walk out for any reason, or for no reason at all. Why not? He’s a free man. So is the owner of the property. And if the traveler is free not to buy because he doesn’t like the owner’s mustache, accent, prices, race, other customers, or for any or no reason, the owner of the property ought to have the same freedom. That’s simple justice. The wonder is that it can be questioned.”

C. Farris Bryant
Florida Governor — 1961-1965

This is the argument for Freedom of Association that Americans no longer embrace. It is the simplest of logic and yet Freedom of Association is now seen as “bigoted.”

Responding To R. Scott Clark’s Vicious Attack on Bahnsen & Theonomy

Over at the “HIDEOUSBLOG” Dr. R. Scott Clark demonstrates (yet again) that he is stupid. If you search engine “R. Scott Clark Hideousblog” you will find the site. The column title is; “Stemming Another Rising Tide Of Theonomy: Hebrews 7:11–14 (1): Background.” I am not going to link it here because the thought of Iron Ink giving HideousBlog traffic makes me ill.

Herein follows the list of Clark’s errors;

1.)   “no Republican was going to win the White House that year” (1976 election).

I only include this rather off hand comment by Clark in order to demonstrate that the man doesn’t know what he is talking about. If Clark can be wrong here, in such an obvious manner, then it gives support to the idea that Clark doesn’t know what he is talking about in any number of any other “factual” accounts he gives.

Briefly, put Republican chances in 1976 were good. Ford ended up losing in the closest Presidential race of the 20th century at that time, save one. Many experts believe that if Reagan had received the nomination that Republicans would have indeed won. Failing that if Ford would have just run more to the right he might have pulled out Ohio and won. Clark is just in gross error here, as he continues to be throughout this piece. For Pete’s sake Ford won 27 states, the most states ever carried by a losing candidate.

2.) “Still, Bahnsen’s book, which advocated the (future) reimposition of the Mosaic judicial laws, went off like a bombshell, provoking reviews and responses in Christianity Today and a volume of essays by the faculty of Westminster Seminary.”

Throughout the history of Westminster Seminary the faculty had never, to that time, put out of a volume of essays denouncing anything. Never a joint volume denouncing Dispensationalism. Never a joint volume denouncing the sexual revolution. Never a joint volume denouncing liberalism in the Church. Only upon Greg Bahnsen’s publication advocating respecting God’s Law did the Westminster faculty determine that they had to put out a joint volume of essays in order to squash Bahnsen. That volume of essays has since been torn from limb to limb and scattered to the wind as it has been exposed as to how shallow and errant it is.

While we are on it, a good booklet to get that overturns Westminster’s and Clark’s silly hostility to Bahnsen’s theonomy is “Theonomy and the Westminster Confession” by Martin Foulner.

3.) “His (Bahnsen’s) argument was shocking to the consciences of many American evangelical Christians for a variety of reasons. First, many American evangelicals had been reared in Dispensational fundamentalism. As strict as they might have been in their piety and personal morality, theologically and practically they were antinomian. The Old Testament was thought generally to belong to previous “dispensations” in history and thus not even the Ten Commandments were thought to be “for today,” let alone the Mosaic judicial laws.”

Yeah, antinomian Dispensationalism was and is kind of like Clark’s antinomian R2K buddy, David Van Drunen writing,

“Scripture is the sacred text given to God’s covenant people whom he has redeemed from sin. . . . Given its character, therefore, Scripture is not given as a common moral standard that provides ethical imperatives to all people regardless of their religious standing.”

DAVID VAN DRUNEN

Even antinomian R. Scott Clark reveals his antinomian slip by writing;

“It is not the magistrate’s duty to police every sort of violation of natural law and sin. For example, no one but theocrats want the state enforcing obedience to the first table of the law. The magistrate’s natural sphere of concern and authority is in the second table.”
Heidelblog, October 27, 2008

So, per antinomian R2K Clark Magistrates should not be concerned to create and then enforce blasphemy laws, laws supporting the sabbath (old “blue laws”), and laws against perjury?  Antinomian anyone?

Yes, Bahnsen and all Biblical Christians oppose both Dispensationalism and R2K on these matters. Theonomists do believe that God’s law applies in the common realm today.

It’s not a wonder Clark hates theonomists so. It is the same hatred that the Dispensationalists have for theonomists. Wait … could that mean that R2K is really just “Reformed Dispensationalism?” Some have thought and said so.

4.)   Nevertheless, Bahnsen argued for the “abiding validity of the law of God in exhaustive detail.” Specifically, what was at issue was the abiding validity of the Mosaic judicial laws. This is what he intended by “theonomy.”

First, Bahnsen went out of his way to demonstrate that general equity remained. There were OT Judicial laws that were no longer in force such as building a fence around the roof of one’s house, though Bahnsen pointed out that as a principle that law remained in force with the idea that since it was about protecting people from harm (since the ancients entertained on their roofs) therefore building fences around swimming pools would be an example of how the general equity of the law remained.

Second, what the libertine Clark and his R2K buddies desire is to throw out the whole law, including, as we saw above, the 10 commandments. R2K says incest may be OK since incest was a OT judicial law only for OT Israel. R2K says that bestiality is OK since bestiality was a OT judicial law. R2K says that public square blasphemy is ok since the forbidding of that is OT judicial law.

So, yes, Bahnsen taught the abiding validity of God’s law. And R2K teaches the abiding eclipse of God’s law. Now, dear reader,

“Choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region where Escondido is, or the gods of the R2K-ites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

5.) “Major mainstream media outlets are paying attention to the new locus of the theonomy movement, to Moscow, Idaho, and to the plans of theonomic-reconstructionist church to Christianize Moscow and, from there, the rest of the world. ”

First, I could only wish that Moscow, Idaho was theonomic the way Bahnsen was theonomic. Clark needs to keep in mind that Wilson himself has said that he is NOT Rushdoony 2.0 but that he is trying to be Rushdoony 0.5. Wilson is no theonomist. Wilson, like Clark, is just another version of an Elmer Gantry cult trying to rope in the rubes. Imagine how petrified Clark would be if Wilson were really a theonomist.

Second, notice Scott’s problem with the very idea of anything being “Christianized.” Scott is miffed because someone — anyone might want to see some small social-order potentially Christianized. Scott’s R2K infection driven fever prevents him from ever entertaining the thought that even his own family might be Christian someday — never mind a whole city or even country. Scott has taken dark oaths of allegiance per his militant R2K eschatological amillennialism that he is duty bound to stop the Christianization of anything because that is not possible. Good grief, Clark is the one who has said that the disappearance of Christendom is a good thing.

6.)  Further, apparently ignorant of the classical and traditional Christian usage of the term “general equity” (natural law)…

Maybe Scott would be kind enough to list all of the theologians who exactly equated “general equity” with natural law. I would find that interesting.

7.) History has not been a strong suit of the theonomists

Says the guy who makes stupid history claims about the 1976 election.

8.) “After all, this argument is really about the progress of revelation and redemption. Were the specifically Israelite laws temporary or not? With the church universal, the confessional Protestant traditions have said that they are.”

Again, I refer the reader to Martin Foulner’s “Theonomy & The Westminster Confession,” in order to give the lie to Clark’s assertions.

9.) Several of the Anabaptists postulated a future glory age on the earth when Christians shall have conquered their enemies.

Here Scott just tells us that he hates postmillennialism and tries to suggest that theonomists are really Anabaptist. Yeah … right … the postmill theonomists see the world they are seeking to conquer by the Spirit of Christ as for Christ as evil (that “the world is evil” is classical Anabaptist thought) refuse to baptize their children (like the Anabaptists), and believe in the community of goods (like the Anabaptists). Scott is just throwing cow dung against the wall here to see if it will stick. Any smear will do. Of course, being antinomian he can get away with that without coming under any conviction.

10.) The Reformed biblical theologians recognized that the Mosaic theocratic-state was intentionally temporary. They recognized that it was intended to point to the New Covenant and to Christ. They recognized and repeatedly said that the judicial and ceremonial laws were part and parcel of the types and shadows which have been fulfilled by Christ.

Hey, Scott, was Martin Bucer a Reformed Biblical Theologian?

“But since no one can desire an approach more equitable and wholesome to the commonwealth than that which God describes in His law, it is certainly the duty of all kings and princes who recognize that God has put them over His people that follow most studiously his own method of punishing evildoers. For inasmuch as we have been freed from the teaching of Moses through Christ the Lord so that it is no longer necessary for us to observe the civil decrees of the law of Moses, namely, in terms of the way and the circumstances in which they described, nevertheless, insofar as the substance and proper end of these commandments are concerned, and especially those which enjoin the discipline that is necessary for the whole commonwealth, whoever does not reckon that such commandments are to be conscientiously observed is not attributing to God either supreme wisdom or a righteous care for our salvation.

Accordingly, in every state sanctified to God capital punishment must be ordered for all who have dared to injure religion, either by introducing a false and impious doctrine about the Worship of God or by calling people away from the true worship of God (Dt. 13:6-10, and 17:2-5); for all who blaspheme the name of God and his solemn services (Lv. 24:15-16); who violate the Sabbath (Ex. 31:14-15, and 35:2; Num. 15:32-36); who rebelliously despise authority of parents and live their own life wickedly (Dt. 21:18-21); who are unwilling to submit to the sentence of supreme tribunal (Dt. 17:8-12); who have committed bloodshed (Ex. 21:12; Lv. 24:17, Dt. 19:11-13), adultery (Lv. 20:10), rape (Dt. 22:20-25), kidnapping (Dt. 24:17); who have given false testimony in a capital case (Dt. 19:16-21).”

Martin Bucer
16th century Magisterial Reformer
The Fourteenth Law: The Modification of Penalties

Hey, Scott, was John Calvin a Reformed Biblical Theologian?

“But this was sayde to the people of olde time. Yea, and God’s honour must not be diminished by us at this day: the reasons that I have alleadged alreadie doe serve as well for us as for them. Then lette us not thinke that this lawe is a speciall lawe for the Jewes; but let us understand that God intended to deliver to us a generall rule, to which we must tye ourselves…Sith it is so, it is to be concluded, not onely that is lawefull for all kinges and magistrates, to punish heretikes and such as have perverted the pure trueth; but also that they be bounde to doe it, and that they misbehave themselves towardes God, if they suffer errours to roust without redresse, and employ not their whole power to shewe a greater zeale in that behalfe than in all other things.”

Calvin, Sermons upon Deuteronomie, p. 541-542

And again, in a treatise against pacifistic Anabaptists who maintained a doctrine of the spirituality of the Church which abrogated the binding authority of the case law Calvin wrote,

“They (the Anabaptists) will reply, possibly, that the civil government of the people of Israel was a figure of the spiritual kingdom of Jesus Christ and lasted only until his coming, I will admit to them that in part, it was a figure, but I deny that it was nothing more than this, and not without reason. For in itself it was a political government, which is a requirement among all people. That such is the case, it is written of the Levitical priesthood that it had to come to an end and be abolished at the coming of our Lord Jesus (Heb. 7:12ff) Where is it written that the same is true of the external order? It is true that the scepter and government were to come from the tribe of Judah and the house of David, but that the government was to cease is manifestly contrary to Scripture.”

John Calvin
Treatise against the Anabaptists and against the Libertines, pp. 78-79

 

11.) “Thus, it is no surprise that Bahnsen’s biblical exegesis in Theonomy is spectacularly unpersuasive. His interpretation of Matthew 5:17–20 has been dismantled more than once.”

I’m just wondering here. If Bahnsen’s work on Matthew 5:17-20 has been dismantled more than once than why is it that almost 30 years after his death Clark still is spilling cyber ink trying to refute theonomy?

Oh, and by the by, if Bahnsen’s work on Mt. 5 doesn’t satisfy you then maybe B. B. Warfield’s work on the same text promoting the same end as Bahnsen will satisfy.

https://chalcedon.edu/magazine/does-theonomy-have-a-fatal-flaw

Finally, I would only note that Clark repeatedly accuses Bahnsen and theonomy of being guilty of the sin of Judaizing. I am sure that rabid antinomians find Judaizing everywhere.

William F. Buckley, Doug Wilson, & the Lying Lugenpresse Anointing our Leaders

In the early 1950’s a young man named William F. Buckley was tapped by the CIA to serve as the single head of the conservative movement that was rising then in America. The problem the CIA hoped to correct by tapping Buckley as their guy is that the conservative movement was getting out of control because it was such a broad and variegated movement. By anointing Buckley as the head of the movement that gave the CIA the ability to streamline the conservative movement into one single expression and thus could be monitored, controlled, and manipulated more easily. In his position as unofficial head of the conservative movement Buckley became the guy who was the gatekeeper of conservatism. Without Buckley’s legitimizing nod any hopeful movement conservative was out in the wasteland. By not granting that nod Buckley read Robert Welch and the Birchers out of the conservative movement early on. In later years Buckley threw Sam Francis, Peter Brimelow, and Joe Sobran out of the conservative movement. Murray N. Rothbard’s “The Betrayal of the American Right,” exposes all this.

The reason I go into all this history is to suggest that it may well be being repeated. Here we are in a time where Christian Nationalism is on the rise and suddenly we find the left wing Media anointing who the “Leader” is going to be by hotfooting it out to Moscow Idaho to do a mild hit piece on Doug Wilson. They hit Doug just hard enough for everyone to think that Doug must now be the leader of this Christian Nationalism movement that they kind of like. Next, we learn the BBC is coming out to do another mild hit piece on Doug.

The irony in all this is that Doug has said how he was a National Review junkie for years and years. Doug loved him some William F. Buckley. Now Doug has become Wm. F. Buckley. Pity poor Doug.

Now, any other time Conservatives know that they are not going to get a fair shake from the National and International media and so they decline the opportunity to be flayed alive. Conservatives know that in interviews their words will be spliced and segments will be edited by the Lugenpresse. But does that stop Doug from opening his doors to the Lugenpresse? Not Doug … nope, Doug steps right up to the microphone and speaks. And in so doing what has happened is that Doug becomes the leader of the “Christian Nationalism” movement and this despite the fact that all Doug is offering is warmed over classical Liberalism and not Christian Nationalism at all. Doug now has what Buckley had long ago and that is the ability to read who is and who is not part of a movement that the media says is such a danger. The man steps right up to the microphone in his latest column and thanks the media for making him the titular head of the Christian Nationalist movement;

“Christian nationalism is on the rise!”, they (the Lugenpresse) shout, like Paul Revere riding off into the night, and then their Exhibit A is the work God has assigned to us in our little town. Okay, so now we are part of the face of Christian nationalism. Now this is a term I would not have picked out at a store, but it is a term (for reasons explained elsewhere) I am willing to work with). Now the fly in their ointment is this. I have been publicly arguing against various forms of anti-Semitism for years now, and I have been brawling with white supremacists and kinists for decades. So as part of my acceptance speech, I am now in a position begin this way. “Thank you, thank you. This is truly a great honor. I want to begin by saying that Christian nationalism stands for the need for mankind to base all of our laws on the firm foundation of coming to God the Father through the worship of a Jew. And because of this we have good news for all mankind, for the Jew first, and then also for the Greek (Rom. 1:16 2:9-10).

The hilarious thing is that Doug has already said that Kinists are not allowed in his Christian Nationalism and so Doug is already acting like Buckley in assigning who does and does not get to be part of his movement. And as I said earlier Doug is no more Christian Nationalist with his classical liberal lean then Lenin was a Russian Royalist.

In short, those of us who are Christian Nationalist are being betrayed by the Lugenpresse being allowed to choose for us who is the head of the movement we have been serving as winter soldiers now for years. Wilson’s is as much of a dead end for Christian Nationalism as Buckley now in retrospect is seen as having been a dead end for conservatism.

What are the alternatives?

Well, I think we need to start looking more and more towards Dr. Adi Schlebush’s “Pactum Institute,” as providing the only real resistance left. Publishers like Zach Garris and Ruben Alvarado need our support if we are going to raise a protest to the dishwater vision of Doug Wilson’s Christian Nationalism ruining us all.