“The multicultural globalist want to blend all culture into a bland humanism, but the blood-and-soil types end up insisting on superficial divisions. Covenant is the key to earthy and biblical unity and diversity, of what we might call a Protestant feudalism and Christendom.”
Toby “No Legs Yet Walking” Sumpter
I.) Nothing At All About Blood?
1.) “The Promise is to you and to your children….” Acts 2:39
2.) Gen. 12: 2 I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you; and all the families of the earth will be blessed through you.”
3.) God is known as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, (note the patrilineal descent) and not the God of Abraham, Hiram, and Malik.
4.) Gen. 24:2 One day Abraham said to his oldest servant, the man in charge of his household, “Take an oath by putting your hand under my thigh. 3 Swear by the Lord, the God of heaven and earth, that you will not allow my son to marry one of these local Canaanite women. 4 Go instead to my homeland, to my relatives, and find a wife there for my son Isaac.”
Keep in mind that the wife that was later married by Jacob from these same relatives of Abraham was beset with the same pagan mindset as was true of the local Canaanite women as seen in her running off with Laban’s household gods. We note that so that we see that it wasn’t as if the people of Abraham were God-fearers unlike the local Canaanites and their women-folk.
5.) Do keep in mind also that there is a reason for all those genealogies in Scripture that demonstrate that Jesus the Christ was the son of David, the son of Abraham. (Matthew 1) In point of fact Jesus remains the Lion of the tribe of Judah at this very moment with DNA typable blood at the right hand of the Father.
6.) Ezra and Nehemiah and their decrying of mixed marriages and children anybody?
7.) “I was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel.” Jesus the Christ
Now before I am accused of suggesting that blood is the only consideration allow me to disavow that. I am only saying there that the covenant is not a Gnostic covenant. Grace, because of God’s ordination, typically runs in generational familial lines. Blood is not everything but neither is it nothing. Jesus enemies during his earthly ministry made descent an idol. Today the enemies of Biblical Christianity make descent to mean nothing as if grace does not, because of God’s free assignment, run in generational lines.
II.) Nothing At All About Soil?
So much for all those promises about “the promised land.” And what about our one day “inheriting the whole earth?”
So, it is not at all about blood and soil and yet Christ had to come from the tribe of Judah. It’s not at all about blood and soil yet Paul can say in Romans;
“the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.”
And Jesus will say to the Samaritan woman in John 4;
22You worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.
What is hilarious is that these same people like Old Toby will deny all categories of blood and soil while still insisting that those reputed to be blood Jews still have a glorious future ahead of them misinterpreting Romans 11. Still others want to say that the blood Jews are going to rebuild the temple on the glorious soil of Jerusalem.
Old Toby’s “thinking” (we’re feeling generous in calling it “thinking) gives us not only propositional nationhood but also propositional covenant theology. This is Gnostic covenantalism. The fact that it comes from putative Presbyterians demonstrates how far many of the Presbyterians have gone in grace destroying nature.
Again, my point in all this is to say “Old Toby is wrong.” Covenant has to do with blood and soil. My point is that while blood and soil are not everything neither are they nothing. For Pete’s sake that is proven by the 5th commandment. That is proven by the fact that the Holy Spirit can say;
“if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
I Timothy 5:8
Finally, note this clergy member said that family ties are nothing but superficial divisions. Good gravy, if that isn’t the theme song of the Globalists among us I don’t know what is. I find it shocking that a Presbyterian — the folks who historically believed that the best method of Church growth was by having large families — is telling me that family ties are superficial divisions. It is shocking as hearing P-Diddy saying “sex should be saved for marriage.”
Family is not everything. We must give up family if necessary to follow Christ but family is so important that God uses the idea of “family” to define how the church members should inter-relate.
And yet for Old Toby it is a “superficial division” — kind of like being a Michigan or Michigan State fan.
Doug says Kinism is evil, but his allegiance and defence of the modern bagels and his bloodline being intertwined with them is rather suspicious. His son Nate married a woman who also has Jewish intertwined bloodline. Which makes Rory Wilson even more Jewish. Are we SURE Doug didn’t do any back room meetings when he travelled to Israel?
Doug Wilson is a Bagel Kinist who doesn’t want WASP folks to also be Kinist.
The man is a wart on the face of the visible Christian church.
I’m just wondering, Pastor Bret, if you’ve ever read Walt Chantry’s ‘God’s Righteous Kingdom’ c 1980? I had never read it before, but just finished it. Nothing I saw offended my Kinist views, but you may have a problem with his eschatology, and a critique from you may prove valuable in honing my own and other reader’s perspectives.
I’ve read a couple books by Chantry in the past. However, not that book.
I looked for a review online and came across this. IF this review is an accurate summation of the book then I’m quite sure I would not like it.
“This book severely misconstrues the Kingdom of God. Chantry asserts that the Kingdom of God is only a heavenly reality, when in fact the Kingdom of God is to be advanced throughout the whole world in the hearts and minds of sinful men, that they may bring every thought into subjection to Christ. Chantry asserts that the moral law remains binding on believers, but limits the moral law to the Decalogue. Thus in affect he redefines the Ten Commandments by arguing that the judicial case laws of the Old Testament are not binding throughout all ages. He asserts that the judicial laws are harsh, thus unfit for Christians to apply to modern society. I cannot recommend this book to anyone.”
I would only add that it is the general equity of the judicial laws that must be embraced.
I, and I believe Chantry, would concur with your addition about the judicial laws. I’ve always shared Spurgeon’s high esteem of Richard Sibbes generally, but I demur at his eschatology. These quotes sound postmillenial to the core, but I’m not sure you would wish to own them:
“Western churches will at length pull down antichrist himself, which must be before the conversion of the Jews. For what hinders their conversion now? The world is full of idolaters, even Christians. … Jews … will not return while that scandal is in their eye. … For this Scripture [Hos. 14:8] specially hath relation to the calling of the Jews, not to be fulfilled till then, when Ephraim shall say, ‘what have I now any more to do with idols?’” p. 387.
Richard Sibbes, ‘The Returning Backslider’, Sermon 11, Works, Vol. 2
“There is a day … that is, a day of all days. When that day cometh, then all prophecies and promises shall be accomplished to the uttermost. … There be lesser days before that great day. As at the first coming of Christ, so at the overthrow of antichrist, the conversion of the Jews, there will be much joy. But that is not that day. These days make way for that day. [By] Rev. 21:4 is meant the conversion of the Jews, and the glorious estate they shall enjoy before the end of the world. … There is yet another ‘Come Lord,’ till we be in heaven. So that though intermediate promises be performed here, yet there is another great day of the Lord to be performed.” p. 498.
Richard Sibbes, ‘The Marriage Feast Between Christ and His Church’, Sermon 7, Works, Vol. 2
I have to side with Chantry here:
“Dispensational premillennialists expect … an externalized, national, Mosaic, Israeli kingdom rather than a spiritual, inward, and universal kingdom which comes without observation. … Postmillennialists have fallen into future expectations similar. … In this millennium, truth and righteousness (Mosaic law applied in exhaustive detail) will have substantially triumphed over error and sin. pp. 58-9. Eschatology sometimes does strange things to men’s minds. … How could any lover of Christ and his Spirit wish to erect again that theocratic system abolished at the high cost of the precious blood of Christ? If the Jews as an ethnic body are yet to see future blessing from God, it will be by their entering Christ’s spiritual kingdom, not by a revival of a Mosaic state. A return of the theocratic order would be rebellion against Christ, not blessing. pp. 122-3. Theocratic use of restitution makes a reader of the Pentateuch re-examine Western civil laws. When a thief robs a citizen of our land, we tax the unfortunate citizen to maintain the thief in a jail. … In Israel, repayment of what was stolen, with a 20% surcharge, was demanded of the thief under judicial law. Is there not greater wisdom in this system of justice? … But this is far different from an attempt to bind the Christian conscience to live by the entire system of Moses in exhaustive detail.” p. 122.
Walter J. Chantry, ‘God’s Righteous Kingdom’
Hello Ron
I do disagree w/ Sibbes because Sibbes is misinterpreting Romans 11. Romans 11 can be either interpreted postmillennialiy as a futurist or as a partial-preterist. I am a partial preterist. Sibbes was a futurist. I believe Romans 11 was future to Paul but past to us being fulfilled by AD 70 and the judgment return of Jesus Christ.
And of course Chantry is just errant when he suggest that postmills are looking for a return of the Mosaic economy. As a partial preterist postmill I don not believe that anything having to do with the Jews is tied to God’s eschatological clock. I do believe though, that like all nations, Israel will be conquered witjh and by the truths of Biblical Christianity. However, their coming in is no more or less tied to the return of Jesus Christ then the Portuguese or the Intuits being swept into the Kingdom. God divorced Israel and said… ““May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” God is done with Israel as a people tied to His redemptive plans.
So… just to be clear… I’m not looking for the restitution of the Mosaic state with its temple worship, High Priest, and Talmudic law. I am instead believing that Christ’s Kingdom will expand before Christ’s return so that it covers the earth as the waters cover the sea. Further, I expect that Kingdom will look like righteousness as God’s Law Word defines righteousness.
Chantry here is a libertine.
I’d call myself a-mil but also a partial preterist; and I agree with you that God is done with Israel tied to His redemptive plans. My excerpt from Chantry’s book was edited for brevity, and I believe he’d likely take exception to the charge of libertinism. (Apologies to both of you if the quote was misleading). He actually affirms that restitution for thieves is far preferable to imprisonment, as in our justice system. I’m thinking we just have a different idea about what the ‘expansion of Christ’s Kingdom’ entails.
Thanks for clearing things up. You hold pretty much the same view as my pastor.
Three part series;
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0QxlrFKRbWGm7jVs056gr7?si=2lXhAmTAQTiopWiu6NUTvQ&nd=1&dlsi=a6de20bd89024f1f
Thanks very much for the link to the series by Dr. Bahnsen. It’s broadened my understanding of the post-mil position. But, two things I picked up on:
1) In session #2 Dr. Bahnsen makes a point that both sides suffered in WW2, but then says, ‘look at who won’ as though it lends credence to final postmillennial victory of Christ’s Kingdom. World Jewry and the Synagogue of Satan won that war:
https://goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/political/jewsdeclarewar/dailyexpress1933.gif
2) In session #3 Dr. Bahnsen takes the Sibbesian futurist reading of Romans 11, and one has to wonder if this understanding isn’t essential to the position.
Since I am postmil and since I don’t hold to that we see that it is not the case that the Sibbesian futurist reading of Romans 11 is NOT essential to the position, though no doubt that has been the majority reading for quite some time in the Reformed world.