Before listening to Mahler and Rosebrough debate I spent time listening to Deace goosestep Ray Fava through a struggle session. Having listened to those two back to back I was reminding how far ahead of the curve we Kinists were on these Christian Nationalism and “the Bagels are a problem” issues. We Kinists were debating these same exact issues against the proto-“Christian” Maxists 15-20 years ago. Even now you can go to the Iron Ink search engine and plug in “Bojidar Marinov” and find now dated and considerably heated debate on the same subjects that Deace and Fava and Mahler and Rosebrough were debating. 15-20 years ago it was Kinists like myself, Dan Brannan, Mark Chambers, Davis Carlton, Justin Cottrell, Adi Schlebusch, and Colby Malsbury going hammer and tong against the “Christian” Marxist crowd of Stephen Halbrook, Bojidar Marinov, Daniel Ritchie, Joel McDurmon, R. C. Sproul Jr. and others. Back then those discussions were fierce fire fights between the same two camps now represented by Rosebrough/Deace on one side and Mahler/Fava on the other side. In the past I’ve gone at it with clergy like Joe Morecraft, Chris Streval, Doug Wilson and others on these subjects. The Kinists were here manning the walls on these subjects long before Spangler, Hunter, Garris, and other really good men showed up to lend support. We have been paying the same price for years that the more recent arrivals have sadly been having to pay also. That isn’t to say that all the folks arguing for Christian Nationalism or Kinism agree on everything, rather it is too note we have had the same enemies.
That was an observational aside. As far as the Mahler vs. Rosebrough debate I thought it was funny that at one point Mahler accused Rosebrough of being “Reformed.” Mahler made it clear that, like all Lutherans, he believes that God knows the future without determining the future.
At one point Rosebrough wanted to dismiss nearly all of Church history on the subject of race and the Jews. Rosebrough noted that one can find all kinds of errant beliefs (he used the example of the perpetual virginity of Mary) held by Church fathers in history. Therefore, all because one can quote Church Fathers (and even Lutheran Church fathers like Luther, Walther, Maier and others) that doesn’t mean that their or the Christian Nationalist is correct. This of course is true. However, the problem Rosebrough has with this line of reasoning is that the testimony of the Church Fathers on this subject is so thick and so long-standing and so prevalent that it beggars the imagination that they were all in error. We have two anthologies out now that demonstrate that this doctrine of Kinism is one of those doctrines that has been believed by all people of all times in all places by the Church. If this subject is disputed let the Alienists produce a couple volumes of anthologies giving us quotes from the Church Fathers through history supporting the egalitarianism and the support of the Jews that is now characteristic of the Alienists. Anabaptists don’t count as Church Fathers and the quotes have to be older than 1960.
Next, Rosebrough demonstrated that he doesn’t understand the possibility that Scripture uses Canaan as a synecdoche for Ham when it came to the curse of Ham. Personally, I don’t have a settled position on the cursing of Ham but I recognize that it can play into this debate. Having said that I think one has to say it is possible that Canaan serves as a synecdoche for all the descendents of Ham. I would also add that merely because those from the lines of Shem and Japheth have themselves been enslaved over the centuries that does not negate the possibility that Ham and his descendants are uniquely cursed by Noah to that end.
Rounding off this section, there were a couple points that Mahler looked bad on.
First, Rosebrough was right in the whole hand amputation debate. If one takes Scripture as their standard it would be unbiblical to chop off of somebody’s hand for theft. Scripture does not teach that as a penalty for theft choosing instead restitution plus penalty for the crime of theft. Mahler was in error in arguing that the amputation of the hand for theft was a perfectly legitimate option in a Christian law order.
Second, Mahler is playing games when he says he has vowed to uphold the Constitution but then turns around and says there is nothing for him to uphold in his lawyer oath to uphold the Constitution since the Constitution has no meaning. If the constitution has no meaning and didn’t have any meaning when Mahler, as a lawyer swore to uphold it, then the man should not have taken an oath to uphold something that by his own definition can’t be upheld. Mahler kept insisting that “An oath to a document (Constitution) that can change doesn’t mean anything,” has to be met with two responses;
1.) Is that what they taught you in law school?
2.) Then how is it you weren’t bearing false witness when you took the oath since obviously the people requiring the oath believe that the Constitution has meaning?
Points for Mahler on the Ham curse possibility explanation. Points for Rosebrough on the discussion of penal sanction in the case of theft and for his exposure of Mahler’s weak position of taking an oath to uphold the Constitution.
