McAtee & Lusk Disagree On Whether Or Not Dabney Would Repent If He Were Alive Today

“I fully believe that if Dabney were around today, he would repent of some of his racial views expressed in his writings. When contemporary racists say things like, “You’d excommunicate Dabney if he were around today,’ they are not saying anything useful. I usually counter, ‘If Dabney were around today, he’d repent.’ Why assume that Dabney would not be willing or capable of receiving greater light on the issue of race?… Yes, I think many 19th century Southern theologians (some of the first theologians in history to have to deal with the issue of race in such an experiential way) would gladly receive further light from the Scriptures on the issue. There is no reason to assume their views are frozen in time or that they’d be unwilling to reconsider. I’d like to think that I’d be open to reassessing my views if strong Biblical arguments can be made against something I currently believe. Why not grant Dabney the benefit of the doubt as well?”

Rev. Rich Lusk

It’s hard to fathom how utterly subjective the above quote is. However, we will start by linking to a web page that doubtlessly Dabney, were he alive today, would be familiar with if only because it so thoroughly supports his convictions on race when he was alive.

The Color of Crime, 2016 Revised Edition

The Shade of Dabney, being the education man that he was would have pointed Rev. Lusk to this link and asked, “Rev. Lusk, based on the information provided by this study and by these statistics whatever would prompt you to think that I would change my views were I still alive today?”

A Dabney revivified from the dead would have asked Rev. Lusk, given that;

a.) In 2013, a black was six times more likely than a non-black to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race.

b.) In 2013, of the approximately 660,000 crimes of interracial violence that involved blacks and whites, blacks were the perpetrators 85 percent of the time. This meant a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa. A Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa.

Why would you ever think that being revivified I would not repent of my views at my death but would instead say, “Rev. Lusk, I rest my case that I was right then and you are wrong now and indeed you are the one who is need of repenting.”

Clearly, what Lusk is doing in his quote above is called “projecting.” I mean I can imagine someone writing 130 years after Lusk is dead and buried;

“I fully believe that if Lusk were around today, he would repent of some of his egalitarian and globalist views expressed in his writings.”

Such a statement would be pure projection. Lusk, being a card carrying egalitarian on the issue of race will not repent today and if you could dig him up in the year 2255 and revivify him he would still not repent, even if being presented with a postmillennial culture that is once again Kinist and so Christian. Lusk, is doing the same with Dabney when he, by the way of projection, insists that Dabney would repent were he alive today because he would know better. And this in spite of the fact that all the evidence would give Dabney the ability to say to Lusk and his ilk; “Dude, I told you so. I tried to warn you.”

Also, Lusk seems to assume here that there has been no further light to break out of the Scripture on this subject since this subject was exhaustively debated repeatedly in the 19th century. Has Lusk never read any of those debates? There is nothing being said now that wasn’t being said by the Christian clergy in those debates as they debated the abolitionists, Transcendentalists, and Jacobins. Does Lusk think that merely because today’s clergy like himself are mouthing Jacobin debating points on race as covered in a patina of Christian-speak that therefore Dabney would be convinced and so repent? If so, Lusk severely underestimates the intellect of R. L. Dabney and the work of the Holy Spirit to keep Dabney from wrongly repenting of the truth.

Doubtless Dabney would have presented to Lusk a copy of the slave narratives that were sponsored by the US Government completed some 35 years after his death and would have said to Lusk; “Many of these slaves agree with me and yearn for the days when they were treated so well as slaves.”

I don’t doubt for a skinny minute that any saint gone to be with the Lord, if they could return, might well repent of matters they held while still alive. However, Dabney, with his views on race isn’t one of them. Now, Dabney might well repent over his embrace of Scottish Common Sense realism and agree with me that presuppositionalism is the better way, but on the issue of race Dabney would say, “130 years later my views on race have been substantiated, however given the civil rights revolution that began with the loss of my beloved South continuing through to this day in 2o25 upon my re-visitation, it clearly is the case that my views are even more unacceptable now by Christian clergy than they were when I spoke them in the face of Yankee and Abolitionist Reconstruction. Today it is even more unacceptable to commit the sin of noticing than it was in the days before I left off this mortal coil.”

On this matter it is Rev. Lusk who needs to be pursuing repentance and not Dabney.

 

Tom Hicks On The Glories Of The Baptist Faith … McAtee On Tom Hicks

“The Baptist faith stands squarely against the authoritarian individual, the authoritarian family, the authoritarian church, and the authoritarian state. This is because Baptist doctrine uniquely stands upon God’s authority in His Word over the individual, the family, the church and the state. Other ecclesiologies give too much authority to the individual (modern evangelicalism) or to the church (papacy) or to the family and state (classic Reformed and Lutheran paedobaptism).”

Dr. Rev. Tom Hicks
Baptist Pastor

Hicks would like to think that the “Baptist Faith” is the Nirvana locale of the Christian faith but the man is deluded.

1.) The Reformed Baptist Faith (Hicks subscribes to the London Baptist Confession) because it eliminates the inclusion of infants into the covenant of grace, and because it does not require Christian Magistrates ruling as Christian magistrates yields a Christianity that, despite Hicks assertion, is thoroughly atomistically individualistic. The Baptist faith, because of its individualism, always eats away and tears down the Institutional jurisdictions ordained and revealed by God in favor of the sovereign individual.

This atomistic individualism is most clearly seen in the forbidding of the children being marked with the sign and seal of the covenant of grace. Instead, the Baptist, in effect, tells the child is that God cannot claim them in Baptism until they first claim God upon coming to the years of discretion (whatever that age may be). This is a complete reversal of the idea of God over the individual and instead places the individual over God so that God has to wait on the individual before God can claim him or her. This is atomistic individualism at its zenith. So, Hicks claim to the contrary Baptists do not avoid the authoritarian individual but instead rabidly promote atomistic individualism.

2.) This Baptist emphasis on the authoritarian individual in turn means the breakdown and eclipse of the other jurisdictional realms appointed by God. Because the individual is atomistically sovereign in the Baptist faith Baptist thinking  creates atomistically individualistic culture where the God ordained mediating Institutions (Church, Family, Civil Magistrates) are eclipsed in favor of the almighty individual. This atomization results in a blank slate culture eventually creating a societal vacuum that cannot be sustained over time. Eventually, since man is a social being, the atomistic individualism of the Baptist faith cannot survive with the result being that some corporate entity fills the vacuum and becomes the sole Jurisdictional realm against which all atomistic individuals will define themselves. In our lifetimes that sole jurisdictional realm that has arisen to define all is the tyrant State, and this is largely due to the majority Baptist Christianity that we currently have. Without competing the healthy God ordained Jurisdictional Institutions of Church, and Family, — ordained Jurisdictional Institutions that the atomistic Baptist faith always chips away at over time, the result is the rise of some single tyrant Institution which will insist that it plays the sole role of the other God ordained mediating Institutions. At that point, the Baptist sovereign atomistic individual culture will flip to become a consolidated borg culture.

3.) The idea that the Baptist faith is superior in standing upon God’s Word alone is ridiculous. If Baptists were standing upon God’s Word alone they wouldn’t think that they could find a non-contradictory way to combine Anabaptist ecclesiology with Reformed soteriology. This combination inserts synergism every time into Baptist theology, thus defying God’s Word revealing that the Reformed Baptist Faith is really inconsistent humanism where God waits upon man to make a decision for Him before He can make a claim on man.

In Defense Of Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Lately the doctrine of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement of the death of Christ has been being assaulted online by various Arminians, Provisionists, Amyraldians, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics. All of them have in common the idea that Christ’s death was hypothetically universal. That is to say they all believe that Christ died for all men everywhere without distinction. Thus, there are numerous people, according to this thought system, for whom Christ died but without efficacy so as to accomplish what was intended inasmuch as not all men are saved.

All of the above mentioned must reject the Penal Substitutionary theory of the Atonement since the Penal Substitutionary Atonement explicitly teaches that Jesus Christ most certainly did not die for all men without distinction, but rather only died to the end of substituting for and so saving a distinct people (called the elect).

A few notations on this matter;

1.) A complaint is often issued that Calvinism teaches “Limited Atonement,” but in point of fact this teaching is not unique to the Biblically Reformed. Indeed, all who believe in hypothetical Universalism (the doctrine that the intent of the Atonement was potentially for all men though it is recognized that all men are not saved), teach a limited atonement. However, there is a difference inasmuch as while the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement teaches that God, in election, limits the atonement, those who advocate for a hypothetical atonement teach that it is man who limits God’s desire for all men, without distinction, to be saved.

2.) This teaching that Christ died for all but some frustrate God’s design and intent is contradictory. If Christ died for all then the death of Christ paid for all the sins of all men. If all sins of all men are died for by Christ’s death on the Cross then not even the sin of unbelief in Christ’s death can be excluded as a sin for which Christ died and if Christ’s death includes the payment for sin, it includes the payment of sin that refuses to believe in Jesus Christ. The options here for the hypothetical universalist is to either drop the “hypothetical” part and so become full blown universalist or drop the universalist part and leave Christ’s death a hypothetical that applies to everyone in general but to no one specifically.

3.) We should also note that the denial of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement with the embrace of hypothetical universalism means that not only does the death of Christ apply to all men potentially, it is also the case potentially that the death of Christ would not apply to anybody. The doctrine of hypothetical makes it possible that all men can potentially be saved but guarantees that no men will be saved.

4.) Clearly, this denial of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement also is a denial of justification by grace alone. With the doctrine of hypothetical universalism the Cross doesn’t justify but only provides the opportunity to be justified. This opportunity to be justified can only be cashed in on if fallen man adds his faith consent. In such an arrangement faith becomes a work that man contributes so as to put the machinery of justification into motion. With hypothetical universalism faith becomes a working organ that contributes the energizing that makes the cross effective to the end of justification instead of an organ that does it’s proper work when it doesn’t work but instead rests in Christ for all.

5.) With the doctrine of hypothetical universalism Christ propitiates (turns away the just wrath of God against the sinner) against the sinner while at the same time saying that propitiation is provisional upon the basis of fallen man’s acquiescence to being propitiated for. In other words, in hypothetical universalism the turning away of God’s wrath is conditional upon fallen man’s consent to Christ propitiating the Father’s just and reasonable wrath against sin. It begins to be clear who is really the agent of justification here. Christ dies for all. All are not saved. The difference lies in those who are justified as opposed to the one who does the justifying. Is justification really to God’s glory alone in this arrangement?

6.) The same is true of the doctrine of reconciliation. The doctrine of reconciliation teaches not only that man is alienated from God but also that God is alienated from man. In Penal Substitutionary Atonement Christ is the alone mediator who alone reconciles man to God and God to man with and in His atoning and reconciling death on the Cross. However, in hypothetical universalism Christ does not Himself reconcile but only makes provision for reconciliation. The real provision for reconciliation comes when fallen man makes the machinery of reconciliation operative by buying in. Again, here it is not really Jesus Christ and His cross work that reconciles, rather, the reason why some men are reconciled to God and others are not lies in the fact that some fallen men via their faith work made the wheels of the cross efficient.

7.) The same can be said of expiation, redemption, ransom, sacrifice, substitution, and all the other doctrinal streams that flow into the river we call Atonement. The denial of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement is the denial of Biblical Christianity with the corresponding embrace of a horizontal man-centered auto-soteriology. The denial of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is also the denial that man is totally depraved in favor of partially depraved. It is the denial of unconditional election opting for  man-centered conditional election. It is the denial of sovereign irresistible grace in favor of a common / prevenient grace that sometimes is successful and sometimes isn’t depending on the cooperation of fallen man to improve on grace. It is the denial of the perseverance of the saints favoring instead the falling away of the saints depending upon their will power.

But wait … there is more.

If the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is not true then neither can be the doctrine of an Imputation that finds God reckoning the sins of the elect to Christ and Christ’s righteous to the elect. Remember, there is no elect in Hypothetical Universalism, when consistently held. There is only potentially elect and as such the potentially elect can only have an imputation that is likewise potential and not actual.

Further, if the doctrine of the Penal Substitutionary Atonement is not true and it is not the case that Christ pays the penalty as the substitution providing the atonement for a particular people then there is no reason to believe that Christ continues to pray as our Great High Priest, efficient to the end all that He secured in His sacrifice. If Hypothetical Universalism is true then it applies not only to Christ’s work as Priest, sacrifice, and altar as being only potential but it also applies to Christ’s continued work as our Great High Priest in praying for His people. If Christ did not have a particular people He sacrificed Himself for as their Great High Priest, then Christ can in no way pray for a particular people while at the right hand of the Father.

The denial of Penal Substitutionary Atonement ends in auto-soterism and if consistently held means the end of Biblical Christianity. Fortunately, there are countless numbers of people who are indeed among the elect who deny the necessary doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.  All kinds of Christians are involved in felicitous inconsistency.

Roger Scruton & McAtee On Oikophobia and The Death of The West

“This disposition, in any conflict, to side with ‘them’ against ‘us,’ and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture, and institutions that are identifiably ‘ours,’ being the opposite of xenophobia I propose to call oikophobia, by which I mean the repudiation of inheritance and home.”

Roger Scruton
1944-2000
British Conservative

The West is racked from head to toe with oikophobia. Whites may well die as a people because they have lost the ability to love their own and in losing that ability, at the same time, they have lost the ability to desire to protect their own. The only cure for this is a Biblical Kinism but because we are so far down the oikophobia wormhole Kinism is abominated by both the cultural and church gatekeepers in the West.

You want to know why the West has surrendered to mass illegal and legal migration from third world countries? The answer is oikophobia. You want to know the explanation for diving birth rates in the West? The answer is oikophobia. You want to know the reason for the increase in our divorce rates? The answer is oikophobia. You want to know why interracial marriage is increasingly acceptable when as recent as 70 years ago 31 states had laws on their books making illegal miscegenation? The answer is oikophobia. You want to know the reason for Griswold vs. Connecticut and Roe vs. Wade? The answer is oikophobia. You want to know the reason for White folks being resolved to not commit the sin of noticing? The answer is oikophobia. You want to know the reason why putatively conservative Christian denominations keep asserting egalitarian like statements? The answer is oikophobia.  It all boils down to the fact that the West and the Church in the West has embraced a intense desire to repudiate inheritance and home… they have embraced Oikophobia.

Unless Biblical Kinism is embraced once again the West will die, because the Christian faith has refused to be the Christian faith.

Two Marxist Techniques Employed In Our Ongoing Culture War

While reading Warren H. Caroll’s “The Rise and Fall of Communist Revolutions,” it dawned on me that the Biden administration was trying to re-create societally what Stalin had created in the Soviet Union in terms of a terrorized and so controlled society. Now, Biden didn’t have the means that Stalin had his disposal in order to cow people into silence but nonetheless what means Biden had Biden used to try and create a Gulag society that found people afraid to whisper opposition.

Biden’s DOJ went after parents who protested school boards. Biden’s DOJ went after those peacefully protesting Abortion clinics. Biden’s KGB (FBI) went after, arrested, and imprisoned the mildest of J6 protesters, including Grandmothers. Biden officials leaked names to the SPLC to be blackened by being put on their sacred lists of “haters.” The Biden administration began to de-bank political enemies. The Biden administration passed legislation to vastly increase the number of secret police (IRS agents). The Biden administration weaponized the FBI against the American people. The Biden administration imprisoned a chap (Douglas Mackie) for a political prank against would be Hillary voters that their own troops had also used to prank would be Trump voters.

All of it was really an attempt to Sovietize the American citizenry. It was communist like work to criminalize resistance to the Biden-Obama Marxist regime. It was a soft to not so soft form of government inspired terrorism intended to intimidate and control the citizenry so as to silence them. Forms of this touched me (SPLC list), touched my family (experiencing de-banking), and touched friends (imprisoned for peacefully protesting abortion clinics).

It failed the first time, but there will be further attempts in the near future to do the same.

The Marxists, recently, have pulled a new page from their playbook in order to try and slow the reversal of their previous gains. David Axelrod (Bagel) is now out there talking to the media accusing the non-Marxists opposition of being Stalinists;

 Axelrod: “Yeah. Let’s also remember what the Civil War was about. I mean, the statues he (Trump) wants to restore are people who are fighting to retain slavery. And that is just a historical fact. You know, this has just kind of a Soviet feel to it, a Stalinist feel to it that you just, you know, you take over cultural institutions and historical institutions and you try and rewrite history. But as you pointed out before, Anderson, this is a president who is rewriting history every day. And he believes that you can do that. You know, when crime is up, no crime is down. Things cost less, no things cost more.”

Briefly, we note that the War of Northern Aggression was not about retaining slavery. This is a Bagel lie that has predominated since that war in order to make the war virtuous. Next, we note how clever Axelrod is here. After the Cultural Marxist have succeeded in rewriting history over the last two to three generations they now complain of the Stalinist feel of Trump returning to the written history before they rewrote the history. The Stalinist left took over the institutions in the 1960s and rewrote history and now that the original history is being restored they shriek “STALINIST.”

The Bagel Axelord is a liar and he knows the game he’s playing. It is the same game over and over… rinse and repeat. That game is to accuse your opponents of what you yourself are guilty of doing.  Axelrod is a committed Stalinist and so obviously he accuses Trump of being a Stalinist.

S0, whether it is the Marxist technique of terrorizing your opponents to the end of controlling and silencing them or whether it is the Marxist technique in accusing your opponents of what you yourself are guilty of, the Marxist in the political realm continue to exercise their propaganda with incredible effectiveness.

Folks, Marxists cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be voted out of office. The only cure for dealing with Marxists is to utterly crush them and drive them out of your country. Franco knew how to deal with them. Pinochet knew how to deal with them.