Category: Apologetics

McAtee vs. DeGroot; Does Secularism Exist, etc.?

Recently, I had an exchange with a chap whose claim to fame is writing for a Libertarian publication.


Christopher DeGroot wrote,

So, wars per se are driven by “secular powers”? How very convenient for one’s religious bias! Is it also true that everything good in the world derives from religion? And everything bad from secular types (and perhaps also Democrats?)

  • Bret L. McAtee

    Yes, it is true that everything good in the world derives from Biblical Christianity. And yes everything bad in the world derives from a secularism that is driven by religions other than Christianity. (Secularism, being a myth and all, it has to first be posited upon and driven by some alien religion.) Finally wars are always driven by religion. There is nothing that exists that isn’t driven by religion.


  • Christopher DeGroot

    Dazzlingly brilliant comments! How the goal posts shift with all the comfort and convenience of a La-Z-Boy Chair! Providence itself is guiding you, I have no doubt. So, there was no good in the world before Christianity? If so, why did the world exist before Christianity? If your answer is, “to make way for Christianity,” then why did it take so long for Christianity to come upon the scene? Why is it that historically most religions have not even been monotheistic? Was Plato’s life without goodness? What about that of Confucius?


  • Bret L. McAtee

    1.) Why, of course Providence is guiding me. There is nothing that Providence doesn’t guide. Even your smart-ass rejoinders.

    2.) There has never been a time when Christianity hasn’t been. So, naturally, there was never a time when anything good in the world existed before Christianity or its Hebrew anticipation. In point of fact, without Christianity there is no ability to distinguish good and evil and so when one talks about “no good before Christianity,” one might as well be saying, “wero 087yx zcvvbwe co98gws.”

    3.) The world did not exist before Christianity. As it is the case that God created the heavens and the earth, and as it is the case that the Christian God’s word was flouted in the Garden resulting in the Christian God casting out our first parents, it seems rather obvious that Christianity, at least in its Hebrew anticipations existed before the incarnation of the God-Man who had the title “Christ.” (It’s why we can write of “Christophanies” in the OT.) So you see, Christianity was there from the beginning.

    4.) Most religions have not been monotheistic because they were and are of their father the devil. Even the one’s which putatively monotheistic and denied Christ (Talmudism, Islam, etc.) were of their Father the devil. Besides, you don’t really think that one comes to truth by counting noses do you? All because most religions have not been monotheistic therefore monotheism isn’t true?

    5.) Yes, Plato’s life was without redemptive goodness, though on a sliding scale Plato has things in his life which were less bad than others, though in an absolute sense they could never be called good. There is only one that is good.

    6.) Same goes with Confucius. And just so we are on the same page… the same goes with Mohamed, Zarathustra, Mani, the Buddha, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, and any other false prophet you might want to conjure up.

    Shall we continue? I promise you, by dazzling brilliance is a well that has no bottom.


    Christopher De Groot

Bret L. McAtee, frankly, I think you are a joke, so I am not interested in wasting more time on you–all you are good for is amusement. You have not answered a thing; nor, it seems, do you know what it means to make a coherent and substantive argument. It is a FACT–whatever you may think or say–that Christianity came very late in human history. This I pointed out. Your dogmatic response: “Christianity always was.” Most religions have indeed been polytheistic. Your dogmatic response: “Polytheism is the work of the devil.” And so on and so forth. Maybe you really think you have demonstrated something with these assertions. Anyway, you are just not serious, nor is your stupidity allied to conceit worth my time.


Bret L. McAtee responds,

1.) I have already taught you how it is not the case that Christianity is a johnny come lately religion. I taught you that Christianity was present in the anticipation of the faithful expressions of the Hebrew Old Testament religion. That Christianity as a religion began with Christ is really quite the heresy that no knowledgeable Christian embraces. If that were the case we would just excise the Old Testament.

2.) But Polytheism is the work of the devil. It is the work of men seeking to avoid the unavoidable Christian God so as to make an idol for themselves. I’m not sure what that is so difficult to understand.

3.) You seem to continue to be under the illusion that all because polytheism has been popular therefore polytheism is true and the monotheism that is Christianity is false. That is most strange reasoning.

Most men throughout history believe that Stalin didn’t attack Poland 15 days after Hitler did therefore Stalin didn’t attack Poland 15 days after Hitler did. You do see how strange this method of reasoning is right?

I am more than willing to allow folks to determine who is the person who is not serious in all this Christopher.

Forbidding The Strong God

“Multiculturalism focuses on disenchanting the Western tradition because it alone has a hold on our spiritual and political imagination and provides us with a home. So, for example, progressives in Europe attack strong expressions of Christianity but accommodate rigid and illiberal forms of Islam. They do this because Christianity is a strong God of the West whose return must be prevented. “

R. R. Reno
Return of the Strong Gods — p. 118

This quote inadvertently confirms what I’ve long been insisting. Multiculturalism (the Child of Cultural Marxism) exists only penultimately to get rid of White people. The ultimate target of Cultural Marxism is Christ and Christianity and Christendom. White people aren’t hated because they are White. White people are hated because they are Christian. They are the carriers of Christian civilization. As such they must be wiped out. Not for the crime of being White, but instead for the crime of being Christian.

Note, here that R2K aids and abets this Cultural Marxist multiculturalist agenda when it agrees (as it ALWAYS DOES) with the idea of ridding ourselves of Christendom. Let it be said here though, that without Christendom, Christianity wanes and become just another kooky cult like L. Ron Hubbard’s Christian Scientism or Anna Bell Lee’s Shaker community. If Biblical Christianity is going to wax then it must build a Christendom to express itself. If R2K is successful Christianity will be the religion of only hobos, derelicts, and moon-bats. A religion that cannot incarnate itself into a distinct social order is a religion that is Gnostic. May God cast R2K as a kooky religion into the dustbin of cultic “Christianity” and grant repentance in the R2K community, who in the name of Christ are pulling down Christ from His throne and may He damn R2K’s dancing partner Cultural Marxism who right now is playing girl on top in many putatively conservative Reformed denominations.

Answering R2K On “Continuing Cities”

For here we do not have a continuing city, but we are seeking the city which is to come. (Heb. 13:14)

Radical Two Kingdom “Theology” in order to prove that Christians should NOT be politically involved or political activists as armed with a Church endorsed understanding of Scripture twist this Hebrews passage to support their public square Quietism. Per R2K, Christians are to not worry about the culture because that is being culture warriors. This passage in Hebrews is leveraged by R2K fanboys in order to communicate that since we don’t have a lasting city therefore we shouldn’t be over involved in the non-lasting cities while we are seeking this non corporeal city.

How do Biblical Christians counter this fallacious handling of the text?

Well, first we understand the Hebrews 13 passage in context. The writer to the Hebrews is NOT saying that since Christians are seeking out a disembodied city we are to be unconcerned with the cities we inhabit to the point that we don’t seek to have our cities reflect the character of God.

The writer to Hebrews was communicating to the Hebrew Christians that THE city of all cities (Jerusalem) though still standing was not the beau ideal. The recipients of the letter to the Hebrews were to understand that there was a better and more permanent city that they had already come to and that was the Jerusalem of above (Hebrews 12:22-23). This was important to communicate to these Hebrews because the temptation that they were prone to was to give up Christianity in order to return to Judaism. So, the point here wasn’t that the Hebrews were to become Retreatists in terms of their place of residence but rather it was to tell the Hebrews “Don’t go back to anti-Christ Judaism.” After all, they had a heavenly city to cling to (Heb. 12:22-24) as it relates to the cult function for which they were looking. Those Hebrews didn’t need an Aaronic Priesthood, daily blood ablutions, or the venerating of the Temple. Those were obsolete because fulfilled in Christ.

In point of fact and quite to the contrary to the insistence of the R2K fanboys that Christians shouldn’t seek to transform our cities and cultures in a Christ honoring direction we see that in Acts 17 in Ephesus, the Gospel does challenge city-state power structures. There in Acts 19 the Christians, upon the impact of the Gospel, did understand their current city as lasting enough to bring magic books to be burned, old gods to be eschewed, and economic realities reorganized.

Further, Matthew 5:5 teaches that Christian are to inherit not only lasting cities but also the whole earth. How can we inherit the earth if we are to eschew it per R2K malfeasance.

Of course there remains a “not yet” to the Christian eschatological understanding. Scripture teaches that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Scripture teaches that these light and momentary afflictions are nothing to be compared to the weight of glory that shall be revealed in us. But until the time we join the Church at rest we are to be part off the Church militant and that means seeking to exercise the dominion that we have been given in Christ Jesus.

Christendom (and the Church as seen by the prevalence of R2K “theology”) is currently occupied by a foreign pagan people and is being ruled over by usurpers and this is, in part, due to the fact that we have putative theologians in the Reformed Church insisting that those who are most Holy are those who most quickly surrender to those who hate Christ. Quite to the contrary the role of the people of the Kingdom of Christ is to overthrow the usurpers, to turn the foreign pagan people back into hewers of wood and drawers of water unless they repent and to incarnate the ever present Lordship of Jesus Christ and His Kingdom into every nook and cranny of existence.

This is, in part, what…”Thy Kingdom come thy will be done on earth as in heaven” means.

Renounce the Mephistophelian R2K… become Christian.

There’s A New Proletariat Kid In Town

In Classical Marxism the enemy is the Bourgeoisie because owning the means of production they are the oppressor class to the oppressed proletariat. As such the workers of the world must unite to throw off the economically forged chains of the bourgeoisie. Said action, if successful, brings in Utopia where all are economically equal.

In Gramscian Marxism (Cultural Marxism) the enemy is not only the bourgeoisie but is also inclusive of those who are cultural creators or gatekeepers as together they own not only the means of production but also they have the hegemonic power to create and sustain the narrative that keeps the oppressed, oppressed. In Gramscian Marxism the proletariat is comprised of all those who, not only are deprived the means of production, but also of all those who are in rebellion to the narrative that the oppressors use to oppress them in their defiance. We might style this new proletariat as “the grievance class.” These are those who have comprised the counter-cultural flotsam and jetsam who have lived in defiance of the culture created by the largely (though not exhaustively) Christian, White, Patriarchal, and morally traditional, cultural creators and gatekeepers.

Classical Marxism and Gramscian Marxism both attacked the foundation of Christianity as the cornerstone problem they believed they needed to rid themselves of. Classical Marxism focused on economic Christianity as its enemy. Gramscian Marxism’s assault was and is much broader, much more inclusive compared to the much narrower proletariat in Classical Marxism, and much more comprehensive in terms of all it stands opposed.

This give explanatory power then to who comprises the new proletariat. The new proletariat is comprised of minorities who have been convinced that the white man, uniquely, oppressed them in their origins, the pervert who has been convinced that sexuality is not a matter of the structure of the Cosmos, the female who has been convinced likewise that gender is not a matter of the structure of the Cosmos, together with the remaining Classical Marxist economic proletariat. Throw in the guilt ridden white man and woman conditioned by the cultural zeitgeist, Academia which seems to believe that there is forgiveness to be found for a largely misinterpreted past in fanning the flames of envy, the contemporary church which is reinterpreting Christianity in light of Gramscian Marxism, and now Corporate America which sees dollar weight shifting in favor of the triumph of Gramscian Marxism and one discovers that the new proletariat is both the voting base of the Democratic party and the roll call for the modern clergy

Was Judas Predestined to Betray Christ? … Answering a Pastor’s Objection

“Things Jesus never said:
 
Judas, I wanted to let you know that my Father has predestined you to betray me, so it’s really not your fault.”
 
Rev. Duncan Bryant
 
Bret responds,
 
 This statement was made tongue in cheek but I thought I would answer it as if someone really did believe that because Judas was predestined to betray Christ therefore he it was really not his fault.
 
Turning to the matter at hand we know from Scripture that the final days of the life of Jesus on earth were foreordained to include the betrayal of Judas, just as were the cross and resurrection (Mark 14:17-21; Acts 1:16 and Psalm 109:5-8).
 
17 And in the evening He came with the twelve. 18 And as they sat and ate, Jesus said, “Verily I say unto you, one of you who eateth with Me shall betray Me.” 19 And they began to be sorrowful and to say unto Him one by one, “Is it I?” And another said, “Is it I?” 20 And He answered and said unto them, “It is one of the twelve that dippeth with Me in the dish. 21 The Son of Man indeed goeth, as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! Good were it for that man if he had never been born.”
 
Jesus went as it was written and every detail that led Jesus to the Cross was planned as well. Judas’ role was understood as ordained as seen by Peter’s words in Acts 1,
16 “Men and brethren, it was necessary that this Scripture be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spoke before concerning Judas, who was the guide to those who took Jesus.
 
In Psalm 109 Luther found Messianic material touching on Judas’ role. The heading given for the contents of this inspired poem is in a modern Luther’s German Bible: “Prophecy Concerning Judas and the Unfaithfulness against Christ by the Jews, and Their Curse.” Luther in a collection entitled: “The Four Psalms of Comfort,” dedicated to Queen Mary of Hungary, in the beginning of his exposition of this Psalm wrote: “David composed this psalm about Christ, who speaks the entire psalm in the first person against Judas, his betrayer, and against Judaism as a whole, describing their ultimate fate. In Acts 1:20 Peter applied this Psalm to Judas when they were selecting Matthias to replace him.” So, even though Rev. Bryant as a Pastor doesn’t see God’s plan in Judas’ work, Rev. Martin Luther saw God’s plan in Judas’ work.
 
Clearly, if Luther is right that the Psalmist speaks of Judas as the betrayer then what else can we conclude that God determined for Judas to betray Jesus? Both Jesus and Peter, as well as the Psalmist, in the above passages, verify that Judas was specifically chosen for the job of betrayal. Following Scripture then we rightly insist that Judas was predestined, called, elected, and/or chosen to betray Jesus.
 
And of course, we can’t forget Peter’s sermon,
 
Acts 2:23 He (Jesus) was handed over by God’s set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross.
 
Now it beggars the imagination that God planned the actual crucifixion of Christ without planning every particular moment to that end including Judas’ betrayal. If I plan an omelet I also must plan to break eggs. If God planned to hand over His Son then God planned the means by which the Son was to be handed over. So, Judas had no free will. However, this does not mean Judas had no choice in the matter.
 
The Westminster Confession teaches regarding causation,
 
ii. Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.
 
A “second cause” is simply “a cause caused by something else.” This expression is used in theology to distinguish between God as the ultimate cause of everything that comes to pass and the myriad smaller causes we see at work in the world. If I drop a cup of water gravity is the secondary cause that causes it to fall, but God is the one who causes gravity. He is the primary cause.
 
Judas was a secondary cause of Christ’s crucifixion. As a secondary cause, Judas did what he desired to do because of his fallen human nature. But behind Judas’ free choice was the God who ordains all things to come to pass. We certainly don’t believe that when Judas betrayed Christ, the Father said to Himself, “WOW, I did not see that coming,?” or, “Well, that wasn’t in the plan but I’ll work around it somehow.” Only a free will theist “reasons” that way.
 
Next, we would say that Judas was responsible (at fault) simply because God held Judas responsible. God is the creator and by being the creator all are responsible to Him simply because He holds them responsible. Can Judas say to the creator, “Why did you make me this way?”
 
So, we know, from Scripture that the eternal predestinating God did ordain Judas to betray Christ and that Judas remained responsible for this betrayal. All of this is why Scripture could call Judas, “The Son of perdition.”
 
This title of Judas (John 17:2), which he shares in Scripture with the Anti-Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:3) is a well known Hebrew idiom whereby someone who embodies a trait or characteristic or destiny is called the son of that trait, character or destiny. The name “Son of perdition,” as applied to both Judas and the antichrist represents them both as given over irrecoverably and totally to the final perdition; and this from the foundations of time since it was God’s destiny for them. A destiny they very much freely chose.
 
God predestined Judas from his conception to his hanging himself inclusive of his betrayal of Christ. To believe otherwise introduces us to a non omnipotent God and a completely different definition at all points of the Christian faith.