Category: Uncategorized

Federal Vision’s Mistake On The Nature of Faith

“Calvin, for example, spoke of faith as an ’empty vessel’ in order to stress its character as a receptacle that brings nothing to God but receives all things from Him.”

Cornelius Venema
Christ & Covenant Theology — pg. 338

This is why I have said in the context of the past FV debate that faith does its proper work in Justification by resting in Christ for all while doing its proper work in Sanctification by working out all that Christ works in us.

Failing to think this way makes faith into a work whereby we use to trade in for the better model of Justification. In this direction lies neo-nomianism.

Beware … An Offensive Meme Ahead

The leadership among Evangelical Inc. and the Reformed Deep State would be triggered over this meme as they are out there condemning the whole idea of Christian Nationalism. And if they are not out there condemning Nationalism they certainly are not out there touting it as

But can anyone tell me what is there about this meme that the triune God would inveigh against?

Would God be angry with us Kinists because Nationalists desire to provide for our own and specially for those of our own household? (I Timothy 5:8)

Would God be angry with us Kinists because we desire to give good gifts unto our children? (Matthew 7:11)

Would God be angry with us Kinists because we could wish that we ourselves were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of our brothers, our own flesh and blood? (Romans 9:3)

 

Frederick Douglas’ Role in Harper’s Ferry

When John Brown was captured at Harper’s Ferry, Brown’s carpetbag was captured along with him, and in it were letters from Gerit Smith (One of the Secret Six) and Fredrick Douglas implicating them in a conspiracy (everyone knows conspiracies don’t exist) behind the attack on Harper’s Ferry. Virginia’s Governor, Henry Wise, requested President Buchanan’s assistance in arresting the conspirators, and he left no doubt that the one he wanted above all was “Frederick Douglass, a Negro Man… charged with … inciting servile insurrection.”

E. Michael Jones
The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit — pg. 633

In the aftermath of the Harper’s Ferry uprising, John E. Cook, Brown’s advance man for the raid, ratted out Douglass, reportedly telling authorities that Douglass did not carry out his end of the mission. According to the Richmond Daily Dispatch, Cook informed his captors that Douglass was supposed to arrive with a “large band” of fellow raiders at a schoolhouse near Harper’s Ferry, which Cook had seized on the Monday morning after the Sunday night assault. “I conveyed the arms there for him and waited until nearly night, but the coward did not come,” Cook was quoted as saying.

“Such then was my connection with John Brown, and it may be asked, if this is all, why I should have objected to being sent to Virginia to be tried for the offense charged. The explanation is not difficult. I knew that if my enemies could not prove me guilty of the offense of being with John Brown, they could prove that I was Frederick Douglass; they could prove that I was in correspondence and conspiracy with Brown against slavery; they could prove that I brought Shields Green, one of the bravest of his soldiers, all the way from Rochester to him at Chambersburg; they could prove that I brought money to aid him, and in what was then the state of the public mind I could not hope to make a jury of Virginia believe I did not go the whole length he went, or that I was not one of his supporters; and I knew that all Virginia, were I once in her clutches, would say “Let him be hanged.”

Frederick Douglass

Clearly, Douglas along with the Secret Six should’ve been hung alongside John Brown.

Interesting tidbit … once John Brown was arrested @ Harper’s Ferry, 3 of the secret six fled to Canada immediately (Stearns, Howe, and Sanborn) while a fourth, Theodore Parker, lay dying in Italy. A fifth, Gerrit Smith had himself institutionalized in an insane asylum to avoid being implicated. Only the Unitarian minister, Theodore Parker, didn’t flee or crack.

Critiquing Crawford Gribben Interview on Kinism

I am picking apart a segment of this video because I think it misrepresents Kinism and kinists.

If you want to listen to the section I’m dealing with you must go to the 30-minute mark and start there and listen for appx. 10 minutes.

The person being interviewed is Crawford Gribben who is a  historian of early modern religion, with a particular interest in Calvinist literary cultures. He is connected to Queen’s University in Belfast. Recently he wrote a book titled; “Survival and Resistance in Evangelical America: Christian Reconstruction in the Pacific Northwest,” and in the linked interview above he is speaking on this book.

For this book, Gribben interviewed some Kinists in the Northwest area. I know several of them and so I asked them about Gribben’s observations on this interview.

1.) “The kinists I met love Rushdoony and they did quote some pretty unfortunate statements that Rushdoony made on race.”

I note this one first in order to demonstrate that Gribben should be considered a hostile witness when he makes observations on kinism. I’ve read tons of material by Rushdoony and I have yet to come across a “pretty unfortunate statement on race.” As such, Gribben’s observation on Kinism should be taken with a large grain of salt. Gribben obviously has an ax to grind for Political Correctness if he thinks RJR made pretty unfortunate statements on race.

2.) “The way the kinists presented themselves is that they were cool. They were not hicks from the sticks. They were very cool people.”

LOL … what did he expect? Little gnome-like creatures arising up out of the earth dressed in Confederate Battle flag garments drinking moonshine? Was Gribben surprised that the Kinists were intelligent, well dressed, and practiced hygiene? This is almost insulting in the way that it communicates how shocked he was that kinists were not troglodytes.

3.) “The kinists met for worship in a forest.”
This one is hilarious.  I talked to one of the chaps that interviewed with Gribben and they said all they told him is that the location of where they would meet sometimes to worship was an old lodge in a forest.

Is Gribben by this description reaching for the ancient idea of Jove’s (Dona’s / Thor’s) pagan oak worship in ancient Germanic times? By this description is he trying to tie kinists to those who once worshiped in sacred groves? Never mind that modern elites (Bohemian Grove Society) do themselves gather in forests to worship their deities.

4.) Kinists are very secretive people. Very worried about publicity and very happy to talk but also very concerned about what would happen as a consequence of that speech.

This should not be that surprising given how everything that Kinists say is twisted beyond recognition once our enemies get a hold of it. I myself am happy to talk but am also concerned about where I am going to end up while speaking the truth. My kinist friends are no different. When we live in a cancel culture as being driven by the fruitcake SJW’s, Alienists, and Marxists how could we not be concerned about what would happen as a consequence of our speech?

5.) “Kinists desire to live in monocultural communities.”
Let’s be clear here. The only other option to monocultural homogenous communities is multicultural heterogeneous communities. So, yes, like mankind throughout all time until the last 50 years or so Kinists see cultural homogeneity as a good thing and something that they desire not only for themselves but also for all men. Ironically enough, our enemies also desire to live in monocultural communities. The communities the SJW’s desire to live in are cultures without any people who dare disagree with them. So, desiring to live in a monocultural community is not odd in the least, and if Dr. Gribben thinks it odd he is the one who is odd for thinking that.

6.) “Those Kinists in N. Idaho loved Doug Wilson’s ministry. They just wish he was more consistent.”
Again, per the chap I knew who spoke with Gribben there is no way they would have said they loved Doug Wilson’s ministry. Doubtless, kinists agree that Wilson, from time to time, can get matters correct but to say that they love Doug Wilson’s ministry is just not typically true of Kinists. Instead, they tend to see Doug as someone who waits to see which way the wind is blowing and then hurries up to throw up his position consistent with what the left side of the right is tacking towards.

7.) “I’m not sure when it comes to RJR and the Kinists if it is a case of cause and consequence or merely correlation. I’m just not sure.”
Let’s be honest. The kinists are the only ones who are the natural ideological heirs of RJR. There is cause and consequence here. The others who won’t accept kinism are just poseurs trying to steal RJR’s glory and refusing to accept that he was a typical man of the 1st half of the 20th century, who like all Christian men throughout history (See Achord & Dow’s Book, “Who is My Neighbor”) believed that men should prioritize their own clan, tribe, and nation, above the stranger and the alien.

Alternately, Crawford’s ambiguity on this point could be, in itself, a subtle challenge to the Alienist Reconstructionists. If Gribben is not sure then that means that it might be the case that Kinism is indeed the natural consequence of RJR the cause. If that is the case, then Alienist Reconstructionism is itself the bastard child who has no ideological legacy in the writings of RJR.

8.) “The Kinists we talked to were the most up to date on Frankfurt school theory.”
Well, this means that the Kinists are the most epistemologically self-conscious because they alone are familiar with the designs of the enemy against the Christian faith.

Honestly, if Gribben is accurate here this speaks badly of the rest of the Alienist Reconstructionists camp. If they are not the most up to date then they don’t realize what they are facing and in a battle that means annihilation.

9.) “The Kinists I talked to believed in racialism and not racial supremacy.”
This is just to say that the kinist thinks all men from varying races should have their homeland and live among their own people. Kinists do not believe that anyone people group is universal supreme in every area. Kinists do not believe that anyone people group should be ruling all the rest. Unlike the Alienists and Marxist we are not advocating that all people bleed into one.

Finlayson’s Attack On Theonomy in His Book on Chalmers

“It is important to note here that this post-millennialism (that Thomas Chalmers embraced) must not be confused with the school of thought known as theonomy or Christian Reconstructionism, which was popularized in America in the 20th century. Thomas Chalmers and Disruption-era Free Church were not interested in a Christianity that was forced on society through the radical imposition of Old Testament civil law. Rather Chalmers believed that the gospel had the power to transform nations and cultures as people came to saving faith in Christ and lived out their faith in the world.”

Sandy Finlayson 
Chief Scottish Man — p. 141

So, I typically get a good deal of reading done when on Holiday. Today I finished off a short biography on Thomas Chalmers. Chalmers was a Scottish-worthy Christian Preacher in 19th century Scotland. I first learned about him when I listened years ago to the George Grant History series covering that era. Learning a little bit of Chalmers from Grant I decided to someday learn some more so I picked up this biography by Sandy Finlayson.

Finlayson, on the whole, does a good job laying out the basics of who Chalmers was and why he was important. Per a quote provided by Finlayson Chalmers was one of the greatest orator preachers of all time.

However,  I am going to rip Finlayson a good one for the one paragraph cited above because it is an outright libel against those who embrace theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism. This slur on theonomy has been dismissed consistently know for 40 years and yet this shizer still shows up from the pen of the Reformed establishment blue-bloods who were born with a silver foot in their mouths. These Reformed establishment types look down their long powdered noses and at every opportunity go after the rank -n- file blue collar Reformed who hate the antinomianism of the Reformed elite with a firey passion.

Finlayson noted that Chalmers was a postmillennialist and then immediately noted that Chalmers was not a postmillennialist like those nasty theonomists. Finlayson then goes on to do a complete hatchet job on theonomy giving a definition that in no way corresponds to reality.

I’m telling you the blue blood antinomian Reformed are messing their pants they are so scared of theonomy.

1.) No theonomist has ever been “interested in a Christianity that was forced on society through the radical imposition of Old Testament civil law.” To the contrary theonomists believing the scriptures account of eschatology as summarized in postmillennialism hold that men upon conversion will desire to be ruled by God’s Law and so the antinomianism of Finlayson and the Seminary snobs will come to a blessed end.

2.) However, having said that we recognize that those who remain unconverted in a Christian social order will complain, gripe, and bitch about how they are being ruled by  “Christianity that was forced on society through the radical imposition of Old Testament civil law,” just like Finlayson is snorting about in the paragraph above. Of course, they will have that complaint. That is always the complaint of those who are being ruled by God’s just law. What is amazing is to hear a Seminary Prof. agree with the wicked’s complaint.

3.) Let’s just pretend for a moment that what Finlayson complains about was really the case. Let’s pretend that theonomist really were interested in a Christianity that was forced on society through the radical imposition of Old Testament civil law. Even if that were true would that be so bad in light of how the dregs of humanism are being forced on society through the radical imposition of autonomous man’s crafting of positivistic law? Is the forced torture and death of 1 million babies a year in America superior to a pretend forced theonomic order where Doctors and Mothers guilty of presenting their children for abortion would receive the death penalty? Is this current forced humanist order something that Finlayson the antinomian approves of over a forced Christian order that would push the LGBTQ agenda back into the closet, would end Drag Queen Story Hour at our public libraries, and would make adultery a crime again? Only some kind of pervert would reason like Finlayson reasons here.

4.) Let’s keep in mind that King Alfred the Great once upon a time was interested in a Christianity that was forced on society through the radical imposition of Old Testament civil law,” and then demonstrated that by placing in whole chapters from the Pentateuch to be used as the means to govern his Kingdom’s law order. (The famous “Book of Doom.”)

5.) Finlayson seems to think that law is a neutral category. Law always descends from the God or god concept of a people. Show me a people’s laws and I will tell you who the God is of those people.  As such Biblical Christians should advocate for only God’s laws to be the law of the nation. What better laws are to be found than God’s laws? If we will not be ruled by God’s laws we will be ruled by the laws of Muslims, Hindus, Satanists, Jews, Atheists, etc.

6.) Finally, Finlayson tells us that;

“Rather Chalmers believed that the gospel had the power to transform nations and cultures as people came to saving faith in Christ and lived out their faith in the world.”

Which is exactly what the Theonomist believes and as such I must conclude that Chalmers was a Theonomist. The only difference between Theonomist and false teachers like Finlayson is that theonomists believe that “living out our faith in the world,” means championing for God’s law being the measure by which all measures are measured.

The fact that this paragraph could find its way into this book demonstrates who fearful the Reformed blue-bloods are of being washed out to sea by the tidal wave of those Reformed rank and file who believe that God’s law is to be preferred over the Shinola we currently have for law in this land. I hope I live to see the Reformed elite washed out to sea.