Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

O. Palmer Robertson On The Meaning Of The Death Of Christ

I thought this section by Dr. O Palmer Robertson on the meaning of the death of our Lord Christ to be particularly edifying and enlightening. I hope you find it as comforting as I did.

“The second major moment in which Jesus personally explains the meaning of His death is at the Passover meal. Jesus takes the remnants of the Passover and institutes the ‘Lord’s Supper.’ The Passover lamb was given in substitution for the life of the firstborn male of every Israelite household. Jesus now connects the two rituals by saying, ‘This is my body given for you’ (Luke 22:19). He then took the remnants of the Passover wine and said, ‘This is my blood of the covenant poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins’ (Matt. 26:28; cf. Mark 14:24).

What is Jesus doing? He is explaining by word and by the symbol the meaning of his death. He positions himself in the place of the covenantal sacrifice represented in the Passover celebration.  The entirety of redemptive history up to this point he interprets as fulfilled in His death. As Abraham ‘cut the covenant’ at God’s command witnessed the two theophanies ‘pass[ing] between the pieces’ (Gen. 15:17), so Jesus will allow His body to be torn apart as recipient of the curses of the covenant. As Moses ‘cut the covenant’ at Sinai and sprinkled the people all altar with the blood that opened the ‘new and living way’ into the Most Holy Place (Ex. 24:6-8; Heb. 10:19-20).  As Jesus had earlier presented himself as the ‘ransom for many’ (Mark 14:24; Matt. 26:28). The covenant sacrifice has moved from an animal, to a prophesied ‘servant of the Lord,’ to the Son of God in his sacrificial body. The words of Jesus at the supper reflect once more on the ‘many’ for whom he gave his life as a ransom, the ‘many’ for whom he poured out his life unto death (Isa. 53:12-13).

What more do we need, what more could we ask, to enable us to understand the meaning of the death of Jesus? In these two critical passages of the Gospels, Jesus himself explains the meaning of His death. He points directly to the focal elements of the redemptive processes of the old covenant Scriptures. In the ransom price for the redemption of ‘many’ as well as in the blood of the Passover lamb as the climatic covenant sacrifice for the ‘many’ — in these old covenant images along with his explanatory words, Jesus declares the intent of his death. In the context of the dynamic perspective of the progression of redemptive history, we are not talking in the lingo of a stagnant dead theological system. We are wondering and marveling at a divine plan for the redemption of many, many, sinners from every nation, tribe, and tongue. We are speaking of the crux, the cross, the crucifixion, the consummation of the ages at Calvary. That ‘place’ at Mt. Moriah, solemnly marked  even before Israel’s national arrival as ‘the place’  by Abraham’s offering of his ‘only beloved son’ (Gen. 22:1-2); that ‘place’ mentioned repeatedly in Deuteronomy as the ‘place’ where Israel would offer its sacrifices for decades, even centuries, to come (Deut. 12:5-7, 14, 18, 21, 26; 14:23, 25; 16:2, 7, 11, 15-16; 17:8, 10; 10; 26:2; 31:11); that identical ‘place’ of Mount Moriah where David offering his atoning sacrifice to stop the plague (2 Sam. 24:18-25; cf. 2 Chron. 3:1); that very same ‘place’ where Solomon built and Ezra rebuilt the temple for perpetual sacrifice (2 Chron. 3:1; Ezra 3:8-13); that hallowed ‘place’ ‘outside the city wall’ — it was the very ‘place’ where our Lord was crucified (Hebrews 3:12).

As the poet, though imperfectly, says it:

In the cross of Christ I glory,
Tow’ring o’er the wrecks of time.

And again;

God forbid that I should glory,
save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Gal. 6:14 KJV)

And again;

I determined to know nothing about among you
except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. (I Cor. 2:2 NASB) …

Do you see the centrality of the cross of Christ? All history flows toward it, and all history flows from it. Give God the glory for the cross of Jesus Christ. From eternity past He planned it. In ancient days he moved all history toward it. From the moment of Jesus ransoming sacrifice for ‘many’ he has advanced history.”

O Palmer Robertson
A New Testament Biblical Theology; Christ of the Consummation – The Testimony of the Four Gospels Vol. 1  – pg. 137 – 139

The Madness Of R2K On The Question Of Christian Nationalism

I.) Rev. Chris Gordon asks;

“Does the Bible require Governments to be Christian?”

Dr. David Van Drunen answers;

“No…. I would say, Jesus does not want nations to be Christian Nations.”

Bret responds,

Yet in Psalm 2 we read God speaking to Magistrates;

Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.

I’m pretty confident that this passage is teaching that God requires governments to be Christian or else, given that the idea of Kissing the Son communicates the idea of submission and fealty.

2.) But Van Drunen (DVD) goes beyond that. DVD insists that God does not want (is opposed to) nations being Christian nations. Now, if God does not want something, we would usually say that that something that God does not want is sin. If that is accurate (and I don’t see how it isn’t accurate) then nations being Christian nations would be sin and conversely nations not being Christian nations would be righteousness in God’s sight.

Abounding Grace Podcast
Discussion with David VanDrunen on Christian Nationalism, Stephen Wolfe & Doug Wilson
59:30f Time Stamp

II.) “If you find Nationalism attractive, I’m not on board with you, but go for it. Just don’t slap the adjective ‘Christian’ in front of it (Nationalism) because you then put yourself in danger of 3rd commandment violation by taking the Lord’s name in vain (by) attaching Christ to this and I would say that Christ does not want Christian nations.”

Dr. David Van Drunen

Time Stamp — 59:30f

Bret responds,

1.) Here we learn that to embrace the idea of “Christian” nations is a violation of “Thou Shalt Not Take The Name Of The Lord Thy God In Vain.” Conversely, by eschewing the idea of a nation owning Christ’s Kingship, as seen in the laws enacted and Biblical requirements that must be submitted for Magistrates to serve, it must be true that to do so would be to walk in holiness unto the Lord. That is, by not, as by design and pursuit, seeking to have a Christian nation one is at that point being an exemplary Christian living in a Christian nation.

2.) Keep in mind that DVD would use the same reasoning against those who would advocate for Christian families, Christian Law, or Christian Education (to name just a few). In each case and in all cases to use that word “Christian” as an adjective puts oneself in danger of third commandment violation.

III.) “I asked David Van Drunen a question that I believe goes right to the heart of this issue. I asked him what God would think of a nation whose magistrate and people had become overwhelmingly (and sincerely) Christian, and who decided to confess Christ in the common realm, in the formerly secular realm. I asked if God would be displeased with that, and Van Drunen said yes, he thought God would be displeased with that.”

Doug Wilson 
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/the-bozo-over-at-mablog.html

Bret responds,

If God would be displeased with what Wilson describes above the opposite must also be true and that is God would be pleased with a Christian people who decided not to confess Christ in the common realm, in the formerly secular realm.

This in turn means that God is pleased with a realm existing that does not seek to honor Him in all things.

Quite to the contrary we would insist that God intends for all the nations of the world to one day confess Christ – and that prior to His return. This is the promise of Scripture where the Holy Spirit teaches that “Christ must reign until He puts all things under His feet.” Nation would be one of the all things. The last thing the Lord Jesus Christ said was the command to “make disciples of all nations.” If a nation is discipled as unto Christ, thus fulfilling the great commission command, how can that nation not be considered Christian?

R2K consistently denies the idea of Christian nationalism and yet Scripture repeatedly demonstrates that even in the new Jerusalem we find the existence of Christian nations. They come into the new Jerusalem as Christian nations because they were Christian as nation prior to their entry into the new Jerusalem.

Continuing My Conversation With Evan Gerber on Natural Revelation/Law

I appreciate the friendly banter with Evan though I am convinced he is in error. (As he thinks of me.) Van Til said that one must always be willing to buy the next cup of coffee when discussing Apologetics. I hope what follows is in that spirit.

Evan writes,

“If we were to concede that fallen man is incapable of comprehending natural law because he is incapable of using reason correctly, then it *necessarily* follows that he is also incapable of comprehending Scripture. It is impossible to access the truth of Scripture without reason and natural revelation.”

Bret responds,

It is indeed impossible for fallen man to access the truth of Scripture, apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Because the Holy Spirit runs along the tracks of God’s Word, elect men are regenerated and so hear the Gospel and believe. The non-elect on the other hand, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, know the truth as truth when they hear it but because they are reprobate they will not admit to themselves that they have heard the truth because they are vessels set apart for destruction and being those vessels they foreswear that they understand.

Evan writes,

Comprehension of language, whether written or spoken, requires reason, and Scripture is inaccessible apart from language. Not only does communication and reception of language require reason, but further, language itself is tradition, and therefore part of natural revelation.

Bret responds,

And none of it is of any use for those who hold down the truth in unrighteousness. These types use their comprehension of language to evade comprehending language. This is what it means to “hold down the truth in unrighteousness.” Certainly, we have all discussed matter with others on subject wherein it becomes obvious that they are determined not to understand our point. Indeed, Evan, may even accuse me of being determined to not understand what he believes to be the obvious point that Natural Revelation and Natural Law are mechanisms that can be used in conversion. Evan might say of me, “Bret is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.” And from his errant Natural Revelation/Law perspective he would think himself correct.

Before moving on lets take a look at the claim that fallen reason is, absent of the Spirit’s regenerating work, necessary for spiritual renewal. Scripture teaches that;

“the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.”  (Romans 8:7)

And;

“The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”  (I Cor. 2:14)

As far back as St. Augustine it has been routinely embraced that belief precedes understanding and belief is born of the Spirit as He runs along the tracks of the Word.

Evan offers,

Language is handed down from generation to generation; we inherit it from our parents, who inherit it from theirs. Even if we wish to learn some new language as an adult, we fundamentally rely on the knowledge of our native tongue as a springboard to learn that new language, and we rely on the tradition of those who speak (or spake) that other language as inherited from their own ancestors. All propositional truth is accessible/transmissible only through tradition via language.

Bret responds,

Scripture teaches;

 “All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.”  Colossians 1:16-17

I take the “all things” here to be inclusive of language, understanding, and tradition. This is to say that all these find their origin, meaning, and definition in Christ and without presupposing Christ origin, meaning, and definition as words or concepts could not have any meaning. To contend otherwise is another example of climbing up into God’s lap in order to slap Him in the face. We talk about “language, understanding, and tradition,” as if those things had some kind intrinsic reality apart from the God of the Bible. They don’t. So, we presuppose God’s world where “language, understanding, and tradition,” really do have meaning (we climb up into His lap) and then we turn around and say that we don’t need to presuppose God in order to understand “language, understanding, and tradition” (thus slapping Him in the face).

Also, on this score I recognize what Colossians also teaches when speaking of Jesus Christ;

“in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”

Colossians 2:3

I think this Scripture necessitates believing that some of the treasures hidden in Christ are the treasures of “language, meaning, understanding and tradition.” In other words, apart from presupposing Christ, these cannot be considered treasures since in order for them to be counted treasures they must be understood to be hidden in a Jesus Christ who must be presupposed before the treasures are accessible.

Evan writes,

Finally, even beyond language, natural revelation is necessary for comprehension of Scripture. Ex: some conception of “man” is a necessary precondition for receiving what Scripture says about man. Comprehension of Scriptures rests on a basic understanding of created things and categories. And of course, the truth of Scripture must be processed through the senses for us to receive it.

Bret responds,

Natural Revelation is necessary for comprehension of Scripture? Yet, Special Revelation teaches that the natural man is dead in his trespasses and sins. So, Evan’s argument here is that man, dead in his sin and trespasses, is alive enough to access a Natural Revelation that will allow him to walk, in some sense, according to God’s statutes or in some way know true truth?

This is what the Synod of Dordt taught concerning Natural Revelation;

Article 4

There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay, further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.

Evan writes,
 
In summary so far:

1) If man is incapable of comprehending truth in natural revelation because of a native defect, then changing the form of revelation will not alter the outcome; the problem is with man, not the revelation.

Bret responds,

The change in the form of revelation (general to special) does alter the outcome because man is regenerated and brought into the Kingdom of God. I will concede though that absent the power of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, as the Spirit runs along the tracks of the Word, the change in form of revelation would indeed make no difference. However, the Holy Spirit brings fallen man from death to life so as to hear the Word of God proclaimed that man might be redeemed to now look at all reality through a new set of worldview lenses.

Evan writes,

2) If man is incapable of being confronted with natural revelation because of some defect in natural revelation itself, *then he is also incapable of being confronted with Scripture,* since it relies on natural revelation for its own comprehensibility. (It’s crucial to understand this.)

Bret responds,

No, it is rather the reverse Evan. General Revelation in order to be understood aright rests on Special Revelation. It is indeed crucial to understand this.

AND, the defect is NOT in Natural Revelation but in the dead in sin sinner who is suppressing God’s truth in unrighteousness. To be clear here, the problem is not with the sender of Natural Revelation, or the Natural Revelation sent, but the problem is with the person receiving and suppressing the Natural Revelation.

Evan continues,

Pastor Bret also makes the following claim, which I would like to address:

“For the Christian it is just an exchange of opinions on what NL is objectively teaching since there is no “thus saith the Lord in NL.”
Scripture itself directly contradicts this statement. Consider:

1) According to Scripture, natural revelation is didactic.

“Does not even nature itself *teach you* that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?” (1 Cor. 11:4)

Bret responds,

Yes, nature does teach that but that does not mean that fallen man doesn’t twist what nature teaches to his own ends. This was clearly being done because Paul has to deal with the issue. Nature taught about men and long hair and yet there it is as a problem in Corinth.

Evan offers,

Note especially: “teach you.” Since God is the Author of creation, this instruction is from God and bears His authority. This is an example of a “thus saith the Lord” in natural revelation, attested to by special revelation.

Bret responds,

Yes, God sends but man bastardizes.

Evan offers,

2) Natural revelation is perspicuous.

“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been *clearly perceived,* ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Rom. 1:20)

Note especially: “clearly perceived.” Not only does God speak with authority through creation, this revelation is clear.

Bret responds,

Yes, Natural Revelation is perspicuous. However, fallen man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. Fallen man does “clearly perceive” what is inescapable but “clearly perceiving” something does not mean that that which is clearly perceived is owned by the dead in sin, sinner as being clearly perceived. The reality of God is the most obvious fact in the cosmos (this is what Romans 1:20 is speaking of) but the fact that the reality of God is the most clearly perceived fact in existence does not mean that man does not suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

Evan writes,

Continuing in the same passage, we read: “For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.” (vs. 26) A proper sexual ethic is clearly commanded by God through natural revelation. Fallen man engages in wanton rebellion against it, just as he does against special revelation.

Bret responds,

Yes, fallen men engage in wanton rebellion. That is what fallen men do. Fallen man knows, but he insists that he doesn’t know. That dynamic doesn’t change until special Revelation comes to him as accompanied by the Holy Spirit to make fallen man own his fallenness because the Spirit has released man from His work of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Evan writes,

I fully agree with Pastor Bret above (first quote) when he states that the unbeliever “cannot submit” to God’s law. But this in no way implies that the unbeliever cannot *know* or *understand* God’s law; only that he lives in rebellion to this law. Part of this rebellion is the *misuse* of reason in attempt to justify himself. Man frequently attempts to rationalize his rebellion; the smarter the man, the more convincing the rationalization.

Bret responds,

I never denied he can know. I keep saying repeatedly that the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth forth His handiwork. Perhaps, I have somehow not been clear. If so that is my fault, I’m sure. The Christ hater does know or understand God’s law, but that unbeliever suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. General Revelation cannot be a stepping stone to Special Revelation because, as Evan notes above, man is in rebellion — more than that fallen man is dead in his trespasses and sins. So, fallen man knows but furiously denies he knows at the same time. When fallen men do allow a little Christian capital into their worldview it is only to the end of making project of their denial of God more convincing. For example, sodomites may well contend for marriage. Marriage is a General Revelation item. Sodomites might accept that General Revelation teaches marriage. As such they have snuck Christian capital into their Christ hating worldview, but only with the purpose of slapping God in the face by suggesting that marriage can apply to sodomites.

Evan writes,

But he can still be confronted with revelation and reason that contradict his rationalization, even if he ultimately spurns correction because he is unregenerate. This is the case whether that law is expressed through natural or special revelation.

Bret responds,

Evan, keeps missing the fact that Special Revelation, like General Revelation, can indeed be tossed aside until the Holy Spirit accompanies Special Revelation in regeneration. In order for man to own general revelation as general revelation with its wonderous purpose of exalting Christ, Evan cannot marvel when I say “Fallen man must be born again.” Until then any usage of Natural Revelation is a poaching that is done in order to deny God.

Evan writes,

Whether in special revelation or natural revelation, God speaks with absolute clarity and authority; the fault is with the recipient, not the revelation itself.

Bret responds,

Right … and because that is true, fallen man cannot read Natural Revelation aright. Because that is true, in order for general Revelation to find its full meaning it must presuppose Special Revelation.

Evan writes quoting from my favorite author,

More from Bret:

“Our comprehending Scripture as God intends is dependent upon reading it via the proper presuppositions. After all, the JW’s read Scripture and still get it wrong. So… while we must be able to read to understand Scripture reading doesn’t guarantee that we will understand Scripture. So, even the reading of Scripture depends upon proper presuppositions which can only be given by God in regeneration. Special Revelation still precedes General Revelation.”

“Indeed, even the “we” doing the reading cannot know who we are without presupposing God. So, whether it is the reader or the one doing the reading any progress is dependent upon having God centered presuppositions.”

Even if true, this doesn’t refute my assertion above about the necessity of natural revelation for any comprehension of Scripture.

Bret responds,

Yeah, it does. See above conversation.

Evan writes,

Basic knowledge of self is likewise a precondition for “presupposing” God; if I am not self-conscious then I can do no “presupposing.” The distinction between ordo essendi and ordo cognoscendi is inescapable.

Bret responds,

How conscious of any reality is the dead in sin, sinner? Is the dead in sin, sinner dead or not? And if he is dead what does he really know of himself?  Does he know himself such as the early 20th century phrenologists taught? Does he know himself consistent with Freudian theories? Does he know himself consistent with Darwin’s theories? Marx’s theories?

Sure, man is self-conscious but that self-consciousness does not translate into man knowing who he is or even what he is?

Fallen man is God’s fingerprint (Imago Dei) who spends all his time trying to “Un-fingerprint” himself. Given that reality does fallen man really know himself? I see a boatload of people in this culture who, by one means or another, are doing all they can to de-image themselves of any trace of the Imago Dei.

Not seeing a whole lot of people being conscious of themselves, it is a far easier argument to make that they are not conscious to God.

Evan writes,

Two things can be true simultaneously:

1) No comprehension of special revelation is possible apart from natural revelation.

Bret responds,

This is not true as I have demonstrated above.

Evan writes,

2) No complete understanding of natural revelation–especially it’s telos–is possible apart from special revelation.

Bret responds,

This is true.

Evan ends with,

Revelation must be understood as a unified whole.

Bret ends with,

Yes, Revelation is a unified whole. A unified whole, wherein man is suppressing in unrighteousness.

Toby Sumpter Defines What “Anti-Semitism” Is … McAtee Demurs

“1. It is anti-semitic to stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the uncanny number of Bagels who have made breakthroughs in science, technology, and medicine and have done remarkably good things for the human race.”

 

Toby Sumpter

Author of Blog — No Legs, Still Walking

 

Bret responds,

Sure … as long as we also don’t stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the uncanny number of of Bagels who have persecuted and killed Christians throughout the ages and who have been a remarkable evil unto the human race

TS writes,

2. It is anti-semitic to consider the Bagels as a race to be uniquely malevolent, that is, uniquely responsible for the evils done in the world.

Bret responds,

So we are supposed to acknowledge the remarkable good Bagels have done for the human race but we are not supposed to read history and note how Bagels are uniquely malevolent and uniquely responsible for many many evils done in the world.

Kind of like genociding Palestinians in Gaza?

TS writes,

3. It is anti-semitic to refuse to allow Jews the basic human right of self-preservation, self-determination as a people and a nation, and the right of self-defense.

Bret responds,

What was it called when the West and Bagels refused to allow the Palestinian people the basic human right of self-preservation, self-determination as a people and a nation and the right of self-defense?

See the books by Steven Sizer and Allison Weir.

Does Old Toby even know about the Deir Yassin Massacre (April 1948)? Or the other various massacres by the IDF visited upon the Palestinian people?

TS writes,

4. It is anti-semitic to refuse to acknowledge certain social, cultural, and political commonalities that will often exist between Bagels and Christians who take the Old Testament seriously.

Bret responds,

LOL … what Bagels take the OT seriously Toby? Didn’t Jesus Himself make the point that the Bagels did not take the OT seriously? Toby… have you ever heard of the Talmud? Ever read any of it? Have you heard of the Kabbalah Toby? What universe are you occupying Toby?

TS writes,

5. It is anti-semitic to refuse any assistance or alliance with Israel in those areas of common conviction solely based on the fact that they are Bagels.

Bret responds,

BUT it is not anti-Semitic to refuse any assistance or alliance with Israel in those areas of common conviction unless they quit impoverishing us as a nation.

See

Toby writes,

6. It is anti-semitic to refuse to acknowledge that Bagels are in any way uniquely poised to receive the gospel because of their Old Testament heritage or as “natural branches” cut off from the Old Covenant that may be more easily grafted back into the New Covenant in Christ.

Bret responds,

Misinterpretation of Romans 11 which was fulfilled by AD 70. Romans 11 was future to those who received the letter at the time but it is past to us.

I refuse to acknowledge that Bagels are in any way uniquely poised to receive the gospel because of their OT heritage or their being “natural branches.”

In point of fact the Scripture is clear that God has divorced National Israel and while individual Bagels may indeed be redeemed, Israel as a nation has been cut off never to produce fruit again. Israel was cursed for rejecting their Messiah and had until AD 70 before the divorce papers were served to the nation of Israel.

Toby Sumpter, following Doug Wilson has no idea what Anti-Semitism is or is not.

One can disagree with all these points Toby made and still not be an Anti-Semite.

The Ideas Of Calvin Seminary’s Coming Stob Lecture Guest Needs Diagonalized

“No poles of two ideas are 100% true, there is always a middle paradox or diagonal answer.”

Christopher Watkin
Biblical Critical Theory – pg. 17-18
Christianity Astray — Book of the Year

So, if this is true as an idea it means it is not 100% true and that in it, when combined with the idea that of two ideas one must be 100% true we can find a middle paradox or diagonal answer that also by definition cannot be 100% true and likewise must be met with its opposite idea yielding another idea that likewise can not be 100% true add infinitum.

Can you say … dialectical?

Book of the year? Does not that idea, which cannot be 100% true, since there are people who are on the other pole whose idea is this book is the trash of the year die of the need for diagonalization?

Calvin Seminary is having this guy speak at their Stob lecture series and he will be saying all kinds of stuff that clearly cannot be, by his own standard, 100% true and will be in need of some diagonalization.

If I were there, and if there was a Q & A time I would file to the microphone and simply ask;

“Are your ideas 100% true and if they are 100% true does that not make them therefore not true since there are people like me who say your ideas are not true?”

Dr. Watkin, aren’t your ideas presented this evening in need of diagonalization?