Rev. Doug Barnes & the Accusation of Racism

 Recently, I posted a piece

If There Were A Superior Race

that sought to make the point that it wasn’t white people who typically thought they were superior though it certainly was the case that there were races who were in pursuit of policy and in an attitudinal disposition that revealed that they acted the way people would act towards whites as if they themselves really believed that white folk were superior. I even went out of my way at the end of the piece to explicitly say that I did not believe that white folks were universally superior but rather that I believed that superiorities and inferiorities ran through all different races and peoples.

Yet despite my clarity, a member of the Kalergi Clergy showed up to go out of his way to virtue signal and denounce me as racist. In this case, it was a “conservative” though it is hard to tell apart any more the conservative clergy from the mainline clergy.

In this case, it was one Rev. Doug Barnes who couldn’t resist telling the world how WOKE he was at my expense.

Now, if you compare my piece linked above to what the Church father throughout history have said you’ll notice that I was really being quite tepid. I cited these four below for Rev. Barnes and asked him given his accusation that I was “racist” if he would want to go on record as accusing the men below of being “racist.” Chirping crickets was Doug’s response. Keep in mind that the testimony of the four men below has been the norm throughout Church history as demonstrated by the anthology published by Achord & Dow, “Who is my Neighbor; An Anthology in Natural Relations.”

” [The] differences between the Caucasian, Mongolian, and Negro races, which is known to have been as distinctly marked two or three thousand years before Christ as it is now. . . . [T]hese varieties of race are not the effect of the blind operation of physical causes, but by those cause as intelligently guided by God for the accomplishment of some wise purpose. . . . God fashions the different races of men in their peculiarities to suit them to the regions which they inhabit.”

Charles Hodge (1797-1878)
Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Chapter 1, Section 3 (1872–73)


“We now reply to the question, Can we know the sense of the prophetic law of Noah [Gen. 9:24-27; 10:1-32] with absolute certainty ? We answer most unequivocally, Yes. How, then, is it to be known? By the perfect conformity of the fulfillment of the law to its legitimate interpretation. Has such fulfillment occurred? Most unquestionably. “Where is it seen? In all quarters of the globe since the flood, but most sublimely in America. It is obvious in a universal and permanent trinity of races; in their political inequality of condition; in the Christianization of all the Japhetic nations, and of no others; in the occupation of the Shemitic wilderness of America by Japheth; and in the service of Plain to Japheth in the Southern States, in the islands, and in South America … (p.18) A perfect coincidence of events with any legitimate interpretation of prophecy is infallibly a fulfillment; and such fulfillment inevitably coincides with the Divine meaning of the text — God being his own interpreter. Fulfillment is to prophetic law what usage is to statute law. Usage specifies the meaning of statutes by a uniform manner of applying them; and fulfillment is but the usage of the Almighty.”

Rev. Samuel Davies (Colonial Puritan)
Dominion or, the Unity and Trinity of the Human Race, p.20


“The Javanese are a different race than us; they live in a different region; they stand on a wholly different level of development; they are created differently in their inner life; they have a wholly different past behind them; and they have grown up in wholly different ideas. To expect of them that they should find the fitting expression of their faith in our Confession and in our Catechism is therefore absurd.

Now, this is not something special for the Javanese but stems from a general rule. The men are not all alike among whom the Church occurs. They differ according to origin, race, country, region, history, construction, mood, and soul, and they do not always remain the same, but undergo various stages of development. Now the Gospel will not objectively remain outside their reach but subjectively be appropriated by them, and the fruit thereof will come to confession and expression, the result may not be the same for all nations and times. The objective truth remains the same, but the matter in appropriation, application and confession must be different, as the color of the light varies according to the glass in which it is collected. He who has traveled and came into contact with Christians in different parts of the world of distinct races, countries and traditions cannot be blind for the sober fact of this reality. It is evident to him. He observes it everywhere.”……

Abraham Kuyper:
Common Grace (1902–1905)

“Nationalism, within proper limits, has the divine sanction; an imperialism that would, in the interest of one people, obliterate all lines of distinction is everywhere condemned as contrary to the divine will. Later prophecy raises its voice against the attempt at world-power, and that not only, as is sometimes assumed, because it threatens Israel, but for the far more principal reason, that the whole idea is pagan and immoral.”

Gerhardus Vos
Biblical Theology

I really have become accustomed to the violation of the 9th commandment that finds ministers like Rev. Barnes dragging my name through mud and slime. I have had to memorize Scripture to inure me from the slander and libel that is now commonly associated with my name.

Mt. 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Isaiah 51:7 Listen to Me, you who know what is right, you people with My law in your hearts: Do not fear the scorn of men; do not be broken by their insults.

I also have come to the point where I have more pity in my heart towards ministers like Rev. Doug Barnes than I do anger. I mean, how angry can you be towards someone who is unfamiliar with Franz Boas and his impact on 2oth century thinking? How angry can one get who isn’t familiar with how Leon Trotsky was the one who popularized the usage of the word “racist” with the express purpose of overturning the Christian worldview? How angry can one be when one doesn’t realize that it has always been the Marxists who promised that they would homogenize all the peoples by the means of blenderizing them all in a giant Babel blender?

“The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and end all national isolation; not only to bring the nations closer together but to merge them….”

Vladimir Lenin
The Rights of Nations to Self Determination — pg. 76

The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be ~~compelled to mingle~~ with each other as a result of this association and ~~thereby to dissolve themselves~~, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”

“Principles of Communism” (1847)


“Even the natural differences within species, like racial differences…, can and must be done away with historically.” 

K. Marx’s Collected Works V:103,
As cited in S.F. Bloom’s The World of Nations: A

Study of the National Implications in the Work of Karl Marx, Columbia University Press, New York, 1941, pp. 11 & 15-19:

But Doug, having been to Christian Seminary isn’t familiar with any of this and so pity is my proper response to the man’s vacuity. He can’t help it he’s ignorant. He’s never been trained otherwise. What does drive me batty though is that no matter how many quotes I produce it doesn’t matter to these people. Nothing phases them. Nothing gives them pause in their confidence. Nothing punctures their sanctified piety.

This is demonstrated by Rev. Barnes interaction with me.

“Or — radical thought here, Bret — you could recognize the biblical truth that we all were brought forth of one set of parents, making us inherently to be one race. “Race” is a social construct. “Culture” — which depends not at all upon skin color or physical ancestry — is the more biblical and faithful distinctive principle.”

Rev. Doug Barnes

Now, Doug never asked me if I denied the unity of mankind as one species all born of Adam. He just assumed that I did not believe that we are all Adam’s seed — one race. However, as anybody who has been around this subject knows all because we are one race doesn’t mean that there aren’t distinction of races in the one human race. Up until 1950 or so all men believed that different races existed as the quotes above from both the Christians and Communists confirm. The Pharmacological world believes in different races as seen by the fact that they develop medicines geared for people with maladies unique to their race. (Sickle cell anemia anybody?) Forensic science can look at bodily remains and tell you not only the sex but also the race of the deceased. If we were all one race … if race was only a social construct would that be possible? And what about the reality of race as it pertains to bone marrow transplants?

The statement that “race is a social construct” is beyond ignorant. It falls in the swamplands of lobotomization. It’s just not true, and that no matter how much Rev. Doug Barnes, Rev. Doug Wilson, Rev. James White, or Rev. Voddie Baucham keep with their gaslighting project in insisting that it is.

As to Barnes insisting that culture has nothing to do with genetics … well, again that is just ignorance on stilts. I am more than happy to concede that culture is not only genes but to say that our genetics have absolutely nothing to do with culture is nothing else but Gnostic. Keep in mind that culture is defined as the outward manifestation of a peoples’ inward beliefs. There can be no belief unless there is a racially cohesive people group together holding those beliefs. The idea that white people are really black people with white skin or vice-versus is just horse hockey. Race is not a social construct. Race is not merely about melanin levels. Race is a real reality and the recognition of it in no way makes one a racist any more than the belief that bald people have no hair makes one a baldist.

But Rev. Barnes isn’t done yet with his pearls of wisdom. (Hey Doug, I’m still waiting for all those theologian quotes that say that Davies, Vos, Kuyper, and Hodge were wrong about race.)

Doug continued digging,

Go ahead, Enos Powell. Fact is, culture is a real distinction, giving rise to distinct worldviews. Race … isn’t. It’s simply a reality that folks who live together tend to enculturate one another.

Rev. Doug Barnes

1.) I never denied that culture is a real distinction. I merely believe that cultures are typically homogenous and their racial homogeneity contributes to the kind of culture that is built. However, I suppose that the culture of the Tower of Babel would fit what you seem to be advocating.

2.) Cultures do not give rise to worldviews. Worldview as combined with genetics (and in Christian culture grace) gives rise to culture and cultures.

3.) How is all that enculturating going on here in the states Doug with all our different races and religions?

Typical of Reformed evangelical nonsense piety Doug had to add that “in my heart, I knew he was right.” (Insert rolling eyes icon.)

Doug wrote,

But, in your heart, you know that. Lord willing, one day you’ll publicly acknowledge it. Meanwhile: may He protect you from the grievous sin of infecting the pulpit with such drivel.

Rev. Doug Barnes

I stand in the tradition of 2000 years of Christian theology with no one yet demonstrating to me the quotes of the Church fathers who contradict the hundreds and hundreds of quotes I have from the Church fathers supporting my position on race and I’m the one with sin infecting the pulpit with drivel?  Dealing with this kind of jejune hubris is like dealing with the 20-year-old retard who is telling you what an idiot you are for not believing in Santa Claus.

Doug finishes by telling how he was once infected himself with the grievous sin of “racism.”

I should add: I speak as one who was delivered from the wickedness of racism. The Western Pennsylvania of my youth was the most racist place I’ve ever yet experienced, by far. I trumpeted the “races are distinct, and ought to remain distinct” horse manure. It was wicked. I’m thankful that God led me to repentance.

Rev. Doug Barnes

Well, it’s good to know that Doug agrees with the Marxists quoted above.

“It has become fashionable in recent times to talk of the leveling of nations, and of various peoples disappearing into the melting pot of contemporary civilization. I disagree with this, but that is another matter; all that should be said here is that the disappearance of whole nations would impoverish us no less than if all people were to become identical, with the same character and the same face. Nations are the wealth of humanity, its generalized personalities. The least among them has its own special colors, and harbors within itself a special aspect of God’s design.”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

I’ll stick with the Church Fathers and Solzhenitsyn as over against Doug and his Marxist homies.

The sad thing about this post is that no one will seek to counter it. No one will tell me why the Marxists were right and the Church Fathers were wrong. No one will pause to re-think their knee-jerk reaction against me. Instead, this post, like so many others, will be just bb’s off the USS battleships Ignorance and Denunciation.

Shelton on the Common Ground Shared by Fascism and Communism — Part I

It is not uncommon for me to engage with people who want to inform me that Fascism is a positive good and that it is merely an expression of Nationalism. After round and round of typically fruitless exchanges that include me jumping up and down pointing to their common Marxist roots the conversation ends and we both go on our way pitying each other for how blind the other poor chap is.

Many don’t seem to realize that Marxism has a multitude of incarnations. These various incarnations are brought forth and explained somewhat in books like Jame’s Billington’s “Fire in the Minds of Men,” and Daniel J. Flynn’s “A Conservative History of the Left.” I would highly recommend both books. These various incarnations include but are not limited to Communism, Fascism, Syndicalism, Socialism, Fabianism, Social-Democratism, Leninism, etc. In point of fact, some have even argued, convincingly I think, that Anarchism is nothing but Marxism as applied to the individual. Certainly, Marxism was leavened along the way of its intellectual journey by Anarchism.

Below is a quote from Christine Shelton’s book; “Alger Hiss; Why He Chose Treason.” It does a good job of making clear the common ground between Fascism and Communism. It will, of course, not end the argument. True believers of any religion/ideology will never give up their position.

“One of the beliefs perpetrated by the ‘left’ during the twentieth century was that Fascism was an ideology on the ‘right’ of the political spectrum, that Fascism was the antithesis of socialism and Communism or any other ideology on the ‘left” that Fascism was a development out of capitalism, even though the essence of capitalism is the free market and Fascism certainly is not about free markets. This false belief has been used to justify support for socialism and Stalin’s Russia, especially during the Hiss years of the 1930s and 1940s… For many intellectuals, the Depression was a result of the collapse and failure of Capitalism, and they turned to socialism to address that failure.”

John Ehrman, a former CIA official wrote that the CPUSA was respected by many American liberals because Liberals and Communists ‘made common cause to promote unions and civil rights for black Americans. He claimed that ‘Moscow’s prestige among liberals and intellectuals increased further when, unlike the Western democracies, it seemed to take a stand against the spread of Fascism.’ Many on the left, in fact, felt that this argument gave them ‘cover,’ especially when the US was at war with Nazi Germany. As a result, during WW II progressives viewed Moscow’s intentions as benign and advocated reaching an accommodation with the Soviet Union. Perhaps this is one reason why Moscow and the ‘left’ in the US depicted Hitler as a ‘right-winger’ and made Fascism seem to be a rival to Communism and Socialism. The belief prevails to this day. Calling a political opponent a ‘fascist has become the ultimate epithet weapon for the ‘left,’ as term synonymous with absolute evil used for someone on the ‘right’ of the political spectrum.

But Fascism is not an ideology of the ‘right.’ It arouses out of the Marxian milieu. It emanates from the ‘left’ – from Marxian revisionists, many of whom felt that Marx underrated Nationalism, wrote A. James Gregor, professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley. Fascism has its roots in Marxism; is no accident that Hitler called his movement ‘National Socialism.’ The first Fascists were almost all Marxists – serious theorists who had been identified with Italy’s intelligentsia of the left. Mussolini himself had been a leader of the Italian Socialist Party and was an acknowledged leader among Marxist Intellectuals. ‘It was Italy’s intervention in WW I, not right-wing versus left-wing dispositions, at first that divided Italian Marxists. The myth of Fascism as ‘right-wing’ is embedded in the false notion, promoted by Communists, that Fascism is conservative according to Gene Edward Veith Jr., professor at Concordia University Wisconsin. This notion obscures its true meaning. Veith states that ‘Marxism defines Fascism as its polar opposite. If Marxism is progressive, Fascism is conservative; if Marxism is left-wing, Fascism is right-wing; if Marxism championed the proletariat Fascism champions the bourgeoisie; If Marxism is socialist, Fascism is capitalist.

Of course, these comparisons are fiction, Veith continues. While Communism and Fascism have been rival brands of socialism, it is commonalities that have defined them. Both strongly opposed the bourgeoisie. (The Nazis scorned bourgeois democracy as decadent.) Both attacked conservatives; both developed into mass movements; both favored a strong, authoritative, centralized government; both practiced a control economy and opposed free markets; both practiced strict control over the populations; both rejected the notion of individual liberty; both placed the state above the individual; both had dictatorial regimes that were extralegal and extra-constitutional; both had ‘leadership cults’ surrounding their rulers; both practiced the pervasive use of propaganda, official censorship, and terror; and both committed massive crimes against humanity. In his gripping history, ‘Bloodlands; Europe Between Hitler and Stalin,” author Timothy Snyder in discussing the mass murders each was responsible for, states, ‘Hitler and Stalin thus shared a certain politics of tyranny: they brought about catastrophes, blamed the enemy of their choice, and then used the death of millions to make the case that their policies were necessary or desirable. Each of them had a transformation utopia, a group to be blamed when its realization proved impossible, and then a policy of mass murder that could be proclaimed as a kind of ersatz victory.

While Fascism and Communism were bitter and deadly ideological enemies at the time, they were contemporary regimes flying the socialist banner. Some differences were: Communists claim that the history of civilizations can be explained only as a struggle of classes, while Fascism denies ‘class struggle; as the agent for social change; Fascism unlike Communism, views the ‘State’ as a spiritual and moral fact, and is opposed to Communism’s anti-nationalism. ‘But their opposition to each other should not disguise their kinship as revolutionary socialist ideologies.’ So, however, different Marxist-Leninist systems were from Fascism, Gregor asserts that given their different histories, ‘the family traits are evident.’ At their core, Fascist and Communist ideologies are both antidemocratic and opposed to individual freedom. They view individual rights as conditional, not inalienable…

(Robert) Conquest pointed to the common beliefs of Fascism and Communism: ‘The overwhelming claim of the collective to the individual’s allegiance thus emerged as the basis not only of Communism but also of Fascism and National Socialism. All three, one in power, subordinated the individual to the State, as representing the community.’ It was argued that the individual best expressed himself as part of a mass experience. National Socialist ideology was more than its crude racialism. Conquest maintained. ‘The central message …. was the new identification of the German individual with the nation and the state.’ Conquest wrote that the late Huge Seton-Watson, dean of British Sovietology, noted the Nazis were ‘the fanatics… who rejected not only Christianity but also traditional morality as such.’ Seton-Watson added ‘moral nihilism is not only the central feature of National Socialism but also the common factor between it and Bolshevism.’ People passed with ease from Communism to what were, in theory, its most virulent enemies, Fascism and National Socialism. Moreover, Conquest, asserted that Hitler himself said Communists were far more easily became Nazis than Social Democrats did. Conquest noted that Hitler also claimed that the ‘reds we had beaten up became our best supporters.

According to J. B. Matthews, ‘In the early months of Hitler’s triumph in Germany, the Communist Internationale officially viewed Fascism as a sort of unwitting ally of Communism in their common goal of democracy’s destruction.’ The Communist Party ‘made its position clear in its official publication, the ‘Communist Internationale.’ It declared: ‘The establishment of an open fascist dictatorship, by destroying all the democratic illusion among the masses, and liberating them from the influence of social-democracy, accelerates the rate of Germany’s development towards proletarian dictatorship.’ Matthews continued, ‘Nothing could be clearer than that. In August 1931, when the Nazis called for a plebiscite in Prussia with a view to overturning the social democratic government, the Communist Internationale ordered the Communists of Germany to vote with the Nazis!.’

Vanilla Christianity

Once again we continue to take up this idea of the Kingship of Jesus Christ and what that looks like in very concrete matters. We have said, and this is important to continue to keep in mind, that this is a top-down approach. We are taking a birds-eye view on this matter. Each one of these sermons from the past four weeks could easily be 4 or five sermons. That is what they would be if we were seeking to do a worm’s eye view. Another way of saying this is that this sermonic approach is deductive in its methodology as opposed to inductive.

We have posited and demonstrated from Scripture that Jesus Christ is a King… indeed a King of Kings. We have labored to demonstrate that this Kingship is not limited, nor is it ethereal, nor is it pietistic nor is it Gnostic. He is King and His Kingship exercises authority and so flows into every nook and cranny of life.

We spent time considering what life has become in just four areas (and we could have done many more) as we have surrendered the Lordship of Jesus Christ. We looked at Law, Psychology, Sociology, and Education. We provided quotes and proof that these realms are now being thought of and understood in terms of man’s Kingship as opposed to Christ’s Kingship. We have spent time along the way considering what these realms might look like if Jesus Christ was owned once again. We have also punctuated repeatedly warnings against a movement that goes under the name of Christianity which seeks to insist that Jesus Christ’s explicit Kingship is not totalistic but rather only applies to the realm of grace while insisting that the common realm is only ruled by Christ implicitly via a nebulous thing called Natural Law.

Subsequent to all that we began to consider a minimalist approach to the Kingship of Jesus Christ. We said that the minimalist approach has been called “Reconstructionism,” and the practitioners of it have been called “Biblical Christians.”

Slicing matters thinly we have looked at

1.) Thecentric thinking
2.) Organic or Holistic thinking
3.) Presuppositionalism
4.) The Reformation Solas
5.) Limited and Constrained Government (which implies Hard money)
6.) Jurisdictionalism (Sphere-Sovereignty / Subsidiarity)
7.) Covenant Theology
8.) Postmillennialism

Now, none of these have been given the time they deserve because of this birds-eye approach we have been taking but we are seeking to see the whole and not just the parts.

We have yet to consider

1.) Dominion
2.) Theonomy
3.) Familialism / Kinism / Oikaphilia
4.) Missions / Outreach

We have insisted that all of this probably shouldn’t be named anything but vanilla or pedestrian Christianity. We have said the fact that some kind of adjective has to be added to Christianity in order to distinguish Reconstructionist Christianity from Christianity, in general, is an indication of how far Christianity has fallen.

So, with that re-cap in front of us, we continue to consider Biblical Christianity lived underneath the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Of course what is presupposed in all of this is that before man can live and move and have his being underneath the Lordship of Jesus Christ he must own His sin, make an appeal for forgiveness in the context of faith, repentance, and Baptism, and so look to Christ as savior, mediator, and great High Priest.


In the Scriptures, the word Dominion can have a positive or negative connotation given the context and the word that is being used. Positively, the word is used in Gen. 1:26 & 9:1

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Gen. 1:26

So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand.

These passages communicate the idea that the entrusting of man with Dominion is for the purpose of serving as a steward who improves upon the charge that God has given him. It is a responsibility to care, tend, keep, and bring out the latent potential in what God is entrusting man as His steward to have dominion over in terms of creation.

I get this thought from Gen. 2 which contains a parallel account of creation, adding detail to certain parts of the narrative of the first chapter. Notice God’s expanded instruction in Gen. 2,”Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden to tend [dress, KJV] and keep it” (verse 15).

This gives definition to the force of “have dominion” and “subdue it” from Gen. 1.26f

Tend (Hebrew ‘abad) means “to work or serve,” and thus referring to the ground or a garden, it can be defined as “to till or cultivate.” It possesses the nuance seen in the KJV’s choice in its translation: “dress,” implying adornment, embellishment&improvement.

Keep (Hebrew shamar) means “to exercise great care over.” In the context of Genesis 2:15, it expresses God’s wish that mankind, in the person of Adam, “take care of,” “guard,” or “watch over” the garden. A caretaker maintains and protects his charge so that he can return it to its owner in as good or better condition than when he received it.

However, elsewhere in Scripture, the word Dominion can be used in a negative sense to mean tyrannical domination. The Greek word used (and the context must be considered) is Katakurieuo. We see that word and meaning in Matthew 20:25

25But Jesus called them aside and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them (κατακυριεύουσιν) and their superiors exercise authority over them.

There the meaning is, to exercise authority over, overpower, master. From kata and kurieuo; to lord against, i.e. Control, subjugate.

This word likewise communicates the idea of dominion but clearly, the kind or type of dominion communicated is very different. We might say that one type of dominion is godly dominion. It is the type of dominion that seeks to exercise control that allows whatever one has dominion over to flourish and fulfill all its potential. The other type of dominion we would characterize as a Satanic dominion. Its purpose is to lord over, to rule tyrannically over, to keep others under the heel.

There can be no greater difference between these two kinds of dominion. It is the difference between Cinderella being under the dominion of her Step-mother and Step-sisters and Hobbiton being under the dominion of King Elessar & the Kings of Gondor. It is the difference between being under the dominion of Stalin and being under the dominion of King Alfred the Great.

So, Biblical Christianity … Christianity that takes Jesus as King means that we are dominion men and women underneath the dominion of our great and high King. We take up the responsibility of Kingship by seeking to disciple the nations understanding that nation discipleship … that dominion we’ve been speaking of begins with our own wives and children.

And we should be clear on something here.

We must understand that dominion is an inescapable category. Either we will take dominion as kings under the Kingship of Jesus Christ and His revealed Law-Word or we will be dominated in the Cinderella and her step-mother sense by the domination of some wicked religion with its wicked god and its wicked law-word. There can be no neutrality here. Either we will rule as those who care, tend for, cultivate with the purpose of adorning, embellishing, and improving or we will be dominated by those who are of their father the Devil and so who seek to kill and destroy.

And to clarify yet even further on this subject of godly dominion,

You can be sure that if we seek to take up this mantle of dominion that we have been charged with (Making disciples of the nations teaching them to obey all things that Christ has commanded) that those who are outside the covenant community will scream the loudest that we are being tyrants and seeking to employ ugly domination. They will accuse us of the very things they do when they are in power. And they should since they hate the Lordship of Jesus Christ and everyone who rules consistent with His Kingly rule.


And here we arrive at a great crossroads of Reformed thought. Since the 1970’s the Reformed world has been in a death cage wrestling match over the issue of theonomy. Typically it has been the Reformed hoity-toity blue blood who have manned the gates against those who “grew up on the wrong side of the Reformed tracks,” that is the Reformed who have embraced the principles of Theonomy. In my estimation, it can continue to be justly characterized as this kind of battle.

That theonomy has been hated by the blue blood is seen in the words of Greg Bahnsen,

Of all the wicked heresies and threatening movements facing the church in our day, when Westminster Seminary finally organized their faculty to write something in unison, they gave their determined political efforts not to fight socialism, not to fight homosexuality, not abortion, not crime and mayhem in our society, not subjectivism in theology, not dispensationalism, not cultural relativism, not licentiousness, not defection from the New Testament, not defection from the Westminster Confession of Faith, all of which are out there and they can give their legitimate efforts to… boy the thing they had to write about (and against) was theonomy! How many times can a man turn his head and pretend that he doesn’t see the problem?”

The blue bloods … those born to the manor … have in the past and continue to this very day to excoriate theonomy as being works salvation and that no matter how many times it is clearly laid out to them the falsity of that accusation.

Theonomy means literally God’s Law. It is the belief that the 10 Commandments were the equivalent of God’s eternal Constitution for all time for God’s people throughout time and that the Judicial (Civil) law was the equivalent of God’s case law that applied the 10 commandments in their particularity as the practical application of the 10 commandments Constitution in their general equity.

So, theonomy believes that the judicial law continues to apply in their general equity. And by that, we mean that the principle contained within the judicial law continues as that principle carries over into subsequent cultures. So, the classic example of general equity is that the law requiring to build fences around roofs no longer applies to our roofs since the principle is translated as the requirement to protect people that your are entertaining from injury. People in the ancient world would often entertain on their flat roofed houses and so fencing was required as an application of the 6th commandment – “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” Today we no longer entertain on our pitched roofs but the general equity of this law remains as we may well, in light of the general equity, build fences around our pools.

We see St. Paul invoking the idea of general equity in Scripture

I Timothy 5:17Elders who lead effectively are worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. 18For the Scripture says, “ Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and, “The worker is worthy of his wages.”

Here we see St. Paul taking the general equity of the law regarding the Ox treading out grain and feeding and takes the principle of that civil law concept to say that effective Leaders are to be generously paid (double honor). St. Paul demonstrates the ongoing validity of God’s Judicial law by drawing out a matter of general equity.

Of course other of God’s laws are completely transferred over time. For example, the laws against incest, sodomy, and bestiality from the OT continue to be in force and are just assumed to remain valid in the NT.

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even [a]named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. (cmp. Romans 1)

That St. Paul is applying the Judicial law is seen from Leviticus 18

7 The nakedness of thy father, and the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 8 The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.

So, clearly, we see a theonomic motif. Jesus Himself supported a theonomic reading of the law when He

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

He also endorsed the minutia of the law’s continuance when He said,

Matthew 23:23Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You pay tithes of mint, dill, and cumin. But you have disregarded the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

And we see our savior going all theonomic with the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53–8:11.


This they (Pharisees) said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. (John 7:6)

Something of which to accuse Him.”

If Jesus let the woman go His enemies could accuse Him of antinomianism and condemn Him. If Jesus affirmed the necessity of the woman being stoned He would have been violating Rome’s hegemony.

So, instead what Jesus does is He appeals implicitly to what the law taught in terms of due process. We know this from the language of the text. In John 8:4, we read,

(Scribes) and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery.

the Greek word used for “was caught” is κατείληφθη (kataileptai), this is the aorist passive indicative tense of the word “catch.” The import of this is that that accusers are relating a story that they were not active participants in. In other words, they are bringing this woman caught by others committing adultery but they themselves did not catch her in the act. If this is accurate we might read Jesus saying,

 “Whoever among you is guiltless may be the first to throw a stone at her.”

differently than the way we typically read it. We typically read this as if Jesus is saying “whomever among you is guiltless in committing adultery like this woman may be the first to cast the stone. But what if Jesus is saying instead, “Whoever is without the guilt of bringing me this woman without being a witness to her crime let him cast the first stone?”

If this reading is accurate then the reason that these people dismissed themselves is they knew that they had violated the law of Moses and so had no standing in stoning the woman. Jesus handled this scenario as a Theonomist.

Having said all this I recognize that theonomist disagree among themselves in terms of application. Rushdoony did not always agree with Bahnsen and vice-versus. There are going to be disagreements. They are present in this Church among theonomists. I believe that the festivals have been fulfilled in Christ. I believe this if only it would be blasphemy to celebrate Passover. If one festival is fulfilled then they are all fulfilled. Others disagree.

I believe that when Jesus says,

Matthew 15:11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.”

That means the OT dietary laws are no longer in force.

Other theonomists disagree. That’s alright. We ought to be able to allow a certain amount of disagreement here. This is why we try to provide pork-free dishes when we have our fellowship meals.

Other examples of disagreement could be adduced but these examples suffice to demonstrate that we have to forbear with one another on this issue lest we rend the body of Christ apart.

However we can have no tuck with those who seek to extinguish some expression of theonomy from God’s revelation.

Kline admits that the original Westminster Confession actually taught theonomy and that the American revised version continues many of those strands. Kline notes and when you hear the word Chalcedon here you should interpret it as “Theonomy”:

“Ecclesiastical courts operating under the Westminster Confession of Faith are going to have their problems, therefore, if they should be of a mind to bring the Chalcedon aberration under their judicial scrutiny” (p. 173).

Elsewhere Kline states:

“If, providentially, anything good is to come of the Chalcedon disturbance, perhaps, paradoxically, it will come from the very embarrassment given to churches committed to the Westminster standards by the relationship that can be traced, as noted above, between the Chalcedon position and certain ideas expressed in the Westminster Confession. Perhaps the shock of seeing where those ideas lead in Chalcedon’s vigorous development of them may make the church face up to the problem posed by the relevant formulations and reconsider the Confessions position on these points. . . .”

Interestingly, Presbyterian Church in America teaching elder and New Testament scholar R. Laird Harris has negatively critiqued theonomy in Covenant Seminary’s Presbyterian Covenant Seminary Review (Spring 1979), p. 1 and yet he has to admit of theonomy in his second paragraph:

“The view is not really new; it is just new in our time. It was the usual view through the Middle Ages, was not thrown over by the Reformers, and was espoused by the Scottish Covenanters who asked the Long Parliament to make Presbyterianism the religion of the three realms—England, Scotland and Ireland.”

So these men admit that Theonomy is consistent both with the Westminster confession and with Church history and yet they have desire to snuff it out. These types continue with us today. All of Radical Two Kingdom theology hates Theonomy with a blind passion.

Let the lovers of antinomianism and the haters of theonomy rage. We know that vanilla Christianity which owns Christ as King has always been theonomic and if Christianity is once again to walk in the public square it will because it has returned to a commitment to both Dominion and Theonomy – constituent aspects of Biblical Christianity.

Gary DeMar Supports The Continued Destruction of America

“Churches near the border should set up large tents and welcome those who are crossing. Bring translators, Bibles, food, clothing, baby supplies, etc. Present the Gospel. Get help from Samaritan Ministries. Instead of sending missionaries to their countries, God is bringing them to us.”

Gary DeMar
President American Vision

Here we see the classic example of suicidal altruism so often prevalent in White men who have given up on Christianity. Men like DeMar are turning Christianity into a death cult.

Where does DeMar find warrant in Scripture to bring a people into a nation who are completely alien to the culture, religion, way of life, history, language, and habits of a people? Surely DeMar does not believe that God would have allowed the Canaanites into Israel for the purpose of Evangelizing them so that they might possibly become covenant people.

The command of Jesus was to disciple the nations and yet men like DeMar via this program of “invade the world / invite the world” would have us consolidate the nations so that nations no longer exist. DeMar isn’t doing the work of God here. DeMar is doing the work of the Devil via the NWO’s Great Reset. DeMar is giving us a John Lenon moment in his attempt to imagine there are no nations.

God is not bringing to us the third world so that we can do Missions among them. This is an unarmed invasion by the third world. Is the proper response here to welcome those who would destroy what lineaments of Biblical Christianity are left in this country. Return to the crime rates that these third worlders have brought and will continue to bring. Realize that our social safety net is already breaking. Realize that these people are flooding us quite without any protocols against the Deep State Virus being pursued among them. The reality that DeMar is advocating, along with the rest of the Great Reset crowd, that these people can be instant Americans is testimony that he hates current Americans.

DeMar by supporting this reveals himself as the enemy of God’s people. There is just no other way to soft-peddle this kind of statement from DeMar.

The interesting thing though is that I am in full support of preaching the Gospel to them and of seeking to relieve their want as much as possible. What I am adamantly opposed to is bringing them into the States. And I am opposed to that because this is all part of the Great Reset and Agenda 2030. This is the plan of the enemies of Christ and not the plan of Christ. This is the plan to sink this country into demographic oblivion. This is the plan to finally achieving the blending of all colors into one. This is Babel redux. Supporting this would have been akin to Abraham getting behind the Babel project.

American Vision has to go. It has to end as an organization. DeMar is now the 2nd President of American Vision to go all WOKE. DeMar made it clear at one point that he had no problem with Joel McDurmon and now we know why. They are two peas in a WOKE pod.

I beg of you to quit sending your support to American Vision and instead begin supporting the genuine heir to RJR’s vision… Pactum Institute. Pactum Institute is seeking to defend and rebuild Christendom.

Pactum Institute

Having said all this, I am almost completely convinced that I am trying to shut the barn door after the proverbial horse has escaped. The hour is very late and indeed it may already be too late to undo the damage that has been done to the fabric of this once Christian Republic.

Another point here … Gary DeMar is being platformed by Canon Press which should tell all of us that Doug Wilson’s fingers are also in this “Camp of the Saints” moment.

SJW’ism & Kinism … Twin Errors?

Recently I’ve seen the attempt on the part of the Reformed cognoscenti to try and make SJW’ism and Kinism flip sides of the same error. Mirror errors if you will. Kind of like what Nestorianism was to Eutychianism. This is followed by the requisite hair on fire screeching about how we need to rid both extremes from “our congregations.”

Problem is … is this just isn’t so.

In point of fact, it is like saying that Error and Truth are flip sides of the same heresy.

SJW’ism is boldly talking about the need to repent of whiteness. Indeed, recently we are hearing of the need to empty our Libraries of white man works because such Libraries are incipient “racist.” Kinism has no problems with non-Caucasians being non-Caucasians and would never call them to repent of their non-Caucasianism. If there is any call to repent it would be the call to repent of envy, repent of coveting, repent of jealousy, repent of cultural Marxism. There would never be a call to repent of being non-Caucasian. We would call white people to repent of the same.

SJW’ism is the heresy of seeking to deconstruct historic Christianity while redefining historic Christianity with the stuffing of Cultural Marxism and Liberation theology. Kinism is seeking to return to historic Christianity that identified the Creator God as the God who delights in distinctions precisely because He ordained them.

SJW’ism is the heresy of Unitarianism which leads to the pursuit of a reality that is a pure monad where all colors, genders, age distinctions, and appointed hierarchies bleed into one. Kinism is pleading to a return to the Biblical notion of the One and the Many, plays and revels in God’s ordained pluriform world, and hates, loathes, and castigates every attempt to erase the distinctions that God has ordained.

SJW’ism is the heresy of an Egalitarianism that leads to sameness and uniformity. SJW’ism advocates for an Orwellian slave order. Kinism desires a Biblical Freedom characterized by the desire for Freedom in the context of revealed Biblical Forms.

SJW’ism embraces a Greek chain of being thinking where all existence shares in the same being-ness that God owns. How do I know this? I know this because in seeking to level all distinctions what is really being pursued is the elimination of how unfair it is for one person or people or gender to have more being than another person, nation, or people thus making them unequal. In their Egalitarian pursuit, they are trying to make sure everybody shares in the same amount of being. Because of their chain of being thinking the ultimate goal is to make sure that God and man have the same amount of being. Kinism rejects this chain of being thinking and embraces instead the Creator-creature distinction seeing in the Creator-creature distinction the fountainhead out of which all other differences flow out.

SJW’ism is extraordinarily “race” conscious. They are consumed with it. Everything is race to these people. Race for them has been absolutized and the elimination of it in favor of a coffee Latte colored mongrel race is the Nirvana for which they reach. Kinists are only race-conscious in response to this New World Order which seeks to Imagine there are no nations (and no religion too). In war, the ones defending themselves may seem preoccupied with war but you certainly must excuse the defenders for defending themselves if an enemy is reigning war down on them. Get the enemy to go away and those in the defense mode will go back to normative. It is not the Kinist who are going around on the offensive on the issue of race. We only have to defend ourselves because every mechanism out there is attacking the norm of ethnic distinctions. (Hollywood, Universities, Madison Avenue, Corporate America, The Mega-State, The “Conservative” Churches, etc.)

Insisting that SJW’ism and Kinism are flip sides of the same error is like saying Dracula and Abraham Van Helsing are both problems that need to be eliminated. It’s like saying Santa Claus and Krampus are mirror problems that need to be both warred against. It’s like saying Underdog and Simon Bar Sinister are each part of the same problem. To say such things is just stupid. (Pardon my Calvin… Calvin’s favorite word was “Stupid”).

Kinism is just basic Biblical Christianity 101. A cursory reading of the works of the Church Father’s demonstrates that. If anyone doubts me on that I beseech them to read Thomas Achord’s and Darrell Dow’s Anthology titled “Who is My Neighbor; An Anthology in Natural Relations.” SJW’ism, on the other hand, is of their Father the Devil who was a murderer and liar from the beginning.