Introducing the Kalergi Clergy Study Bible

I’ve decided to try my hand at product creation, marketing and sales. I have developed a new study bible that I am calling the “Kalergi Clergy Study Bible.” In it, you will find first-rate notes as taken from contemporary prominent conservative clergy that proves from Scripture that,

1.) When Jesus died He died to extinguish the idea of Nationhood

2.) When Jesus died He died so that, in the words of Bono and U2, “all colors would bleed into one.”

3.) When Jesus died the righteousness of Loving vs. Virginia and Obergefell vs. Hodges was in His spilled blood.

4.) That the Fatherhood of God over all men and the Brotherhood of all men with one another is the starting point in all Biblical social order theory.

5.) That International Communism is God’s new idea which replaces the ceremonial law Old Testament Nationalism. The new has come the old has passed.

6.) That Marx was the most faithful interpreter of NT Christianity extant.

7.) That it never was envy, but it was love, that found women demanding their proper place in pulpits and as leaders in God’s house.

8.) That the NT ruling that men who are Elders must first run their own houses well and have believing children was a later scribal interpolation into Scripture and is NOT really a Biblical requirement.

9.) Churches in order to be Biblical Churches must be inter-racial, and trans-sexual in their membership, leadership, and in their marriages.

10.) That unique love for one’s own people is passe because Jesus loves all the children of the world and we should be like Jesus.

11.) That Biblical Christianity means that Christian social orders must be characterized by making room for the Atheist, the Muslim, the Talmudists, and the Sodomite. God’s joy in being God requires it.

These insights and others are awaiting you in my new KALERGI CLERGY study bible. Found wherever a Zomdervaan or Outer-Varsity Press is found.

And this at only 99.99 out the door taxes and shipping not included.

If There Were A Superior Race

If there were such a thing a superior race, it would get no sympathy if it were under attack from all other races. If there were such a thing as a superior race Theologians from other races would write about the necessity to get rid of once and for all the Jesus said to be clothed in that race. Politicians would make laws that only non-white people can get subsidies for their farms or small businesses. Points would be added to SAT scores of non-superior race people in order to make things fairer.

If there were such a thing as a superior race Educators would spend time telling their superior race students that they and their forebears have been oppressors and the ruination of the world. Politicians would appoint non-superior people to their administration so as to keep the superior race people from being seen as superior. Church denominations would insist that it was wrong for the superior race people to have their own churches.

If there were such a thing as a superior race, men from every non-superior race would attack ceaselessly with teeth barred the superior race. People would hate and envy the superior race, yet paradoxically enough also want to live in their nations and neighborhoods. People from different races would insist that race is a social construct so as to convince themselves that there can’t be superior races since race really doesn’t exist. People from different races would insist that the habits of the superior-race people — habits like logic, punctuality, and politeness were the habits of a sick race.

If there were such a thing as a superior race men of other races would lust after their women, and seek to weaken and undermine its men. If there were such a thing as a superior race that race would be mocked and ridiculed by every media outlet with every opportunity. Hollywood would depict that superior race as criminals and bumblers and incompetents. If there was a superior race of men the major news organ would create something called the 1619 project in order to bring down that superior race.

I for one am glad that there is no such thing as a superior race and that I live during a time where none of these signs of a superior race are evident.


I shouldn’t have to explain this but I will do so for my own safety.

The point here isn’t that one particular people are universally the superior race. It is my belief that superiorities and inferiorities (strengths and weaknesses) run through all races. The point in this piece is that it is the enemy, as seen by their actions, who are insisting that some particular race of people are superior. People who were confident in their own skin would not find it necessary to pull down everyone else so as to lift themselves up. It is their inferiorities combined with their being psychologically unhinged by Marxism that finds them obsessing over the superiorities of other peoples. 

Personal Reminisces; Of Summer Picnics, BBQ Chicken, & Iced Soda

When I was a boy in the late 60s I fondly remember that my mother’s workplace (Sealed Power in Lagrange Indiana) would have a summer picnic. Now, what boy doesn’t like picnics? The minute one hit the fairgrounds one could smell the BBQ chicken being grilled on the long outside grills. Those grills seemed to be endless. There was so much BBQ chicken being cooked a boy wondered if there might be a chicken shortage over the course of the following weeks and we ate BBQ chicken like we really did believe that we wouldn’t be eating chicken ever again.

There were also softball games and sports activities to fill the day with. There were chums to ram around the fairgrounds with and once one departed from the car upon arrival one seldom saw their parents again for the rest of the day.

But what I remember best of all was the horse troughs. Sprinkled around the fairgrounds were these huge horse troughs. These beauts were six feet long, two feet wide, and three feet deep. Of course, they had been thoroughly cleaned inside and out. They were amazing and the amazing thing about them is that they were filled with ice. Each and every one of them. A boy could wander all over the fairgrounds and never be far removed from one of these magnificent horse troughs. However, it was not just a matter of ice. Layered in between the different levels of ice were soda bottles. There I was introduced and fell in love with Orange Crush, Grape Nehi, and Frosty Root Beer.

I can remember to this day my arms tingling from the coldness of the ice as I reached down in those horse troughs to search out and find just the right soda I was looking for. There seemed to be a never-ending supply.

I decided then and there that this must be a facet of heaven. Keep in mind that growing up that soda was not something seen in the home. We had all the milk we could ever hope for thanks to my dairy farmer Grandfather but soda was a treat and on these picnic extravaganzas they were a treat I sought to make up for in their absence the rest of the year.

As the day wore on and the ice began to melt and the soda began to diminish we would jump in the horse troughs to cool ourselves down from all our galavanting over the fairgrounds. Playing was hard work you know. We would then be lectured for getting our clothes wet but it was the kind of lecture that was only half-hearted and was mostly comprised of “what are we going to do with these boys.”

This many years later, I occasionally still get a hankering for a Grape Nehi or an Orange Crush. If I see the brands in the store the memory of fairgrounds and BBQ chicken and horse troughs full of ice and soda comes back instantly.

So, half a century or more later, I salute you “Sealed Power” for the wonderful picnic bashes you would put on every summer for your employees.

McAtee Interacts With J. D. Hall Statements Uttered in His 2015 Theonomy Debate

1.) “Do you need the civil code to tell you not to have sex with another man?”

Rev. J. D. Hall
Theonomy Debate vs. J. McDurmon

Well, in point of fact, yes we need the civil law to tell us that man is not to have sex with a man. J. D. Hall thinks this is so obvious that the Moral Law didn’t need to explicitly say that sodomy is sin in order for law orders to know that sodomy should be criminalized. But it is only obvious to J. D. Hall because J. D. Hall owns somewhat of a Christian world and life view. However, as fallen man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness, I would say that apart from the civil law instructing fallen man that sodomy is sin fallen man would not know that sodomy is sin since he suppresses that very knowledge.

2.) “You see under a Gentile regime Jesus did not expect Caesar to uphold the first table of the law.”

Rev. J. D. Hall
Theonomy Debate w/ McDurmon

J. D. Hall goes on to insist that the reason Jesus called the Scribes and the Pharisees Hypocrites in the context of whether to pay taxes to Caesar or not was that they didn’t want to pay taxes and yet they asked Jesus a question about the matter. But Jesus doesn’t call the Scribes and the Pharisees “hypocrites” for that reason. He calls them hypocrites because they came feigning having a real interest in Jesus solving their proposed dilemma. They were hypocrites because their interest was only in entrapping Jesus and not as they presented themselves as those who had a genuine interest in the question.

All of this is said in the context of Matthew 22 account of paying taxes to Caesar. In that pericope, we find the well-known verse,

“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

Matthew 22:21

Hall makes the point that Caesar’s coinage was seen as blasphemy to Jews. Hall insists that as Jesus (in Hall’s interpretation) told the Jews to pay the tax therefore Jesus was saying the general equity of the civil law did not apply to pagan Gentile governments who use coinage that the Jews found to be a violation of the 1st and 2nd commandment.

The problem with Hall’s suggested exegesis is that it is just not so. Jesus never said in Matthew 22 that he did not expect Caesar to uphold the first table of the law. In point of fact Jesus never dealt with that issue at all. Indeed, Jesus never even conceded in that discussion that Caesar had anything that could be rightly considered Caesars. Remember, even Caesar belongs to God and so Christians have a responsibility to render Caesar unto God.

Jesus merely said that we are to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar and to render unto God the things that are Gods. Jesus never gave any explanation of what belongs to Caesar and that is likely because ultimately nothing belongs to Caesar since all belongs to God and so should be rendered up to Him.

The question that we are forced to ask here is, “what exactly belongs to God?”

Clearly, the answer is everything, including the State.

The next question then becomes, “what exactly belongs to Caesar?”

And the answer is only one thing and that is the authority to enforce God’s law, for His glory and the good of His church.

Romans 13 causes us to lean in this direction as it calls Caesar ‘God’s minister’ to do us good. As long as they ACT like God’s minister, by doing us good we are to obey them. When they begin to act like Satan’s minister, by doing us evil, then we must obey God rather than men.

3.)  “There really is in theonomy a tendency to put the law above the Gospel, and to put the law above the Gospel in a way that will challenge really an orthodox reading of the law.”

J.D. Hall
2015 Theonomy Debate with J. McDurmon

This is a damnable lie that has been demonstrated countless times to be a charge that has no roots in reality. No Theonomist who understands theonomy puts the law above the Gospel. No theonomist suggests that law-keeping is contributory to Justification. With this comment, Hall reveals either his dishonesty or his stupidity.

And Hall worries about an “orthodox reading of the law” and yet Hall is the one who has no law that can be applied consistently from generation to generation. Hall wants to say he esteems the moral law and yet Hall is the one who has a moral law that is a wax nose in terms of how it gets applied.
Does one really esteem the Moral law when the application of it can theoretically change from week to week?

We should insert here that Hall also insists that to be theonomic would put us back to a Talmudic – Mishna type reality what with all the interpretation of the civil law that would have to be done in order to follow the general equity of the civil law. However, Hall misses the fact that the humanist law order we now have already has the very thing he is afraid might arise if we took seriously the general equity of Gods’ judicial law. Indeed, what we have currently is a kind of Talmudic law that governs our social and law order.

4.)  J. D. Hall in his debate with McDumbon clearly believes that God by killing Ananias and Saphira did not operate consistent with his own civil law which never requires the death penalty for lying. Because of this Hall concludes that the general equity of God’s civil law is mutable. The reasoning is, “If God does not keep His own civil law therefore that means that the general equity of the civil law is not eternal.

The problem with Hall on this score is that God did not so much slay Ananias and Saphira for lying or theft as He did for blaspheming God. The text emphasizes their lying to the Holy Spirit.

3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit

9 Then Peter said to her, “Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test?

The OT civil law repeatedly calls for the death penalty for those who blaspheme God. Would Hall say that Ananias and Saphira did not blaspheme God by their lying?

Lev. 24:16 Whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death.

Secondly, on this score all because God acts in His sovereignty to visit sin with punishment in a way that is contrary to how He informs his Magistrates to act in terms of penology for crimes committed does not mean that therefore God’s civil law in its general equity is not obligatory for magistrates. One of the perks of being a God who is sovereign is that as God you can adjudicate a case without going through the normal prescribed channels.

5.) Hall, in his opening statement in his debate w/ McDurmon on theonomy complains that theonomy is “mono-covenantal.” Right here we see that the difference between Baptists and Reformed on the subject of the abiding validity of God’s law goes even deeper. Hall demonstrates in his complaint about “mono-covenantalism,” that he is presupposing discontinuity between the covenants as it pertains to God’s law. Hall presupposes that God’s post-fall covenant administrations are not united by the theme of grace. Instead, Hall, reveals (typical for Baptists) his belief that the new and better covenant of grace is instead a completely different covenant unrelated to previous administrations of the one covenant of grace.

Hall fails to understand that the New Covenant is not like selling an old car and getting a new car of a different model and make with no continuity. It is more like upgrading to the iPhone 13 from the iPhone 10. There is LOTS of continuity, nothing of substance is lost-only improvements, and the architecture and rules are generally the same.

6.) In the McDumbon vs. Hall debate on theonomy Hall, in his opening statement, claims that while other nations were judged by God for violating God’s moral law no nation was ever recorded as being judged by God for violating the civil law.

This is yet another rather dull moment by Hall. Psst… J. D. … dude … it’s not possible to violate God’s moral law without at the same time violating God’s case law at some point. Therefore Dude, if God is judging the nations for violating His moral law (the Canaanites for example) He is at the same time judging them for violating his civil law at some point since the general equity of the civil law is the concretization of the Moral law.

7.) J. D. Hall in his debate w/ McDurmon on Theonomy insists that because only the ten Commandments were put in the Ark of the Covenant that therefore gives the moral law pride of place above the case (Civil) law. Hall intimates that this proves that all men of all times are beholden to the Moral law of but not all men of all times are beholden to the general equity of the case (Civil) law.

This idea that only the Moral law continues allows us to believe that God was satisfied with men living subsequent to the commonwealth of Israel creating case law that allows for, as just one example, Bestiality being legal. I mean, after all, there is nothing in the New Testament that forbids sleeping with one’s favorite milking cow.

8.)In the Theonomy debate between Hall and McDurmon, Hall concedes that the OT law is righteous but not obligatory.

Say what?

If God’s law is righteous why would God allow His law to be ignored for some other law that does not come to us as inspired and very likely would therefore be unrighteous?

I don’t know how you can concede right out of the gate that God’s civil law is indeed righteous but not obligatory. If it is righteous by God’s standard then why would you want some other Law?

McAtee Contra J. D. Hall on the Ongoing Validity of the General Equity of God’s Case Law

Are the judicial laws a reflection of the moral law? Absolutely, given the culture and context in which they are given…. What is just for my son or daughter may be different given their unique circumstances. The reflection of the moral law that is found in the judicial code for the commonwealth of Israel is very much there. I think the error is saying therefore that is a reflection of the moral law in our culture and context…. How justice is administered can be changed in the exact same way that God’s covenant administration has changed.

J. D. Hall
Theonomy Debate with J. McDumbon

1.) Keep in mind here the implication of the above statement. While in the old and worse covenant God Himself graciously gave judicial laws by which Israel could be ruled. Ask an OT Hebrew what law code he was ruled by and he would have said with gratitude… “We as God’s people are ruled by God’s case law as it reflects His moral law.”  However, when we come to the superior covenant, what the book of Hebrews called “The new and better covenant,” God’s people, per Hall, are no longer ruled by the general equity of God’s explicit case law but rather we are ruled by case law that is established by sovereign man. Does that really sound like a new and better covenant?

2.) Note the relativism in J. D. Hall’s position. The judicial law of the Commonwealth of Israel was a reflection of God’s moral law for their time. However, other times may find that a new judicial law not explicitly given by God is a better reflection for those times than the reflection of the moral law in the case law in the time that God explicitly gave the case law to Israel. Now, J. D. tries to avoid this charge of relativism by comparing the alleged change in the case law between the Israel Commonwealth and other times after the ending of Israel to the change in the different administrations of the covenant. The problem here however is that God’s covenantal administration changes from the Mosaic to the New and Better covenant were changes that were wrought in connection to the previous reality that Christ had fulfilled bloody rites of both the Passover (now communion) and Circumcision (now Baptism). There is nothing in the New Testament that speaks directly to a change in the case law such as we find in a change in the signs and seals of the covenant of the new and better covenant. For Rev. Hall to suggest that God’s case law can change from people to people and from year to year depending on how they want to piece the case law together according to their imaginations finds Hall not only falling into the hole of relativism but it also finds him falling into the chasm of some kind of Marcionism where God’s character is no longer immutable.

3.) My charge against Hall that he is implicitly denying the immutability of God’s character is due to the fact that where ever a people change out their law order there is at the same time a changing out of their God since the law order is always a reflection of the character of God. If God can change per the way the Rev. Hall is saying that God can change via the ever sliding scale of the application of the moral law then God’s character is not immutable.