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.

James Orr & F. H. R. Frank on the Organic Unity of Christian Truth

“He who with his whole heart believes in Jesus as the Son of God is thereby committed to much else besides. He is committed to a view of God, to a view of man, to a view of sin, to a view of Redemption, to a view of the purpose of God in creation and history, to a view of human destiny, found only in Christianity.”

James Orr

Kerr Lecture Series

The Christian View of God & the World — p. 4

“The Christian truth, with the certifying of which we have to do, is essentially one, compact in itself, vitally interconnected, — as such at the same time organic, — and it is therefore not possible one should possess and retain a portion of the same, while yet not possessing or rejecting, the other portions. On the contrary, the member or portion of truth, it had been thought to appropriate or maintain alone, would by this isolating cease to be that which it was or is in itself; it would become a empty form or husk, from which the life, the Christian reality has escaped.”

F. H. R. Frank

So many R2K like modern preachers want to insist that ministers should only talk about the Cross and salvation in the pulpit. If Orr’s view above is correct such an approach is a sure way to stunt the growth of God’s people in the pew. While the Cross may be the center of the Christian faith from which all subjects depart and in which all subjects return, talking about the Cross apart from setting it in Christian Weltanschauung is like talking about the ocean to man who has never had a drink of water.

The minister must communicate to the flock that which helps the Cross make sense. It therefore must speak of anthropology, epistemology, axiology, teleology, and ontology. He needs to speak to his flock of law, education, sociology, politics, philosophy, family life, history, and economics. Because the Cross saves man from wicked thinking as well as wicked behavior preaching must speak to what wicked non-Christian thinking looks like in every area of life and then must round of by saying …”And such were some of you, but you were saved, you were washed, you were sanctified by the work of Christ on the Cross.”

Away then with the stunted preaching that wants to somehow reduce the pulpit to a children’s game of “finding Waldo (Jesus)” in the text as if the text doesn’t also teach us how to think like Christian in every area of life. Certainly, a lifetime of preaching can afford to us both the pleasure of bringing out the Lord Christ from the text as well as demonstrating that as those who believe that Jesus is the Son of God therefore, we are committed to a thought life that is completely contrary to those who despise the Christ of the Bible.

James Lindsey Complains About Folks Saying, “Christ Is King”

“‘Christ is King’ is, in addition to its malicious uses, a Christian virtue signal. Christians say it’s true. Nobody else does. Repeating it shows you’re on the team. Refusing to brings suspicions. That’s why it works. Bad actors can abuse it and lots will go along and defend it.”

James Lindsey

Atheist

Platformed by “Christian” Michael O’Fallon

1.) What possible malicious uses can a true statement possibly be leveraged?

2.) Of course it is, at the very least, a virtue signal. Just as someone saying “There is only one God; Allah, and Muhammed is his prophet” is a virtue signal among some types.

3.) Of course only people who believe it is true say it is true. This statement by Lindsey is like warning people that water is wet. NSS.

4.) Of course saying it proves one is on the team. And your point is?

5.) If I were an employer, for example, I would be so suspicious of someone not confessing “Christ is King,” I would not hire them. Yet another Captain Obvious statement by Lindsey.

6.) The primary reason why saying “Christ is King” works is because Christ is King.

7.) The idea that there is, out there, this galaxy of bad actors who will say “Christ is King” in order to abuse it is the kind of reasoning that the denizens of Hell come up with in order to make sure nobody ever says “Christ is King.”

8.) Of course “lots will go along and defend people saying “Christ is King.” That is primarily due to the fact that lots of people believe that “Christ is King.”

Michael O’Fallon, if he is a Christian, will have a good deal to answer for by platforming James Lindsey, the Christ hater.

In Praise of Partiality … In Defiance of Tolerance

“The law specifies, a definite partiality. God intervenes again and again in history to overthrow the enemies of His people. The law is given to protect Israel from subversion and total toleration is never legally possible nor is it permitted by the law of Moses. The idea of total toleration of course is a fiction. It is an impossibility. No law can ever extend total toleration.”

RJR

The Law Partial and Impartial

Pocket College Lecture

“Moreover, the Biblical and Moral requirements are for partiality. We are to pray for the good of others, but we are first of all responsible for our own household and he who does not care for his own, provide for his own, says Saint Paul, is worse than an infidel. Our first responsibility is towards our own household, and toward those of our own faith. We are to be merciful unto others, but there is a partiality required of us both religiously and politically. To tolerate subversion, for example, is itself a subversive activity. The law therefore has an impartiality, one standard of justice for all. But it has a partiality in that it defends a particular law-order, and it cannot tolerate a destruction of that order.”

R. J. Rushdoony

Law: Partial and Impartial

Pocket College Lecture

Scripture requires that we prioritize our people over the stranger and alien though we are to treat the stranger and alien (sojourner) with the justice of one and the same law. At this point in time the prioritizing of our people means massive de-migration – even by use of force if necessary.

When it comes to law, there cannot be total toleration when it comes to what is and what is not legal. When it comes to law there can only be toleration of any contrary faith behavior expression in so far as it does not offend the people of the ruling faith and the behavior expression codified in their law.

DKQ – Van Prinsterer, Nigel Lee

“Just as all truth rests upon the truth that is from God, so the common foundation of all rights and duties lie in the sovereignty of God. When that sovereignty of God is denied or (what amounts to the same thing) banished to heaven because His kingdom is not of this world, what becomes then of the foundation of authority, of law, of every sacred dutiful relation in state, society, and family? What sanctions remain for the distinctions and rank in life? What reason can there be that I obey another’s commands, that the one is needy, that the other is rich? All this is custom, routine, abuse, injustice, oppression. Eliminate God, and it cannot longer be denied that all men are, in the Revolutionary sense of the words, free and equal. State and society disintegrate, for there is a principle of dissolution at work that does not cease to operate until further division is frustrated by that indivisible unit, that isolated human being, the individual – a term of the Revolution – naively expressive of all destructive character.”

Guillaume Groen Van Prinsterer
Unbelief & Revolution
Lecture 9

1.) R2K is one of those errant theologies that banish the sovereignty of God to heaven because God’s Kingdom is not of this world. This is why it must be so strenuously rejected.

2.) Those who banish the sovereignty of God in the Christian community most normally turn to Natural Law to provide the foundation of authority required for every sacred dutiful relation in state, society, and family. However, the beginning presupposition of Natural Law is that man, starting from himself via his own sovereign authority can, while being totally depraved, use his unfallen reason in order to discern every sacred dutiful relation in state, society, and family.

3.) The elimination of God is the elimination of all distinctions. If there is no God, then distinctions are completely arbitrary. That “class does not exist” yields to “race does not exist” yields to “gender does not exist” yields to “age does not exist.” All of these become social constructs. (What Van Prinsterer calls arbitrary “custom, routine, abuse, injustice, oppression.”)

4.) When Kinists see NAPARC churches disciplining Kinists they see this Revolutionary (Jacobin/Marxist) agenda being pursued.

5.) This explains the horrors of egalitarianism. The presence of egalitarianism is horrific because its presence means the absence of the God of the Bible. Denominations that are practicing egalitarianism as seen in the claim that races are equal are diminishing the Christian faith. Denominations that are practicing egalitarianism as seen by putting women in positions of leadership are testifying they don’t believe in the sovereignty of God. Denominations that are practicing egalitarianism as seen in insisting that congregations which are racially integrated are automatically superior to congregations which are not have signed up for the egalitarian agenda.

Even after God has totally banished sin and all its consequences at the end of the age, even in the city of the New Jerusalem on the renewed Earth – “the nations of them which are saved walk in the light of it and the kings of the Earth…shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.”26

Then, “they shall be His peoples (laoi) — plural. Laoi, plural – not singular (laos). Rev. 21:3,24-26. For then, they all return to Genesis 1:1’s eternally-Triune Elohiym (and not to a unitarian multiracialistic Allah).

Francis Nigel Lee

Reformed Theologian

DKQ … Charles Hodge

“If the fact that the master and slave belong to different races, precludes the possibility of their living together on equal terms, the inference is, not that the one has the right to oppress the other but that they should separate. Whether this should be done by dividing the land between them, and giving rise to distinct communities, and wise conditions, is not for us to say. We have undertaken only to express an opinion as to the manner in which the Bible directs those, who look to it for guidance, to treat this difficult subject, and not to trace out a plan to provide for ulterior results. It is for this reason, we have said nothing of African colonization, though we regard it as one of the noblest enterprises of modern benevolence.”

Charles Hodge
Slavery – p. 511

“Whether the slaves of this country may be safely admitted to the enjoyments of personal liberty, is a matter of dispute, but what they cannot, consistently with the public welfare, be entrusted with, is the exercise of political power. This is on all hands admitted.”

Charles Hodge
Slavery, Essays and Reviews – p. 502

Now tell me that the NAPARC denominations, who are disciplining men for agreeing with Hodge, are not out of their ever-loving minds.