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.

Behold Tyranny

1.) SCOTUS rules the Arizona cops can ask for proof of citizenship

2.) Within hours of the SCOTUS ruling Sec. Naplitano of Homeland Security announces that the Obama Administration is suspending its agreement with Arizona police regarding the detention and reporting of illegal aliens, thus in a Defacto fashion, voiding the SCOTUS decision.

3.) So, Arizona can ask for identification but if Arizona police find out they have illegal aliens on their hands they have no place where processing for deportation can take place since the FEDS are now refusing to take Arizona reportage.

4.) Further, the Obama Civil Rights division has set up a hotline for illegals to call in order to lodge complaints against both the Arizona and Alabama state immigration law, thus clearly revealing that they are trolling in order to find a case that they can use to litigate successfully in order to overturn the decision that SCOTUS just made.

We are living under a Criminal State. Morally speaking, we do not owe it obedience.

Reading the Political Tea Leaves

“After the uprising of the 17th June the Secretary of the Writer’s Union had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee stating that the people had forfeited the confidence of the government and could win it back only by redoubled efforts.

Would it not be easier in that case for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?

Would it not be easier in that case for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?”

Bertolt Brecht
The Solution

Obama’s actions in the last few days of,

1.) Granting Amnesty to 800,000 illegal immigrants

2.) Refusing to enforce Arizona immigration law as upheld by SCOTUS

Combined with earlier actions of refusing to enforce the “Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA),” and refusal to prosecute the Black Panthers for voter intimidation proves, to those with eyes to see, that Obama’s 2012 campaign rests upon building a coalition of

A.) Public Unions
B.) Sexual Perverts
C.) Minorities
D.) Illegal Immigrants
E.) Feminists
F.) Academia
G.) Youths

In other words, we have finally come to crescendo wave that was began in the 1960’s with the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Immigration Act (1965). This tidal wave, as it crashes into the American electorate, is intended to wash out to sea the remains of the Christian White middle class America. Folks, we are seeing before our very eyes, with the actions intended to flood the polls with illegals, the attempt of the State to bring in a new constituency and create a new nation.

Galatians 3:28 & Egalitarianism

‎26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Here St. Paul DOES affirm the distinctions of class, race, and gender. Paul is saying that despite these very real distinctions that exist that when it come to Justification the ground at the cross is even. The very real distinctions that exist don’t prohibit one from being justified in Christ.

Indeed, I would insist that unless these distinctions are assumed as true this verse makes no sense. Further, I would insist that the distinctions are so limited only to the question of justification, that the Church, composed of all these justified people as it is, still expects men to use the “Men’s Restroom,” and women to use the “Women’s Restroom,” while at Church. Something that would be altogether unnatural if it really were the case that Christians supported the idea of “No male or female categories or roles exist after conversion.” The fact that we still label our Restrooms suggest that we don’t really believe men and women are identically the same. Also, if no category of male or female, because of the putative egalitarianism that Christ brings, there would be therefore no reason whatsoever to object to sodomite marriage and if the implications of this passage were to be fairly traced out consistently according to the egalitarian Hermeneutic there would be no reason to object to pedophilia since the egalitarian Hermeneutic implication of this passage is that in Christ Jesus there is neither child or adult.

So, I believe that Galatians 3:26f can and should be used to refute egalitarianism in the Church and in Christian culture.

Caleb’s Baptism — Heidelberg Catechism Q. 14

Question 14. Can there be found anywhere, one, who is a mere creature, able to satisfy for us?

Answer: None; for, first, God will not punish any other creature for the sin which man has committed; and further, no mere creature can sustain the burden of God’s eternal wrath against sin, so as to deliver others from it.

The idea of “satisfy for us,” is pointing towards the idea of someone who can take our punishment as a substitute for us, in our stead.

We have learned from the previous questions that we can not provide for our own satisfaction and that we must look to another in order to have peace with God. Question 14 thus begins to examine what kind of substitute we might need in order to for God’s justice to be satisfied in terms of the case that He has against us as sinners.

The emphasis in question 14 falls on the word “mere.” If we are to look for someone who can undertake the penalty of God’s condemnation against sin in our place that someone we must find must be more than a creature like ourselves. With this simple statement the Catechism shuts the door to any Savior candidate who is not more than human. Anyone who we turn to, in order to be our penalty bearer, must have credentials that include, “more than a mere creature.” Of course that rules out all humans that are not also Gods.

In answer #14 we are given two reasons why a “mere creature,” is not sufficient to bear our sins.

1.) Scripture teaches, “the soul that sinneth it shall die,” (Ezekiel 18:4) and so even if another mere creature could be found to bear satisfaction, if that “mere creature,” did not share in the manishness of man, it would be unjust of God to visit penalty of man upon a non-manish man. As man did the sinning, any creature that might be found to take the penalty, must have the soul of man. So, a mere creature that does not share in man manishness can not satisfy for man the sinner.

2.) The second reason that a mere creature can not satisfy God’s wrath in the place of sinners is that any creature who might conceivably be found, who was only a creature, could never endure the wrath of God against sin so that others might be delivered from God’s wrath. If the mere creature could not sustain the penalty of God for His justice wronged then those who might be being represented by that mere creature could not be saved.

No mere creature can stand before God’s indignation. No mere creature can abide in the fierceness of God’s anger (Nahum 1:6).

So, question 14 leaves us with the necessity to find a savior candidate who,

1.) Shares in our manishness so that as one who might conceivably satisfy for our sin with His death is connected with the “soul that sinneth” as man himself.

2.) Is more than man so that He might withstand the fury of God’s just penalty against sin.

The catechism teaches us that in order for someone to satisfy for our sins we need someone who is man and yet who is more than man. The Scripture points to that person,

Heb.2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Heb.2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Heb.2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Heb.2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Question 15 teases out even more what we find in Hebrews 2. Jesus Christ was very God of very God (hence, more than a mere creature) and yet became a partaker of flesh and blood (hence, he shared in the “manishness of man”). Because of this Jesus Christ qualifies as one who can be one who can satisfy for sin.

So, no mere creature can be found who can satisfy God’s just penalty for our sin but there is one who is more than a mere creature who can relieve us of our sin and misery.

Genocide & The White Boer … So Much For Social Justice

Why isn’t the world media covering the genocide of the Boer in South Africa as it covered Apartheid in the 80’s and 90’s? The White Boer Farmer is being raped, pillaged, and murdered and we hear next to nothing about it in our traditional media outlets. Could it be the reason that we hear so little about this crime is because the South African Boer Farmer is white?

Here we have all this noise and fury about the Belhar confession and the need for racial justice all the while the white Boer Farmer is being attacked at every turn. The Belhar confession, coming from South Africa as it does, is supposed to be this great statement about unity and social justice and yet the very country that it comes from is pursuing genocide of the White Boer Farmer.

Something doesn’t add up here.

War threats, hate crimes soar against SA Whites: June 2012

http://www.neo-genocide.com/farmitracker/