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.

McAtee Contra Bahnsen

www.davidbahnsen.com/index.php/2013/01/01/i-can-not-believe-how-badly-some-people-miss-the-point/

First, understand that Bahnsen writes like a neo-con. This means he is a progressive though he interprets everything from the right side of the left. He is not a conservative in any legitimate sense of the word.

Bahnsen

There is nothing to celebrate or bemoan in what happened over the last 24 hours. A little rule-of-thumb of mine may be appropriate to share here: When BOTH parties say they want a certain thing, you can bet that after a whole lot of posturing or politicking and time-wasting, that thing is going to happen. It is not that easy when only one party says they want something. BOTH parties said they wanted the bottom four tax rates to stay where they were. BOTH parties said they did not want the estate tax exclusion amount to revert to the preposterous $1 million level. BOTH parties said they wanted a dividend tax rate at 20% or lower. It is no surprise that all these things are happening.

Bret

There is plenty to bemoan with this legislation.

1.) progressive income tax is a plank in the Marxist manifesto. The fact that any group of wage earner’s tax is going up is plenty to bemoan. Bahnsen has embraced the premise that progressive income tax is something that we just have to live with. I bemoan that we have a progressive income tax instead of a flat tax or something like a flat tax.

2.) The fact that we are getting more spending then tax cuts is outrageous. Not only does the McConnell Tax Hike stick it to the middle class, it raises taxes $41 for every $1 in spending cuts. Those spending cuts are ephemeral as there is $330 billion in new spending and a $4 trillion price tag over the next ten years. This plan is not fiscally responsible for a people who own their souls to the Chinese and are borrowing against future generations wealth.

3.) Keep in mind that with this deal more than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes.

Both Hollywood and NASCAR get carve outs. So too do wind energy companies.

Bahnsen

Now, do I want my income tax rate going up? No, and I think it is immorally high even at 35%, let alone 39.6%. However, anyone telling you that the Senate or House voted for a tax increase is lying, and they know it. The law of the land was for a dramatically higher increase in rates across the board to kick in, and there have been huge reductions passed in the last 24 hours from all of those legally set levels. In other words, a tax cut was passed, not a tax increase. Did the Republicans hold their ground about not agreeing to see the top rate go from 35% to 39%? No. Did the always-pompous Obama keep his sworn campaign pledge for rates to go up on all incomes above $250,000? No, with all the leverage in the world he folded like a bad poker hand and agreed to a $450,000 income level for that increase. There are things to like and things not to like, but there is simply no debating that it is better than what we were going to get – by a mile.

Bret

This is typical compromise political speak. Bahnsesn doesn’t know what we were “going to get” so how can he proclaim that this is “better then we were going to get?” This is like a virgin being told that she has to choose between becoming pregnant or contracting a STD and then upon becoming compromise her chastity saying, “Well, I may have gotten pregnant but I didn’t get a STD and so being pregnant is better than I was going to get by a mile.”

What if she had just said “no.” What if the Republicans had just said “no?” Who knows what we would have got?

Bahnsen

So why are people like Erick Ericson so mad? Because this plan does not cut spending the way we want. Well, no kidding Sherlock (I like the real expression better). It does not tackle deficits and debts because THE WRONG PARTY WON THE ELECTION.

Bret

More compromise from Bahnsen. He is cut from the same cloth as Boehner and McConnell.

We are so mad because even though the Republicans won the house they cave at every turn. We are so mad because the Republican moderates (Boehner & Cantor’s people) are forging a ruling coalition with the Democrats against Republican conservatives. Has Bahnsen forgotten how divided Government works? Given the 2012 vote that gave the House to the Republicans and the Presidency to Democrats the people obviously wanted gridlock. All because a Democrat wins the Presidency doesn’t mean that he gets what he wants when there is a decidedly Republican Congress. Bahnsen reasoning is curious.

Bahnsen

The so-called resolution to fiscal cliff is a joke, but that is not because it is a bad piece of legislation. The bad piece of legislation was the initial bill that failed to build in tax reductions on a permanent basis back in 2001 and 2003. Elections matter. Do not ever set policy on the presupposition that your party will never lose again. And when you do lose, do not act like you didn’t. The time to flex our muscle and block spending where we legally can is coming. But there was no possible way to do that yesterday.

Bret

There was a way to do that before this deal. Boehner could have held the debt limit increase that Obama wants in a very short time hostage. He could have used that as a leveraging chip but he didn’t and when the time comes around to debate the debt ceiling limit the Republican will cave AGAIN. Why elect Republicans when they are not going to be fiscally responsible?

Bahnsen

For Republicans mad about this deal, I suggest you do what always has to precede real political improvement in a Republic: Win your elections. The Libertarians and Paul-bots have been sitting around crying in their beer for over thirty years while they capture 1% of the voting public’s attention. Do not stoop to their loser level. Win an election, then demand a harder line on spending. For now, we were facing something far, far worse, and we got an improvement. Keep your eye on the ball, friends. This is a long war.

Bret L. McAtee

This is a untempered statement by someone not thinking through the implications of what he says.

Republicans won MASSIVELY in 2010. Did they do anything? Did they stop the debt ceiling limit? Did they do anything to investigate this President? No .. instead what we got with a Tea Party propelled victory is a Neo Con Speaker. Clearly winning elections do not matter as Rockefeller Republicans dance cheek to jowl with Socialist Democrats. Boehner is not a conservative and neither is McConnel or Bahnsen.

And why is he moaning about the Libertarians if they are so insignificant? Me thinketh Bahnsen doth protest too much.

We are being turned into a slave people and the best Bahnsen can do is lash out at Libertarians?

Ask Dan Brannan — A Christian Response To a Christian Gun Control Enthusiast

Daniel,

So where do you draw the line? Should I have the right to own a shoulder mounted surface to air missile? A jet bomber? a nuclear warhead? Do you think if Thomas Jefferson could have seen the damage a fully automatic UZI could inflict on a crowded cafe that he would have still supported the 2nd amendment in its present form? Or better yet been in favor to modify it. These are the argument that are going to come up not stupidity like this flyer.

Dear Jack,

First, that entire line of reasoning assumes that certain classes of weapons are for the the government alone and that the gov’t is inherently more responsible than the freeholder, or citizen. This would, by definition, be Statism – the bedrock of tyranny – precisely the sort of delusions the founders sought to restrain at all costs. As it turns out, the history of the 20th century fully vindicated the founders’ conviction by the fact that governments have proven far more lethally erratic than the average man. Those who allocate, amass, or support inordinate concentrations of power in Government hands are the danger, not the weapons. Government and the state-worshiping mindset are simply too dangerous to allow them a monopoly on force and violence. That is the entire ethic behind the Lord of The Rings: no one can safely wield that concentration of power – least of all they who in their pride, believe otherwise. All men need checks on their power, and the government more than anyone. And that is precisely the intent behind the 2nd amendment – an authority inherent in the people to restrain or overthrow a runaway government for their own defense.

So the limiting principle for the average man’s armament is packed into the the rationale of 2nd amendment itself – while citizens’ right of self-defense may not be infringed, it is apparent that indiscriminate weapons such as nuclear bombs are safe for men neither in nor out of government. In order not to infringe upon people’s right of self-defense non-discriminant weapons like weaponized viruses and nukes are illegal to all, citizens and congressmen. There is no practical use for such items in anyone’s possession; they protect no one and merely endanger everyone.

But yes, tanks, RPGs, and uzis are rightful parts of an American’s armory precisely because they are the weapons needed to suppress state tyranny. And anyone who says otherwise is promoting an ideology far more dangerous than any uzi.

As Christians, we live by Christ law, not the whim of men.

Beale & McAtee On The Reality Of Now Resurrection

We have already seen in John 5:24-29 that the OT prophesied the last great resurrection as a one time event, but this is fulfilled in a staggered “now- not yet” fashion: believers spiritual resurrection in Christ to be followed by a physical resurrection. However, we must not underestimate the resurrection that we have been given in Christ. As Christ has been raised to a new reality so Christians united to Christ has been raised to a new reality and are to live their lives in terms of this Resurrection New Creational Kingdom (Col. 1:13f)

In I Cor. 15 Paul portrays another version of this staggered resurrection fulfillment; The Messiah is physically resurrected first, and then later his people are raised physically. Remembering that the OT appeared to prophesy that all of God’s people together were to be resurrected as part of one event, Paul views the prophecy of the end time resurrection to begin fulfillment in Christ’s physical resurrection, which necessitates that the saint’ subsequent physical resurrection had to happen. In other words the great event of the final resurrection had begun in Christ but since the event was not completed in the resurrection of others, the completion of that prophesied event had to come at some point in the future.

G. K. Beale
A New Testament Biblical Theology — pg.261

However, we must be careful of the “Spiritual” Resurrection that wherein we have been resurrected. There is a tendency for the Reformed to make “Spiritual” speak Plato as if to mean “non intrusive in our every day to day lives.”

We have been resurrected so that our relationship to the old Adam is superseded by our relationship to the new Adam. This explains why the expectation is that we would walk in “newness of life.” We are resurrected beings and though we are not yet all that we one day will be we are creatures who live in this present age as walking and living in the age to come. Like Legolas in Tolkien’s work we live in two worlds at the same time but the creational age in which we have been resurrected is impinging on all around us that has not yet been resurrected. In some sense then we, as the resurrected, are the bearers of resurrection life to all that we come in contact with.

This reality of having been NOW resurrected with Christ is why Paul can write about our now being seated in the Heavenlies with Christ. It is why he could write that we have been NOW translated to the Kingdom of God’s dear Son, whom He loves. It is why he could write that our citizenship is in heaven, keeping in mind that heaven is invading this present wicked age via His resurrected citizenry.

The “NOW” of our Resurrected status can not be hidden under the bushel of the “not yet.” The Kingdom as come and we are citizens of that future creational age Kingdom bringing the aroma of Christ and that Kingdom unto all we come in contact with.

Edmund Burke on Hatred

“A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred of the unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves from cruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty, are accomplices in it. The pretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancor, produces an indifference which is half an approbation. They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate.”

~ Edmund Burke

Communist Manifesto Plank # 4 & Amerika.

“Relax, ” said the night man,
“We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave! ”

Eagles
Hotel California

Communist Manifesto

Plank #4 — Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Let’s assume that you live in a State with a onerous tax burden. Further let’s assume that the legislators of the State that you live in don’t want to see you leave without paying your “fair” share of the said State’s tax burden? I mean, after all, you can’t escape any other debt just by moving across state lines. Why should you be able to escape what you owe to the state in terms of your share for the State debt simply by moving to another state?

States are in a desperate straight for for revenue and it just doesn’t make any sense for states to allow their producers and taxpayers to leave the state (California — a particularly troubled death spiral state — averages 200,000 citizen departures annually) with the consequence that only the takers remain? After all, where do citizens get off thinking that they have the liberty to protect their money by moving to States where the tax bite is less painful?

The idea to tax departing citizens is not new but is merely an application of the 4th plank of the Communist manifesto. Both Stalin and Hitler didn’t allow people to leave their friendly boundaries without first fleecing them of most of their money. I mean, it is reasonable that if the State has cared for you, educated you, and made you the person you are, that you owe them a significant amount of your property should they decide to allow you to leave their gentle ministrations, right? Is it really so onerous to pony up a exit fee for moving across State borders when one already has to pony up a exit fee to the state when one moves across the borders from life to death. I mean if we are going to pay estate and inheritance taxes what is the big deal about paying moving taxes?

Of course another way to make sure that States don’t lose valued cash cows is to go all East Germany and place a barbed wire fence around the borders. The only problem with that is if states like California placed a barbed wire fence around their borders to keep tax-payers in, how could illegal aliens ever creep in order to profit as recipients of tax payer largess? Don’t you just hate the conundrum that progressive State legislators have to resolve? I guess that is why they get paid the big money.

Keep in mind as we advance the idea that States need to implement a expatriate shake down er, I mean, tax, that states would merely be following the example of the FEDS who already practice such a shake down. Currently the FEDS seize the monies of emigrants through the means of capital gains tax that includes taxation on unrealized gains, across all their holdings marked to market as of the day of their departure. However, we mustn’t stop there. Currently expatriates are responsible for gift taxes on amounts above $12,000 a year given to anyone in the U.S., for the rest of their lives, even though they are no longer citizens themselves. SCOTUS has no problem with this.

Somewhere Marx is gloating.

Look, those few of us who are awake need to start admitting some hard truths to ourselves if we haven’t already.

1.) This is not your Founding Father’s America
2.) If we are not a Marxist nation we at least have a Marxist Government
3.) Protesting against this Marxist treatment will eventually find the protester receiving Marxist Gulag treatment
4.) Both Democrats and Republicans alike are all Jacobins. The difference is merely one of degree
5.) There is no sense in trying to wrap this social order in any kind of Christian garb. We are a anti-Christ State.

Of course, one could always just embrace R2K theology and just completely ignore this anti-Christ social order.

Hat Tip — Bill Frezza