The Calabrian Butcher Wields His Clever Cleaver Against the Effeminate Soy Boy

Here I am trying to mind my own business while I enjoy my dogmatic slumbers and my name gets sullied and besmirched by a kid whose probably young enough to be my grandson. So much for an Elder being worthy of double honor. It is a tad frustrating that, in the words of Michael Corleone, just when I think I’m getting out they pull me back in. Ah well, I’m always up for another round of whack-an-Alienist.

Tait Zimmerman wrote, ( A shame he was too young to vote for Sarah Palin last time she ran for office),

They (the Kinists) start their argument with the claim that they only want to “love their kin.”

Bret responds,

Imagine the hutzpah in starting an argument with wanting to love our kin? What’s next? Kinists starting arguments that they love their place of birth? The cheek of it all.

Taiter continues,

When developed, though, the argument is they can only love their kin if separated from all other “kins,” which means that the final objective is racial separation and segregation, and declaring a “racially-mixed society” to be an evil society.

Bret responds,

1.) Kinists don’t have to have racial separation and segregation as an objective because it always naturally occurs when Government isn’t legislating that people do not have freedom to assemble, thus unnaturally forcing people together who otherwise wouldn’t gather. If Taiter had eyes wide open he’d notice, for example the self-segregating that happens as the Universities increasingly having graduation ceremonies for their Black students or for their Hispanic students. Maybe Taiter would notice organizations like the Black Congressional Caucus or, I don’t know … something like Black Lives Matter. Kinists don’t have to have as an objective racial separation or segregation because it happens naturally when both,

a.) Government quits legislating against freedom of assembly and
b.) When the Lugenpresse and Hollywood doesn’t jam integration down everyone’s throats. 

2.) I don’t know that I would say that a “racially-mixed society is an evil society,” though I certainly would say that a racially-mixed society is a unstable and unhealthy society. But then if I said that I wouldn’t be alone. I would just be parroting the conclusions found in sociologist Robert P. Putnam’s book “Bowling Alone.” But as Taiter probably doesn’t read much past his multi-volume graphic novel set he probably has never heard of this book or author. Putnam is hardly a friend of Kinism but his conclusions are that a racially/culturally mixed society is one where trust denigrates and people disengage. 

Taiter writes,

Needless to say, (kinists think) “inter-racial” marriages between Christians are sin, or, to put it more mildly, “not according to the original marriage,” where Adam and Eve had the same genetic composition.

Bret repsonds,

Not all Kinists say inter-racial marriage is always sin all the time. Many, like me, say, that inter-racial marriage is on the whole unwise and should not be entered into for the sake of both parties and for the sake of any future children. We look at the statistics for divorce for inter-racial marriages and see that it is even higher than for intra-racial marriages and seeing that we conclude that it is not wise and counsel against it. Kinists believe that two people entering into marriage ought to have us much common ground between the two people as is possible. This includes race/ethnicity, culture, faith, class, lifestyles, worldviews, etc.

However, like me, many kinists also say that once such a marriage is contracted that the Church should support such a marriage as much as possible. 

Taiter opines,

(Kinists think that) Culture is defined not by faith (Henry Van Til, “Culture is religion externalized”) but by the genetic composition of a nation.

Bret responds,

1.) I do believe that culture is religion externalized. However, the religion that is externalized is the religion of a particular people. Taiter is dealing in abstractions while I am saying that, “yes, culture is religion externalized but you can’t have religion externalized apart from a set people who are externalizing that religion.” Even the Scripture agrees with me when we see St. Paul talk about the Cretans. Just imagine the culture the Cretans created because of their religion. Paul said the Cretans were always liar. People who are always liars are liars because of their religion and as part of their religion externalize all that to create a culture of lies.

2.) Taiter is being all Gnostic here to suggest that cultures are made by faith and religion apart from the people — with all their genetic traits — who make up the cultures, faith, and religions in question. Culture isn’t created without people and people, I’m sorry to report to the Taiter, are who they are in their physical reality in harmony with their genes.  One simply can’t peel what a person believes apart from the person who is doing the believing. Culture is religion externalized as that religion is poured over the people God has ordained a people to be in their genetic reality. So, culture, like humans, has both a spiritual component (what we believe) and a physical component (the person who is doing the believing). If Alienists, like our Taiter, here cut off the genetic reality what else can that be but Gnosticism? 

Here I pause to go all C. S. Lewis and ask, “What do they teach these children in Sunday School these days?”

3.) Yes, Taiter I think a culture should be defined in part by the genetic composition of the nation since one can’t peel a culture away from the nation that in which it exists.   

Look, as an example in micro, when we consider the family culture of the McAtee’s we have to consider how what they believe interacts with who God has predisposed them to be by way of who God has made them to be per nature (genes). McAtees historically have been stubborn. Now that can be bent to God’s purposes by channeling it into determination or it can be bent to opposition to God by being pigheaded. Being regenerated doesn’t take away that disposition. However, grace can restore nature so that stubborness becomes a tool in God’s hand for God’s glory. Taiter, on the contrary is suggesting that grace destroys nature which is, as we have said, a Gnostic move.

Taiter writes,

Mixture of genes, then (or, as they call it, “miscegenation”), creates a “multicultural society,” which is anti-Biblical, they claim. They all teach segregation of society, and they all believe a “multi-racial” society is by default a “multi-cultural” society and therefore evil, even if everyone in that society is a Christian.

Bret responds,

I’m completely open to learning about all these multi-racial societies that are not multi-cultural. Let the Taiter march them before our eyes by giving us examples. At the same time let the Taiter give us examples of multi-cultural societies where everyone has been a Christian.   

Taiter, in my favorite part, writes,

Their main guru, McAtee (who, ironically, looks nothing like a Celt but rather like a Calabrian butcher) believes in the forming of segregated “Christian cultures”: Mongolian, Celtic, etc. Segregated by genetic composition, of course.

The Calabrian Butcher responds,

1.) I weep for the lack of originality in American utes. It’s been probably around a decade since a small alienist Bulgarian first dubbed me a “Calabrian Butcher.” Can’t Taiter come up with anything original? I mean I can come up with all kinds of metaphors of what he looks like. “Effeminate soy boy?” “Nightgown boy?” “Honey, how does this dress look on me boy?”  Still, I’m good with the Calabrian butcher title. Have you ever seen those Calabrian butchers handle a cleaver Taiter? Better not get to close Effeminate soy boy.

2.) McAtee believes that Christian cultures will self-segregate so that there will be no need to employ a plan to form these different Christian cultures. When people are left to themselves like will seek out like. But even if McAtee did think exactly what Effeminate soy boy says he would stand in good company with Abraham Kuyper;

“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)

3.) Although I would love to think it is true, it is manifestly not the truth that “McAtee is the main guru of the Kinists.” You could lop my head off tomorrow and the strength of Kinism would not diminish one iota. Kinism is a decentralized movement with more gurus then you can shake a stick at. In point of fact, anybody who is epistemologically self-conscious as a Kinist is a Kinist guru. They have to be since they are under such withering idiotic attacks. If a man is a kinist you can be sure he has thought it through to the point that he himself is a guru. I suppose I’d like to be “King of the Kinists,” but that is just nonsense. Every Kinist I know is as much as a guru as I am. Thanks to people like the Taiter that will continue to be true.

Taiter writes,

And no, most of them do not keep it generally to races and skin color, they do go deeper to genetic differences between ethnic groups, for they all use as their support verse in the Bible where the Jews were advised to divorce their non-Jewish wives. That passage, of course, is not about different skin colors but about different ethnicities within the same skin color, and many of the wives were of Semitic nations kin to the Hebrews. So, no, it’s not just general about skin color, it is much more specific about different ethnicities.

Bret responds,

First, race is more than skin color. Only a public school educated person thinks otherwise. Second, naturally kinist would advise that a second generation Italian growing up in New York city’s “Little Italy” would be wise to marry another second generation Italian growing up in similar circumstances. Remember, we kinists advocate that two people entering into marriage have as much common ground as possible. Just shoot us for thinking that way.

Second, in terms of the Ezra passage let us just note that not only the foreign wives were sent away but also the children of these unions. Obviously, as such, there was more than just different religions going on in the dismissal in the Ezra passage.

Now, Taiter, please allow me to return to my dogmatic slumbers.

Is the Great Replacement a Conspiracy Theory?

Recently, the Cultural Marxist Lugenpresse with their Corporate Political allies have been breathless in their ravings about the dangers of the “extreme right and their Great Replacement conspiracy theory.” They go on about this as if they themselves have not openly spoken of their desire to see the White man replaced.

Yet, it indeed has been the case that in the highest halls of power we have heard this desire for a Great Replacement articulated. Here are but two examples;

“This will arguably be the third great revolution in America . . . to prove that we literally can live without in effect having a dominant European culture. We want to become a multiracial, multiethnic society. We’re not going to disintegrate in the face of it.”

President Bill Clinton

1997 Boston Speech

“I’m proud of the American record on culture and economic integration of not only our Muslim communities but African communities, Asian communities, Hispanic communities,  and the wave still continues. It’s not going to stop. Nor should we want it to stop. As a matter of fact, it’s one of the things I think we can be most proud of. Folks like me who are Caucasian of European descent — for the first time in 2017 we’ll be an absolute minority in the United States of America. Absolutely minority. Fewer than 50 percent of the people in America, from then and on, will be white European stock. That’s not a bad thing. That’s a source of our strength.”

Vice-President Joe Bite-Me
2017 Conference Comments

Clearly, if the Great Replacement Theory is a conspiracy it is a open conspiracy. The fact that the Cultural Marxist left can hyperventilate about “The Great Replacement conspiracy,” can only be accounted by the fact that they are counting on the usual hebetude of their viewership.

Indeed, one could easily argue that Great Replacement is at the core of the designs of the NWO and the Great Reset. We see replacement everywhere. Everything distinct is being replaced by everything non-distinct so that the result is a interchangeable cog culture. Distinct races are being replaced by the mulatto and the mélange. Distinct genders are being replaced by the hybrid and the sexual amalgam. Distinct ages, if the pedophiles could have their way, would be replaced by the ageless child pursued for the purpose of bedding.  Distinct cultures are being replaced by the NWO uni-culture. Distinct faiths are being replaced by some retarded version of Bahaism and/or “can’t we all just get along-ism.” Instead of the idea of Great Replacement being a conspiracy theory it is the theme of our epoch and only disingenuous fools with an agenda want to tell you otherwise.

The saddest thing about all of this is that the “conservative” Christian church is leading the way in support of the Great Replacement. Whether by championing the browning of America by its refusal to listen, learn and speak out against our Replacement, or by insisting that if people really love them some Jesus then they will embrace the fact that it is a sin to prefer to worship with people who share a common race, ethnicity, and faith as if Jesus hates it when His worshipers have those matters in common. None of this is to say that it is a sin for a congregation to be multi-racial and/or multi-cultural so long as it is preaching the faith once and forever delivered to the saints. It is only to say it is not sin for a congregation to be uni-racial and uni-cultural as long as it understands that the Kingdom of God is made up of people from every tribe, tongue, and nation in their tribes, tongues, and nations. The “conservative” Christian church is doing more than any other American institution to advance the agenda of the Great Replacement.

In all this we must keep center before our minds that the greatest loss in the continued pursuit of the “Great Replacement” is not the loss of our genetic inheritance, as great a loss as that would be. No, the greatest loss were the Great Replacement to succeed would be the loss of Biblical Christianity for a untold number of generations. It is Biblical Christianity after all that the cultural Marxist proletariat most hate — pulling down the house of the White Man is just the means to that ultimate end.

Thomas Jefferson … A Deist More Righteous Than Your R2K “Minister”

A long time ago, a government enacted a law that fined citizens for “breaking the Sabbath,” and it used language for exceptions (“work of necessity or charity”) echoing Westminster Shorter Catechism Q&A 60 (“works of necessity and mercy”).

“A Bill for Punishing Disturbers of Religious Worship and Sabbath Breakers”—”If any person on Sunday shall himself be found labouring at his own or any other trade or calling, or shall employ his apprentices, servants or slaves in labour, or other business, except it be in the ordinary houshold offices of daily necessity, or other work of necessity or charity, he shall forfeit the sum of ten shillings for every such offence.”

This was surely authored by 17th-century Puritans, right?

Nope. It was the 1786 Virginia legislature, and the bill’s author was Thomas Jefferson—that Unitarian Founding Father the Supreme Court likes to appeal to for striking down such religious laws. Keep in mind that this is the same Thomas Jefferson who in the election of 1800 was pilloried and vilified by the New England clergy who warned during that election cycle that if elected Jefferson would seize people’s bibles. Keep in mind that this is the same Thomas Jefferson who gave us “the Jefferson Bible.” This bible found old Tom cutting out every supernatural account. Keep in mind that TJ was a Unitarian at best and a raving Deist at worst. Then after you keep all that in mind, remember that Thomas Jefferson acted more biblically than your R2K minister.

Now keep in mind here that your local R2K minister insists that the kind of political action that finds legislators passing laws that are born of the Christian faith is a great sin. Legislators, per R2K, are to appeal to Natural law and not Biblical law for their attempted legislating. Can you imagine the heart attack that R2K political super-hero Sen. Ben Sasse would have over this proposed legislation?

Destroying Christianity, Christendom, Christ’s Lordship without Attacking Christianity, Christendom, Christ’s Lordship

“Narrative is central to cultural identity. The story of a nation as told by its members, and handed down to posterity, is determinative of its character, purpose, and continued existence. A folk without memory or love of their own history will not identify with their own saga. And if not, neither will they feel any particular onus to perpetuate their civilization.

The Frankfurt school and its Culture of Critique are, of course, infamous for having struck at this very thing. Conscious of the fact that Christendom could not be overthrown by frontal assault by arms nor theology, our enemies resolved to strike at the narrative of our civilization — the historic conception and expression of our Faith.”

Ehud Would

1.) Some people will rise up to defend their narrative and to rend and tear those who would attack and seek to destroy their precious narrative. That is what we are seeing with the ongoing Roe protests. SCOTUS is fixing to strike this portion of narrative / saga down and the left is rising up to defend their narrative. Would that Christians were as passionate about their narrative/story being attacked as the Left is passionate about defending their narrative from being undone.

2.) Of course what follows the destruction of the various incarnations of the prevailing narrative/story via the destruction of statuary, changing out of Institutional names, removing of art, lowering and removal of flags, etc. the next inevitable step is the removal of the descendants of the people responsible for the abundant wreckage of narrative change that has been pursued. A people who do not have a narrative incarnated are a people who themselves will not last long in terms of existence.

3.) Note the language of “frontal assault,” being abandoned by the Cultural Marxists in favor of a back door approach to tear down Christendom. Lucifer and his minions understood that they could never get away with directly attacking the Lordship of Jesus Christ, with directly attacking Christendom, with directly attacking Biblical Christianity. As such they went for the narrative knowing that if they pulled down the narrative they would at the same time pull down the Lordship of Jesus Christ, Christendom, and Christianity. This accounts for the Cultural Marxist attack on White People and their narrative. Attack White people by attacking their narrative, redefine Christianity along the way so you can continue to plead as you destroy the narrative that ‘Hey, I’m a Christian too,’ and seek to pile on the guilt upon those few white Christians who will not be moved. Voila … the end of Christendom, Christianity, and the historic carrier of the previous two … White People.

If one can view all this dispassionately (I can’t) it has been really quite brilliant the way we have been undone.

And it is the Christians who are ultimately to blame for all this with the chief amount of blame being shouldered by America’s clergy for the past two – four generations.

R2K Chronicles; Open Mouth … Insert Foot

When I was a boy my Father used to often tell me, “Better to stand there and look like a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” The wonderful thing about the proponents of Radical Two Kingdom theology is that they have laid out for us, from their own mouths, declamations that the champions of Biblical thinking couldn’t make up if we were trying to twist their words and so misrepresent them. In this chapter we take a handful of those quotes and simply allow the reader the pleasure of the shock value of the quote. Following the shocking quotes we will spend a few sentences unwinding the torpidity of the quote cited. We will start with the more benign of the outrageous quotes and work our way toward the more “you’ve got to be kidding me” quotes.

The first quote comes from Dr. T. David Gordon who recently retired as a Professor at Grove City College.

“Theonomy, therefore, is not merely an error, though it has manifestly been regarded as erroneous by the Reformed tradition . It is the error du jour, the characteristic error of an unwise generation. It is the error of a generation that has abandoned the biblically-mandated quest for wisdom on the assumption that the Bible itself contains all that we need to know about life’s various enterprises. It is the proof-textual, Bible-thumping, literalist, error par excellence. It is not merely the view of the unwise, but the view of the never-to-be-wise, because it is the view of those who wrongly believe that scripture sufficiently governs this arena, and who, for this reason, will never discover in the natural constitution of the human nature or the particular circumstances of given peoples what must be discovered to govern well and wisely. “

Dr. T. David Gordon
R2K Aficionado
http://storage.cloversites.com/outpostreformedministries/documents/The%20Insufficiency%20of%20Scripture.pdfTheonomy is the “error” that R2K is seeking to slay. If it were not for theonomy, R2K would not have come into existence. Theonomy is R2K’s raison d’être. The attempt to demolish theonomy is the attempt to justify the existence of R2K.Gordon insists in the quote above that theonomy is the error that has been “manifestly regarded as erroneous by the Reformed tradition” and yet the original high profile malefactors against theonomy admitted that theonomy had long been an expression of the Reformed tradition. “The view (theonomy) 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.”

Dr. R. Laird Harris
Presbyterian Church in America teaching elder
New Testament scholar
Presbyterian Covenant Seminary Review (Spring 1979), p. 1

Dr. Harris reinforces for us here that if it is anybody who is an erroneous “Johnny-come-lately” to the Reformed tradition it is Radical Two Kingdom theology.

Likewise the Grand-daddy of R2K — the man who laid the R2K groundwork for all his disciples to craft into the house of R2K, Dr. Meredith Kline once admitted that theonomy was the expression of the Westminster Confession of Faith and of the Reformers;

“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. . . .” 

Dr. Meredith Kline 
Review of Theonomy in Christian Ethics — p. 173

Kline admits that theonomy is the theology expressed in the Westminster Confessions and he and his sui generis R2K theology is the reconsideration of the Westminster confession on the points in dispute between R2K and theonomy. In other words the R2K lover Dr. Gordon, per the original R2K lovers Dr. Harris and Dr. Kline couldn’t be more in error when he insists that theonomy has manifestly been regarded as erroneous by the Reformed tradition. Indeed, the heterodox R2K champion Dr. T. David Gordon is the one who is holding to a position (along with Harris and Kline) that has been manifestly regarded as erroneous by the original Reformers and their theological heirs.

Not only that but Gordon, breathing out his R2K presuppositions demonstrates certain consistencies in the weakness of R2K theology. In that Gordon quote we see that R2K doesn’t really take total depravity seriously. This is seen when Gordon insists that those who are not R2K have made the error of “abandoning the biblically-mandated quest for wisdom,” and notes that in suggesting what a fool’s errand it is to look to the “testimonies and the Scriptures,” to find God’s wisdom about “all of life’s various enterprises,” and this despite the testimony of God’s own word;

Psalm 19:7-8, “The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes;” and “in Christ in whom are hidden all treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3).”

Gordon, like most R2K mavens effectively denies total depravity when he suggests that apart from special revelation fallen man via natural revelation can “discover what it is to govern well and wisely.” Where now the Reformed and theonomic doctrine of man has fallen? Where now the Reformed and theonomic doctrine of total depravity? R2K fanboy Gordon would have fallen man discover on his own, quite apart from the wisdom of special Revelation, how to govern himself well and wisely.

Then to add insult to injury R2K Dr. T. David Gordon piles up the pejoratives in denigrating theonomists all the while being guilty himself of casting aside doctrines. Gordon accuses that the doctrine that theonomists hold insure that theonomist are unwise, and will never be wise when in point of fact it is just the opposite. It is Gordon’s R2K beliefs wherein Gordon and the R2K crowd become Natural Law thumping fundamentalists who are unwise and never to be wise if only because they surrender the ongoing validity of God’s special revelation law. If I have to fall on one side or the other of thumping the Bible or thumping Natural Law, I will fall on the side of the Bible thumping every time.

And as to the idea of R2K Gordon that theonomy represents the “Un-wise and never to be wise generation,” lets consider the rest of these R2K quotes.

II.) R2K Torpid Quote #2

“Not being a theonomist or a theocrat, I do not believe it is the state’s role to enforce religion or Christian morality…Another example—bestiality is a grotesque sin and obviously if a professing member engages in it he is subject to discipline. But as one who leans libertarian in my politics, I would see problems with the state trying to enforce it; not wanting the state involved at all in such personal practices…A fellow church member might advocate for bestiality laws. Neither would be in sin whatever side of the debate.”

Rev. Todd Bordow
Puritanboard, 2012.
Trained at WSC – California

1.) Per R2K Bordow it’s not the state’s role to enforce religion or Christian morality even to the point of lifting laws against sex with animals. This is R2K’s position on public governance and morality. We would remind R2K Bordow that if it is not the state’s role to enforce Christian morality then all that is left for the state is either the enforcing of non-Christian morality, non-Christian immorality, or Christian immorality. Clearly R2K Bordow’s desire that bestiality be de-criminalized means that Bordow desires that the state created a legal atmosphere where non-Christian immorality is the norm.

2.) We should note here that as neutrality is an impossibility it is therefore not possible for the state not to enforce a religion. Indeed, the American state does enforce a religion and that religion is the religion of humanism. Bordow’s advocacy of the State not enforcing a religion or a morality indicates a constant failure of R2K and that is the idea that there can be state neutrality in terms of religion and morality in the public square. As all law is an expression of religion all legislation is a codification of some religion or religious impulse. R2K Bordow’s insistence that the state should not enforce religion leaves only the religion of irreligion as the religion that is enforced by the state. In the OT that was characterized as “each man doing what is right in his own eyes.” When the OT writers penned that phrase it wasn’t seen as an optimal position.

3.) R2K Bordow hints here what we will be seeing more clearly as we move on and that is that R2K is in all actuality the theological foundation for Libertarian politics. It is my conviction that R2K embraces the politics of Libertarianism and then backfills their theology in order to fit their politics. More on that later.

III.) R2K Torpid Quote #3

This one never gets old;

“Nero did not violate God’s law if he executed Christians who obeyed God rather than man. If Paul continued to preach after the emperor said he may not, then Nero was doing what God ordained government to do. Christians don’t get a pass from civil law just because they follow a higher law.”

Dr. D. G. Hart
R2K — Hyphenated Life Creator
Old Life Blog, January 12, 2017

Hart may be one of the most extreme R2K-philes living in R2K la-la land. He could only be considered “smart” as making his way in an academic setting. If he worked anyplace else there would be signs outside his office warning; “Only fools go where angels fear to tread.”

1.) Tyrants who execute Christians who obey God rather than man are not violating God’s law. Tyrants who execute Christians who obey God rather than man are operating consistent with God’s law.

2.) Nero was a just man operating consistent with God’s law in executing the Apostle Paul.

3.) Civil law is a higher law than God’s law.

IV.) R2K Torpid Quote #4

“Question: ‘Suppose that it were legal in our country for a man marry his sister. If this were the case, and a man who attended your church wanted to marry his sister, would your church perform the wedding?’

Answer;

Is God’s law against marrying your sister in the Old Covenant one that was always in force and should always stand?….In the New Covenant Scriptures no mention is made of the impropriety of marrying one’s sister. Although the practice is illegal in many countries, which makes it sinful for Christians living in those countries to do (Romans 13:1), it seems that if you and your sister are both believers and you live in a country that deems marriage between siblings to be a lawful practice, then your marriage would be holy in God’s sight.”

Rev. Steve Lehrer,
“New Covenant Theology, Questions Answered”
Educated @ WSC — Escondido
Home of R2K

1.) God’s law pertaining consanguinity no longer apply in the New and better covenant because in the new and better covenant Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension works so that retards are not born of such sibling unions.

2.) Note the Libertarian impulse again. For Lehrer and Bordow and R2K in general the real law is the Libertarian faux non-aggression principle (NAP) law. For R2K, generally speaking, as long as one’s behavior doesn’t hurt someone (by a humanistic standard) then it is perfectly fine for that person to engage in that behavior. Incest and bestiality doesn’t hurt anyone therefore incest and bestiality are perfectly fine in R2K la-la land — God’s law-word be damned.

3.) Note also the misunderstanding of Romans 13. R2K consistently gets Romans 13 wrong insisting that the Magistrate is in reality God walking on the earth. Romans 13 does not teach such a thing. More on that in another chapter.

V.) R2K Torpid Quote #5

“Although a contractual relationship denies God’s will for human dignity, I could affirm domestic partnerships as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security.”

Dr. Mike Horton
White Horse Inn
WSC Professor – Escondido, Ca.
R2K Training Center

1.) Allow us to practice the art of reductio-ad-absurdum here;

a.) Although a contractual relationship denies God’s will for human dignity, I could affirm sex-trafficking as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security.

b.) Although a contractual relationship denies God’s will for human dignity, I could affirm pedophilia as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security.

c.) Although a contractual relationship denies God’s will for human dignity, I could affirm menage-a-trois’ as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security.

I mean where does this kind of “reasoning” stop? If it ever does stop, having given up God’s standard, by what standard does it stop?

VI.) R2K Torpid Quote #6

Twin spin from Mike Horton;

“Hearts have changed. Part of that is due to the fact that we all are friends with LBGT neighbors who are decent people.”

Dr. Mike Horton  
White Horse Inn
WSC Professor – Escondido, Ca.
R2K Training Center

LBGT are decent people? Yes, and John Wayne Gacy made the kiddies laugh at the birthday parties when he entertained them dressed up as a clown.

They tell me that Stalin was a gracious host at his most lavish dinner parties.

VII.) R2K Torpid Quote #7

“Shall we enact laws against abortion? Christians may, in our wisdom, decide it is best to do so. But neither the Church nor her preachers can say unambiguously that such laws must be enacted. She lacks the authority, and the wisdom, to do so. Perhaps such a law will backfire; perhaps it will lead to more abortions, to more deadly abortions. Perhaps it is politically unwise, though being morally just. If she bases her actions on what God’s word teaches, the church must remain agnostic on such questions.”
 
Dr. Brian Lee,
WSC graduate and R2k disciple

https://www.patheos.com/topics/politics-in-the-pulpit/the-church-should-not-weigh-in-on-ballot-issues-brian-lee-110314?p=2

1.) Dr. Lee just threw any preaching on the 6th commandment out the window in terms of application. Lee would have us preach on murder being sin but God forbid that the clergy would say something like, “because murder is sin we should insist that the state pass laws forbidding murder as a crime.”

2.) Clergy cannot say unambiguously that laws against abortion should be enacted but apparently Brian Lee as a member of the clergy can unambiguously say that clergy cannot unambiguously say that laws against abortion should be enacted.

3.) What shall Dr. Rev. Brian Lee do with I Timothy 1:9?

“Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,”

4.) Once an abortion is deadly how can an abortion become “more deadly?”

5.) We now rank what might be politically wise above what is morally just? Can you say “political pragmatism over life?”

VIII.) R2K Torpid Quote #8

It is not the magistrate’s duty to police every sort of violation of natural law and sin. For example, no one but theocrats want the state enforcing obedience to the first table of the law. The magistrate’s natural sphere of concern and authority is in the second table. Civil authorities have a right and duty to arrange a calendar (e.g. public holidays) of working and resting according to the creational pattern, to prevent and punish theft, to prevent and punish murder, and to regulate public sexual morality. Marriage is a form of regulation of sexual morality.

Dr. R. Scott Clark, Natural Law
The Two Kingdoms, and Homosexual Marriage
The Heidelblog, October 27, 2008

Here Clark subtly casts aspersions when he says, “no one but theocrats want the state enforcing the first table of the law.” Clark seems to insinuate, with that remark, that theocrats are some kind of odd-ball minority but the fact is that throughout history Calvinist theocrats have been the norm for Calvinists. Once again, by insisting that Magistrates should not have responsibility to enforce the first table Clark reveals an implicit Libertarian political bias serving as a template to form his “theology.”

Just a few examples are to follow though these quotes could be piled one on top of another.

The French Confession is theocratic – (John Calvin — author)

XXXIX. We believe that God wishes to have the world governed by laws and magistrates,[1] so that some restraint may be put upon its disordered appetites. And as he has established kingdoms, republics, and all sorts of principalities, either hereditary or otherwise, and all that belongs to a just government, and wishes to be considered as their Author, so he has put the sword into the hands of magistrates to suppress crimes against the first as well as against the second table of the Commandments of God. We must therefore, on his account, not only submit to them as superiors,[2] but honor and hold them in all reverence as his lieutenants and officers, whom he has commissioned to exercise a legitimate and holy authority.

1. Exod. 18:20-21; Matt. 17:24-27; Rom. ch. 13
2. I Peter 2:13-14; I Tim. 2:2

[Second Helvetic Confession on magistrates is theocratic].

” In like manner, let him govern the people, committed to him of God, with good laws, made according to the word of God in his hands, and look that nothing be taught contrary thereto. … Therefore let him draw forth this sword of God against all malefactors, seditious persons, thieves, murderers, oppressors, blasphemers (1st commandment violators), perjured persons (3rd commandment violators), and all those whom God has commanded him to punish or even to execute. Let him suppress stubborn heretics (who are heretics indeed), who cease not to blaspheme the majesty of God, and to trouble the Church, yea, and finally to destroy it.”

Original 1647 Westminster Confession was theocratic;

The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies (first table) and heresies (first table) be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

The original Belgic Confession of faith was theocratic;

“For this purpose He (God) hath invested the magistracy with the sword, for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. And their office is, not only to have regard unto and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also that they protect the sacred ministry, and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship; that the kingdom of antichrist may be thus destroyed, and the kingdom of Christ promoted.”

Should one have any doubts that Calvinism qua Calvinism has always been theocratic they only have to refer to Martin Foulner’s “Theonomy and the Westminster Confession.” Clark’s quote is torpid because it insinuates that somehow it is only odd-ball Calvinists who are theocrats when in point of fact it is only odd-ball R2K fanboys who still claim to be Calvinists and yet are not theocrats.

J have produced this chapter because I wanted folks to see where consistent R2K “theology” goes. With R2K one gets from the clergy and seminary Professors a refusal to advocate for anti-abortion laws, a stated desire to legalize domestic partnerships (just so long as we don’t use the word ‘marriage’), an affirmation that incestuous marriages could be considered holy in God’s sight, the refusal to criminalize bestiality, the insistence that LGBT people can be decent blokes, the accusation that all who dare disagree with R2K are unwise and never to be wise, and the insistence that Magistrates have no business enforcing the first table of God’s law.

How can anybody, with a straight face, call this “Calvinism” let alone “Christianity?”