Marxism/Cultural Marxism – Page 58

McAtee Contra Intown’s Prentiss

“The humanists want Christians to stay out of politics as Christians. The pietists agree. The humanists deny that there are valid biblical blueprints that apply to this world. The pietists agree. The humanists argue that Old Testament laws, if applied today, would produce tyranny. The pietists agree. The humanists say that the civil government should be run in terms of religiously neutral laws. The pietists agree. The humanists deny that the God of the Bible brings predictable sanctions in history against societies that do not obey His law. The pietists agree. The humanists deny that the preaching of the gospel will ever fundamentally change the way the world operates. The pietists agree. The humanists say that Christians should sit in the back of cultural bus. The pietists agree. This is why both sides hate the message of Christian Reconstruction.”

Dr. Gary North

God is not redeeming the cultural activities and institutions of this world”…“Those who hold a traditional Protestant view of justification consistently should not find a redemptive transformationist perspective attractive.”

David Van Drunen — Westminster Seminary California Professor
“Living in God’s Two Kingdoms”, pp. 13–21.

Below at this link,

http://intownchurch.com/blog/2015/6/26/what-a-consequential-week

we find an example of the pietists that Dr. North wrote about years ago. In this case it is Radical Two Kingdom (R2K) pietism that is at the forefront. One could easily also argue that what we are going to look at below is an example of postmodernism, or of just plain cowardice.

People who have read Iron Ink with any consistency know, that over the years I’ve been relentless against R2K. I point this out because in my estimation what we are looking at below is the fruit of R2K theology ripening. I’ve warned about where R2K is headed by pointing out the errors of R2K thinking,

R2K … “Rubber meets Road”

And now we see that it is true that a little leaven, leavens the whole loaf.

In this case we have a PCA Church (Intown Presbyterian). The Pastor is one Brian Prentiss. It looks like Brian is the author of the piece. Now, I don’t know Brian Prentiss from Molly Hatchett so none of this is personal. I’m merely going to point out the irrationality in all this. There will be parts of the original article I will delete as irrelevant, so if you want the whole article you need to go to the link provided.

Intown Presbyterian Church (IPC) writes,

“I’m a pastor of a church where members are not uniform in their response to this (SCOTUS sodomite ruling Obergefell vs. Hodges – BLMc) ruling, and I actually find that to be one of the most beautiful things about our church. Some of us are putting rainbow filters on our Facebook avatars while others are disappointed in the SCOTUS decision but are holding our tongues on social media for fear of being labeled in an unfortunate way.

And both of these “sides” will show up tomorrow and worship together!

Bret responds,

Brian Pastors a church where some favor marriage being redefined so as to include sodomites and lesbians while others in the congregation think that marriage should be reserved for one man as unto one women. And Brian thinks it is wonderful that those people with different worldviews and morals can worship together. After all, a group of people cannot have elements within it that both support and oppose this ruling without at the same time having different and opposing worldviews, different and opposing Christianities, and different and opposing moralities.

Secondly, this unspoken division in Brian’s congregation is also evidence that there is a lack of understanding that law is warfare. It is warfare against other law structures. All law is reflective of and descends from some understanding of a god, God or god concept. People who are divided on this ruling as law are at the same time divided in their respective understanding of who God is. The fact that some of Brian’s people support this law means they serve one god and its law as it makes war on the God of the Bible and His law. Brian has one congregation that is worshiping different gods when they worship. So, it may be the case that both sides will show up at Intown “Church” tomorrow to worship but while they are in the same building “worshiping” together they are at the same time worshiping different deities. And Brian thinks this a wonderful thing.

Now, obviously, it is possible for a church to be agnostic about some legislation that is passed. No one is going to suggest that a Church is in trouble because of different convictions about zoning laws. But we are not talking about zoning laws here. We are talking about a ruling that in time will be seen as that ruling which began the criminalization of Christianity.

Thirdly, the rainbow avatar people that Brian talks about have been consistently bleating about freedom for the LGBQT people but with this Obergefell decision suddenly the people who oppose it no longer have the freedom to speak their opposition for fear of being smeared.

IPC writes,

As a pastor of a beautifully-diverse church like this, I find myself wanting to offer counsel to both sides of this debate (even while lamenting the unfortunate bifurcation of this issue into two sides aligned against one another.)

For those of us who find the SCOTUS decision something to be celebrated, we should remember Romans 14, where the Apostle Paul advises those of us with less scruples to be gracious towards our brothers and sisters with more. (The “weaker” brother language is unfortunate here, because it seems to suggest one is right and the other is wrong. But, what Paul is asking the Romans to do is to not quarrel over, or judge your brother over matters of dispute.) For you, this ruling might be self-evident and long-overdue, but there are brothers and sisters who are reading the same Bible who are coming to different conclusions than you, and their voices shouldn’t be excluded. Many Christians are convinced, and they’re not without historical precedent, that while the church should be a welcoming place for all people, it can never be a place that affirms every behavioral choice. In their mind, the Bible speaks with a unanimous voice that marriage is a holy institution and is reserved for a man and a woman. And we should remember that some, if not most of the persons who hold this commitment would indeed advocate for gays and lesbians to possess the same legal rights that are generally accorded to married men and women, but would prefer because of biblical and historical precedent to call it something different.

Bret responds,

1.) “Beautifully diverse church” — Yes, well, I suppose that diverse is one way of describing a Church full of pro sodomite Christian and anti-sodomite Christians. Heretofore the designation has not been “diverse” but rather “wolf vs. sheep.”

2.) Unfortunate bifurcation — Yes, Scripture abounds with words about these unfortunate bifurcations.

¹⁴Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?¹⁵And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? ¹⁶And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

“I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.”

¹⁷Therefore

“Come out from among them
And be separate, says the Lord.
Do not touch what is unclean,
And I will receive you.”
¹⁸“I will be a Father to you,
And you shall be My sons and daughters,
Says the Lord Almighty.”

7 Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

3.) Prentiss is actually suggesting that being opposed to State sanctioned sodomy is a issue that is adiaphora? And that the pro-sodomites should be patient with those who are Biblical Christians? How generous of him.

4.) “Reading the Bible and coming to different conclusions.”

Once again this is astounding. Pro and anti sodomite marriage convictions has been reduced to not eating or eating meat offered to idols.

Has Brian forgot his own BCO? Right at the beginning of the Books of (Church) Order of both the larger Presbyterian Church (USA) and its little sister, the Presbyterian Church in America, is this (fourth) Preliminary Principle of Presbyterian polity:

That truth is in order to goodness; and the great touchstone of truth, its tendency to promote holiness; according to our Saviour’s rule, “by their fruits ye shall know them:” And that no opinion can be either more pernicious or absurd, than that which brings truth and falsehood upon a level, and represents it as of no consequence what a man’s opinions are. On the contrary, they are persuaded, that there is an inseparable connection between faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise, it would be of no consequence either to discover truth, or to embrace it.

What Brian is doing here is that putting truth and falsehood upon a level. Brian says we cannot affirm every behavioral choice and yet that is precisely what he is doing. When SCOTUS comes out ruling that men can marry their farm animals will Brian find it wonderful that people who support men marrying farm animals and men who do not support marrying farm animals can “worship” in the same facility at the same time. How ludicrous do we have to be before Brian will say … “well, maybe people who hold to supporting this perversion du jour, shouldn’t be seen as being Christ honoring as those who oppose it.” (?)

This is where the postmodern edge comes in. There is no such thing as capital “T” Truth. All we have are little “t” truths and people with different “truths” need to get on with one another.

ICP writes,

For those of us on the other side, who find the SCOTUS ruling to be at best unfortunate, and at worst, a sign of America’s continuing spiral into moral confusion, we should remember a few things. First, the Supreme Court is more or less codifying the will of the American people – the wishes of our friends and neighbors. This ruling is not judicial activism in the sense of forcing a minority decision upon a powerless majority. Secondly, we should remember that it’s possible hold views about what the Bible teaches without necessarily advocating for the government to hold those views. If we lived in a theocracy, when the government strayed outside of what the Bible commends and condemns then there would be a need, if not a moral mandate to remind the government of it’s foundational commitment to God’s word. But, our government operates as a pluralistic democracy. And like God’s people who were exiled to Assyria, Babylon, and Persia in the 8th-6th centuries, to expect our government to reflect our religious principles could be short-sighted. As Christians in Portland, we don’t live in Jerusalem but in Babylon. So maybe, part of loving our neighbors means withholding our concern over the expansion of someone else’s rights, as recognized by the federal government, and choose to wish them well in the lives they’ve chosen for themselves. That sort of posture might actually open up the type of conversation that we’re hoping to have with our gay friends and neighbors rather than confirming their suspicions about engaging a Christian in a conversation about sexuality.

Bret responds,

1.) Note how Brian navigates this whole article as writing from the Moral Zombie position. He has no scruples on the matter. He is part of the “us” who is opposed to supporting sodomite and lesbian marriage and he is part of the “us” who supports sodomite and lesbian marriage. How postmodern of him. How wonderful that he can be all things to all people. How deliciously cowardly of him. What is Brian’s conviction on the matter? Well, it all depends on who is writing the largest checks.

2.) Since when do Christian ministers believe that codifying the will of the American people has anything to do with notions of transcendent law. Law isn’t supposed to be about counting noses. Such a rule of law is mob rule. Does Brian believe in mob rule. Second, on this point, how does Brian know what the American people think on this matter so he can say that SCOTUS is merely codifying the will of the American people? Has he polled every single American in order to find out? To borrow and paraphrase a line from my Mother when she raised me, “If every single one of your friends wanted to jump off a cliff would it be right for SCOTUS to legislate from the bench cliff jumping for all”? This is most certainly judicial activism at its best. This is legislating from the bench. Read the opinions of the dissenting Justices to see this teased out.

3.) As Christians, if we don’t advocate what Scripture advocates then all that is left is advocating for what Scripture is opposed to. Is Brian really telling us that Christians as Christians should advocate what they know God is opposed to? Are we to reason that because we are ruled by pagans we should always be ruled by pagans and the laws of pagan gods?

4.) Brian misses the point that we do indeed live in a theocracy. The name of the god of this theocracy is Demos and anybody who walks contrary to the will of the god Demos is to be diminished. Demos has a law order that is called legal positivism. Brian should spend some time reading Oliver Wendell Holmes or Christopher Columbus Langdell to see how the god Demos works. Brian so desperately wants to avoid a Christ honoring theocracy that he will support a theocracy headed up by Demos, who will inform all the lesser gods just how far they can walk in the public square.

5.) Pluralism is a myth. (see #4)

6.) We were never a “pluralistic democracy.” We were a Constitutional Republic. Maybe Brian should spend some time boning up on the differences.

7.) Short-sighted — God commands all men everywhere to repent. He commands it of Potentates as well as of well intentioned but clueless ministers.

8.) Brian insists that we are living in Babylon and his “theology” will insure that we will never live in anything but Babylon. Brian’s theology is a self fulfilling prophecy where because he believes that the Church will only ever live in exile, it is guaranteed that we will only ever live in exile. Brian’s theology says, “don’t resist,” “don’t stand for God’s standards,” “relax, all of our existence is a Babylonian existence.” It is a theology of defeat, doom, retreat, exile and escapism. The only thing it will fight for is the principal that Christians must not fight.

9.) Nobody’s rights have been expanded all this unless one considers that the right to vileness, perversion, and death is a human right.

10.) If all we have is Babylon in this life, how can we, as Christians, even begin to talk about the nowness of the Kingdom of God?

Yes, yes, I know … we see the Kingdom of God present in Churches that have no moral fiber. I get it.

11.) Wish them well in the life they have chosen? — And this is the loving Christian response? To wish people well with the life they have chosen when that life they have chosen means death? Would Brian also suggest that I wish a person well with the life they have chosen to th person who has slipped a noose around his neck and is about to hang himself? Is that Brian’s notion of Christian love? “Love you buddy. Wish you well, Hope you break your neck quickly so you don’t suffer. Have a good day.”

12.) Engaging a Christian in a conversation about sexuality — There seems to be some kind of idea floating in the Church today that people can be converted by being nice to them as if the Law must not do its not nice work of convicting. At some point, no matter how nice you are, you have to confront sinners with the fact that sin is sin. Sinners don’t typically like being told that sin is sin. It’s why they are sinners. This idea that people can be niced into the Kingdom is doing the church a world of hurt.

And this is no argument that people can be “mean(ed)” into the Kingdom. People are brought into the Kingdom of God by the Spirit of God by using the law to kill and the Gospel to make alive.

ICP writes,

This isn’t an easy conversation. Those of us on the “left” side of this conversation feel that advocating for our gay and lesbian friends puts our Christian commitments and orthodoxy into question by fellow Christians, even while we feel we’re being guided by the Golden Rule. And, those of us on the “right” side of this feel that we can’t hold our biblical convictions without being labeled something terrible, like a “bigot”, even while we pursue loving relationship with gay and lesbian friends in our neighborhood and workplaces.

Bret responds,

Invoking the golden rule here teeters on blasphemous.

It is the golden rule that compels people to speak openly and directly to their “gay friends” about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come. It is a lack of love that would treat the wounds of our friends lightly and would speak “peace, peace,” when their soul’s destruction is at hand.

Notice the use of the word “feel” in the first sentence above. That is not insignificant.

2.) We must understand that people are dealt with differently depending upon where they are at. If a homosexual is repentant one deals with them one way. If a homosexual is rebellious and defiant against God and His Christ then that calls for a different type of demeanor. Regardless though, like adultery, sodomy must be spoken of as sin while those who give aid and support to the sodomite lifestyle as legal must be spoken to as in the sin of hatred towards people created in the image of God.

ICP writes,

The thing I love about Intown is that people on both sides of this debate, as well as those in the middle, can find their views on this and other controversial issues being drawn up into and relativized by our union with Christ. Not only do we bring different convictions to his Table, we also bring our sins and failures, and there, if no other place, we should look across the aisle at our brothers and sisters and see equals – equally in need of grace and equally possessing the dignity of God.

Is it possible that this posture could enable us to bring compassion toward those who hold different opinions than us? And, could it cause us to inspect our own?

Bret responds,

Here we go from teetering on blasphemy to going over the edge.

Union with Christ is being used to excuse sin. It’s OK to be in sin because, after all, we have union with Christ. Is it possible to be in union with Christ while championing positions that are anti-Christ? Can this kind of blatant embrace of sin be relativized by our union with Christ?

The visible Church is ill folks. You have to arm yourself to think through these matters because there are very very few Churches or Pastors that you can trust to help you think through these monumental issues.

Christopher Isherwood & Disordered Affection

Christopher Isherwood was specific in his memoir about the need to have sex outside his class (with boys) and found it even more exciting when he was unable to speak the language of the person he had sex with.

Once learning German Isherwood reported that “it was a little saddening, because the collapse of the language barrier had buried the image of the magic German boy.”

E. Michael Jones
“Monsters from the Id.”

This quote reveals that which so often motivates sexual perversion. In God’s design, the radical personality differences between male and female (in general) and between two individuals (in particular) is simply not strange enough to satisfy a pervert. Rushdoony has a statement where he says that physicians were reporting weirder and weirder levels of sexual freaks as the person resorts to new methods of arousal. In Isherwood’s case, he cites not only same sex attraction, and not only the overleaping of economic class, but he also got a thrill out of going across language barriers in his conquests. The same idea is back of all sin: God is not truly God; the sinner instead is truly God and he will leap across boundaries with impunity. The language fetish is also revealing in what he says about being disappointed to learn German. Ordered knowledge is too, well, orderly. The pervert prefers the thrill of disorder and chaos and wants it to pervade his sexual romps as far as possible.

Hat Tip — Habakkuk Mucklewrath for the analysis

Catechizing Unruly Children

Fascinating that all these avatar photos of the people bigoted against Christianity are all streamed with the rainbow over their faces. Can you say “group think?”

1.) The idea of “Rights” is not a Christian concept. Christians speak of duties. Still, forcing sodomite definitions on the social order is indeed depriving people of “rights.” It is depriving them of the right to have objective definition of marriage and this “right” was taken away by tyrannical action of a wicked kind.

2.) Separation of Church and State is a myth in the way that your using it. The phrase was in none of the founding documents. Indeed, many of the States had state Churches that were supported by state governments well into the 19th century. In point of fact Church and State while distinct can never be separated and if they are separated the consequence will be the kind of conflict that we are seeing in the broader culture. This is so since both Church and State must be pinned upon the foundation of religion. If Church and State are separated and pinned on different religious foundation the result will be conflict. No two distinct religions can survive together in the same social order for long. However, what does work in order to change the overall religious foundation of a people is to chant “separation of Church and State.” This gives those who want to change the religious foundation of the State time to wreak their havoc without being interfered with by the Church.

3.) You insist that my “Christian definition of marriage doesn’t get to define the legal one.” Never mind that this has been the legal definition in the West for millennium. Still, even if we put that aside why should it be the case that the sodomite definition of marriage gets to be the legal one? Hoisted on your own petard much?
However, you have run into the fact that law is ALWAYS a reflection of some god, God and religion. Stipulating failures along the way, law as been a reflection of the Christian God in the West for centuries. Now the law is fast edging towards being a reflection of the Molech god of sodomy and the Molech god of sodomy is forcing the social order to accept its definition of marriage.

But of course you can’t see that because you have your head up the rectum of your Molech god. If you want to know what the water is like don’t ask a fish.

4.) You speak of Christians “brainwashing toddlers?” How do you think the nation went from appalled by the notion of sodomy 60 years ago to the point where stupid millennials find it perfectly acceptable? Can you say brainwashing and propaganda? Of course you can.

5.) Since Genesis 1 is the beginning of created time I’m confident that the Biblical faith has been around even before faith, despite your insistence to the contrary. (After all Adam believed before he had a wife.)

6.) Yes … Christians do have a monopoly on moral morality. Although I will conceded that pagans have a monopoly on immoral morality.

If you deny God then all that is left is the material. If all there is, is the material then morality is defined as nothing more then three wolves and two sheep voting on what is for dinner. Only Christianity can provide an objective basis for stable morality.

7.) Your spouting of Lev. 19:19 just reveals your ignorance concerning the Christian faith and does nothing to advance your cause though it does wonderfully demonstrate what a fool you are,

I will in a separate comment explain for you your error on this matter. It’s ok that you are just regurgitating something you’ve heard in the broader culture. I will unwind it for you.

8.) You don’t believe in sin and yet here you are, in essence, saying I’m sinning because I don’t believe that sodomy is a legitimate definition.

Sin is an inescapable category. If you will not have the Biblical definition of sin as provided by the Sovereign God you will merely redefine the word in order to fit your sovereign ordaining of the world.

Clearly Jeremy, you likewise are a bigot against Christ, the Christian faith and Christians.I’m all about an exchange of ideas Nik. We have been exchanging all over the place here. What you don’t like is that you’re being told you are wrong and are getting creamed in the process.

You mistake me for someone who is only interested in armchair debate. NO! I’m interested in

1.) Defending the honor of the Lord Christ against all of his enemies.

2.) converting you by dealing honestly and lovingly with your soul

3.) At the very least making the people who only read these threads without commenting think twice before they repeat your inanities.

4.) embarrassing your foolishness and exposing your childish argument.

Modernity As Horror Film

“The two monsters of the Enlightenment, now immortalized on cereal boxes, also portray two phases of the Enlightenment as it actually got implemented, as opposed to what it proposed. Frankenstein epitomizes phase I of the Enlightenment project — the early, ostensibly altruistic, optimistic phase, when the revolution, no matter how horrific its execution, still seemed plausible as a way of bettering mankind. This is the electricity phase, the phase of youthful energy, captured in Wordsworth phrase, ‘Bliss was it that dawn to be alive. But to be young was a very heaven!’ Dracula was phase II of the Enlightenment — the syphilitic phase, the disillusionment phase, when blood has been not only shed but polluted, generally by venereal disease as the logical consequence of sexual liberation.”

Dr. E. Michael Jones
“Monsters from the Id; the Rise of Horror in Fiction and Film” – pg. 62

One of my current reads is E. Michael Jones “Monsters from the Id; the Rise of Horror in Fiction and Film.”

It is Jones’ premise that the whole Horror Genre (Novel and Films) arises from the failure of the promises of Modernity to give what it held out. Jones contends that the monsters — from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (the first), to today’s slasher movies — are all a consequence of the Monstrosity reality that the Enlightenment has created with revolutionary politics, materialistic scientism, psychological manipulation, and sexual liberation. Jones contends that Monsters and Horror are the outward manifestation of a people’s inward, though verbally un-confessed, realization, that Modernity itself is one giant horror reality show. For Jones then, the Modernity project and the Horror genre are two sides of the same coin. Or perhaps better put, the Horror genre is incarnated expression of a real, though consciously suppressed, understanding that the Modernity project is one long Horror film.

Like Dr. Frankenstein’s promise to create life, so Modernity promised to create Utopia but the consequences of both have instead been a Monster that destroys everything in its wake.

Jones starts by telling the story of Mary Wollenstonecraft and the wreckage of her life as she chased the Enlightenment promise. He then teases that out as applied to Wollenstone’s daughter “Mary Godwin,” as the companion of Percy Bysshe Shelley. Jones contends that Mary Shelley’s creation of “Franknstein” was a reflection of her Bohemian lifestyle with Percy Shelley.

If Jones is correct, then we would have to conclude that the creation of the Brutlyn Jenner Monster is just the latest episode of reality as Horror show. Modernity, like Dr. Victor Frankenstein of old, has created something they would insist is akin to real life. Like the Frankenstein of old, Brutlyn is composed of unreal and dead parts. Frankenstein was put together by old body parts. Brutlyn, as the new Frankenstein, is put together with the unreal parts of photo-shop, make up, lighting, and surgery. If electricity as technology is what brought Frankenstein to life then media coverage as our modern technology has given life to our new Monster, Brutlyn.

That Modernity has been one long episode after another of Horror film incarnation can be seen in a casual look at Paris in the 1790’s, Berlin in the 1920’s, Communist policy following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, or America following its 1960’s sexual revolution. With each incarnation both Frankenstein and Dracula appear and the victims of these blood thirsty Demons are the broken families, the children who now think horror show reality is the norm and so keep the show going when they become adults, the women who are casually used and tossed away, and the men who have become divorce fodder for the liberated woman. Western culture, thy name is Stoker, Shelley, Stevenson, King, and Barker.

“Like Mary Shelley we too are the captive of two contradictory imperatives: We as a culture can’t disavow the Enlightenment, especially its commitment to sexual liberation, and at the same time, we can’t deny that people get hurt when they act on these imperatives. In fact, people die when they act on them, no matter how altruistic their intentions are.”

Topless Baristas & The Modern Gospel vs. Historic Christianity — A Conversation

Out on the West Coast, in Spokane, Washington topless women are serving up Coffee and breasts as the Nightline report above exposes. This reality drove a late night conversation between myself, a friend, and your garden variety Evangelical (minister?) who “leans Calvinist.” I post it here to demonstrate an apologetic encounter and to demonstrate where much of the contemporary Evangelical Church is today. Names have been changed to protect the identity of Zombies.

Dan Brannan

Being paid for sexual acts/displays is not the description of a barista. It is the description of a prostitute.

Christian Toddson

Just curious why you think (at least your comment appears as such) that serving coffee or pretty much doing anything in a bikini is prostitution? Is modeling prostitution? Is going to a pool, ocean, lake, river, etc… in a bikini, prostitution?

Dan Brannan

Yes, if a girl dresses in bikini (essentially underwear) for money, she is engaged in prostitution. A woman selling her body, and performing sexual exhibitionism is a prostitute.

On the other hand, a woman who dons a bikini (underwear) in public without pay, is not a prostitute. She’s merely a harlot.

Christian Toddson

Wow, Dan. Really? This is what you truly believe 100% dogmatically? Clearly your position is rooted in your religious faith. I’m Christian myself, though I don’t ascribe to legalism, but rather lean more heavily on grace and don’t judge by appearances I’d rather face God directly than anyone rooted in legalism on any issue. I would venture to say that at the deepest root of your aversion to bikinis and such, it has more to do with your own personal struggles rather than being substantiated in Christian doctrine.

Really? Prostitute? Wearing a bikini (or anything else, even being nude) selling coffee or anything else for that matter other than sex doesn’t define being a prostitute. Nor does it have anything to do with association to harlotry… other than perhaps within your own mental videos.

Dan Brannan

Christian, your mush-mouthed dissembling embarrasses me. You know that the whole motive of bikini baristas is sexual voyeurism and exhibitionism. And you know that by definition, paying for sex acts is prostitution.

Dan Brannan

Lying to yourself only tarnishes your witness.

Christian Toddson

Dan, though admittedly I say this somewhat with sarcasm, perhaps it would serve your legalistic leaning to relocate to an Islamic country where prescribing what females can wear is a culturally accepted practice?

The motive of having a coffee stand with bikini baristas is nothing more than a common marketing strategy. It is something entirely acceptable within our culture. Anyone who takes issue with it is expecting that all America (if not the globe) ought to conform with your perspective of Scripture. And that’s very unrealistic. It is fine for you to hold your position (though I would encourage you do some deeper study rooted in grace and choice), but to imagine that it’s acceptable to dictate what may be done by and for others based upon doctrine is highly problematic.

Perhaps you may take it upon yourself to visit these type of bikini coffee stands if you truly believe what you’ve shared here, and pass out Bible tracts and attempt to share the Gospel?

But I wouldn’t suggest you carry signs that say anything such as “God Hates Prostitutes!!”, or “Harlots Are Going To Hell!!.” You won’t make much impact other than defamation to Biblical Christianity, and give justifiable cause to most everyone who already despises institutionalized religion and it’s blind adherents.

Dan Brannan

Your doctrine, Christian, is “Do as thou wilt be the whole of the law.” That is the explicit plausibility structure of Satanism. You cannot hold that view and be a Christian. What’s more, I think you know that.

Dan Brannan

Christian, you wrote,

“The motive of having a coffee stand with bikini baristas is nothing more than a common marketing strategy. It is something entirely acceptable within our culture.”

^This is an admission that you simply don’t care about the reality of the matter. You want your titillation no matter what God’s word and the common definitions of words mean.

Dan Brannan

That ‘common marketing strategy’ you mention is selling sex. Which is to say, PROSTITUTION.

Christian Toddson

We live within a framework of ‘culture’ and within any such framework, the role of a Christian at best is to pray for your concerns, love others (not judge), and graciously, compassionately seek to build a bridge between the perceived “sinners” and the heart of Christ. Your label slinging falls awfully short of those goals. You can go unto all the world sharing the good news, but when it’s done in a spirit of judgmental legalism rather than love, then your just clanging cymbals, Dan.

Dan Brannan

You’re peddling Satanism in the name of Christianity, Mr. Toddson.

You apparently don’t know the definition of legalism either. Legalism is defined as,

1) the belief that fallen men can be saved by perfectly keeping the law, or
2) that you are at liberty to add to or change the law.

By the second definition, it is you who are the legalist, not I.

Further Christian, the scripture nowhere instructs Christians not to judge. Matthew 7 instructs us to judge righteously. And St. Paul assures us that we must “judge all things” as we will even judge angels.

Christian Toddson,

Your label slinging falls awfully short of those goals. You can go unto all the world sharing the good news, but when it’s done in a spirit of judgmental legalism rather than love, then your just clanging cymbals, Dan. Sorry you see it that way, Dan. Though nothing of the sort. Your highly judgmental. Grace, Dan. Lack of Grace is what comes through loud and clear in what you’ve expressed. It would serve much of modern day Christendom well to devote itself to Grace, as Christ intended, rather than the legalism that He expended such great energy to rebuke.

Dan Brannan — You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Christian Toddson,

Dan, in my legalistic season, I utilized the very scriptures about ‘judging’ as you have demonstrated yourself here.

Dan Brannan

Stop judging me, Christian.

You say Christians aren’t to judge, so, I’m asking you to be true to that Satanic standard and desist judging me.

Christian Toddson,

Ok ok… Dan is right. Christians, Go ahead and smite the coffee stands with fire and brimstone, and stone the bikini donning, satan worshipping, “prostitute” and “harlot” baristas to death.

Dan Brannan

You can’t convince people that they need grace unless they know they are sinners. And we aren’t at liberty to revoke God’s standards.

Christian Toddson,

Teach Grace and the purpose of Grace, and your nets will catch more ‘fish’. Try it.

Dan Brannan — Grace is incommunicable without Law. Please, give coherence a chance.

Bret L. McAtee

Christian is a legalist. He is insisting that his law that insists upon legalized voyeurism be forced upon all those who would rather not their sons and daughters be lured into this lifestyle and Christian does this all in the name of “grace.” Of course this is grace redefined as license.

Then what Christian does is to turn around and label Dan Brannan a “legalist” because Dan has a right understanding of the law that isn’t consistent with Christian’s own legalism.

Fascinating how the Libertarian are confused with Christians.

Christian Toddson,

Dan, Bret – You two ought to know that it ‘s of far greater appeal to share with “sinners” that God is for them and that He loves them, than to judge them harshly, condemn them, and tell them they are going to Hell. You will not scare any one into Heaven. Jesus didn’t approach the unknowing sinful that way, nor make appeal to you to do such a thing; so why are you?

Dan Brannan Just because your false gospel is more appealing to the world than the actual gospel, is no reason to abandon the genuine article, Christian.

Bret L. McAtee

How can I tell sinners (i.e. those in rebellion to Christ) that “God loves them,” when Scripture expressly teaches that “God hates workers of iniquity”? (Psalm 5:5)

Bret L. McAtee — And secondly, how dare you judge me Mr. Toddson. Where is the appeal in that?

Bret L. McAtee — Christian, I suggest you might read Romans 1 to see how God challenges recalcitrant sinners.

Dan Brannan

If you preach a form of grace that knows no law, you aren’t teaching grace at all, but as Bret said, you are teaching license and licentiousness.

Christian Toddson,

Dan, you said that, “Grace is incommunicable without Law.”

That’s a terribly sad way to think.

A very simple and endearing book about Grace is Chuck Smith’s 1994 book, “Why Grace Changes Everything”

You need to share an appealing message with those you feel are “sinners.” Not express condemnation. Introduce the sinner to Jesus… how about that?

Bret L. McAtee — Chuck Smith was a Heretic

Dan Brannan

When Paul asks rhetorically, “shall we sin the more that grace may abound?” he answers, “may it never be.” But you say of Paul’s argument that “that’s a terribly sad way to think.”

If you are introducing sinners to an antinomian Jesus, you are introducing them to a false Christ. Jesus kept the law perfectly and commanded men to repent.

Bret L. McAtee

And our Lord Christ said that he had not come to condemn the law but to fulfill it. Further, the Lord Christ told the Pharisees that they should have kept the slightest of the law found in tithing mint, dill, and cummin.

Dan Brannan

Right. Christ condemned the pharisees for neglecting God’s law and making up new laws in its place — just what Christian is doing.

Bret L. McAtee — Hence, proving, as I said, that Christian is the legalist here.

Christian Toddson

Do you guys wear Tefillins on your heads?

Carry a Torah attached to the end of a battle club, and mock Jesus with things like “He saved others, but He can’t save himself!” ?

Dan Brannan — No, we say that YOU should stop doing those sort of things.

Bret L. McAtee

Ephesians 4:17 So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; 19 and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.

Christian Toddson

Bret, when the individuals you and Dan are judging are the bikini baristas, are you assuming they’re Christians or unsaved sinners?

If unsaved and ignorant of God’s grace, ‘sinners’ – are you at all concerned with making a compassionate, loving appeal to them as befits Christ? Or condemnation?

To the Christian we can speak in different terms than the unsaved.

You two come across as highly judgmental, un-compassionate, lacking love, very unappealing fundamentalists.

John Kevan,

Bottom line, if you think girls selling coffee in bikinis is wrong, then don’t go to that coffee stand — there are plenty of places to get coffee that don’t feature bikini clad baristas – – but there is most certainly no legitimate justification for government restrictions on such business.

Bret L. McAtee,

Mr. Toddson, the best thing I can do for the bikini baristas and all those who are in rebellion to God is to inform them that if they do not repent God may well turn them over to their rebellion. I also tell them that God has provided mercy in Christ upon repentance.

It would be sheer hatred for me to do anything else.

I find your judgmentalism against me very disconcerting. You are demonstrating a lack of love for me and are obviously unconcerned with the prospects of hurting my feelings. This makes me cry.

Bret L. McAtee

John, God’s law strikes me as a legitimate foundation for government restriction.

Libertarians … what a confused bunch.

Christian Toddson,

I see a clear, near identical likeness between the Statist and Institutionalized Christian. Statism is a religion, and Institutionalized Christianity is a law imposing, judgmental, condemnatory, punishment driven system of intimidation.

Dan Brannan … quoth Lucifer.

Bret L. McAtee

You’re the one doing all the condemning here partner.

And all States … All States codify their religion into law. Especially Libertarians.

Dan Brannan Yes, Libertarians believe in a Libertarian god, and they institute the law of Liber., and they do so rigidly.

John Kevan,

Bret, the only legitimate reason for government restriction is if I am doing something that harms another; it is legitimate for the government to restrict me from stealing from you or injuring or killing you. A girl selling coffee while wearing a bikini is harming nobody.

Dan Brannan — Wrong. Such prostitutes strike at the whole society.

Bret L. McAtee

John, the Libertarian Non Aggression Principle (NAP) is a myth.

Only God and His Law Word can provide the standard for what does and does not constitute aggression.

Dan Brannan — Amen.

Bret L. McAtee

NAP = Libertinism.

NAP = drug dealing Crack houses, whore houses, wife swapping, legalized sodomy … all because none of it is putatively “hurting anybody.”

Dan Brannan — NAP = open borders, predatory capitalism, etc., etc., etc.

The NAP is a Trojan horse which allows predatory forces to dismantle every aspect of genuine law and right from within our own gates.

Christian Toddson,

Dan, Bret – Between yourselves and me, who do you suppose could best build a bridge for the bikini baristas (if they don’t already know Him) to Jesus? You guys and your hell fire “repent or die!” approach, or my compassion driven, love based, appeal by Grace?

Of course all of it is the work of God, but what approach did you see Jesus take with the prostitute as opposed to those who were condemning her?

Dan Brannan — The trouble is, Christian, the bridge you’re trying to build leads not to Jesus, but to hell.

Bret L. McAtee

Psst … there is no building bridges to those who are dead dead dead in their sins. You act as if you’re just nice enough a dead person will respond. Dead people don’t respond Christian.

You’re a functional Arminian.

Second, when I see someone convicted of their sin, like “the prostitute” you mention it is obvious at that point that the law has already done its work and needs not to be stated again.

You have no idea what evangelism is Christian. Evangelism requires the soul shattering work of the law’s condemnation.

Christian Toddson

That’s an ignorant comment, Dan. You don’t know me. Nor have I anyplace here in our dialogue given free license to sin. I know that love is of far greater appeal than fear, and wins every time.

Dan Brannan

Jesus commanded that prostitutes and publicans must repent, Mr. Toddson. Your spewing B.S. Anti-Christ nonsense, Mr. Toddson.

Bret L. McAtee

Christian, are you actually trying to compare the repentant prostitute who wiped the feet of our Lord Christ with tears with the brazen bikini baristas in the video above? You’re not a wise man in the least.

Christian Toddson,

Dan, you noted that, “Jesus commanded that prostitutes and publicans must repent, Christian.”

I say to that Dan that, Jesus commanded that every one must repent.

Dan Brannan — That’s the FIRST correct thing you’ve said so far, Christian.

Christian Toddson — You guys need to abandon your love of law for the love of Christ, and for the sinner.

Bret L. McAtee,

Do you suppose that the brazen bikini baristas will agree that they must repent Christian?

I do agree that I need to repent and that my repentance even needs repenting over, inadequate as it is.

Dan Brannan — and back you go to your anti-Christ schtick Christian

Bret L. McAtee,

You are the one who is hateful of the bikini baristas Mr. Toddson. You are a eminent hater by your theology as seen in your unwillingness to plead God’s Holiness.

Christian Toddson,

Bret – they won’t agree that they need to repent if they hear the message delivered with your tone and swagger.

Dan Brannan LOL.

Bret L. McAtee,

I can’t separate Christ from God’s law since Christ was the very incarnation of God’s law.

And I continue to see your Arminianism Christian. If I speak just the right nice way they will come to Jesus but if I tell them the truth they won’t. Is that it Christian?

Christian Toddson — Christ is the fulfillment of the law, Bret. Not you, not Dan, not me.

Bret L. McAtee,

Right Christian, and we are His champions and so we must set forth His legal character and let the law do its convicting work before we apply the balm of grace. To do what your advocating would damn the souls that, in love and compassion, we are seeking to woo.

Christian Toddson — I lean Calvinist actually, Bret.

Dan Brannan — No you don’t.

Bret L. McAtee — No you don’t. You’re a functional Arminian, and probably a Seminary grad to boot.

Christian Toddson — You are the two who speak in a manner demonstrating a works oriented salvation.

Dan Brannan — Exactly the opposite of the case.

Christian Toddson — It’s true, Bret. I’m dead on, Dan.

Bret L. McAtee

Nuh Uh. Neener neener neeener. I’m rubber. you’re glue. Whatever you say bounces of me and sticks on to you.

Dan Brannan

Mr. Toddson, far from the doctrines of grace, you preach licentiousness based upon Satanist nomology. Further, you preach a works righteousness of “niceness” rather than grace.

Christian Toddson

Bret – how many churches have you left?

How many have you been asked to leave or told to leave?

Bret L. McAtee,

Zero and Zero. How about you?

Besides being asked to leave a Church in this current zeitgeist is, more often then not, a badge of honor, Christian

Christian Toddson — Dan, I see you enjoy the pet usage of satan, and nomology. Neither of which I find value with.

Dan Brannan — And yet, you preach him.

Christian Toddson — Did Jesus condemn? If so, Who?

Bret L. McAtee — Jesus condemned people like you who were exercising their self righteousness.

Christian Toddson — No self righteousness here guys. That would be ignorant.

Dan Brannan,

Christian, the Lord repetitiously condemned those doing as you are, Christian. Because you refuse His Lordship, and prefer to make up your own law to impose upon Him.

Christian Toddson,

Dan, He fulfilled the law for me, for you, for Bret, for all of us. It’s the two of you who are seeking to impose it.

Dan Brannan — We seek to obey Him. But you say obeying Him is the greatest crime.

Bret L. McAtee,

There is no way we can know that Christ fulfilled the law for those who refuse Christ. That is Arminian again.

Christian Toddson,

I would venture to say that Jesus is more concerned with how the two of you are behaving in His name than with the bikini baristas.

Bret L. McAtee — Of course you would say that. So say all Luciferians.

Dan Brannan — Because you hate His law and reject His Lordship.

Christian Toddson — That is a terribly condemnatory thing to say Bret.

Bret L. McAtee — Just how I would expect a Luciferian to respond.

Christian Toddson

No Dan, I abhor Pharisaical self righteousness and law imposing condemnation as Jesus Himself did.

Christian Toddson — That’s quite childish, Bret.

Bret L. McAtee,

And yet here you are condemning us with every post because we are not keeping your law. Talk about childish.

Christian Toddson — Think of it more like a rebuke.

Bret L. McAtee — Psst …. its not working.

Christian Toddson — It will.

Bret L. McAtee — says you.

Dan Brannan — You’re rebuking Christ’s Lordship, Mr. Toddson. Anathema.

Christian Toddson — Geez guys. do you two have any idea, even the least bit, how unappealing you make Christ and His message? What a repellent that you are?

There is no (expressed) love at all in you two and that concerns me both for the salvation of yourselves, and the damage you no doubt cause to the appeal of God for the unbelieving who already have plenty of reasons to despise institutionalized religion.

Dan Brannan,

^And thus they called for Him to be crucified. Jesus was not murdered for being a winsome lounge lizard.

Bret L. McAtee,

Christian, first off, I suspect your definition of love is not my definition of love. If Christ is the incarnation of God’s law then God’s law is also Love.

Second, you appeal to the idea of a Gospel that is appealing to sinners. Would you mind too terribly explaining by what standard you adjudicate a proper appeal?

Third, you’re actually surprised that people who hate Christ find plenty of reasons to despise the institutional religions that bears Christ’s name to the world?

Fourth, it is you who are doing the damage by condemning the use of God’s law that is intended to expose sin.

Bret L. McAtee — Christian, I have to ask. Are you a minister?

Bret L. McAtee

Christian, Is there a reason that Scriptures say that the Message is a stone that makes men stumble and a rock that makes men fall?

For Christian is seems the message is a bikini that makes men horny and a coffee that tastes good.

Dan Brannan — And God’s ethics are such a bummer, man.

Christian Toddson

Sure Bret, because the Jews couldn’t accept justification by faith, but believed it necessary for laboring at the works of the law. Jesus was/is their stumbling block.

A bit like you two… No?

Christian Toddson, Dan – Your equating doing of the law, with ethics, or Godly principals?

Bret L. McAtee So you’re actually telling me that “justification by faith alone” obviates the causal connection with good works in relation to sanctification?

Antinomianism anyone?

Christ has set me free from the condemnation of the Law. I am not free to be disobedient Mr. Toddson.

Christian … are you a minister?

Dan Brannan

Jesus called the Pharisees to repent of their law and return to God’s Law … which presupposed from the beginning the atoning work of Christ and establishes the ethics of His universe.

Christian Toddson

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God”

Dan Brannan — Now just let that sink in, Christian.

Bret L. McAtee — Christian, are you a minister?

Christian Toddson — It’s sunken deep, Dan.

Dan Brannan — A sinister minister.

Bret L. McAtee — Shall we go on sinning that grace may abound Christian? God forbid.

Bret L. McAtee

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and hath not works? Can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you say unto them, “Depart in peace; be ye warmed and filled,” without giving them those things which are needful to the body, what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, “Thou hast faith, and I have works.” Show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well. The devils also believe — and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Christian Toddson — Of course, Bret.

Bret L. McAtee — 11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, 13 looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ,14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

Christian Toddson,

As regards the bikini baristas (back on point), What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church (if in fact they are)?

Bret L. McAtee –Christian, are you a minister?

Christian Toddson — Bret, Aren’t we all?

Bret L. McAtee — No, we are not.

Christian Toddson — 1 Cor. 3

Bret L. McAtee — James 3:1

Bret L. McAtee,

Why did Paul judge the Athenians at Mars Hill since they were outside the Church? (Acts 17)

Dan Brannan,

Why does the 10 commandment insist that the covenant people impose God’s law on the stranger within thy gates?

How does the assumption that those outside the church need the gospel not amount to a judgment upon them?

Christian Toddson,

Bret, Why did Paul write the letters/epistles to the Corinthians? 1 Cor. 5:12?

Dan Brannan — To assume unbelievers need saving is to judge them.
Unlike · 2 · 8 hrs

Christian Toddson,

No Dan, we know that everyone needs saving. And that “there is none righteous, no, not one”, is a universal indictment.

Dan Brannan — Then you admit to judging unbelievers.

Christian Toddson,

No Dan. I mostly rest in not judging so that I won’t be judged, as per Matt. 7 Judging is not fun, nor is being judged. We humans are very very poor at it.

Dan Brannan — That’s a lie. You just issued judgement over unbelievers. That they are sinners and need salvation.

Bret L. McAtee — Yet here you are judging us all over the place Christian. Contradictions anyone?

Bret L. McAtee,

Christian,

Paul judged the unbelievers at Athens.

I Cor. 5 is in the context of Church discipline. The Church can’t bring discipline against those who have not closed with Christ. However, the Church must have the law do its work with those who are in rebellion against Christ.

Christian Toddson, Bret – Paul made a bad decision in Athens and because of it, saw little success there.

Bret L. McAtee — LOL ^

Bret L. McAtee — ROFLOL ^

Dan Brannan — WTH?

Bret L. McAtee — ROFLMAO

Dan Brannan — Now you’re judging Paul!

Bret L. McAtee — I’m sitting here falling off my chair cracking up

Dan Brannan — Same here.

Christian Toddson,

Paul gave it up as a bad job with regard to his approach with the Athenians. How is it you don’t know that?

Bret L. McAtee — I guessed I missed that day when they taught that in Sunday School.

Christian Toddson — You must have…. or else went to a poorly teaching church.

Dan Brannan — That must be in the Devil’s Bible I’ve heard so much about.

Bret L. McAtee,

So … Christian … do tell please. What other parts of the Bible are considered failures where not expressly pointed out in the text.

Bret L. McAtee,

Christian,

Seriously. Out of a compassion for you I plead with you to trust Christ and repent of your making a false Christ in your image to worship.

Dan Brannan.

Just to make sure I’m following … are you really judging Paul because he judged the athenians as a proof that we shouldn’t judge?

Bret L. McAtee — LOL ^

Christian Toddson,

Paul avoided mention of the cross in Athens, and the result was a meager harvest. After continuing on to Corinth is when he emphasized that he “resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.”

Have you never read that, or was it never taught to you?

It’s not a secret that many have considered Paul to have been disappointed with his message in Athens.

After all, how many were saved in Athens?

Dan Brannan — So, your are judging Paul for judging the Athenians. How is this level of hypocrisy possible?

Bret L. McAtee,

Paul preaching at Athens Christian,

Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to to all by raising him from the dead.”

Now, how could have Christ had been resurrected if Christ had not been dead and buried?

Sounds like the Cross is clearly implied in Athens Christian.

Christian Toddson,

Dan, Paul omitted mention of the cross to the Athenians and one woman was saved as a result of his message to the crowd. Then he placed heavy emphasis on the cross in Corinth and many were saved. Paul didn’t use the philosophical approach again after Athens.
Bret L. McAtee,

Are you ever going to quit digging that hole your standing in and let us help you out Christian?

All of this “failure of Paul in Athens” is clear only to you Christian. No orthodox Christian would ever say what your saying about Acts 17. In point of fact, two of the greatest Christian minds of the 20th century (Van Til and Bahnsen) both insisted that Acts 17 was a template for doing Evangelism and Apologetics.

http://www.providenceopc.org/article5.htm — Van Til’s treatment of Acts 17
http://www.anthonyflood.com/bahnsensocratesorchrist05.htm — Partial look at Bahnsen’s work on Acts 17

Christian Toddson,

Folks – Paul left Athens disappointed, that is clear enough. His message to them wasn’t a “success” in terms of his listeners coming to salvation. He lost their ear, he left. He never taught in such a manner again.

Bret L. McAtee Folks,

Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit as He was, did not fail in Athens. The idea that you can measure the success of the message by counting the converts is heretical nonsense and the fact that Christian holds this demonstrates, perhaps better then anything else he has said, that his Gospel is pure existential pragmatism and not the Gospel belonging to Christianity.

Dan Brannan,

Yes. The notion that the divinely-enabled preaching of Paul could be condemned by Christians because it doesn’t fit the “church growth model” of emergent churchianity is a level of pharisaism unknown to me till tonight.

Further, I find the idea that Paul could be judged by modern apostates as a pretext to create a new law against judging people according to law absolutely hysterical.

To judge those who judge (even those divinely guided) according to a law which forbids law. New Age churchianity is like a giant web of zen koans — all self-contradictory.