Other Opposing Worldview

Muslim Apologetics In Two Minutes

A well-known evangelist was entering a Muslim country and had this conversation with the customs official.

Customs Official: “For what purpose are you entering my country?

Christian Traveler; “I am a Christian evangelist and have been invited by here by your government for a debate at one of your universities.”

Customs: “Tell me sir. What do you think of Mohammed?”

Christian Traveler: “May I ask you a question?”

Customs: “Yes.”

Christian Traveler: “Can a prophet lie?”

The Custom’s Officer thought for a moment and said,

“No. A prophet cannot lie.”

Christian Traveler: “Mohammed was a prophet?”

Customs: “Yes.”

Christian Traveler; “Mohammed said Jesus was a prophet?”

Customs: “Yes.”

Christian Traveler; “Jesus said He was God. If Jesus was right then Mohammed was wrong. And if Jesus was wrong, Mohammed was still wrong because Mohammed said Jesus was right!”

The Customs official stamped his passport and said,

“Get out of here!”

A Brief Analysis on Rev. Suave’s Video Explaining The Fracture Between Moscow & Ogden

Rev. Brian Suave, in the first half of the video explaining Ogden’s warfare with Moscow,

does a really grand job of giving the deep contextual background for the reason for the kerfuffle. The long and the short of it is that this battle is shaped by the century long percolating and simmering fight between the neo-cons (Trotskyites) and the paleo-cons as to the definition of “conservative.” This becomes important in relation to Christianity because Christianity is by it’s very nature a conserving and conservative faith.

The battle here has always been as between the moderate left (the Girondists of the French Revolution) who were viewed as “conservative” as compared to the hard left (Montagnards) and those few who genuinely belonged to the Ancien Regime — the old line conservatives. The neo-cons were referred to as “Trotskyites” because they believed that the Revolution should be ceaseless. The neo-cons today then are those who are on the right side of the left but who also believe that social revolution should be ongoing and continuous. There is no desire on the part of the neo-cons to return to the theology of the Ancien Regime, characterized as it is by a unique love of one’s own people, King, and country. The neo-cons have a Democratic impulse and Democracy has always been the hand-maiden for leftism. Neo-cons will never want to see any of the gains made by their continuous Revolutions rolled back. For the Moscow gang this most immediately means a absolute resolve to never see a return to a time when Bagels were seen as the enemy of the Church and of Christianity, as well as never countenancing the vanilla doctrine of Kinism that was held everywhere by all people at all times until the latest major expression of the perpetual revolution that was World War II. When folks like me and others advocate for an older Christianity that was Bagel wise and familialist in practice the cry that arises from Moscow and from James White, Joel Boot, Andrew Sandlin and their ilk is “FASCISTS,” or “NAZIS.” This libel on their part is confirmation that they are indeed Trotskyists and Girondists …. as well as garden variety idiots.

If you want to understand this bubbling war completely you have to start doing the heavy work of reading. You have to read Sam Francis, and Joe Sobran, and Garet Garett and Wimoore Kendall and Frank Meyer and Albert Jay Nock, and H. L. Mencken and M. Stanton Evans, R. J. Rushdoony and others. These men did not always agree with one another but I am fairly sure they all would have disagreed with the “new Christendom” that Doug Wilson is trying to fashion. It is the attempted fashioning of Doug’s “New Christendom” that is driving all the drama from his side. You see, the Ogden chaps just do not agree with Wilson’s vision of “New Christendom.” It strikes me that they prefer the older Christendom.

Upon viewing the Suave video on can say the following;

1.) Short of a remarkable providence the Kerfuffle is not going to end with Wilson repenting. Doug’s whole “Christian” world and life view is informed by the world that Wm. F. Buckley created. Doug has reinterpreted all of his Christianity through that lens. Buckleyism is Christianity for Doug and the Ogden boys, being anti-Buckley are, to Doug, anti-Christ.

2.) This contest is monumentally important to the future of both Christianity and the broader culture. If it is true that “as goes the church so goes the culture,” (and I believe it is) then whoever wins out in this contest (and oddly enough R2K is on the side of Moscow here in the broad contours of the matter) will define the church and the culture for another generation.

3.) Doug and James White and Boot and Sandlin etc are doing the work of the devil here. Because they have no ability to know who the enemy is they have no ability to resist the enemy. This necessarily means redefining Christianity per the worldview of the enemy.

4.) If you really support the cause of Christ you have to quit supporting all things Doug Wilson, White, Sandlin, Boot, etc. They are the enemy.

5.) Keep in mind that which is driving all of this is different theologies and so different understandings of Christianity. One might think upon reading this post that this is all political and doesn’t have anything to do with religion at all. That would a mistaken reading. Theology drives everything and the differences between Ogden and Moscow are being ultimately driven by considerably different theologies.

Alienism & Kinism … Some Considerations

Recently, the Alienism that stems from accepting the principles of Cultural Marxism has found itself trying to sweep Kinism off the scene by pejoratives. One podcaster did a podcast titled, “Kinism; Luciferian and Wicked.” Another “clergy” member in the RPCNA spent 56 mindless minutes haranguing and screeching his congregation in a sermon titled; “Against the Heresy of Kinism.” We definitely have their attention and personally I am flattered that they find us so dangerous that now they have to go to these silly extremes in order to try and quench the prairie-fire that is endangering their post-Endarkenment consensus “Christianity.”

I am actually hoping these harpy clergy continue on this path. Their rants are so mindless and so absent any substance that their arguments against Kinism are actually providing arguments for Kinism for those who aren’t completely brain dead. Their argument by vacuous assertion and impressive straw men, as well as their steady refusal to deal with all the quotes from Church Fathers and Church history can only strengthen the position of Biblical Christianity. Sooner or later the Alienists are going to have to deal with quotes like this recent one I just came across thanks to Dan Brannan.

We see here that St Isidore of Seville (6th century) argued that it was within the fundamental rights of a nation to prohibit miscegenation as recorded in his Etymologies (Origins) of Isidore of Seville;

vi.) What the law of nations is (Quid sit ius gentium) 1.) The law of nations concerns the occupation of territory, building, fortification, wars, captives, enslavements, the right of return, treaties of peace, truces, the pledge not to molest embassies, the prohibition of marriages between races. And it is called ‘law of nations (ius gentium) because nearly al nations (gentes) use it.”

In light of all this condemning Kinists to the deepest level of hell the question has arisen as to whether one can embrace Alienism (born of Cultural Marxism and the polar opposite of Kinism) and still be considered Christian. Now, of course distinctions have to be made here. We concede that while Alienism is, by definition, not Christianity, it certainly is likely that many Alienists are Christians. God’s grace reaches beyond all of the lack of sanctification that is doubtless characteristic of all of us.

We also have to make distinctions between the Alienists who are ideologues and so true believers –that is they who are epistemologically self conscious about their Alienism and those others who are merely useful idiots for the Alienists. We have great hope that many of the useful idiots for the Alienists are indeed Christian despite their useful idiot status. For example, I have great hope that Drew Poplin (the chap who preached that “Kinism is Heresy”) is indeed someone who, despite his utter and embarrassing nonsense is in Christ. I say this despite at the same time insisting that he has no business being within three blocks of a Reformed pulpit.

However, having said all that we Kinists still must insists that all those who are Alienists — epistemologically self conscious or useful idiots — that what they are espousing is NOT Christianity. And they must be told … “Shall we go on sinning that grace might abound? God forbid!” The doctrinal position of Alienism is anti-Christ. It is against the Christian faith and where consistently held to it is anti-Gospel inasmuch as tears at the structure of the Creature-Creator distinction with its egalitarian norms. Such egalitarian norms are either a consequence of a monism that is birthed by denying the Creator-Creature distinction or alternately is certain to lead to the eventual denial of the distinction between God and man. If there is no distinctions between creatures, born of monism, eventually there will be a energetic denial of the distinction between God and Man. The distinction between Creator-creature cannot survive a mindset that levels all God ordained distinctions between creatures. So whether the denial of all distinctions between creatures leads to denial of the Creator-Creature distinction or whether all distinctions between creatures is the consequence of the denial of the Creator-creature distinction the result remains a monism that in no way can co-exist with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One can not be a Christian while embracing a monism that denies the Creator-Christian distinction. How deep can one be in this error and still consistently hold to the Gospel is not something I know the answer to. I do know that it is all Christian’s responsibility to say that “Alienism and the Gospel cannot consistently co-exist together.”

This is the same kind of issue that Machen was facing in the 1920s except then the issue was not Alienism born of cultural Marxism but rather the issue was Liberalism born of denying the transcendence and supernatural character of God (Actually, that stemmed from a monistic impulse as well.) Machen never tried to give a person by person examination as to just how deep the infection of liberalism was too deep in order for one not to be Christian. Instead, Machen wrote and preached that Liberalism was not Christianity … just as Alienism is not Christianity and cannot coexist with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We see St. Paul do the same kind of thing in his epistles. He makes it clear in Colossians and in the Timothys that Gnosticism is NOT Christianity and is against the Gospel. Now, as to how much Gnosticism was too much Gnosticism in every individual case was not something we get in his writings. What we get is the Gnosticism is anti-Christ and so can not exist consistently with the Gospel.

We all know of congregations are flat up full of Cultural Marxism and the Alienism it produces. We would not blink an eye in saying “those people need to hear the Gospel.” On the other hand we know of congregations that are less infected and to those places we might say, “Well, while I don’t doubt that there may well be Christians among them, it is still the case that what they are holding in principle is against the Gospel and if given its head will overturn the Gospel in that place.”

What we believes about the whole of the Christian faith matters and this tendency to want to somehow cordone “the Gospel” from the totality of the whole Christian faith is not healthy and is unwise. The Christian faith is an organic whole and a severe error in one place is going to warp the Gospel — and warp it enough in some cases to drain the Gospel of being the Gospel.

So, on one hand we want to be generous with people in their confession of personal faith in Jesus the Christ, but on the other hand we do not want people to think that doctrine is unimportant so that “it really doesn’t matter what you believe about Christ as long as you believe.” God is not egalitarian and egalitarian Christianity if given its head means that a Gospel defined by Alienist/ egalitarianism is not a Gospel that can save.

Bret Chit Chats With David The Roman Catholic

David, the Roman Catholic Dude writes me;

Jesus became human did he not?

To the extent that I depend on human works for my salvation, I do so because they are the works of Jesus Christ himself.

Bret Responds,

That’s a nice sentiment David but let’s examine it a bit before we swallow it shall we. Now, remember, this is your response to my insistence that justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. You objected to that by mocking the Protestants who believe in faith alone. When I noted that Scripture clearly disallows our works as contributory to our justification you responded with the above.

So, I take this as an affirmation of yours that human works are necessary for salvation. Indeed, you say you are even “depending on them,” but that’s OK because “they are the works of Jesus Christ Himself.”

Now, while it is true that God’s people are, as Titus 2:14 teaches, always zealous for good works, and while we affirm Ephesians 2:10

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

We also affirm that our right standing and acceptability with God is solely on the basis of the finished work of Jesus Christ reckoned to me and received by faith alone that is characterized as completely resting in Christ and His righteousness.

But, now you want to insert our works claiming that our works are the works of Jesus. This is large scale typical hubris on the part of Roman Catholics. David, do you really think any of your works (even if you think that they are the works of Jesus through you) can meet the standard for what God finds acceptable as a work? Are your good works absolutely Holy? Are your good works without any blemish or fault? This is what is required in order for your works righteousness to be accepted by God. We Protestants understand that by that standard all of our righteousness is like filthy rags. Yet, here we find a Roman Catholic, proudly declaring that to whatever extent he is depending on his works it is ok because his works are so exalted that his works are as acceptable as our saviors works.

Allow me to suggest David, that given this view of yours, you have not yet seen either God’s holiness or your sinfulness and as a result you do not understand your need for Christ’s death. I trust that in time the Holy Spirit will open your eyes to the foolishness of thinking that your works are acceptable before a thrice Holy God because, after all, your works have all the sanctity and acceptability of the works of the savior Jesus Christ.

Roman Catholic David writes,

To a Protestant Jesus is just an idea. Yes, you have faith. But even the demons believe God and tremble.

Bret responds,

Just an idea?

Nobody puts up with the persecution that the Roman Catholics visited upon the Protestants for “just an idea,” David. Nobody is martyred for an idea David. This statement is just Roman Catholic bloviating.

And while I don’t doubt that many Protestants have demon faith, I am more sure that even more Roman Catholics have demon faith. Indeed, there is not one Roman Catholic who is epistemologically self-conscious about what they believe who aren’t involved in demon faith. Your embrace of Trent, by itself, means that you are involved in demon faith.

David the Roman Catholic writes,

You never actually unite with him. That’s the real reason you reject his body and blood, and have no life within you.

Bret responds,

And yet David, the Scripture testifies that the Holy Spirit unites believers to Christ. The Holy Spirit, by whom Christ offered Himself without spot to God (Hebrews 9:14), regenerates the elect when He unites them to Christ. By this vital spiritual union, God brings the elect from spiritual death to spiritual life (Romans 5:6).

Protestants don’t reject the body and blood of Christ. We merely reject the demonic Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. We are done with Priestcraft and the attempt of the Babylon Church to have complete sovereign control over who is and isn’t saved, which the evil doctrine of transubstantiation teaches.

Will you not repent David and cease with your reliance on the apostate magisterial Church for salvation and instead trust in Christ for your salvation with the Church as His faithful minister?

David the Roman Catholic writes,

It is the legacy of Luther’s poor self worth, sadly. He never really believed in sanctification. A Christian to him was nothing better than a ball of dung covered in a little bit of snow.

Bret responds,

David, the most sanctified Christian believes of himself that he is a “unprofitable servant who has only done what he ought.”

So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’” (Luke 17:10)

The Protestant understands, David, that all our righteousness is in Christ alone and so we don’t spend much time thinking about ourselves. If we did spend much time thinking about ourselves we would understand that there is very little snow covering us as dung.

We do believe in sanctification David. We just understand that our only hope is not based on our own very real ongoing personal renewal but our only hope is found in Jesus Christ and His righteousness.

Won’t you join us and find your only hope in Jesus Christ and His righteousness?

David the Roman Catholic writes,

Jesus really does want to save you through and through. He made provision for a whole lifetime of grace. It’s not just some one-saved prayer that you prayed once when you were seven.

Bret responds,

Yes, I quite agree, that Jesus does save His people through and through. We are indeed saved to the uttermost and never fail of the salvation that is given in Christ. We know that because our Lord Christ said, “All that come to me I will in no wise cast out.”

We likewise believe that the triune God has made a provision for a whole lifetime of grace. Indeed, we even believe that Word and Sacrament are the means of grace — the way in which God conveys His grace to His “at the same time sinner, the same time saint” people.

We historic Protestants are not apologetic about our belief that the prayer of repentance is normatively consistent with the context of salvation, and that regardless the age of the one praying. However, we don’t believe that the prayer is magic or that the prayer makes the reality. We understand that a seven year old praying that prayer is the result of that seven year old being regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit in the context of the Word preached.

And we will teach that protestant child who prayed that prayer that throughout their life they have need to attend Word and Sacrament in order to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. We will also teach them that the sacraments of the Roman Catholic church are blasphemies that empty the Cross of its power since it denies the “once forever” work of Jesus Christ on the cross and replaces that finished work with a insistence that Jesus has to be continually and perpetually sacrificed in the Mass so that salvation can be obtained.

David the Roman Catholic writes,

Jesus’ provision is the Eucharist, the true bread from heaven that give flesh for the life of the world. You can lie to yourself, but John 6 does not lie.

Bret responds,

I am not lying to myself David. Like all Protestants I believe that Word and Sacrament are means of Grace. I simply don’t believe, because of the teaching of Scripture, that Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross was insufficient for all time. As we read in Hebrews 10;

¹¹Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. ¹²But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, ¹³and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. ¹⁴For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

A Response to Dimitry Wilsoneyev On Pulling Down Criminal Statues

“In such a moment, our task should be two-fold. First, don’t help them tear down anything else. I don’t care if it is a statue of Cecil Rhodes, or Winston Churchill, or Nathan Bedford Forrest—nothing else comes down.”

Doug Wilson

Imagine you’re living in 1990 Communist Russia. Finally, there is a crack in Communism and you and the boys decide you’re going to pull down a few statues of Commie heroes — Oh, let’s say a Trotsky statue or an Iron Felix statue or even a lowly Brezhnev statue. Change is in the air and you are determined that you’re going to cast off the “heroes” of the past.

But then comes Dimitry Wilsoneyev who warns you about all the social instability you’re going to create if you tear down statues — even if the statues you’re going to tear down are statues of mass murderers and criminal villains.

Of course your immediate response is…. “What the hell have we been living under for the last 80 years if not ever incrementally increasing social instability as created by those raised up for posterity in statue form?”

But Dimitry Wilsoneyev, good Christian that he is, reminds you that by pulling down these statues that you may well be letting loose anarchy upon the land.

Again, you stare unblinkingly at this Boomer. You’re bumfuzzled and are thinking, “You prefer this four score tyranny instead? You want to say to Dimitry, ” Even if you’re right about social instability and anarchy being set loose by tearing down statues of criminals and delinquents is that worse than what we lived under during the reign of these madmen? A reign that will continue and even increase if we don’t change the equation. Keep in mind Dimitry, that those supporting the maintenance of these statues we want to pull down are intent on continuing this criminally aberrant social order. Further, Dimitry, you’re counsel to go slow is serving to the end of supporting those that would turn the whole world into one vast gulag.”

“Think about it Dimitry …. if Cromwell had listened to your kind of counsel England would have never been set free from the villain Charles I. If the Colonials had listened to you we would still be quartering Red Coat soldiers in our homes. And if Europe had listened to your kind of counsel in 1989 the Berlin Wall would still be standing.”

“The problem honorable Dimitry Wilsoneyev is not that the idols erected to Churchill, Lincoln, or FDR are being torn down. The problem is that they were ever raised up to begin with.” Also, dear Dimitry, we need to ask, “what are we to do while living in already socially unstable times that find us having to barricade our homes against those who are ginning up the teeming crowds of refuse and delinquency to the end that someday statues of their vomitous likeness will be erected?

Sorry, Dimitry, but we are well past the exit that said “waiting will fix things.” Any counsel to people that in effect says… “it’s ok, go back to sleep,” is not going to cut it for people who love God, their family, and their people. Some statues / idols have to go, Dimitry and there is no time like the present.

Winston Churchill is one of them.

Won’t you help us tear down the old idols and statues of the post-war liberal consensus — even in the context when the enemy is out there pulling down the statues of genuine heroes?

Finally, Dimitry Wilsoneyev, social change is seldom without convulsions. Read an old book on Oliver Cromwell and learn that again.