Category: Apologetics

Republican Presumed Nominee Trump and Judge Curiel

I’m not voting for Donald Trump. I’ve made the reasons why clear on Iron Ink. Nothing has changed in that regard. However, since I don’t have a dog in the election fight, as it concerns the two major party candidates, it does give me a wee bit of dispassion when looking at the issues that are being tussled over in this election cycle.

The most recent caterwauling by the Media, the Democrats, The Republicans and the general Elite cognoscenti establishment has been Donald Trump’s daring to offer the politically incorrect statement that he doesn’t think he can get a fair hearing from a Obama appointed Judge of Mexican heritage who has remote but very real ties to THE LaRaza and has  served on a La Raza scholarship board that awarded scholarships to illegal immigrants, thus demonstrating his attitude towards U.S. law. I think this might be called, “Mestizo privilege.”

All of this phony outrage has been an attempt to stampede the electorate into discarding Trump as a vile evil racist. That the SJW media and SJW inside the beltway establishment are rather selective in their outrage against putative racists is seen by the way that other statements from cultural gate-keepers is met with a nonplussed and ho-hum response,

“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,”

Barack Obama
Identifying with a African-American against what was initially misreported as a black youth being slain by a White man.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Sonya Sotomayer
Puerto Riccan Supreme Court Justice

“The Cambridge police acted stupidly … there is a long history in this country of Arican-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.”

Barack Obama
White House Press Conference
Complaining about a White Cop Arresting a Black Professor

So, given that there was little to no consternation or outrage over these statements quite similar to Trump one has to wonder why Trump is being excoriated.

Then there is the observation by Ann Coulter on this subject,

“Two weeks ago …  the (New York) Times published an op-ed by a federal appeals judge stating: ‘All-white juries risk undermining the perception of justice in minority communities, even if a mixed-race jury would have reached the same verdict or imposed the same sentence.'”

For how many decades have we been told that minorities cannot get justice from White judges or white juries and that has been perfectly OK and even has become enshrined in our “law?” But now Trump accuses an Obama appointed and LaRaza connected Judge of Mexican heritage of the very same thing and suddenly everybody is all outraged? Me thinketh the lady doth protest too much.

These observations, combined, inform us that the only reason that Trump is being slammed by the cultural gatekeepers about his recent Obama appointed and LaRaza connected “Mexican judge” statement is that Trump is white.  None of the above quotes are unlike Trump’s statement. The “problem” with Trump is that he, as a White Man, is holding Cultural Marxist non-Caucasians to the same standard that cultural Marxist non-Caucasians and their self-hating white liberal lap dogs use against whites.  Since World War II the cultural Marxists have worked to turn these united States into a nation of Tribal interests and now the SJW cultural elites want to scream ruddy hell when Trump acknowledges that Tribal reality? Physician heal thyself.

Speaker of the House, Rep. Paul Ryan told us that what Trump said was a textbook case of racism when Trump spoke concerning the Obama appointed and LaRaza connected Judge of Mexican heritage . Just count Ryan as one more leftist worshiper genuflecting at the  altar of political correctness and white hatred. What does one expect from a pig but a grunt?

That white people are guilted into believing and buying into this double standard tripe suggests that the real goal of all of this hypocritical guilt mongering is the complete subjugation of white people under the heels of a neo-Marxist multicultural, politically correct, anti-Christian agenda.  All this propaganda guilting works to the same end that was arrived at in the French revolution. During that time the Jacobins bombarded France with saturation guilt propaganda so effectively that even the French nobility and monarchy were left unable to defend themselves to themselves against it. A date with madame guillotine was the consequence for many in the the French Aristocracy because of this propaganda to which no response was forthcoming.  If Christian white people do not resist this demonization propaganda I see a similar future for Christian white people.

 

 

Sex Outside the Boundaries and Destruction

A social order trajectory that begins with unconstrained libidinous passion will end in social order horror that consumes individuals, families, and nations. For example the French intelligentsia philosophes embarked on the trajectory of emancipating the sexual impulse from the moral order and the end result was the tender strokes of Madame la’ Guillotine. What began as a loosening of sexual mores ended with the loosening of heads off of shoulders.

Consider also, as example, the Weimar Republic of the 1920’s. What began as the Sexual cabaret of Europe in the 1920’s where every kind of fetish and deviance possible could be had for the right price ended with unnamed tyranny and rampant death for the “fatherland.”

Consider also the Bolshevik Revolution. Alexandera Kollentai led the way in sexual freedom for women. Women, under communist rule, were considered as belonging to no man but as belonging to the state for purchase. Kollontai, with Lenin’s approval, sought to destroy the concept of marriage and families. The results of this sexual freedom was so disastrous that even the Communist realized that they had to reverse course lest they wipe themselves out by sexual freedom.

There is a nexus between the liberation of sex from God ordained expression and the consequent social order blood in the streets that naturally follows. We are witnessing that again in the West as we seek to eliminate any boundaries for sex. It almost seems that there is a principle at work here… a truism that demonstrates that unfettered sex guarantees unfettered death.

Thumbnail Sketch of the Governmental Theory of the Atonement

For a great many Evangelicals, the Cross of Christ is not an objective, vicarious substitution but a public declaration of divine justice designed to stimulate sinners to choose to follow God. This is called the Governmental theory of the Atonement. In this theory the Father punishes the Son on the Cross NOT as a substitute paying for the designated penalty of a designated elect. Rather the Father is using the Son’s death as a cosmic public demonstration to all sinners everywhere at all times that justice for sin and disobedience has been paid in the abstract. Not for any one concrete individual or any concrete group (Church) but only in the abstract.

Now, that God has made this public declaration of abstract justice “whosoever” is welcome to return to God if they will. Preaching thus becomes a explanation of why Christ was such a victim of the Father and how feeling sorry for Christ should be a motivator for their repentance. This is where the pitiful sentimental pietistic Preaching comes from that so often happens in our pulpits today. God is not commanding all men everywhere to repent. Instead, Jesus is “softly and tenderly calling, calling for you and for me.”

Note in all this man remains sovereign in his salvation. God has provided an abstract justice but it is up to man to decide whether or not he’ll feel sorry enough for poor poor Jesus hanging on the Cross, punished by the Father, to actually choose him to be the sinners savior.

Of course this model still suffers from implicit Universalism. If the Father really has punished sin in the abstract then even the sin of unbelief in what the Father has done has already been punished in Christ and so the unbeliever in Christ is already saved since justice for sin, unbelief and disobedience has been demonstrated.

Answering a young lady’s misdirected accusations of bad manners

This from a young ladies blog,

“I am ashamed that the commenters were so rude and condescending to one another and, if I were an unbeliever, I would not be able to believe in a God whose followers were so mean to each other let alone someone who is not of like faith. I would question what Christians are really about. I would laugh at them. From the outside looking in I would think Christianity was a front for cutting one another down and let’s face it, no one wants to be a part of something like that. I am disappointed in the actions by so many of my followers so on the grounds of testimony I am taking the video down…. No matter what you believe in tattoos (or anything else for that matter) you should not be so exasperated to prove your point that you ruin your testimony.”

I was privy to this discussion and am one of the ones that the young lady in questions is trying to call on the carpet. Unfortunately, being a young lady there are several things that she doesn’t take into consideration.

First, there is a place and a time for direct words to both Wolves and wolves in sheep’s clothing. John Calvin, the great 16th century Reformer hits on this reality when he wrote,

“The pastor ought to have two voices: one for gathering the sheep, and another for warding off and driving away wolves and thieves. The Scripture supplies him with the means of doing both; for he who is deeply skilled in it will be able both to govern those who are teachable, and to refute the enemies of the truth.

It simply is the case that direct language and even dismissive language has to be used sometimes in the context of polemics. Only an ignorance of both Scripture and Church History would contend otherwise. Often times Christianity is indeed “a front for cutting down one another,” just as St. Paul cut down the Judaizers in the book of Galatians, just as Jesus cut down the Lawyers in the Gospels, just as Elijah cut down the prophets of false Gods on Mt. Carmel. If there are those who do not desire to be part of a belief system that will defend itself from wolves then let them join some other false belief system. If there are those who think that all manly defenses of Christianity are improper then there may be a need for them to re-think their Christianity.

Second, the real problem here is that advocating sporting a tattoo, whether directly or indirectly, is that which provides the real “ruining of one’s testimony.” (See previous series, “God’s Call for Virgin Skin.”) To complain that a direct polemical defense of the faith is a “ruining of one’s testimony” while embracing the “ruining testimony” of advocating for tattoos is like complaining about people who play with matches all the while your hair on fire.

So, while we can appreciate the young lady in question desire for the Christian faith to be promulgated we would say that her efforts are really working to the exact opposite end that she so earnestly desires.

 

 

God’s Call For Virgin Skin … Baptism and Tattoos (#4)

Titus 3:5 He saved us, not by the righteous deeds we had done, but according to His mercy, through the washing of new birth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.

I Corinthians 12:13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body–whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free–and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

In teaching the covenant children on Baptism I often times will us the illustration that Baptism is like God’s branding us with His mark of ownership. I will tell them just as a Rancher might brand his cattle, so God brands us with the mark of Baptism that is indelible to His eyes. When He looks at us He sees that we are marked with His mark and so treats us as His own.

In Baptism we are marked with God’s mark. It is the mark wherein we find our identity. It is the only mark that we need have placed upon us. Indeed, by marking ourselves with other permanent marks it could be easily argued that we are putting marks on ourselves that are in identity competition with God’s mark of Baptism.

In this vein it is interesting that historically tattoos have been used as an identifying mark that one belongs to this or that god. The gods were thought to have required that their people be marked with their mark. Of course, today no one in the modern West would, upon receiving a tattoo, think that they were doing so as a mark of belonging to some ancient tribal deity but perhaps worse yet what being tatted today demonstrates and signals is the god-like power one seizes over one’s own body.  If one views themselves as autonomous beings then they will mark themselves with their own marks. This is understandable but the Christian who has been marked with God’s mark of Baptism should not want to be marked with any other mark.

Not only should they not want to be marked with any other mark they are forbidden to be marked out with any other mark. The Priest class in the Old Testament was not allowed to be tattooed, like the pagans around them,

Leviticus 21:5 They (the Priests) shall not make bald patches on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards, nor make any cuts on their body.

This is relevant to those who profess Christ today who resolve to be tattooed because in the New Testament it is the Church and Christians who are identified as God’s Priest class.

I Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

All God’s people today are prophets, priests, and kings under sovereign God, and so all God’s people today, as God’s Priests, are proscribed by God from making any cuts on their body. And why should they want any other marks on their bodies since they’ve been marked by their God in Baptism?

Why this desire, by professing Christians, for a further marking besides God’s mark of Baptism? One wonders if the increase of tattooing isn’t due to God’s people not understanding their identity in Christ. In so many ways Westerners have been separated and stripped from, and of, their Christian history — and so their identity — that perhaps, at some level, the reason body modification is being pursued by Christians so intently is because they are trying to find a meaning that has eluded them. The modern Western man has been deracinated to the point that he no longer is even sure about gender, and is now treated as a interchangeable cog in a vast impersonal machine culture. Given that, it is not a wonder that the modern Western man, be he Christian or non Christian, is exploring all avenues, including tattooing, to imbue his life with some possible meaning.

Of course modern Western man does not speak to himself in such terms. He probably couldn’t and wouldn’t articulate his thinking (if he even thinks about it at all) in such a way. For modern man tattooing one’s self is just what people do. Modern man would insist that tattooing doesn’t mean anything except, “it’s cool and it’s pretty and my peers are doing it and I want to fit in.”

However, if Christians who are also Moderns, had explained to them what God’s mark of Baptism means then just possibly they would see that pursuing any other mark, besides the mark of Baptism, would be a pursuing of a counter claim by a different god.