Category: Apologetics

R2K Analysis Of The State Of Christian Nationalism Is Splintered — Part II

Here we finish up dissecting Rev. Chris Gordon’s offerings on the reason why the Christian Nationalism/postmillennialism project has failed.  Keep in mind, as I said in part I that the failure of CN/post-mil is very convenient for Gordon and the militant R2K/Amil guys because if were to be the case that CN/post-mill were not true then God would be found to be a liar and more importantly the field would be clear for the militant R2K/Amil guys to continue with their defeatist, sentimentalist, and pietistic surrender theology.

One point to clarify. Someone wrote me and asked how I could conjoin the words “militant” and “R2K Amillennialism” since R2K amillennialism is characterized by their call to not contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. The militancy of the R2K Amillennialism movement is found in the one place that they are resolved to man the ramparts and fight to the death and that one place they are tenaciously and militantly fighting is against all forms of optimistic eschatology. The one thing that will put spine in the R2K surrender monkeys — the one thing that will make them see red — is the presence of optimistic theology anywhere near them. It is their fight against CN/postmillennialism wherein one finds their militancy.

Now on to polishing off Gordon’s “reasoning,” as to why the CN/postmil movement has failed;

CG writes,

4. The current movement is too driven by big name personalities that shape tribal identities. 

Bret responds,

Does Chris here mean names like D. G. Hart, David Van Drunen, R. Scott Clark, Michael Horton, and J. V. Fesko? Ooops… never mind … I got my “current movements as driven by big name personalities” mixed up.

Look, all people have those they look up to and respect and admire. Personally, I learned decades ago that it is best that these people should be the sainted dead and not those still drawing breath since those still living will consistently fall off their pedestals. However, I am not going to over-fault people for having leaders for whom would go to the wall. If anything we need more men to admire, even if that means we have to deal with the problem of tribal identities.

Having said all that, I hate to admit it, but I think Gordon is on to something here. We have too often devolved into arguing about “who’s right,” instead of which expression of CN/post-mill is most consistent with Scripture. Having conceded that though, R2K militants like CG need to realize that there are very real differences between many of these camps that inevitably are going to need hashed out and in that process disagreements are going to rise. I mean, when your messages is just “surrender” such as if found in Gordon’s R2K/militant Amil camp it is easy for the followers of all the various personalities to find sweet concord.

But Chris should be able to sleep better at night knowing that not all of us have pushed our chips in on any one of the individuals in the CN/post-mill camp. There are those of us who are CN/Post-mills who are definitely not groupies.

When it comes to Gordon’s issue of fighting, well, let’s just quote another fighter, J. Gresham Machen;

“The type of religion which rejoices in the pious sound of traditional phrases, regardless of their meanings, or shrinks from “controversial” matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life. In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight.”

CG writes,

5. The current movement hasn’t shown us what it means to love our enemy and take the gospel to them in concern for their salvation.

Bret responds,

This is just libel. Pure unadulterated slander.

1.) I may have my disagreements with any number of CN/post-mill types but to suggest that the movement has a whole hasn’t taken the gospel to the enemies of the cross is just balderdash.  Wilson, Wolfe, Isker, Conn, and the Heritage Theonomists may disagree among themselves on important matters but they all stand shoulder to shoulder loving their enemy and having a concern for their enemy’s salvation.

2.) I suspect the problem here is the definition of “love.” When I see Christians protesting an abortion clinic I see them loving their enemies. When i see Christians pointing out the Cultural Marxism found in any number of pulpits I see them loving their enemies. When I spend my time overturning the idiocy that is R2K I am loving my enemies and the enemies of the exhaustive Lordship of Jesus Christ. However, I suspect that for CG loving one’s enemies only means something like working in a soup kitchen, or taking a mission trip to Haiti to dig a well or build a school. Those things need to be done but they do not delimit the definition of “loving one’s enemies,” or “taking salvation” to them.

3.) CG falls into the error of thinking that just as Christ came to die for the sins of the world, his followers are likewise called to die for the sins of the world. It is true that the Lord Christ had no aim to become a political hero but then that wasn’t His mission. To suggest that somehow politics should not be redeemed for God’s glory because Jesus didn’t try to become a political hero is a category mistake of monumental consequence. Jesus didn’t become a husband and father Chris. Does that mean we shouldn’t become a husband and father either so as to follow Jesus?

4.) Finally,  CG’s protestations to the contrary  it can be biblically supported that Christians are to have political power. Why is it that the R2K types automatically assume that Christianity can never exercise power consistent with the authority of their great High King? The biblical support for Christians having political power is the promised success of the missionary effort. Once the nations are evangelized then obviously that evangelized nation is going to rule consistent with the Word of God.

But you see here, this is where the rub comes in. R2K/amil types do not believe that the Holy Spirit will be successful in converting the nations before Christ’s return and therefore balk strongly at the notion of Christian wielding political power.

5.) With this complaint by CG there is a good deal of Jesus Juking going on. By that I mean there is an appeal to emotion in order to try and guilt people into realizing their lack of the requisite sentimentalism and piety in order shame people into agreeing with them. No Jesus Juking allowed on Iron Ink.

CG writes,

6. The current movement has focused our hearts on saving the earthly city, which is promised to be burned (2 Pet. 3).

Bret Responds,

More Jesus Juking. Readers are supposed to feel guilty because our hearts are not focused on the things that the phony Jesus of R2K is focused on.

1.) One pauses to wonder if Christians are not to be about saving the earthly city via evangelism and extending the crown rights of Jesus Christ into every area of life, while at the same time realizing that in this world we have no continuing city then what is the alternative? It seems that the only alternative for R2K is that Christians should focus their hearts on destroying the earthly city. Wait … I guess Christians could also be neutral. But “no”, we all know that neutrality is impossible.

2.) One has to realize that in this whole critique that Gordon offers, Gordon is operating according to his own assumptions of what Christianity is and isn’t. But that’s just the point between R2K/Amil and the CN/Post-mil contest. You see Chris we don’t share your assumptions about what Christianity is and is not and therefore your critiques are so much fiddle faddle. It’s just your opinion Bro. And not a very good one at that.

3.) Our Puritan ancestors certainly were able to focus on the “earthly city” while also keeping an eye toward the heavenly. I don’t know why the R2K crowd feels these are mutually exclusive;

“This hath been no small privilege, and advantage to us in New England that our Churches, and civil State have been planted, and grown up (like two twins) together like that of Israel in the wilderness by which we were put in mind (and had opportunity put into our hands) not only to gather our Churches, and set up the Ordinances of Christ Jesus in them according to the Apostolic pattern by such light as the Lord graciously afforded us: but also withal to frame our civil Polity, and laws according to the rules of His most holy Word whereby each do help and strengthen other (the Churches the civil Authority, and the civil Authority the Churches) and so both prosper the better without such emulation, and contention for privileges or priority as have proved the misery (if not ruin) of both in some other places.” ~

“The Book of General Laws and Liberties Concerning the Inhabitants of of Massachusetts, 1648

Even Zacharias Ursinus understood that Christianity was for the building up of the earthly city;

“A magistrate ought to be a defender of order and discipline among his subjects, as it respects both tables of the Decalogue, and to guard against and prohibit open idolatry and wickedness; and ought also to avoid, as far as it is possible, all offences and occasions to sin that may be given to his subjects by foreigners and sojourners.”

-Zacharias Ursinus

And all this can be done by keeping our minds on Christ.

CG writes,

7. The current movement has made us unprepared for the second coming, as it advances that Jesus cannot return until all the nations are all Christianized.

Bret responds,

It is the teaching of Scripture that Jesus does not return until all His enemies are placed under His feet. Any complaint here CG needs to take up with God’s Revelation.

Jesus taught that only the Father knows the day and hour of His return but until then we are to occupy till He comes. Can R2K really argue that they are busy about “occupying till He comes?”

Quite to the contrary of Gordon’s accusation I think it is R2K/militant A-mil that disorients believers and robs them of their hope.  R2K disorients believers by suggesting that there are some areas where Christ does not explicitly rule. It disorients believers by suggesting that, in the words of John MacArthur, “we lose down here.” It disorients believers by muting pulpits from speaking a “thus saith the Lord,” in economics, education, rearing of children, etc. etc. etc. R2K is fire insurance salvation complete with sweet sickly pietism.

R2K robs of Christians of the hope of seeing their magnificent and full of splendor King being glorified in every area of life. The only hope that R2K holds out to the Christian is their death. R2K offers no hope of Kingdom building for the glory of Christ. R2K robs the Christian the hope of a muscular Christianity that makes the influence of Christ known in every area of life.

As I have said countless times in the past, R2K is a different Christianity then the Christianity that one finds between the pages of Holy Writ and a different Christianity then the Christianity found in Reformed Church History.

I sincerely hope, with all my being, that Chris Gordon keeps writing this kind of material because with each article written R2K is exposed for the fraud Christianity it is. I hope with all my might that Chris continues to interview the CN/post-mill types on his ABG podcast because with each interview he is having his R2K head handed to him. The more he talks the more R2K is discredited.

And I thank God in Christ for that.

 

 

R2K Analysis Of The State Of Christian Nationalism Is Splintered — Part I

Over here;

https://www.agradio.org/blog/the–reformed–version-of-christian-nationalism-is-splintering?fbclid=IwY2xjawFZSq9leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHY1zysOOA4JuIbDu93vAEIEhyY0vVOwhupaEugd7NWtqpXHIv49iSP4FmQ_aem_v4tAR7HN-H87WRcxRU-FkA

Rev. Chris Gordon insists that both postmillennialism and Christian Nationalism is a spent force if indeed it ever was a force. Keep in mind that Chris is infected with the deadly R2K virus and so is writing this from a militant Amillennial perspective. We certainly can’t expect R2K aficionados to be able to correctly analyze non R2K movements. And this is what we find.

The article is outrageously torpid. I thought about just ignoring it but my rage and rend impulse has gotten the better part of me.

We will fisk some of the article below,

Chris Gordon writes,

I’m not sure if people have been following the recent discussions from the key players in the modern Postmillennial movement (yes, I’m making a distinction), often shared with the more recent Christian Nationalist project, but things are not faring well for the movement. The shelf life seems to be expiring on a movement that has no real direction, cohesion, or plan to bring in the Postmillennial vision outside of social media perceptions of grandeur and in house fighting among Christians which now seems to be aimed at each other.

Bret responds,

1.) Postmillennialism believes it is the Holy Spirit who, having brought in the Kingdom in principle, will progressively bring in the Kingdom in history until the Kingdoms of this world become the Kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ. I note this in order to refute Chris’s silly notion that the postmillennialists themselves have to have a plan in see the flowering of the already present Kingdom. God has a plan, and God’s plan can’t be thwarted. This is true even if the postmillennialist themselves are disorganized. Remember, Chris, God is the one who draws straight lines with crooked postmillennial sticks.

2.) Because God has a plan, there is no shelf life on the movement.

3.) The same observation is true for Christian Nationalism as it is for postmillennialism. Since Christian Nationalism is God’s intent it really doesn’t matter if the project fails as from the human side of things. Since Christian Nationalism is God’s project it will come to pass.  The nations will become Christian. Resistance is futile.

4.) Keep in mind that Chris is R2K and being R2K he can’t help but believe that all this is, by definition, impossible. His R2K worldview will never allow him to see any possibility that the Amillennial pessimistic vision could possibly be in error, and it would be seen to be in error if the postmillennial Christian Nationalist intent was unmistakably and indisputably blossoming.

Chrissy writes, 

James White and Stephen Wolfe are now being characterized as being at war with each other, resulting in Jeff Durbin from Apologia “reneging” on his agreement to speak with Wolfe at the upcoming “Right Response Ministries” conference stating, as the reason, “a lack of godly wisdom and interaction displayed by Stephen Wolfe, among other concerns.” Doug Wilson and Stephen Wolfe argued publicly over the “White Boy Summer” video that appeared to many to promote pro-Nazi sentiments. Wilson expressed criticism; Wolfe called for tolerance. It’s clear there are fundamental differences between the two. As one podcast decried, “We have the theonomist crowd, the Moscow crowd, the Ogden Utah crowd, the Apologia Crowd, the Gab crowd, etc. This is an unnecessary war that we don’t need right now.”

Bret responds,

Imagine, if you can, that you’re living in the 16th century and some Roman Catholic apologist writes a internet article on Abounding Dumbarse Radio that it was clear that the Reformation was going nowhere. He could easily write that “Martin Luther is at war with Ulrich Zwingli.” The Roman Catholic providing analysis could note that Knox was at cross purposes with Calvin on female monarchs. Our Roman Catholic prelate could write about all the different views on the sacraments as expressed by all the different Reformers and conclude as Chris has done, “there is a real struggle going on here for power, and precisely which version, that ‘of the coming  Reformation will rise to supremacy, and which figure will rise to the top. And how again does anyone expect them to create a Reformed Europe if they cannot get along among themselves? The movement is clearly divided within itself. As Jesus expressed, such a divided house will be unable to stand together.'”  Clearly, that analysis would have been grossly inaccurate, just as Gordon’s analysis is grossly inaccurate.

From this point Chris gives his reasons for why he thinks that the postmil Christian Nationalism project is failing

Chris writes,

1. The current movement is, inherently, one that has been created on the internet, within social media platforms. 

Bret responds,

If this were true the CREC would not exist. Now, typically, I am not a fan of the CREC because I think that much of it (not all of it) really isn’t pushing the Overton window hard enough. I think they are compromisers. However, all because that is my conviction that doesn’t mean that they aren’t seen by many to have made real impact beyond “social media platforms.”

Then there is the Ogden, Utah group who are likewise making impact with books and conferences where real people show up to be encouraged with the burgeoning Christian Nationalist post-mill movement.

Even here in little Charlotte, Michigan we have moved beyond internet presence with a real Church community plus being taken so seriously beyond the internet that National organizations in the real world have had to arise in order to denounce this very real threat to them.

So, while the internet may have been instrumental in getting the word out, it is not the case that this movement has remained an internet movement.

Chrissy writes,

The current movement has no unified vision.

Bret responds,

I do not think this is true. In point of fact the one thing we all share is the vision. Our differences are not over vision but over strategy and tactics on how to implement the vision. The unified vision is a Christian Nation, being ruled by Christian law (whether Natural or Revelational) to the end of glorifying God. This is something that the Ogden folks desire. This is something the Moscow folks salute… this is something that we Theonomists long for. We all hold on to this unified vision. We merely differ on the tactics and strategy used in order to implement this unified vision, as well as what this unified vision might exactly looks like.

However, as stated above this is not uncommon in history with these kinds of grand movements. If one studies the Marxist/Communist movement in the 19th and early 20th centuries one sees the same kind of splinters in the movement. One had the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks, the Syndcalists, the Anarchists, the Fabians, and others and yet when the time came they all found a common enemy and came to apex, even though before coming to their apex they were at each other’s throats.  Now, naturally, I hate all expressions of Marxism but it still is illustrative of the fact that at some point various splinter factions can come together. How much more true could this be of Christian splinter groups that all have Christ in common even though there is a great deal of infighting going on?

Chrissy writes,

3. It’s unclear how the current movement is demonstrating faith that “Jesus is Lord” in the face of opposition.

Bret responds,

Any trained historian will tell you that “history is messy.” That includes Church history. Crissy complains about how people in different factions of the CN/postmil movement argue and yet certainly Chris has to know how much arguing was going on between the Reformers during the Reformation. If Chris had been alive in 1525 I can just envision him writing, “it’s hard for us to see how spending the day arguing and complaining about the wicked (church) is doing any good for society in general.”

Sometimes, I think these kind of complaints are driven by a jealousy that the R2K movement can’t manage to “gather masses of young men” who talk theology all day long. Keep in mind, dear reader, that R2K has its own hero worship. This looks a great deal like the pot calling the kettle black. For example Chris complains about these masses of young men sitting front of a screen all day all the while missing the irony that he is sitting in front of a screen complaining about young men who will be reading off a screen all that he is writing. Et tu Brutus? Doesn’t Chris know that “productive people are not doing this?”

Finally, Chris complains about a lack of foot soldiers among the CN/postmil types. I would bet the farm that the people I know who are being thrown in jail for protesting abortion clinics (as one example) are definitely NOT R2K. Another friend of mine is facing a huge court imposed fine because he was out protesting the wickedness in our society. I would guess though this kind of being a servant to our enemies doesn’t count in Gordon’s world.

However, resisting our enemies is definitely an act of love towards our Liege Lord and towards our enemies.

Twin Spin From Dr. P. Andrew Sandlin … More “Theology” With The Smell Of Sulfur

The young new church nazis find the Imago Dei troublesome because it reflects the unity of humanity in God’s created order: all humans are created in the image of God. That unity is a threat to white nationalism, just as white nationalism is a threat to the gospel of Jesus Christ (read Galatians). And it is more than marginally ironic that many of these same younglings that champion “nature” are at war with God’s created order.

P. Andrew “Andy” Sandlin
Theologian — A Really Bad One 

1.) If the Imago Dei stamps out white nationalism suggesting that all men are the same then it stamps out differentiation between the sexes. Andy can’t have it both ways. Either the Imago Dei allows for distinctions among peoples to exist or it requires that we lose the distinctions between men and women.

In the end, Sandlin is not arguing for unity. The idiot is arguing for uniformity. He has lost the diversity in the idea of “The One and The Many.” Sandlin is advocating for social order monism.  Sandlin might as well just find a good Unitarian church to place his membership.

2.) In the end here, Sandlin has baptized the doctrine of egalitarianism. The suggestion here is that because all men equally bear the Imago Dei therefore all men are equal in terms of abilities and predispositions. Further, Sandlin is suggesting that anyone who disagrees with his kindergarten theology is a “Nazi” (insert gasp).

Christianity has always taught that men are only equal inasmuch as they are all equally made of dirt and inasmuch as they all stand as responsible before and are obligated to God and His law and inasmuch as they all have a sin nature.

3.) Even the unity in the Christian faith that Sandlin might appeal to is squashed in terms of meaning all converted peoples are the same. Converted Urdu people will not be the same as converted Mongolian or Intuit peoples. Grace does not destroy nature but restores it. Sandlin’s appeal to “unity” because of the Imago Dei does not even work if cast in the context of converted people groups. Neither the common ground of the Imago Dei, nor the common ground of conversion drives the uniformity that Sandlin aims at. In terms of putting all this in the context of the Church even St. Paul notes that different people (and we would say peoples as well) have different gifts to bring to the body in order to help the body to excel.

4.) By denying these very real racial/ethnic distinctions Sandlin is a functional Gnostic. He does not believe in the material reality that God has created us with. He seems to think that the spiritual reality of being Imago Dei complete negates our creaturely humanness in all its variegated expressions. Have these people never read a weighty book on the Church’s first heresy called Gnosticism?

5.) Understand where all this is going for Sandlin. This appeal to the “unity” of the human race because of Imago Dei is greasing the rails for normativity of inter-racial marriages, cross-racial adoptions and multicultural “social order,” driven by saluting open borders. It is a theology hellbent on completing the destruction of a once Christian people.

Now, I’ll grant that Andy doesn’t realize the implications of his position but his inability to think consequentially does not mean what I’ve observed is any less true. At best Andy’s inability to connect dots means he’s merely stupid and not instead just plain wicked.

6.) Pray tell what is Andy going to do with me. I am no youngling and so he can’t cast that implied aspersion at me. Honestly, except for a few old timer chaps like Chambers, Mahan, and I, it is the younglings who are spot on in resisting this Nietzschean will to death that we find so prevalent among the Sandlins, Doug Wilsons, Al Mohlers, etc.

7.) Honestly, the sting of being called a “Nazi” has lost its bite. Like the accusation of “racist” it means very little to those who have eyes wide open to the Babel project. Call me a “Nazi?” Shrug … it’s like calling me a “edofix.” It means nothing to me.  I know in your world Andy it is the greatest insult you can find but those who have gotten past the post-war liberal consensus just don’t give a rat’s arse about your slurs.

“It is just as erroneous — and pernicious — to equate culture with race as it is to equate intelligence with race. Culture’s characteristics are shaped by religion, not by race, easily proven by the fact that virtually all races have at different times and locations reflected godly religion and its wholesome characteristics, as well as ungodly religion and its unwholesome characteristics.

The issue is always religion, never race.”
P. Andrew “Andy” Sandlin
Theologian — A Really Bad One

1.) I don’t know of anybody within the Ogden Utah group, among the Kinists I hang with, among the Natural Law Nationalist who try to equate culture with race as if there is a one to one correspondence.

2.) However, there is an understanding among many that race is a contributory factor to culture along with race. Indeed, a good definition of culture is theology poured over ethnicity. To deny that genetics have anything to do with culture, and arguing instead that all culture is, is what goes on between someone’s ears is to, once again, profess allegiance to a Gnostic faith. Scripture teaches “as a man thinketh in his heart, so he is,” but notice that there is a man who is thinking here and that thinking man is the repository of generations of genetics. The material/corporeal is real people. God’s grace does not make who we are in our creaturely genetics disappear.

3.) To argue like Andy does here (and it’s not just Andy of the Boomer Evangelicals who are arguing in this fashion) leaves one arguing that nature means nothing in the nurture vs. nature debate. Sanlindism looks to mean that if men can just be programmed to believe the right things then nature means nothing. Again … Gnosticism.

4.) I think it is disputable that all ethnicities at one time or another have embraced Christianity to such a degree that whole civilizations were built. However, for the sake of argument let us grant Sandlin’s premise. Is he really trying to argue that a Pygmy Christian culture is going to look the same as a Japanese Christian culture or a Hottentot Christian culture? It is mind-boggling to think that the man might actually be arguing something like this.

5.) Of course race alone is not equated to culture… but neither can it be said that religion alone is equated to culture. Culture is the interplay between religion and genetics — between theology and who God created us to be in all of our corporeality. Culture is the outward manifestation of a peoples’ inward beliefs. However, as different peoples are, well, different, then even if different peoples’ embrace the same theology there cultures will not be or look the same. A Christian Peruvian people are never going to look the same as a Christian Ndebele people are never going to look the same as a Christian Cornish people. To think otherwise puts one on the wrong side of Babel.

6.) St. Paul destroys Sandlinism when he talks about the particular besetting of the Crete people. All peoples do not look the same in their rebellion against God and His Christ. Different peoples will express their fallenness each in their own unique way as peculiar to their own people group.

I am a postmillennialist and so I know that the ideas of these chaps will be put down. Still, I pray that God might be gracious to them before they die and grant them repentance. I have no doubt that they may well be Brothers but even as Paul had stern words at times for Brothers so stern words are required here.

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;

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