Category: Apologetics

The Current Hegelian Dialectic Exposed

The Hegelian dialectic contains a theory of history believed by the Marxist to be the means by which history is manipulated by the Marxists. It presupposes that there is no God and that history is materialistic and can be directed.

I propose that this is the Hegelian dialectic that is being worked on us by the New World Order repeatedly in the context of Color Revolution.

Wash, rinse, and repeat over and over again.

Thesis

Creation and or magnification of crises and problems. Financial panic, war, artificial shortages of basic commodities, gun and violence awareness.

The more problems factored into the equation, the swifter political and socio-economic changes can be accomplished; as in the former Soviet Union.

Antithesis

Use of the media, puppets, and other communication (podcasts Carlson, Owen, Fuentes, etc.) to focus attention to the crises and mobilize the opposition to the problem.

Synthesis

Offers the solution to the artificially created or magnified problems of step one. The sweeping changes succeed only because of the well orchestrated dispensation of social propaganda during the incubation process and ensuing panic period. The masses consent to otherwise intolerable socio-economic reform (Mahmdani in NYC, Katie Wilson in Seattle, Jacob Frey in Minneapolis, etc.) with little or no resistance.

Answering DeYoung’s Six Questions

DeYoung asks;

Question #1: Do you unequivocally renounce antisemitism, racism, and Nazism? antisemitism, racism, and Nazism.

That is to say, do you hold to any of the following: (1) a disdain for Jewish people and a belief that a secret cabal of Jews are responsible for a litany of evils in our world, (2) a disdain for non-Whites and a belief in the mental and spiritual inferiority of Blacks, and (3) an appreciation for Adolf Hitler and a belief that Nazis were the misunderstood good guys in World War II? I know I haven’t provided technical definitions for these isms or sought to substantiate my insinuation that all three are sinful and abhorrent. But that’s the point. Most people don’t need a lot of nuance to condemn Kevin  I commend Christian Nationalists like Doug Wilson who have called out these destructive sympathies on the right. It should be a simple thing to reject these ideologies and make clear that they have no place in conservatism, in Christianity, or in Christian Nationalism.

Bret responds,

Up until WW II it was a widely embraced consensus that a secret cabal of Jews were responsible for a litany of evils in our world. Men like Hilaire Belloc, G. K. Chesterton, Abraham Kuyper, and Winston Churchill spilled copious measures of ink on the problem of the Bagels. Government officials sent missives back to their respective governments detailing that the Russian Revolution was a Bolshevik Jewish Revolution. Church history is peppered with Church councils having to deal with the problem of the Bagels throughout the centuries. For DeYoung to pretend that our Fathers have not struggled with how to contain the Bagels given their propensity to be responsible for a litany of evils is just DeYoung whistling past the graveyard or it is a case of monumental and decided ignorance of history on DeYoung’s part.

In terms of DeYoung’s (2) above I can only direct him to read Charles Murray’s 1994 “The Bell Curve.” He can find it on PDF if he is interested.

In terms of my attitude towards blacks … it is best summed up by 19th century J. H. Thornwell;

“The Negro is one blood with ourselves — that he has sinned as we have, and that he has has an equal interest with us in the great Redemption. Science, falsely so called, may attempt to exclude him from the brotherhood of humanity…. but the instinctive impulses of our nature combined with the plainest declaration of the Word of God, lead us to recognize in his form and lineaments — his moral, religious, and intellectual nature — the same humanity in which we glory as the image of God. We are not ashamed to call him our brother.”

Dr. James Henley Thornwell

Sermon — Rights and Duties of Masters

In terms of DeYoung’s (3) above, I again accuse the man of historical illiteracy. Keep in mind that folks today who might be reconsidering Hitler might be doing so because they are also reconsidering Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, etc.

I for one view Hitler as a villain because I believe it is entirely possible that he was a creation of the same forces that crushed him. I believe he was created in order to be crushed. I don’t believe Hitler was a villain because of his desire to protect Germans from the Communist threat that was promised to pour over Europe. I also believe that the US joined hands with a mass murderer when they held hands with Stalin as allies in WW II and as such I have disdain for that generation of leadership. At least Patton got it right (too late) to note that, “we may have been fighting the wrong enemy (Germany) all along.”

DeYoung here is playing the struggle session card and is expecting folks to jump at his a-historical posturing. Folks can say, “If forced to choose between Hitler and Stalin, I would have chosen Hitler,” without thereby communicating that they are Hitler fans.

I encourage Rev. DeYoung to read Antony’s Sutton;

“Wall Street & The Rise Of Hitler.”

Maybe he will learn something that might be helpful to his ridiculous reading of history.

Which Came First; The Way R2K “Reformed” Chaps “Reason” Or The Way Baptists Reason?

“Is it true that there is “no neutrality” in the cosmos? Here are several thoughts on the “Christ vs. Chaos” mindset:

1. Yes, Christ is Lord. Amen!

2. Yes, all people are called to submit to Christ’s Lordship.

3. At the level of the human person, we really are in either Christ or chaos, then.

4. But this does not follow for institutions and nations and stores and the public square. These entities are nowhere Christianized in the New Testament.

5. Jesus does not teach that Caesar is “neutral,” exactly, but Jesus does teach us to render to Caesar what is due Caesar (Matthew 22:21).

6. So too does Peter tell us to honor the emperor (1 Peter 2) in an era when the emperor was decidedly not Christian.

7. All this means that while the public square isn’t “neutral,” it’s also not savable like the human person is.

8. Nowhere in the NT do governments or stores or schools get saved.

9. We believers seek to influence the public square and the cultural order in a serious way; that’s what being “salt and light” means (Matthew 5:13-14).”

Owen Strachan
Provost – Grace Bible Theological Seminary  (Baptist)

Bret Responds;

1.) For Owen, Christ is Lord except when Christ isn’t Lord. Christ is Lord over the individual but Christ can’t be Lord in any kind of Institution among men where the men in that Institution resolve together to operate that Institution as Christian Men.

2.) For Owen all people are called to submit to Christ’s Lordship until they start to work together in some kind of corporate endeavor. Once you put more than one person together with another person to sell widgets or Lemonade then the requirement to submit to Christ’s Lordship ends.

3.) Agreed, as far as Owen goes here.

4.) First here, note that Owen restricts his Bible to the NT. Quite to the contrary of Owen we note that the Scriptures are comprised of both the OT and NT.

Second, if “institutions and nations and stores and the public square” are not to be Christianized then what is left? Does Owen realize that Mooselimbs, Bagels, and Hindus are not going to reason that “institutions, and nations, and stores and the public square” are not to be Islamicized, Judaized, or Hinduized. So, Owen, like R2K, would argue for a religiously naked public square but will provide no answer to the conundrum that Mooselimbs, and Bagels, and Hindus, and Atheists will pursue with definite conviction a public square, a nation, and Institutions that are beholden to their demon gods?

Frankly, as I have said repeatedly in connection with R2K this kind of reasoning is not just off, it is monumentally stupid and worse yet it is dangerous because if pursued by all Christians as living in a multicultural setting it means the success of Mooselimbs, Bagels, Hindus, etc. to roll Christ off the throne in the public square. It means the persecution of the Christian faith. It means Dhimmitude status.

Look, the hour is late and we no longer can just smile and shake our heads at these R2K/Lutheran/Baptist idiots. Their theology is a theology of absolute abject surrender. It is a theology that is embraced by people who hate their children, hate their neighbors, and worse of all hate their God.

5.) It is true that Jesus said to render unto God the things that are God’s and to render unto Caesar the things are Caesar’s. This, by necessity, means that we, as Christians, must render Caesar and all he claims to God since Caesar is a thing that belongs to God. If Caesar can find anything that is uniquely is and not God’s and I will be sure to render that thing unto Caesar.

6.) It is true, that we are to honor the King. However, that honor due to the King does not exceed our responsibility to honor the King of Kings and so if it is the case that the Emperor becomes in his duties an “Anti-Emperor” then Christians are duty bound to honor the office of Emperor by throwing him out on his keister.

7.) If the public square is not neutral then the public square must be rendered unto Christ as King since the public square belongs to Him. We are sinning if, as Christians, we do not render the public square unto Christ. If Christian men and women render the public square unto Christ, I’ll be glad to let Christ worry about whether or not the public square is salvable.

8.) Christianity has such an effect that when it is introduced into the bloodstream of a nation, public square, or Institution it completely turns that nation, public square, and Institution on its head. See the account in Ephesus recorded in Acts 19:23f. There we see a city fighting against being saved.

9.) It seems that Owen desires Christians to salt and influence the public square much like the seasoning oregano season a tomato dish. Owen can’t envision where the salting and influencing rises to the point to be the dish served and not merely the seasoning.

I suspect that, like R2K, Owen is not postmillennial and so is retrofitting his theology to fit his a-priori eschatology.

Rev. Chris Gordon Advises Christians That The Public Square Does Not Belong To Christ

“Your premise here is that the public square is ours to take back. Prove that. I don’t see how the public square is ours to take back for our purposes in light of Belgic 13 (on God’s Providence).”

Rev. Chris Gordon
Interview w/ Wilson & Gordon
48:00f time stamp

1.) So Gordon’s premise here is that the public square belongs to another god and the people of another god and so God’s people shouldn’t be concerned since the public square does not belong to Christ?

2.) Gordon’s required proof is found in Psalm 2.

3.) Belgic 13 is on God’s providence and really has absolutely zero to do with whether we should or should not take back the public square. Whether or not Christians should or should not take the back the public square is answered by the fact that the public square is Christ’s public square.

4.) Keep in mind that Gordon’s counsel here is counsel of surrender to the false gods who will arrange the public square in their image if Christ is not publicly acknowledged once again as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

R2K’s Immanentizing of the Eschaton

The R2K fanboys love to accuse theonomists, postmillennialists and Kuyperians of trying to bring in the Kingdom of God by their own efforts. In point of fact this is projection on the R2K lads part because it is they who, by their dualisms seeking to bring in the Kingdom of God on earth. This is so because the R2K chaps desire to relativize people and place in pursuit of immanentizing the eschaton. R2K insists that the Kingdom of God serves as the blood and soil for all Christians and as such there is no need to embrace our blut und boden. In the very act of doing this they are seeking to help along the coming of the Kingdom. The very thing they accuse the theonomists, postmillennialists and Kuyperians of.

R2K accuses their opponents of holding a position where grace swallows nature but in reality it is R2K, in its insistence that place and people are realized in the “Spiritual Kingdom of God” – to such a degree that blood and soil disappear in grace – who are the ones who are guilty of holding a position where grace swallows up nature. This is ironic because R2K insists that their position honors the grace realm but the minute R2K goes the next step, as Rev. Chris Gordon did in his interview with Dr. Stephen Wolfe, and says now that we are all Christians we can intermarry grace is swallowing up nature. At this point their dualisms slingshots into a grace monism where grace and nature are indistinguishable and that all in the name of Christ.

R2K would do well to listen to John Calvin here;

“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

John Calvin (Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3)

R2K does mix up nature by insisting that grace destroys nature so much that Christians should routinely practice inter-racial marriage. R2K is championed by those who Calvin rightly described as “flighty and scatterbrained dreamers.”

Thanks to Chrissy Gordon I see that there is definite linkage between R2K and Alienism. Because R2K can’t use the word “Christian” adjectivally (as in Christian Nation) combined with R2K’s commitment that Galatians 3 and Ephesians 2 proves that all racial/ethnic markers are obliterated by the Gospel, R2K is really part of the Cultural Marxist project. One might say, given Chrissy’s explanation of R2K in his interview with Wolfe, that R2K is the egalitarianism weaponized as Christian theology.

This means anyone who opposes Alienism must oppose R2K.

What Chrissy has taught me is that as neither religion nor ethnicity can be used to define a nation. A nation thus seems to be reduced to a gathering of people who dwell in a shared advantageous economic zone. These people might and might not share a common language and history but the tie that really binds is a shared investment in a hybrid Marxism & Gnosticism.