Toby Sumpter Defines What “Anti-Semitism” Is … McAtee Demurs

“1. It is anti-semitic to stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the uncanny number of Bagels who have made breakthroughs in science, technology, and medicine and have done remarkably good things for the human race.”

 

Toby Sumpter

Author of Blog — No Legs, Still Walking

 

Bret responds,

Sure … as long as we also don’t stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the uncanny number of of Bagels who have persecuted and killed Christians throughout the ages and who have been a remarkable evil unto the human race

TS writes,

2. It is anti-semitic to consider the Bagels as a race to be uniquely malevolent, that is, uniquely responsible for the evils done in the world.

Bret responds,

So we are supposed to acknowledge the remarkable good Bagels have done for the human race but we are not supposed to read history and note how Bagels are uniquely malevolent and uniquely responsible for many many evils done in the world.

Kind of like genociding Palestinians in Gaza?

TS writes,

3. It is anti-semitic to refuse to allow Jews the basic human right of self-preservation, self-determination as a people and a nation, and the right of self-defense.

Bret responds,

What was it called when the West and Bagels refused to allow the Palestinian people the basic human right of self-preservation, self-determination as a people and a nation and the right of self-defense?

See the books by Steven Sizer and Allison Weir.

Does Old Toby even know about the Deir Yassin Massacre (April 1948)? Or the other various massacres by the IDF visited upon the Palestinian people?

TS writes,

4. It is anti-semitic to refuse to acknowledge certain social, cultural, and political commonalities that will often exist between Bagels and Christians who take the Old Testament seriously.

Bret responds,

LOL … what Bagels take the OT seriously Toby? Didn’t Jesus Himself make the point that the Bagels did not take the OT seriously? Toby… have you ever heard of the Talmud? Ever read any of it? Have you heard of the Kabbalah Toby? What universe are you occupying Toby?

TS writes,

5. It is anti-semitic to refuse any assistance or alliance with Israel in those areas of common conviction solely based on the fact that they are Bagels.

Bret responds,

BUT it is not anti-Semitic to refuse any assistance or alliance with Israel in those areas of common conviction unless they quit impoverishing us as a nation.

See

Toby writes,

6. It is anti-semitic to refuse to acknowledge that Bagels are in any way uniquely poised to receive the gospel because of their Old Testament heritage or as “natural branches” cut off from the Old Covenant that may be more easily grafted back into the New Covenant in Christ.

Bret responds,

Misinterpretation of Romans 11 which was fulfilled by AD 70. Romans 11 was future to those who received the letter at the time but it is past to us.

I refuse to acknowledge that Bagels are in any way uniquely poised to receive the gospel because of their OT heritage or their being “natural branches.”

In point of fact the Scripture is clear that God has divorced National Israel and while individual Bagels may indeed be redeemed, Israel as a nation has been cut off never to produce fruit again. Israel was cursed for rejecting their Messiah and had until AD 70 before the divorce papers were served to the nation of Israel.

Toby Sumpter, following Doug Wilson has no idea what Anti-Semitism is or is not.

One can disagree with all these points Toby made and still not be an Anti-Semite.

The Ideas Of Calvin Seminary’s Coming Stob Lecture Guest Needs Diagonalized

“No poles of two ideas are 100% true, there is always a middle paradox or diagonal answer.”

Christopher Watkin
Biblical Critical Theory – pg. 17-18
Christianity Astray — Book of the Year

So, if this is true as an idea it means it is not 100% true and that in it, when combined with the idea that of two ideas one must be 100% true we can find a middle paradox or diagonal answer that also by definition cannot be 100% true and likewise must be met with its opposite idea yielding another idea that likewise can not be 100% true add infinitum.

Can you say … dialectical?

Book of the year? Does not that idea, which cannot be 100% true, since there are people who are on the other pole whose idea is this book is the trash of the year die of the need for diagonalization?

Calvin Seminary is having this guy speak at their Stob lecture series and he will be saying all kinds of stuff that clearly cannot be, by his own standard, 100% true and will be in need of some diagonalization.

If I were there, and if there was a Q & A time I would file to the microphone and simply ask;

“Are your ideas 100% true and if they are 100% true does that not make them therefore not true since there are people like me who say your ideas are not true?”

Dr. Watkin, aren’t your ideas presented this evening in need of diagonalization?

Michigan Chief Deputy Superintendent Dr. Sue Carnell’s Refusal To Affirm That There Are Only Two Genders

Recently, Michigan Chief Deputy Superintendent Dr. Sue Carnell refused to affirm when before a Michigan legislative committee that there are only two genders. Carnell, when asked; “How many genders are there,” responded by saying that “different people have different beliefs on that.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/michigan-education-official-dodges-question-on-how-many-genders-there-are/vi-AA1QDnQV#details

This gender confusion ideology is not just a political fad—it is a mechanism for erasing objective truth. A society that becomes uncertain as to whether there are two genders or more than two and which cannot define what a man is or what a woman is will eventually lose all capacity to define anything. The erasure of the ability to clearly define male and female is the pursuit, via the backdoor, of achieving egalitarianism in meaning. If the clearest example of a meaningful distinction can not be asserted then no other meaningful distinction can be asserted with the result that meaning is egalitarian … that is all meaning potentially means the same thing.

This Gender confusion is the deliberate erasure of the foundations of family, faith, morality, and culture. The Cultural Marxist Left understands this. That’s why they push it so aggressively in schools. If you can destabilize a child’s sense of meaning of identity, you can reshape their beliefs on the meaning of everything else.

There is also another purpose to the madness of gender confusion and trannie-ism. If the State can force people to accept this lie then it can force them to accept any brutality descending from the State in terms of truth matters. Indeed, the more absurd the lie the State can push the better because the more it breaks down the idea of absolute truth the more it becomes the arbiter of all meaning. When this linguistic deception continues apace people will become cynical about all truth claims when they are forced to accept a truth claim that is obviously not true. So, this kind of lie serves the purpose of conditioning the people to be receptive of any and all propaganda claims coming from the State.

The only way to push back is to take up Solzhenitsyn’s motto of “live not by lies.”

By way of addendum, we would add that Natural Law clearly teaches that there are only two genders yet because Michigan Chief Deputy Superintendent Dr. Sue Carnell suppresses the truth in unrighteousness she will not state that there are only two genders.

So, we see here again, that Natural Law clearly teaches that there are only two Genders (a painfully obvious truth) but because fallen man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness fallen man wants to say that there are many genders as there are Baskin-Robbins ice cream flavors.

Natural Law is no reliable source for organizing a social order.

Natural Law & The Image Of God

The fallen man denies that he is the image of God. This is a major revelation of Natural Law and yet fallen man denies this testimony of Natural Law suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and insisting that he most certainly not God’s image bearer.

Now, if the fallen man get this most obvious of Natural Law truths wrong because of his suppression mechanism then how can Natural Law be the fallen man’s guide to life except inasmuch as Natural Law serves fallen man’s to climb up into God’s lap in order to slap God in the face.

Example – The sodomite might agree that Natural Law teaches marriage (climbing up in God’s lap) but only with the purpose of marrying his male consort (slapping God in the face).

So, it may be the case that fallen man will get natural law right from time to time but it always ends up being stolen capital in order to get his Christ denying worldview off the ground. No anti-Christ worldview can ever be perfectly anti-Christ consistent. If it were it could never last since all perfectly anti-Christ worldviews end up in the graveyard. As such all anti-Christ worldviews sneak Christian capital into them in order to be successful enough not to kill themselves.

Contra Cody Justice On Natural Law

Cody Justice writes,

“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handywork… their line is gone out through all the earth. God left not himself without witness, in that he gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons. Consider the ravens… consider the lilies, how they grow. Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise. After the doings of the land of Egypt… shall ye not do, and after the doings of the land of Canaan… shall ye not do. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made… who changed the natural use… for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature… and the men likewise… receiving in themselves that recompence of their error. Who knowing the judgment of God that they which commit such things are worthy of death. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law… which shew the work of the law written in their hearts… their conscience also bearing witness. Doth not even nature itself teach you…?”

(Psalm 19:1–4; Acts 14:17; Luke 12:24–28; Proverbs 6:6; Leviticus 18:3; Romans 1:20, 26–27, 32; Romans 2:14–15; 1 Corinthians 11:14).

Bret responds,

Once again Cody as a rabid Natural Law advocate shows up to declare what God has made known. No theonomist/presuppositionalist disagrees that God has made Himself known via Natural Law. This is red herring argumentation on Cody’s part. What the Theonomist contends is the even though God has made himself known, fallen man, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, and having a mind that is at warfare with God, works to the end to insist that he does not know what God has made clear. In order to know what God has made clear fallen man must be regenerated so as to be instructed by Scripture which alone is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training for righteousness.

Here we follow the Synod of Dordt;

The Synod Dort on the effectiveness of Natural Law;

Third & Fourth Head

Article 4

“There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay, further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.”

So, we appreciate Cody stepping up the plate here but we see that it is in the words of the great Detroit Tigers play by play man, Ernie Harwell…

“A swing and a miss.”

Cody writes,

Nature is everywhere “presupposed” in the God-breathed Scripture as a moral teacher, both about right and wrong and about God. It is not this because Scripture says so; it is this inherently, and Scripture attests to and confirms it.

Bret
Without presupposing God and His Word we don’t even know what nature is or means. Remember, in Christ all things consist. This includes the idea of “nature,” and the idea of all meaning. Even man the knower cannot know himself apart from presupposing God and the Scriptures, never mind knowing nature. I will say it again for those hard of hearing… “While it is the case that nature has inherent meaning that inherent meaning can not be known who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” To insist otherwise is to deny the Reformed doctrine of total depravity.

Then there is the fact that nature is fallen — red in tooth and claw as some have it. So, you have fallen man, reading fallen nature and coming to un-fallen and proper conclusions?

Cody writes,

Nature does not exist apart from God. It is because God made it, and it, as creation, reflects the Creator. He expects us (believer or not) to use it well, and if we don’t he will hold us accountable.

Bret responds,

1.) God made nature and nature finds its meaning only by the one presupposing God and His Word as the one who created nature.

2.) Fallen man cannot use nature well and that is because he was ruined in Adam and so no experiences total depravity. This total depravity works to the end of twisting everything (including Natural Law) to the end of man serving himself as fallen and not God. After all the carnal mind is at enmity (warfare) against God. It cannot submit (Romans 8:7).

3.) By insisting that fallen man can read fallen nature aright you are doing exactly what Van Til spoke of. You are sneaking stolen Christian capital into your humanist epistemology in order to get it off the ground and operating in order to deny the necessity of presupposing God and His Word to understand real reality. You are climbing up in God’s lap in order to slap Him in the face. You are saying that there is meaningful meaning (climbing up in God’s lap) but that that meaningful meaning can be known even by those who hate God and His Word (slapping God in the face.)

We should also say something here about Cody’s misinterpretation of Romans 2.

Is Thomistic Natural Law … Legitimate?   Part II