Category: Apologetics

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!” 

Exposing The Nakedness Of R2K On The Noahic Covenant

“The pluralism of the Noahic covenant requires members of the human community, Christians included, to cultivate the virtue of tolerance. Tolerance is a proper feature of justice in our fallen but pressured world.”

David VanDrunen
Politics After Christendom

In R2K “theology” The Noahic covenant was a covenant that applied to all mankind and not merely the redemptive line. It was a common grace covenant. This means therefore that in the public square we must realize that God rules by Natural Law and because the public square is the space of common grace where all men interact, therefore the public square must be characterized by tolerance (principled pluralism). This means that no one God can be uniquely God of the public square since God, via the Noahaic covenant has ordained that the public square is a realm of common grace and not saving grace.

Therefore tolerance is the virtue of all virtues as it relates to the public square. The Noahic covenant including all mankind is the basis of a required tolerance in and for the public square.

However, if the Noahic covenant was NOT an expression of the one redemptive covenant of grace as per Van Drunen and the R2K boys then we should not have found in the Noahic covenant;

1.) Noah as a High Priest
2.) Making sacrifice
3.) On an altar
4.) Wherein God takes pleasure
5.) And provides a covenantal sign
6.) to not destroy mankind
7.) so that He can continue to Redeem his people from the world

The Noahic covenant IS an expression of the one redemptive covenant of Grace. David Van Drunen and the R2K lads are full of Shedd’s Nutty Peanut Butter.

The Noahic covenant is made with Noah — God’s representative covenant head — and Noah’s household. This clues us in immediately that this covenant is indeed a redemptive covenant since it is a covenant made with those who have experienced God’s redemption. (Note also that the language, in speaking to Noah and His household, is the same kind of language used when God makes covenant with Abraham.)

We thus finding continuity with the sacrificial, typological, and gracious character continued with the Abrahamic covenant, which in turn teaches us that the Noahic covenant is continuous with God’s unfolding of the one covenant of grace. Now, one of the bits of additional revelational information about the one covenant of grace that we get with the Noahic covenant is that the covenant of grace includes provision that will sustain all creatures so that all creatures can experience providential benefits that are the residual effects of God’s redeeming of his particular people.

From this we learn that the Noahic covenant is not directly made with all people, though the Noahic covenant has an indirect and consequential effect on all people. This means that Van Drunen is clearly in error when he teaches that the Noahic covenant is a common grace covenant that is non-Redemptive and if the R2K project is in error at this point it fails completely. Do not misunderstand this point. If the Van Drunen (R2K) interpretation of the Noahic covenant fails then the whole idea of a common rule fails and the whole idea of Natural Law ruling the common realm fails. So also falls the R2K allegiance to principled pluralism as a Christian virtue fails. It all comes tumbling down.

Whether one views the Noahic covenant as a administration of the one covenant of grace or views it as a kind of gracious interruptus that teaches a common grace covenant what we must say is that the difference here ends up being a continental divide in one’s theology, personality and character. If it is true that as a man thinketh in his heart so he is, the thinking on this point ends up making HUGE difference all the way down the line. The implications are MONUMENTAL.

Because of the vast implications we would offer that the theologoumenon  (a theological statement which is of individual opinion and not doctrine) of the non-redemptive Noahic covenant is a mischievous heresy, and ought to be prosecuted in Church courts as such. Such an opinion is anti-Christological to the core. See Col 1 and Eph 1.  The fact that such an opinion should be prosecuted in Church courts is all the more necessary because this trash doctrine is being used to lock people out of ordination.

Every administration of the one covenant of grace brings a further expansion of revelational insight into the meaning of that one covenant of grace. As such, to insist that the Noahic covenant was NOT an expression of the one covenant of grace, but was instead merely a “common covenant” as R2K does is a ham-fisted handling of the covenant of Grace. Only someone trained at a Jesuit College could figure out how to so convincingly bollix up the history of redemption found in covenant theology.

The Noble Savage & Its Continued Impact

In Rousseau’s worldview the one to be esteemed was the noble savage. The noble savage was the one untouched and untainted by Christianity or civilization. The noble savage hadn’t been polluted with the sin of the social order environment. He was the one in touch with his purified self.

Today the theory of the “Noble Savage” lives on in the Western worldview EXCEPT the noble savage is no longer the indigenous people so much as it is the warped and perverted. However, the virtue of the noble savage myth is still anchored in the one who hasn’t been tainted or polluted by Christianity or civilization just as was true of the indigenous people in the 17th century. As such the Noble Savage is now the sodomite, or the transgender or the pederasts or the feminists. These alone have been untouched by a sinful environment and alone can show the way to enlightenment and understanding.

Because this is so, the modern noble savage is raised up on the totem of social importance. The modern noble savage has more being than anyone else and so is admired and emulated.

Rosseau lives and the West dies.

Nationalism – because the magic dirt theory is just plain stupid.

“The World has never before known a godlessness as organised, miltarised and tenaciously malevolent as that preached by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin and at the heart of their psychology, HATRED OF GOD is the principle driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends, Communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails a destruction of faith and nationhood. Communists proclaim both of these objectives openly, and just as openly puts them into practice.”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

And yet legion is the name of the Christian clergy who are adamantly opposed to Christian Nationalism, opposed to nations being regulated by God’s Law-Word, opposed to Magistrates taking oaths of fealty to the Kingship of Jesus Christ, opposed to the overt presence of the vilest of idols in the public square and opposed to our children being educated in all disciplines in relation to the reality of the God who is and who reigns over all.

Of course all of this is driven by a dualism that separates out the Lordship of Jesus Christ as over the public square. Over one hundred years ago Dutch Reformed Theologian Dr. Herman Bavinck complained of the same;

“Therefore Christ has also a message for home and society, for art and science. Liberalism chose to limit its power and message to the heart and the inner chamber, declaring that its kingdom was not of this world. But if the kingdom is not of, it is certainly in this world, and is intended for it. The word of God, which comes to us in Christ, is a word of liberation and restoration for the whole man, for his understanding of his will, for his body and his soul.

. . . It [the Gospel] does not kill but makes alive. It does not wound but

heals. It is pure grace. And this grace does not cancel nature but establishes and restores it.”

Herman Bavinck
 The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church

Clearly, those members of the clergy who oppose Christian Nationalism do not understand that Christ’s sovereignty is totalistic. Of course, these folks who oppose Christ and Christian nationalism don’t really oppose the general concept of religious nationalism. They merely oppose Christian nationalism. We know this because since there is no such thing as neutrality — I mean it is Jesus the Christ who said; “He does not gather with me, scatters” — there is no such thing as a non-god controlled public square. Even if our clergy lock out Jesus Christ and His Lordship from the public square by opposing Christian Nationalism, they still support the Lordship of some other pissant god. Most generally the pissant god in question is the State God who determines just how far any of the various public square gods can exercise their will in the public square. Sorry folks …. Jesus Christ doesn’t share dominion time with some other pissant god.

Clergy who oppose Christian Nationalism oppose the Jesus Christ of the Bible in favor of a toothless, fangless, tamed Jesus Christ of their own making are to be pitied because on that final day their made up Jesus is going to be meeting the real Jesus. It won’t be pretty.

The Inescapable Nature Of “Racism”

“Antiracism” permits many people to practice racism vicariously by adopting the cause of every race but their own.

Wilmot Robertson
The Dispossessed Majority

Think of those people who are advocating for more immigration or for amnesty or for open borders or for a muscular HB1 visa program. In that advocacy, those people have not avoided being champions for a particular race and they have not avoided being racist as against a particular people. They have not shed themselves of “racism.” Instead, they have taken up the cause for the stranger and the alien as against their own people. They are demonstrating that they desire the stranger and alien to rise higher than the native born. They have determined to render an inheritance to the stranger as opposed to their own children. What they have not done is eliminated their own ethnic bias. They simply now are biased against their people and are biased for those who are displacing their extended family.

“Racism” as it is cast about today had not gone away. They merely have embraced the most fashionable “racism” — “Racism” against their own kin and people. This is an example of self-hatred (oikaphobia) in favor of a muscular xenophilia (love of the stranger and alien). In all this we see that “racism” (stupid Marxist concept that it is) is an inescapable category. No-one ever rids themselves of racism. One merely eschews a non PC racism for a PC racism.

So, if racism is an inescapable category shouldn’t we have a proper order of loves that finds us properly prioritizing our own people, and that without hating those who do not land within the concentric circles of properly ordered love?