Apologetics – Page 2

Warfield on Feminism …. McAtee on Egalitarianism

“To the feminist movement the human race is made up of individuals; a woman is just another individual by the side of the man; and it can see no reason for any differences in dealing with the two… indeed, if we can ignore the great fundamental natural difference of sex, and destroy the great fundamental social unit of the family, in the interest of individualism, there does not seem any reason why we should not wipe out the differences established by Paul between the sexes in the church. Except, of course, the authority of Paul.”

B. B. Warfield

Reformed Theologian

1851 – 1921

This is the way egalitarianism exists in general. All sense of the collective people groupings is lost in favor of the sovereign individual that is like all other sovereign individuals. This egalitarianism, as it abstracts the individual from their peoples setting creates all individuals to be atomistic cogs that can be summarily and indistinguishably changed in and out so as to serve in any role. Gone is the tapestry of gender differences. Gone is the tapestry of different races, ethnicity, tribes, and families. Gone is the tapestry differences found in distinct economic classes. Feminism, being a subset of egalitarianism flattens all distinctions and creates the new universal man.

I saw this up close when I worked for the airlines. We would be humping 50 pound pieces of luggage and 100 pound pieces of freight, loading and packing it in the pit of the jet and next to me would be a 5’4″ 95 pound female trying to keep up. To their credit many of them did keep up but the wear and tear on them was far more pronounced than it was ever on me. God didn’t make women to be equal to men in terms of strength anymore than he made a miniature pony to be equal to a Clydesdale. Feminism denies this and insists that a woman can do just as much physical labor as a man.

You see this in films all the time with boss girls. You’ll be viewing a fight scene where this little female red head is able to take out a whole troop of Navy Seals with her bare fists and the film-makers actually want you to believe that is realistic.

You are seeing this in NAPARC churches where women run the show. Many NAPARC churches don’t give them the titles of “Pastor,” or “Elder” or “Deacon,” but they will give them the substance of the role. Feminism is rife in NAPARC as seen in the persecution of Rick Appleton for preaching a sermon that dared suggest that male and female roles are distinct.

This issue of egalitarianism is also at the heart of the issue of Christian Nationalism existing in heretofore white nations. Egalitarianism insists that since all men are individuals only and since all individuals are equal no matter what you’re lying eyes tell you, therefore the white man is sinful for wanting a nation that is uniquely his. Egalitarianism teaches that a white man is a yellow man is a red man is a black man is a brown man. There are no differences and no distinctions to consider. In point of fact it is also the case that a black woman is a yellow man, is a white woman, is a red sodomite. Mixing and matching move in all directions since the adjectives really are irrelevant. Per the egalitarian there really is no such thing as color or gender.

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Poker Rules in The Lindsey Clancy Case

In our culture one has to be aware of how the DEI poker rules work. For example one has to keep in mind that in any conflict or contest that a black male trumps a white male, and that a black female trumps both a black male and a white male and a white female. However, a white disabled lesbian female trumps a straight black female. Any combination is feasible and sometimes the rules shift depending upon the situation. However, one thing is certain about these rules is that a straight white Christian is the equivalent of holding a pair of twos. The straight white male in DEI poker always loses.

We recently, are seeing DEI poker being played again in our culture. The Lindsey Clancy case has brought up some interesting combinations for our DEI poker rules. On the one hand you have a black male juror who refused to vote with the other predominantly white female jurors who were obviously strong lib-tards. Which way would DEI poker rules go on this one?

Well, we are learning what the DEI poker rules instruct us in this case. The News media and the Defense Attorney and his wife are full on attacking the juror who did not vote w/ the rest of the jury on the Clancy case.

We’ve been told he was,

1.) A Black man (a real advantage in DEI poker)

2.) His landlord is currently trying to evict this Black man

3.) The Black male juror in question may have lied on his juror questionnaire

4.) The Black male juror we are being told by the media has a history of domestic violence

All this indicates that in DEI poker a psychotic white female murderer of her own children trumps a black male who exhibits all too often typical black behavior.

Now, any other time this too often typical Black behavior would be excused by the media and the cultural gatekeepers and all of it would be blamed on white people for being oppressive. As such, it would be considered bad form to even bring it up. However, DEI poker has some shifty rules that one has to be aware. DEI poker is kind of like playing “Calvin-Ball.” (This for those who were Calvin & Hobbes fans.)

BUT NOW, because the all too often typical Black man has the chutzpah to disregard the cultural zeitgeist DEI poker rules by voting against a psychopathic white female the left media machine is melting down about behavior they would only melt down over if somebody dared to commit the sin of noticing.

So… we learn here that in DEI poker, a psychotic white woman who viciously murders her three children trumps a black man who only,

1.) Can’t pay his rent

2.) May have had domestic abuse problems in the past

3.) May have lied on his juror questionnaire in order to get on jury

Now, these DEI poker rules are important to keep in mind. I wonder which way this would have tilted if Lindsey Clancy had the dropped the N bomb on the Black juror like Shiloh Hendrix did in Minnesota?

Would even doing that be enough to find her holding a weaker hand in DEI poker? I suspect that a psychotic white woman viciously murdering her three children due to post-partum blues would still trump a black juror even after dropping an N bomb on him… though it might be close for DEI poker rules.

Pay attention to these DEI poker rules and be careful out there. You don’t want to be holding a losing hand when playing DEI poker.

The Republican Party’s Hatred of White Males

“I go into the state of the union and in the State of the Union one side stands up and the other side stands up and I just become leader and I’m excited and President Trump’s there and I look over at the Democrats and they stand up. They look like America. We (Republicans) stand up. We look like the most restrictive Country Club in America and I decided then either I am going to be the leader of a declining end of a party or I have to change the opportunity in this party…. Okay, since that time we’ve elected the most women Republicans the most minority Republicans ever to the house but to do so I was gonna have to ruffle feathers. So for Republican women or Republican minority the November election is not their tough election, it’s the primary. So what I do is I would engage in primaries and I would help (Republican women and minorities) and sometimes you lose.”

Kevin McCarthy
Former Republican Speaker of the House
New York Times Book Deal Summit – November 2023

1.) Notice the bald admission here that McCarthy’s explicit goal, while he was Speaker of the House was to diminish the white male representation in the House of Representatives in favor of women and minorities. McCarthy did not like all the white male Republicans in the party. You can bet that mindset has not changed.

2.) Because of the truth of #1 we know that Republican’s are big time practitioners of identity politics excluding identity politics for white males. Per both Republicans and Democrats everyone is welcome to practice identity politics except for when white males do it. When white males practice identity politics it is horrific and must be adamantly opposed since it is obviously whites being “racist.”

3.) The fact that white males are a legitimate target in the field of American politics was most recently seen in a commercial narrated by and endorsed by Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Governor of Arkansas.

In this video the attack on white males that was articulated by the Republican McCarthy is put on full display again by the Republican Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Despite the fact that white young males are the least likely average person to be on welfare in Arkansas, possibly excepting Asians, Gov. Sanders tries to stereotype white males as being your typical welfare queens.

4.) Clearly, the agenda of the Republican party is seen as either working to largely diminish the presence of white males from the party, per McCarthy, so that the party can “look like America,” or the agenda of the Republican party is to put a white male face on the stereotypical version of welfare queens per Governor Sanders. In both cases it is white people who are a problem.

5.) So given that reality, why should white males vote for either Republicans or Democrats since they both share in the vision of a nation where white males (and conservative white females) need to either be replaced or are to be seen as a vast social order problem?

6.) Don’t miss in the McCarthy statement the obvious desire to continue to pursue the browning of America. White America is a thing of the past. We need to move on to an America that accepts that it has been browned and Lilith-ized.

The Meaning Behind The Removal Of the Monuments

Once again, the media accounts are reporting that Confederate statues are being removed from where they have sat for over 100 years. Statues honoring Confederate Generals Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson and Gov. William “Extra Billy” Smith, as well as Confederate Dr. Hunter Holmes McGuire, had been displayed in Capitol Square, a public park and civic campus near the state Capitol of Richmond, Virginia, for more than 100 years.

Anybody who has followed this social order phenomena over the last few years knows that it is not only Confederate statues that are being brought low, but it is also statues of those white Americans once considered heroes, regardless of whether they were attached to the Southern Confederacy or not.

There are some obvious things that need to be said about all this.

1.) The removal of heroes from the public square that our Fathers once honored is proof positive that we have become a different people from our grandparents and great-grandparents, and great great grandparents who put those statues up. It is not just the statuary that is being removed. What is also being removed is their respect for those they respected, thus demonstrating our disrespect for our Fathers. By removing the statuary we are saying to our Fathers, “We don’t care what you believed. We don’t care who you honored. We hate your belief system – a belief system that would honor these kinds of people we are now removing.”

All of this statue removal affirms Scripture when it teaches,

“The fool despises his father’s instruction…”– Proverbs 15:5a

These statues are, in most cases, our Father’s instruction.

2.) Because the above is true we would say that all of this removal of monuments is an example of ethnic cleansing. You can be sure that once the statuary is removed from the public square, the next step will be to remove from the public square those who believe what those honored men believed. In the act of removing the statues what is being communicated is that people like those who are portrayed in those honored monuments are not wanted. The removal of such monuments is not only saying “We no longer honor them.” It is also saying, “We dishonor them.” Inasmuch as it is only statues of white people being torn down the message is one of ethnic cleansing.

3.) The reason for this ongoing attack on American WASP history is obvious. There has been a worldview shift in the last 25 or so years. We have worked out the implications of the worldview legislatively foisted upon us with the Civil Rights Act and the Hart-Celler legislation. In those Acts we made the final move from a definitive nation that existed as a particular nation consistent with Western Christian civilization and to a universal, propositional nation. With the Civil Rights and Hart-Celler legislation we legislated that Americans would no longer be a particular people belonging to a particular heritage but rather Americans would become a universal people belonging to no (or all) particular heritage(s). With the Civil Rights Act/Hart-Celler legislation people became cogs so that anyone from anywhere could be American if they just mouthed the sacred propositions. With those Acts we essentially “de-peopled” ourselves and our progeny. We moved from being a Christian ethnic people to being a propositional nation. The statuary being removed is being removed because those once honored belonged to a very different nation than the one we have now. Their nation was particular. Their nation was Christian. Their nation was overwhelmingly white. The nation today is universal. The nation today is polytheistic. The nation today is multi-racial/cultural and so the new gods are done with the old heroes and the old heroes must go.

Listen to Joseph de Maistre and learn what I am getting at with this piece,

“Now, there is no such thing as ‘man’ in this world. In my life I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, and so on. I even know, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be Persian. But as for man, I declare I’ve never encountered him.”

Joseph de Maistre
Considerations on France

We live in a country now (and in a time) where the insistence is that all men belong to a universal tribe called “men.” De Maistre’s Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, and Persians must go, as must the particularity of what made Americans to be Americans. The monuments that are being torn down, are being torn down, because they represent a testimony against this notion of the universal, propositional man. These monuments are of men who represented a very particular people and it is because we no longer believe in particularity when it comes to people groups the monuments must go.

Keep in mind that these people are tearing down these statues not only because they hate the men that are being torn down, but because they hate anybody who insists that particularity exists among different people groups. This hatred is being seen, not only in the removal of these monuments, but also in “conservative” “Christian” denominations who strongly go on record as opposing any notion of Christian Nationalism or Kinism. Any refusal to salute and pledge fealty to universal man is now met in “conservative” Reformed churches with the sharpest of rebukes possible. Indeed, it is costing men their careers and livelihoods. This kind of behavior from the denominations is why Oswald Spengler could say,

“Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism.”

Now, of course Spengler was in massive error here but, the modern clergy by interpreting Christianity through a Universal man lens is giving credence to Spengler’s quote.

Dis-assembling Heidleblog’s Jim Cassidy’s Faulting Of the Transforming Effect of Christianity – Part II

James Cassidy writes on Hiedleblog,

The social gospel turns Christianity into a program for changing and improving society. The national gospel turns Christianity into a program for changing and improving the nation. Both fix their eyes upon this-worldly improvement and, in doing so, turn the gospel’s end into a mere means.

BLMc Responds,

The problem with Jimbo’s thinking here is that he views “the Gospel” anthropologically. That is, for Jimbo being right with God is the terminal point of the Gospel. This is a Lutheran position. For the Reformed, however, the Gospel’s terminal point is not man being right with God but rather man living to the glory of God. Jimbo mistakes the ultimate question for the unregenerate, “What must I do to be saved,” for the ultimate question for the regenerate, “How can I live to please God?” Jimbo thus reduces “the Gospel” to a anthropological concern instead of seeing it as the entry way into living life to the glory of God.

Don’t like the point I’m making here? Maybe folks will like it better if Bavinck makes it,

The difference (between Lutheran and Reformed) seems to be conveyed best by saying that the Reformed Christian thinks theologically, the Lutheran anthropologically. The Reformed person is not content with an exclusively historical stance but raises his sights to the idea, the eternal decree of God. By contrast, the Lutheran takes his position in the midst of the history of redemption and feels no need to enter more deeply into the counsel of God. For the Reformed, therefore, election is the heart of the church; for Lutherans, justification is the article by which the church stands or falls. Among the former the primary question is: How is the glory of God advanced? Among the latter it is: How does a human get saved? The struggle of the former is above all paganism- idolatry; that of the latter against Judaism- works righteousness. The Reformed person does not rest until he has traced all things retrospectively to the divine decree, tracking down the “wherefore” of things, and has prospectively made all things subservient to the glory of God; the Lutheran is content with the “that” and enjoys the salvation in which he is, by faith, a participant. From this difference in principle, the dogmatic controversies between them (with respect to the image of God, original sin, the person of Christ, the order of salvation, the sacraments, church government, ethics, etc.) can be easily explained.

—Herman Bavinck
Reformed Dogmatics — Vol. 1: Prolegomena (Baker, 2003), 177.

This quote reveals how R2K is more Lutheran that it is Reformed. R2K is not concerned with how God’s glory is advanced in the common realm for Jimbo’s R2K because God’s glory can’t be advanced in the common realm because the common realm is common. It is a realm where good and evil grow together and the only realm where the glory of God that is advanced happens in the Church. If R2K struggles against paganism / idolatry it struggles against it only in the ecclesiastical realm. It is clear, per Bavinck, that Jimbo’s R2K’s primary struggle is Lutheran in as much as it see’s works righteousness everywhere, especially in those of us who are not R2K. R2K does not think it is possible to make anything in the common realm uniquely subservient to God.

R2K is not Reformed. It is instead a mish mash of Lutheran thinking, and Anabaptist thinking, heavily seasoned with Dualism. This is the real reason Jimbo and R. Scott Clark are upset over Christian Nationalism or any other expression of the Christian faith that understands that the Christian faith, when embraced, transforms every area of life.

Next we need to note that the problem with the Social Gospel was never that it expected Christianity to have an impact on society. The problem, historically, with the Social Gospel is that it was a project of theological liberals and as such the God it was serving was not the God of the Bible and as such the impact it was pursuing was the inverse of the impact that Biblical Christianity brings.

Finally, the Gospel is indeed a mere means. It is the mere means by which God’s freely redeems men so that they can live to His glory. Entry into salvation is not the final word. Now being freely redeemed we, as Christians, make it our goal to please Him.

Jimbo writes,

To be sure, we ought to desire improvement in this world. Everyone desires it. Even pagans want a better society, and sometimes pagan proposals for social improvement are better than those offered by Christians. Nevertheless, neither social nor national improvement is the gospel. Neither is improvement the ultimate or even the penultimate goal of the church’s gospel ministry. The church proclaims the gospel for the gathering and perfecting of the saints. The gospel concerns redemption, not a political project.

BLMc responds,

Well, I think I’ve covered this pretty well by now. First, nobody in the Reformed world who is orthodox – no Theonomist, no Reconstructionist, no postmillennialist – would ever say that social or national improvement absent the Gospel is the Gospel. This is just a reckless and silly accusation.

Secondly, I will just note that, once again, Jimbo has given us a false dichotomy between redemption and politics. It is because the Gospel concerns redemption of every area of life that we can expect politics to be affected.

Jimbo writes,

Some will object: What about sanctification? Is sanctification not God’s plan for improving believers?

Not in the sense envisioned here. We do not believe, as the evangelical prosperity message would have us believe, that grace is a spiritual boost—a power-up that makes sinners into more successful people for the sake of social improvement. As an aside, along with liberalism and Christian nationalism, one could include the prosperity gospel into the same mix.

BLMc responds,

But we would believe, as the Reformed has always taught, that grace restores nature. Jimbo and his R2K fanboys would have us believe that grace leaves nature unaffected.

Secondly, if grace does indeed restore nature than the explosion of grace via Gospel conversion in a person’s life will indeed incrementally restore them to be the best possible version of themselves. When grace restores nature we go from someone who is self serving to someone who makes it our goal to please God. How is that not being more successful? How will the Gospel saving a drunkard, adulterous father not make for social improvement in the wife and family he’s been slaughtering with his demonic behavior?

Jimbo, like all R2K fanboys, will throw the kitchen sink at historic Christianity in order to have their way. We started with just being dirty rotten Christian Nationalists and from there we went to being skunky Social Gospelers and now we have reached insult climax with being associated with putrid prosperity gospel.

Jimbo writes,

The gospel is God’s message of salvation for sinners. That salvation includes both justification and sanctification. Sanctification is a work of God’s free grace by which believers are enabled more and more to die to sin and live to righteousness. It begins at the very outset of the Christian life. The believer becomes increasingly aware of the odiousness of his sin and seeks to mortify it.

BLMc responds,

And in seeking to mortify sin the consequence for the family of the previously drug addled father who is being sanctified is social improvement.

Honestly, what is so difficult about this? Why does this offend the R2K fanboys so much? There is only one reason why and that is their pagan ideology, as imported and so redefining their Christian faith, has blinded them.

Jimbo writes,

But sanctification is complex. It is not a steady process of uninterrupted and publicly measurable gains. Some Christians become prodigal sons for a season. Some struggle against old sins and seem to lose the battle more often than not. Others gain the upper hand over particular sins and make real and enduring contributions to the church and society. Praise the Lord! Some Christians become leaders in society; others become martyrs at society’s hands. Some enter the history books, while most are never known beyond the walls of their local church.

BLMc responds,

And the point here is ….?

I’ll tell you the point … Jimbo’s point is that we can’t expect the Gospel to have decided and long lasting impact on either individuals lives or on cultures or nations. All that Jimbo says here is true but it was St. Paul’s anticipation that sanctification would have ongoing impact,

⁹Or do you not know that the unrighteous^[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,^[c] ¹⁰nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Paul’s anticipation here was that the Corinthians, who were recipients of the Gospel, would live lives that couldn’t help but have social improvement impact.

You see, Jimbo, like all R2K fanboys needs to diminish sanctification in order to get his pessimistic eschatology and Christianity off the ground.

Jimbo writes,

God makes no promise in Scripture that Christians will triumph in the public square or collectively tip the scales of the culture wars. Such influence may come, and we may thank God when it does. But he has not promised it, and he never defines the gospel as a message of social or national preeminence.

BLMc responds,

Of course only a militant amillennialist could write the above. Plenty of postmillennialists have demonstrated to the contrary. See the many posts on Iron Ink squashing Amillennial thinking. Just plug in the word “postmillennial” into the Iron Ink serach engine.

Jimbo writes,

As the men on Presbycast rightly noted, pragmatism is the common denominator between muscular Christian nationalism and the liberal social gospel. Both ask, What good is a gospel—or a church—that cannot produce a tangible difference in this world? If the gospel saves sinners but does not transform society or restore the nation, what good is it?

BLMc responds,

I have no earthly idea who or what “Presbycast” is. Probably just another silly R2K blog.

I would say a gospel that does not transform sinners is a false gospel. Further, I would say that a gospel that does not transform society once many sinners in that society are reputed to be freely redeemed by grace is a false gospel. Finally, I would say that R2K’s false gospel is indeed no gospel. These chaps diminish the Kingship of Jesus Christ over lives of believers. These chaps diminish the transforming change the Holy Spirit brings into people’s lives. These chaps have so emphasized the outsidedness of the Gospel that they have forgotten as the Heidelberg Catechism teaches,

To be washed with Christ’s Spirit means
that the Holy Spirit has renewed me and
set me apart to be a member of Christ
so that more and more I become dead to sin,
and increasingly live a holy and blameless life.2

If Spirit washed people increasingly live a holy and blameless life how can that not have societal impact? Inasmuch as these chaps deny that in that much they are anti-Christs.

Jimbo finishes,

What good is it? Paul calls the gospel “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom 1:16). There is the good. And it is always good, irrespective of whatever results may—or may not—follow within a particular nation.

BLMc responds,

Paul also says,

I appeal to you therefore, brothers,^[a] by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.^[b] ²Do not be conformed to this world,^[c] but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.^[d]

The good is being rescued from the dominion of darkness by being translated to the Kingdom of God’s dear Son to the end that we may glorify God and so fully enjoy Him forever.

Does R2K glorify God?