Apologetics – Page 29

McAtee & Lusk Disagree On Whether Or Not Dabney Would Repent If He Were Alive Today

“I fully believe that if Dabney were around today, he would repent of some of his racial views expressed in his writings. When contemporary racists say things like, “You’d excommunicate Dabney if he were around today,’ they are not saying anything useful. I usually counter, ‘If Dabney were around today, he’d repent.’ Why assume that Dabney would not be willing or capable of receiving greater light on the issue of race?… Yes, I think many 19th century Southern theologians (some of the first theologians in history to have to deal with the issue of race in such an experiential way) would gladly receive further light from the Scriptures on the issue. There is no reason to assume their views are frozen in time or that they’d be unwilling to reconsider. I’d like to think that I’d be open to reassessing my views if strong Biblical arguments can be made against something I currently believe. Why not grant Dabney the benefit of the doubt as well?”

Rev. Rich Lusk

It’s hard to fathom how utterly subjective the above quote is. However, we will start by linking to a web page that doubtlessly Dabney, were he alive today, would be familiar with if only because it so thoroughly supports his convictions on race when he was alive.

The Color of Crime, 2016 Revised Edition

The Shade of Dabney, being the education man that he was would have pointed Rev. Lusk to this link and asked, “Rev. Lusk, based on the information provided by this study and by these statistics whatever would prompt you to think that I would change my views were I still alive today?”

A Dabney revivified from the dead would have asked Rev. Lusk, given that;

a.) In 2013, a black was six times more likely than a non-black to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race.

b.) In 2013, of the approximately 660,000 crimes of interracial violence that involved blacks and whites, blacks were the perpetrators 85 percent of the time. This meant a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa. A Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa.

Why would you ever think that being revivified I would not repent of my views at my death but would instead say, “Rev. Lusk, I rest my case that I was right then and you are wrong now and indeed you are the one who is need of repenting.”

Clearly, what Lusk is doing in his quote above is called “projecting.” I mean I can imagine someone writing 130 years after Lusk is dead and buried;

“I fully believe that if Lusk were around today, he would repent of some of his egalitarian and globalist views expressed in his writings.”

Such a statement would be pure projection. Lusk, being a card carrying egalitarian on the issue of race will not repent today and if you could dig him up in the year 2255 and revivify him he would still not repent, even if being presented with a postmillennial culture that is once again Kinist and so Christian. Lusk, is doing the same with Dabney when he, by the way of projection, insists that Dabney would repent were he alive today because he would know better. And this in spite of the fact that all the evidence would give Dabney the ability to say to Lusk and his ilk; “Dude, I told you so. I tried to warn you.”

Also, Lusk seems to assume here that there has been no further light to break out of the Scripture on this subject since this subject was exhaustively debated repeatedly in the 19th century. Has Lusk never read any of those debates? There is nothing being said now that wasn’t being said by the Christian clergy in those debates as they debated the abolitionists, Transcendentalists, and Jacobins. Does Lusk think that merely because today’s clergy like himself are mouthing Jacobin debating points on race as covered in a patina of Christian-speak that therefore Dabney would be convinced and so repent? If so, Lusk severely underestimates the intellect of R. L. Dabney and the work of the Holy Spirit to keep Dabney from wrongly repenting of the truth.

Doubtless Dabney would have presented to Lusk a copy of the slave narratives that were sponsored by the US Government completed some 35 years after his death and would have said to Lusk; “Many of these slaves agree with me and yearn for the days when they were treated so well as slaves.”

I don’t doubt for a skinny minute that any saint gone to be with the Lord, if they could return, might well repent of matters they held while still alive. However, Dabney, with his views on race isn’t one of them. Now, Dabney might well repent over his embrace of Scottish Common Sense realism and agree with me that presuppositionalism is the better way, but on the issue of race Dabney would say, “130 years later my views on race have been substantiated, however given the civil rights revolution that began with the loss of my beloved South continuing through to this day in 2o25 upon my re-visitation, it clearly is the case that my views are even more unacceptable now by Christian clergy than they were when I spoke them in the face of Yankee and Abolitionist Reconstruction. Today it is even more unacceptable to commit the sin of noticing than it was in the days before I left off this mortal coil.”

On this matter it is Rev. Lusk who needs to be pursuing repentance and not Dabney.

Tom Hicks On The Glories Of The Baptist Faith … McAtee On Tom Hicks

“The Baptist faith stands squarely against the authoritarian individual, the authoritarian family, the authoritarian church, and the authoritarian state. This is because Baptist doctrine uniquely stands upon God’s authority in His Word over the individual, the family, the church and the state. Other ecclesiologies give too much authority to the individual (modern evangelicalism) or to the church (papacy) or to the family and state (classic Reformed and Lutheran paedobaptism).”

Dr. Rev. Tom Hicks
Baptist Pastor

Hicks would like to think that the “Baptist Faith” is the Nirvana locale of the Christian faith but the man is deluded.

1.) The Reformed Baptist Faith (Hicks subscribes to the London Baptist Confession) because it eliminates the inclusion of infants into the covenant of grace, and because it does not require Christian Magistrates ruling as Christian magistrates yields a Christianity that, despite Hicks assertion, is thoroughly atomistically individualistic. The Baptist faith, because of its individualism, always eats away and tears down the Institutional jurisdictions ordained and revealed by God in favor of the sovereign individual.

This atomistic individualism is most clearly seen in the forbidding of the children being marked with the sign and seal of the covenant of grace. Instead, the Baptist, in effect, tells the child is that God cannot claim them in Baptism until they first claim God upon coming to the years of discretion (whatever that age may be). This is a complete reversal of the idea of God over the individual and instead places the individual over God so that God has to wait on the individual before God can claim him or her. This is atomistic individualism at its zenith. So, Hicks claim to the contrary Baptists do not avoid the authoritarian individual but instead rabidly promote atomistic individualism.

2.) This Baptist emphasis on the authoritarian individual in turn means the breakdown and eclipse of the other jurisdictional realms appointed by God. Because the individual is atomistically sovereign in the Baptist faith Baptist thinking creates atomistically individualistic culture where the God ordained mediating Institutions (Church, Family, Civil Magistrates) are eclipsed in favor of the almighty individual. This atomization results in a blank slate culture eventually creating a societal vacuum that cannot be sustained over time. Eventually, since man is a social being, the atomistic individualism of the Baptist faith cannot survive with the result being that some corporate entity fills the vacuum and becomes the sole Jurisdictional realm against which all atomistic individuals will define themselves. In our lifetimes that sole jurisdictional realm that has arisen to define all is the tyrant State, and this is largely due to the majority Baptist Christianity that we currently have. Without competing the healthy God ordained Jurisdictional Institutions of Church, and Family, — ordained Jurisdictional Institutions that the atomistic Baptist faith always chips away at over time, the result is the rise of some single tyrant Institution which will insist that it plays the sole role of the other God ordained mediating Institutions. At that point, the Baptist sovereign atomistic individual culture will flip to become a consolidated borg culture.

3.) The idea that the Baptist faith is superior in standing upon God’s Word alone is ridiculous. If Baptists were standing upon God’s Word alone they wouldn’t think that they could find a non-contradictory way to combine Anabaptist ecclesiology with Reformed soteriology. This combination inserts synergism every time into Baptist theology, thus defying God’s Word revealing that the Reformed Baptist Faith is really inconsistent humanism where God waits upon man to make a decision for Him before He can make a claim on man.

Two Marxist Techniques Employed In Our Ongoing Culture War

While reading Warren H. Caroll’s “The Rise and Fall of Communist Revolutions,” it dawned on me that the Biden administration was trying to re-create societally what Stalin had created in the Soviet Union in terms of a terrorized and so controlled society. Now, Biden didn’t have the means that Stalin had his disposal in order to cow people into silence but nonetheless what means Biden had Biden used to try and create a Gulag society that found people afraid to whisper opposition.

Biden’s DOJ went after parents who protested school boards. Biden’s DOJ went after those peacefully protesting Abortion clinics. Biden’s KGB (FBI) went after, arrested, and imprisoned the mildest of J6 protesters, including Grandmothers. Biden officials leaked names to the SPLC to be blackened by being put on their sacred lists of “haters.” The Biden administration began to de-bank political enemies. The Biden administration passed legislation to vastly increase the number of secret police (IRS agents). The Biden administration weaponized the FBI against the American people. The Biden administration imprisoned a chap (Douglas Mackie) for a political prank against would be Hillary voters that their own troops had also used to prank would be Trump voters.

All of it was really an attempt to Sovietize the American citizenry. It was communist like work to criminalize resistance to the Biden-Obama Marxist regime. It was a soft to not so soft form of government inspired terrorism intended to intimidate and control the citizenry so as to silence them. Forms of this touched me (SPLC list), touched my family (experiencing de-banking), and touched friends (imprisoned for peacefully protesting abortion clinics).

It failed the first time, but there will be further attempts in the near future to do the same.

The Marxists, recently, have pulled a new page from their playbook in order to try and slow the reversal of their previous gains. David Axelrod (Bagel) is now out there talking to the media accusing the non-Marxists opposition of being Stalinists;

Axelrod: “Yeah. Let’s also remember what the Civil War was about. I mean, the statues he (Trump) wants to restore are people who are fighting to retain slavery. And that is just a historical fact. You know, this has just kind of a Soviet feel to it, a Stalinist feel to it that you just, you know, you take over cultural institutions and historical institutions and you try and rewrite history. But as you pointed out before, Anderson, this is a president who is rewriting history every day. And he believes that you can do that. You know, when crime is up, no crime is down. Things cost less, no things cost more.”

Briefly, we note that the War of Northern Aggression was not about retaining slavery. This is a Bagel lie that has predominated since that war in order to make the war virtuous. Next, we note how clever Axelrod is here. After the Cultural Marxist have succeeded in rewriting history over the last two to three generations they now complain of the Stalinist feel of Trump returning to the written history before they rewrote the history. The Stalinist left took over the institutions in the 1960s and rewrote history and now that the original history is being restored they shriek “STALINIST.”

The Bagel Axelord is a liar and he knows the game he’s playing. It is the same game over and over… rinse and repeat. That game is to accuse your opponents of what you yourself are guilty of doing. Axelrod is a committed Stalinist and so obviously he accuses Trump of being a Stalinist.

S0, whether it is the Marxist technique of terrorizing your opponents to the end of controlling and silencing them or whether it is the Marxist technique in accusing your opponents of what you yourself are guilty of, the Marxist in the political realm continue to exercise their propaganda with incredible effectiveness.

Folks, Marxists cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be voted out of office. The only cure for dealing with Marxists is to utterly crush them and drive them out of your country. Franco knew how to deal with them. Pinochet knew how to deal with them.

Hitler & Stalin … Who Was More Non-Christian Than The Other?

There are more than a few people currently who are invested in the project to rehabilitate Hitler and the Nazis. I find this ridiculous, though I do still salute their effort to destroy Communism.

It will be hard to rehabilitate Hitler who said things like this;

“The Slavs are to work for us. Insofar as we don’t need them, they may die. Therefore compulsory vaccination and German health services are superfluous. The fertility of the Slavs is undesirable. They may use contraceptive and practice abortion, the more the better. Education is dangerous. It is sufficient if they can count up to a hundred. At best an education is admissible which produces useful servants for us. Every educated person is a future enemy. Religion we leave to them as a matter of diversion. As to food, they are not to get more than necessary. We are the masters.”

Gerald Reitlinger
The House Built on Sand; The Conflicts of German Policy in Russia, 1939-1945 – p. 200

Note that all that Hitler recommended for his slave class Slavs in order to keep their population down and to keep them in “their place,” are the same methods being used by the Bagels to tamp down the White population. We have had contraceptives and abortion pushed on us. We no longer educate our children instead providing large dosages of propaganda. Our food, as RFK Jr. has only begun to reveal is horrid. Religion, likewise, is left to us as a diversion as very few take their professed religion seriously.

Neither Hitler nor Stalin were Christians, though there are more than a few today who are, as I said, trying to rehabilitate Hitler into being a Christian Prince. The quote above demonstrates how silly the rehabilitation effort is. Christian princes don’t speak like this.

However, Stalin was clearly, hands down – not even close – the greater danger and menace of the two as seen in the fact that the monster tortured, murdered, and slaughtered many millions more than Hitler. Also, it should be noted that the millions slaughtered by Stalin were, in overwhelming percentages, Christian. Stalin was seeking to wipe out the Christian faith. This remains the goal of the neo-Communists (Cultural Marxists). I certainly can understand how German Christian young men would sign up to fight against the anti-Christ Soviet Bolsheviks, who were trying to wipe Christianity off the face of the map.

So, Hitler was no Christian Prince but given that the option for Germans at the time was to become Communists in league with the Comintern it is understandable why Christian Germany would rally to Hitler in his stand against Jewish Communism.

Doug Wilson Insisting He Is A “Conservative” – His Audience Tries Not To Laugh

“It really is possible to be a hard line conservative of the old school without getting sucked down a reactionary wormhole. It is possible to hold to the historic Reformed view of Romans 11 on the Jews without being in any way beholden to the liberal post-war consensus. It is possible to be an unfazed and unapologetic Burkean conservative—when some are maintaining you are not conservative at all unless you are clamoring for a Protestant Robespierre.

Not only is it possible, it is far and away the straighter path. I commend it to you, and invite folks to join us.”

Pope Dougie — He of Moscow fame
Blog Mablog – 11 August, 2025

Doug likes to think of himself as a hardline conservative. Remember, this is the man who himself testified he was not interested in being Rushdoony 2.0 but was trying to achieve being Rushdoony 0.5. Only in a world of effeminate smurfs can Dougie be considered “hardline conservative.” This is the problem with the nomenclature. As a culture we have swung so hard to the Revolutionary Left that a soft revolutionary like Wilson can think of himself as “a Hardline conservative.” I imagine that is the way the Girondins thought of themselves during the French Revolution. I supposed compared to Robespierre, the montagnard Jacques Pierre Brissot was a hard line conservative.

Dougie thinks his view of Romans 11 is standard Reformed orthodoxy but when you add his statements about the glories of his family’s relation to the Bagel bloodline combined with his “Covenant with Hagar” nonsense his is a tenuous claim. Pope Doug claiming he is in line with standard Romans 11 interpretation is like saying that lab created meat is in line with a standard 16 oz. porterhouse steak. It demands the response … “Where’s the beef?”

Pope Dougie’s next claim is that he is not beholden in any way to the liberal post-war consensus. Yet, the man has written in support of liberal post-war consensus projects like interracial marriage, the good of processed food – labeling those who resist processed food as having “food scruples’ – and coming out in favor of vaccines. The push for each and all of these are part of the post war liberal consensus that Dougie insists that he has successfully avoided. Me thinketh the lady doth protest too much.

As to Pope Doug’s claim to be a follower of Edmund Burke, Burke wrote;

“The blood of man should never be shed but to redeem the blood of man. It is well shed for our family, for our friends, for our God, for our country, for our kind. The rest is vanity; the rest is crime.”

Yet, Doug has repeatedly abominated this kind of overt Burkean Kinist language. Indeed, Doug hates Kinists. You cannot say you hate kinists while insisting at the same time you love Burke.

Doug Wilson has NOTHING to offer in the way of providing an answer to our descending Constitutional Republic. All Doug offers up is warmed over post war liberal consensus dressed up in Doug’s clever wordsmithing evening clothes.

It is past time to realize that there is no strength to remedy our current malady in the cures that Pope Doug offers. Doug calls his opponents “reactionary.” It’s the same thing Revolutionaries have always called their opponents. What the opponents of Revolutionary movements have always called their supporters is “Liberals.” Doug is a Liberal.

Or if you prefer … soft progressive.