Apologetics – Page 45

Recommending Dow, While Firing Back at the CrossPolitics Utes

Over here Darrell Dow gives a rousing defense of Christian Nationalism.

Christian Defense of Nationalism

It is a defense that nearly all Kinists would be proud to salute. If a Kinist wouldn’t salute it, I don’t know why they wouldn’t.

And yet, at the very end of the article we get this from the boys who drive the crosspolitics.com bus.

From the Editor: We happily affirm the principles outlined in this essay, however, with the rise of kinism in some circles, we want to be clear that we reject that ideology entirely. We understand the principles outlined here to be in harmony with other biblical principles that utterly contradict every form of racial malice, pride, or vainglory.

Now, it should be made very clear here. Darrell Dow had nothing to do with this editorial codicil. Darrell and I, as far as I can tell, are nearly on the same exact page when it comes to Christian ethno-nationalism — that which some people call, by way of shorthand, “Kinism.”

So, what gives with this editorial codicil? Do these boys even know what it is that they are rejecting? Do they know the meaning of Kinism? On the flip side of that do they know the meaning of Kinism’s polar opposite, “Alienism.” If I can’t seem to get through to these blatherskites as to what the Kinism is I support maybe I can get through to them what it is I oppose by opposing Alienism?

https://www.thornwalker.com/recoveries/sobran/pensees.html

One one hand they run an article that I as a Kinist applaud while on the other hand they completely reject Kinism. I figured these guys were at least past the age of smoking weed?

Note that these crosspolitics boys are Doug Wilson CREC fanboys. We know this by their denominational associations and by the fact that they end their editorial codicil with “every form of racial malice, pride, or vainglory.” This is the same language that Wilson used to errantly define Kinism. It seems that Doug’s ignorance is yielding a Walking Dead Zombie infection in the CREC.

Read Dow’s article and tell me that Dow is not advocating for enough of racial/ethnic identity in order to rabidly support the idea that a nation is defined as having a significantly majoritarian racial/ethnic core. Dow clearly loves his people. In the CREC world that rejects kinism that is clearly a form of racial/ethnic pride.

And what does this CREC clown brigade do with Romans 9? How is the Apostle Paul, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, not practicing racial/ethnic pride as defined by these Bozo’s standard when he writes?

I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— ²I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. ³For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my kinsmen, those of my own race, ⁴the people of Israel.

What do the little boys at Cross Politic with their sanctimonious whining about Kinism being a “form of racial malice, pride, or vainglory,” do with the malice found in Titus 2?

¹²One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” ¹³This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith

Are they going to condemn the Holy Spirit who inspired these words?

People like Wilson and his lickspittles act like “Kinism” is a uniform movement with a centralized headquarters where one can mail fan-mail. They act like Kinism is so organized that it has a secret handshake with an anthem everyone must memorize before they get their secret cool Kinist rings. As such they say “Kinism is this,” or “Kinism is that,” as if they are reading off of a dictionary definition. Together in a cult like manner they keep saying in Zombie moaning tones, “Kinism is a ‘form of racial malice, pride, or vainglory.'”

Kinism is a decentralized movement and as decentralized as it is it hardly has one set definition. Think about this for a second folks. Wilson was forever trying to disambiguate himself from the more rabid Federal Visionists. (I still have a problem with his still embraced pale ale.) If Kinists have a more rabid element the main body of Kinists which me and my mates belong to would like to disambiguate ourselves from whatever fevered imagination comes up with the idea that Kinism, generally speaking equals a “form of racial malice, pride, or vainglory.”

The Whoppers R. Scott Clark Tells About R2K

In a blog post at Heidleblog Dr. R. Scott Clark basically tells us that if we were smart like him and had the smart books he has read we would see how foolish we are for daring to disagree with him on Radical Two Kingdom theology. Clark, the anti-nomian, accuses R. J. Rushdoony of writing a talmudic three volume set on God’s law. Well, I suppose to RJR does look talmudic when viewed through the lens of those who hate God’s law.

Anyway, here is the take-away quote from Scott’s first blog post;

“There has been a certain degree of controversy in some quarters of the confessional Reformed world over the recovery of the “two kingdoms” as a way of thinking about Christ and culture and ethics. The qualifier some is important here because anyone who knows the history of Reformed theology knows that faithful, confessional theologians have been speaking of God’s “twofold government” (duplex regimen and duplex regnum) or “two kingdoms” since the 16th century. It is not a novelty but so divorced are enough contemporary Reformed Christians from their own tradition and heritage that when this way of speaking re-surfaced in 2010 it was taken, in some quarters as a radical departure from Reformed theology.”

R. Scott Clark

R2K Theologian

Escondido

Now here we have to say that either R. Scott Clark is historically ignorant beyond plumbing the depths of said ignorance or he is a liar.

It is true that Reformed Two Kingdom theology has been around for centuries. It’s also true the R2K theology is a completely different beast from historic Reformed Two Kingdom theology. This has been admitted to by no less a person then Scott’s colleague and R2K guru David Van Drunen. In an office hours interview Van Drunen admits;

“I have tried my best to make a kind of NEW Biblical-theological argument for why there needs to be a generous measure of tolerance and religious liberty and I am happy to hear back from other people who want to engage that argument seriously.”

Notice the bold print. This is another key admission. Forever, R2K has flip-flopped on the issue of whether their version of “Christianity” is the faith once and forever delivered unto the saints or something completely innovative that no Christian has ever seen before. Here, in the bold print, we have admission from one of the key architects of R2K that what he has done is completely innovative. No Christian who has ever lived as ever seen what DVD has done with R2K. I find this beyond significant.

The historic Reformed Two Kingdom was not interested in tolerance and so called religious liberty as sundry quotes on Iron Ink have demonstrated repeatedly. Here are just a couple;

“Then let us not think that this Law is a special Law for the Jews; but let us understand that God intended to deliver us a general rule, to which we must yield ourselves … Since, it is so, it is to be concluded, not only that it is lawful for all kings and magistrates, to punish heretics and such as have perverted the pure truth; but also that they be bound to do it, and that they misbehave themselves towards God, if they suffer errors to rest without redress, and employ not their whole power to shew greater zeal in their behalf than in all other things.”

John Calvin
Sermon on Deuteronomy
Sermon 87
Deuteronomy 13:5

In a treatise against pacifistic Anabaptists who maintained a doctrine of the spirituality of the Church (just like R2K) which abrogated the binding authority of the case law (just like R2K) Calvin wrote,

“They (the Anabaptists) will reply, possibly, that the civil government of the people of Israel was a figure of the spiritual kingdom of Jesus Christ and lasted only until his coming, I will admit to them that in part, it was a figure, but I deny that it was nothing more than this, and not without reason. For in itself it was a political government, which is a requirement among all people. That such is the case, it is written of the Levitical priesthood that it had to come to an end and be abolished at the coming of our Lord Jesus (Heb. 7:12ff) Where is it written that the same is true of the external order? It is true that the scepter and government were to come from the tribe of Judah and the house of David, but that the government was to cease is manifestly contrary to Scripture.”

John Calvin
Treatise against the Anabaptists and against the Libertines, pp. 78-79

“But it is questioned whether the law pertains to the kingdom of Christ, which is spiritual and distinct from all earthly dominion; and there are some men, not otherwise ill-disposed, to whom it appears that our condition under the Gospel is different from that of the ancient people under the law; not only because the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, but because Christ was unwilling that the beginnings of His kingdom should be aided by the sword. But, when human judges consecrate their work to the promotion of Christ’s kingdom, I deny that on that account its nature is changed. For, although it was Christ’s will that His Gospel should be proclaimed by His disciples in opposition to the power of the whole world, and He exposed them armed with the Word alone like sheep amongst the wolves, He did not impose on Himself an eternal law that He should never bring kings under His subjection, nor tame their violence, nor change them from being cruel persecutors into the patrons and guardians of His Church.”

John Calvin
Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses – p. 77.

What Clark and Van Drunen have done, in a act of linguistic deception, is emptied the previous meaning of historic Reformed Two Kingdom and have filled the words “Historic Reformed Two Kingdom” with a completely different content. There is no way in Hades that a Knox, or a Calvin would recognize Escondido’s R2K as having anything in common with their R2K project.

Can it really be the case that Church Historian Dr. R. Scott Clark doesn’t realize that Escondido’s R2K is a altogether entity as compared with historic Reformed Two Kingdom theology? I mean, it seems to me that Scott is giving us a classic example of gaslighting. He can’t really be this dumb.

A Long Forgotten Leader of the Royalist Party During the French Revolution Speaks

“Our country is ourselves. It is our villages, our altars, our graves, all that our fathers loved before us. Our country is our land, our faith, our King… But their country (Those of the French Revolution) — what is it? Do you understand? Do you? … they have it in their brains; we have it under our feet… Theirs is as old as the Devil, this world that they call new and that they wish to found in the absence of God…. They say we are slaves of the ancient superstitions; it makes us laugh! But in the face of these demons who rise up again century after century, we are youth, gentlemen. We are the youth of God, the youth of fidelity! And this youth will preserve, for its own and its children, true humanity and liberty of soul.”

Francois-Athanase Charette

Royalist during French Revolution

Leader of the Peasants of the French district of Machecoul

Charette would later forfeit his own life opposing the Revolution.

Notice here that what Charette is giving us is the difference between those who hate Nationalism, opting instead for some kind of vision of a “propositional nation” — a nation as Charette puts it; “that is only in their brains.” This is how Charette analyzed the French Revolution. It was a matter of those who hated God and who embraced the idea of France as an idea vis-a-vis those who loved their faith, their home, their fathers, and their land.

Charette understood that his enemy wanted to re-make the world, and further that they wanted to remake it absent any notion of God and absent any respect for past Christian traditions, past bonds of faith and family, and any past sense of belonging to a place.

Charette said this enemy rises century after century and so they do. Charette faced them in Danton, Robespierre, St. Just, Fouquier-Tinville and Desmoulins. After the French Revolution they arose again in the European Revolutions of 1848, in the US Yankee Armies of 1861-1877, the Bolshevik Revolution of 1918, the Communist Revolution in China in 1949, and elsewhere since 1789. We face them today in the NWO/Great Reset/Deep State. We face them in Michigan in Whitmer, Benson, and Nessel. We face them in the Washington in just about every elected and appointed office.

We can never defeat this enemy of Christ and His people if we do not understand where the lines are drawn. We have to understand that those who would embrace propositional nationhood are doing the devil’s work even if they shout constantly; “Lord, Lord, have we not done great things in your name?”

The hour is late. We need to understand the foundational issues. The haters of Christ go after Christ via the backdoor of attacking place, home, faith, and the honored Christian traditions of the storied past.

Charette was right.

Ben Shapiro Has Advice For How “Christian Nationalism” Should Roll

“This is why when people on the right use the phrase Christian nationalism, people on the left hear, ‘ah, we’re talking about religious fascism.’ Well, no, when people say Christian nationalism typically what they mean is not that the official church of the United States should be the Catholic Church, or that the church of the United States should dictate terms of service in the United States. What it means instead, when people say Christian nationalism is that undergirding the values of the United States are a set of Judeo-Christian values, and when you jettison those values you destroy the United States.”

Ben Shapiro
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/09/30/ben_shapiro_when_people_say_christian_nationalism_they_are_talking_about_judeo-christian_values.html

1.) I agree that Christian Nationalists are not and should not be looking for an official Church of these united States. In my estimation Christian Nationalists should be looking that the nation should swear allegiance to Jesus Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords and then be ruled consistent with His Law-Word. We should be done with the dishonoring pluralism that allows false gods to populate God’s land (“The earth is the Lord‘s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.”– Psalm 24:1) with the result of the war of all against all. There is no social order harmony where there are gods owned by the social order who grossly contradict one another in their salvation, character and ethic.

2.) Remember, all Nations are headed by some God or God-concept. Our nation bows the knee to the god of pluralism and that god is ultimately controlled by the FEDS since it is the FEDS who have the final word as to how far any of the gods and/or all of the gods can walk in the public square. The Mormon God says “polygamy” but the FEDS say “no polygamy.” The Christian GOD says “no sodomy” but the FEDS say “sodomy.” The native American God says “smoke peyote as a religious rite” but the FEDS say “no smoking peyote as a religious rite.” The Muslim God says “Sharia Law” the FEDS say “no Sharia law.” You see, in our Pluralism the FEDS are serving as the God over the gods. We are as a religious people, with a religious State, as you can find anywhere else. It just so happens that our God is Pluralism and the God who is pluralism is controlled by the FEDS. So, naturally if the State is going to be religious (and all States are) Christians should desire a Christian Nationalism where the State bows to the authority of Jesus Christ as expressed in the Scripture. If the State is always hopelessly religious (and it always is) than why should Christians be satisfied with anything but Christian Nationalism (they shouldn’t)?

3.) The idea of “Judeo-Christian” values has been a mistake from when it began. We are a Christian people with Christian values. Not a Jewish people. Keep in mind that the Judeo-Christian values that Mr. Shapiro speaks of slams together on one hand the ultimate value of worshiping Jesus from the Christian side while on the other hand the ultimate estimation of the Judeo part of the equation is to affirm that Jesus is burning in hell in excrement for all of eternity. How does one arrive at “Judeo-Christian” values given that reality. No, the values we need are not “Judeo-Christian” but just plain Christian values.

So, by all means a return to Christian Nationalism. A return to the time where nearly all of our State Constitutions had language of loyalty to the Christian God as stated in the documents themselves as requirements for service in the State governments.

4.) I would contend that it is precisely because we have embraced “Judeo-Christian” values we have destroyed these united States.

Ben Shapiro writes again,

Again, I think it’s bad branding because I think it’s exclusive in a way it doesn’t need to be. Specifically because, even if you’re not religious, you can agree with the basic idea, even from a natural law (understanding). I mean, this is Catholic Church doctrine. You don’t have to be Catholic to believe that natural law actually undergirds the idea of family, undergirds the idea of God as an important part of public life. You don’t have to be some sort of crazed conservative nut to believe a country ought to control its own borders and that culture matters. All of these things matter.

Bret responds,

Of course Ben thinks Christian Nationalism is exclusive. It is exclusive and would read out of the movement those who want to continue to embrace the pluralism that comes with the embrace of “liberal democracy.” Liberal Democracy, which Ben supports and which has brought us to the place we are now at cannot be embraced in order to cure what ails us. It is what ails us.

And natural law? In this postmodern climate which classical liberalism has achieved there is no putting the toothpaste of natural law back in the tube to serve as a guide to our social order. Natural law is dead and the only thing that could bring it back to be a governing reality is brute force.

I also disagree with Ben about his “crazed conservative nut” part. I do think in our current climate that many people believe only a crazed conservative nut would think that “a country ought to control its own borders and that culture matters.” For pete’s sake we have scads of people now all around us who believe only a crazed conservative nut would think that there are only two genders and that race is not a merely social construct. If they can think that how much easier is it for them to think that only crazed conservative nuts believe that a country ought to control its own borders and that culture matters.”

No, Ben. Neither Natural Law nor shared Judeo-Christian values are going to save us now.

McAtee & Wilson Converse on Kinism — And you are Privy — Part VI

DW ends on a playful note (BLM loves to play).

In a different article, Bret McAtee complains about the Leftist press anointing me as the titular head of the Christian Nationalism movement, and argues that I am going to use my immense powers the same way that William F. Buckley did when he “cleansed” the conservative movement, first of the Birchers, followed by others like Brimelow and Sobran.

BLM writes,

Honestly, one could read this article by DW as a way to cleanse his Christian Nationalist movement of the kinists he finds so problematic. Isn’t DW saying, “Christian Nationalism, yes …. Kinism as part of Christian Nationalism NO?”

In fairness though, I don’t blame DW for that since in my world DW’s kind of civic and pluralistic “Christian” Nationalism likewise would need not apply.

DW writes,

He bases his account of this on an article by Murray Rothbard, and one wonders why McAtee is demonstrating his leftward drift so openly, citing the work of a Jew like that. A little suspicious, no?

BLM responds,

I not only have read plenty of Rothbard, I’ve also read plenty of Neil Postmen, Jaques Derrida, and Bernard Bailyn — Jews all. Does this prove I’m not an anti-Semite? I’ve even been known to read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as well as St. Paul. By DW’s reckoning I’ve been suspicious for a very long time now in terms of my leftist drifting.

DW writes,

However I confess myself as not being in charge of anything that other people might want to call themselves. I am only in charge of what I am willing to call myself. And if Christian Nationalism comes to be widely associated with ethnic animosity and/or ethnic vainglory, then to Hell with Christian Nationalism, and I would rather be dead in a ditch than to call myself that. I would drop it like a hot rock. But if Christian Nationalism gets successfully defined by Christians who understand how important it is not to go down that ungodly wormhole, then I am happy to be associated with it.

Bret responds,

I quite agree that I have no desire to be widely associated with a Christian Nationalism that is guilty of ethnic animosity and/or ethnic vainglory. I agree with Doug’s sentiment “to hell with that form of Christian Nationalism.”

But, as they say, “the devil is in the details,” and I’m not confident per our exchange here that DW and I are going to define ethnic animosity and/or ethnic vainglory in the same way. In the “for whatever it is worth” category I want DW to know that I find myself repeatedly pushing back against some of the ethnic animosity and/or ethnic vainglory he is rightly concerned about. I see this in some quarters where, for example, people want to argue that National Socialism was a positive good.

DW ends with,

But time will tell. I have not yet gotten my orders from the CIA.

BLM responds,

Well, we trust that DW will be honest with us when those orders from the CIA come in.