Category: Apologetics

“Christian Academia” and it’s Inability to Think Christianly

“The deterioration of the historic roots of Christian orthodoxy upon the campuses of Christian learning is straightforward. Christian academicians isolate individual concepts and methods of choice from non-Christian thinkers and adopt them into their own ‘Christian’ worldview. In contrast, the directive that needs to be followed is that every concept and method presented by a non-Christian thinker must be subjected to a holistic critical analysis within the structure of the thinker’s own system.”

William Dennison 
In Defense of the Eschaton; Essays in Reformed Apologetics — pg. 78

Dennison’s point here is that before conceptual strands of thought as from non-Christians and non-Christian Weltanschauungs can be adopted by Christians and made a part of a Christian world and life view what first has to be done is that non-Christian conceptual strand of thought must be engaged, via a transcendental analysis, in order to see how that strand of conceptual thought is functioning in that non-Christian Weltanschauung. It may be the case that while the conceptual strand in and of itself is acceptable, it is functioning in a way that is not acceptable for a Christian as it exists in a Christian worldview.

In brief before adopting a conceptual strand from an alien worldview that conceptual strand must go through a surgical debridement process wherein the necrotic material from the original dysfunctional worldview wound is removed from the conceptual strand being adopted by the apologist who is doing the surgery. The conceptual strand must be cleansed of its former association before it can be grafted on to the healthy tissue of Biblical Christianity.

Dennison uses Plato’s doctrine of the immortality of the soul as an example. All Christians believe in the immortality of the soul but the Christian can not take Plato’s doctrine of the immortality of the soul en toto and just own it as a Christain doctrine. Only after putting  Plato’s pagan doctrine of the immortality of the soul through surgical debridement can that doctrine be accepted as being fit for a Christian worldview.

Dennison is insisting (rightly so) that Christian academia is NOT doing this and is instead too often borrowing from the Egyptian’s thought world without ridding the conceptual strand of its Egyptian skubala. What Christian academia too often is doing is that it takes elements from Romanticism or Darwinism or Existentialism, or Post-modernism, or Empiricism, or Barthianism, or Rationalism, or Freudianism or Skinnerism or any number of other anti-Christ worldviews and without putting the conceptual strands through a Biblical Transcendental analysis debridement process just affix these pagan conceptual strands to a Biblical Christian World and life view with the result that their “Christian” World and life view is not at all Christian. At least not consistently so.

Chain of Being Thinking and Implications

“A second essential point with respect to ancient philosophy: for ancient philosophy, being is one and continuous. Now, what does this mean? As Christians, as believers in the scriptures, we declare that God is uncreated being. He alone is God. Men are not Gods, men are not divine, we don’t have a spark of divinity in us, we are creatures. So that there are two kinds of being in the universe. The uncreated being, God, and the whole word of created being, man and all the creatures, the entire universe. This means, therefore, there is a vast gap between God and the universe, and the universe, nor any part of it, can ever be termed divine. But in ancient philosophy, there was only one continuous world of beings, so that the Gods, the men, all shared in this divinity.

Now some people were more godlike than others, the heroes were ones who were at least half-Gods. The rulers or emperors very often became completely God. Everyone had a little bit of God in them and it was just a case of developing that in them. So salvation meant becoming more and more a God, whereas for us salvation is accepting the redemptive work of God by faith.

Now, the background of this idea of one continuous being was that being arose out of chaos, and here you have the whole religion of revolution and that it is working its way up. And since it is evolving, and the idea of evolution is the hallmark of paganism, there was no idea of creation in paganism, whatever they may try to tell you. The way for this evolution to proceed is through chaos. It has to have chaos occasionally in order to step upward. And so this takes us to the religion of evolution.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Lecture — The Early Thinkers from Plato to Augustine Q&A-Delivered 1969

These three paragraphs explain the modern West for those with ears to hear. Some observations.

1.) If all being is continuous then all being participates in and is reflective of God.  Any distinctions that exist, exist only because some realities have more being in them than other realities. The more the being the higher one is on the scale of hierarchy. This kind of social order was reflected in the Egyptian system of Mahat. Mahat had reference to the Universal mind. Pharaoh was understood to have the greatest participation of the Universal mind. From Pharaoh on down, everyone possessed less of the Universal mind.  If one possessed less of the universal mind one was the slave of the one who possessed more of the universal mind. Mahat gave a slave order where everyone was the slave of the one above them who had more being.

2.) The West has put a twist on this continuous being thinking by adding egalitarianism to continuous being. If all being is continuous (Chain of being) and if that thinking is going to be combined with egalitarianism then no being is superior or inferior to any other being and as no being is superior or inferior to any other being then no distinctions that mark superiority or inferiority can be allowed to exist. Hence egalitarianism, as combined with the chain of being thinking (called Oneism by Dr. Peter Jones), results in the certitude that no objection can be raised against Transgenderism, sodomy, New World Order Babelism, multiculturalism, multiracialism, multi-faithism or Open borders because all share in divinity and all are equal. Indeed in this system of continuous thinking as combined with egalitarianism any distinction made in terms of “superior” (better) vs. “inferior” (worse) is the greatest crime imaginable. (With the exception that egalitarianism is superior to inferior notions of Biblical hierarchy.)

3.) Wherever you find the doctrine of the chain of being (continuous being) there you find the religion of chaos.  Chain of Being thinking does not allow a creator God who has distinct unshared being and who is responsible for bringing order out of Chaos so Being and order must arise out of chaos. Chaos gives birth to order and being.  As such, those social orders who embrace continuous being (and Evolutionary thinking is the very nard of chain of being thinking), also embrace the religion of revolution. This religion insists that in order for a utopian order to come to pass that can only happen by returning to chaos that order may be birthed. You find this kind of thinking exemplified in celebrations of Mardi Gras, ancient rites of bacchanalia, and of course the post-Endarkenment blood-drenched Revolutions (1789 — French / 1848 — Europe / 1861 — America / 1914 — Europe / 1918 — Bolshevik / 1948 — China etc.).  This thinking teaches that destruction has the capacity to bring Utopia.  Order out of Chaos reflects a dialectical thinking of one step back in order to gain two steps forward.

4.) Of course, “chain of being” thinking disallows the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible has being that is unique and distinct from the creature. (In Christian theology this is called the Creator-creature distinction.) In “chain of being” thinking this Creator God must be eliminated.  Of course, when the God of the Bible is eliminated God pops up elsewhere. For “chain of being” thinking the god which has distinct being from all else (even though lip service is given that no distinct being exists) is the State. The State becomes that reality which has the most being and so must be obeyed. The new motto for “chain of being” thinking is “in the state we live and move and have our being.”

5.) Since all godhead must have unity of being the State as the god of the Chain of being must work in order to ensure uniformity in the social order. The motto becomes, “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” If there is continuity of being and if the State is the Archimedean point of all being then all individuality in the State must be sunk in the god-State. This also becomes a factor in pushing all things towards egalitarianism.  The State becomes Queen Bee and all in the hive are drones serving the Queen bee.

Individuality is lost. Distinction is lost. Liberty is lost.

Christianity vs. Multiculturalism on Nation, and Culture

According to Dr. Bruce Waltke, in his “An Old Testament Theology,” a Nation, according to Scripture, is defined as:

1.) A common people (Genesis)
2.) Sharing a common history (Exodus) 
3.) Having a common law (Deuteronomy)
4.) With a common land (Joshua)
5.) And a Kin King (David’s Kingship)

Our present-day Multicultural empire presents an agenda that is a far cry from a biblical definition of nationhood. Indeed multiculturalism is an attack on the Scripture’s definition of nation in favor of a Babel-like New World Order where we imagine there are no nations and above us only sky.

We agree with the late Sam Francis who defined multiculturalism as “a deliberate device by which the power-hungry can subvert a culture, whose moral codes deny them power, and build an alternative culture, whose different moral codes yield power for themselves.” What Sam failed to mention here is that the alternative culture that the multiculturalists desire is one that is reverse of what Biblical Christianity offers in terms of culture. In point of fact, the culture produced by multiculturalism is anti-culture culture.

However, multiculturalism not only produces an anti-culture culture but in keeping with that it produces an anti-nation nation. Consider that whereas in Classical Liberalism, a key foundational (though untrue) tenet is the separation of Church and state. Multiculturalism extends this by insisting upon the separation of nation and state. For multiculturalists, the state is not identified with a definable nation, nor is the state responsible for any people group that composes the nation. The nation and the state are thus separated.

However, oddly enough the way this works itself out is that the nation and state are not separated because the state ends up being identified with all peoples who will identify with the State’s multiculturalist agenda. All peoples who, regardless of their ethnic origin, will align with a Statist identity are the people who compose the nation whom the State represents.

The multiculturalist separation of nation and state is just a reflection of an alienist agenda. In this arrangement, it is those who refuse to identify ethnically and only will identify ideologically with the State who comprise the nation whom the state represents. Separation of nation and state is a doctrine that kills the nation in favor of the anti-nation nation.

In the end, multiculturalism provides both a culture and a nation but it does so as an anti-nation nation and as an anti-culture culture.  Bono and U2 w0uld be pleased,

I believe when the Kingdom comes
Then all the colors will bleed into one
Bleed into one
But yes I’m still running.

So, we live in a time when all the pieces are moving towards a Babelistic New World Order. The vision of the enemy is a uni-culture and a uni- nation. We will have a common people, a common land, a common history, and a common law but it will be the commonality of the contents found in a blender. Resistance is futile. We will all be assimilated.

The media moguls with their Hollywood films, books, radio, and magazines are cramming down our throats the messages of a Globalism that offers an amalgamated, unisex world union as a promised utopia. Likewise, Corporations and Governments are pushing us incessantly towards this nightmare dystopian New World Order vision. Even the modern contemporary Church in the West, both ‘conservative’ and liberal, having reinterpreted Christianity through a Cultural Marxist grid, is pushing this globalist agenda.

To the contrary, we stand with the Dutch theologian Geerhardus Vos, who could write in his Biblical theology,  “Now it is through maintaining the national diversities, as these express themselves in the difference of language, and are in turn upheld by this difference, that God prevents realization of the attempted (Babel) scheme… [In this] was a positive intent that concerned the natural life of humanity. Under the providence of God, each race or nation has a positive purpose to serve, fulfillment of which depends on relative seclusion from others.”

 

The Pessimillennial “Joy to the World”

Here

https://albertmohler.com/2017/12/08/far-curse-found/

Dr. Albert Mohler wrote a piece on eschatology surrounding the Christmas Carol, “Joy to the World.” Albert Moehler’s claim in the piece linked above is that “Joy to the World” doesn’t refer to the glorious Incarnation / Resurrection / Ascension of our Lord, but only to the anticipated Second Coming.

A Musician friend of mine (Benjamin Bourlier) was so discouraged by Dr. Mohler’s gloomy piece he wrote a new version to “Joy to the World” that aptly corresponded with Dr. Mohler’s theology as found in the piece linked above.

Sung to the tune of “Joy to the World”

Dedicated to Dr. Albert Mohler and all premillennialists and amillennialist everywhere.

Joy to the world!
But wait, not yet.
The Savior’s yet to come!
Well, sure, He came that once,
And died upon the cross…
But that was just to say,
His Kingdom’s not in this world,
His Kingdom does not pertain To this world.

Ruinous decay
And violence spread,
Pagan hegemony.
Christians elsewhere are raped
And tortured for their faith.
What matters that to me?
What matters that to me?
For I am so very spiritual, you see.

“Love” means indifference
To this life,
Detachment from all things.
How does this differ from
Buddhism, you might say?
La la not listening.
La la not listening.
Can’t hear you, too spiritual, Not listening.

Lord Buddha come,
Enlighten us!
Free us from suffering!
Extinguish thought and pain
In mindless entropy.
O parinirvana, O parinirvana,
Shantih, nirvana Awaiteth we!

Here is an article, contra Dr. Mohler’s article, that seeks to be as optimistic as  “Joy to the World,” is itself.

Christmas Advent 2010 #1 — Joy To The World

FDR’s Right to a Good Education … A Rebuttal

“We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
 
Among these are:
 
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
 
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
 
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
 
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
 
The right of every family to a decent home;
 
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
 
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
 
The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.”

Franklin Delano Roosevelt 
US President – 1933-1945

So here Roosevelt promised one of the rights of Americans, the right to a good education.

Edwin Viera points out the reality that has come about,

The reality: the biggest and cruelest hoax of all, because it affects the future more than everything else. America’s elementary and secondary schools cannot teach children to read, write, and figure, let alone to think critically—but they can fill their heads with every form of sexual perversion imaginable. Colleges and universities are the last bastions of unadulterated, unreconstructed, unapologetic Marxism, radical feminism (a variety of Marxism in which the gender struggle substitutes for the class struggle), apocalyptic environmentalism, blatant racism, Keynesianism, and every other socially destructive “ism” known to modern man. In any event, even graduates who have mastered some useful discipline cannot find jobs in their areas of specialization but are saddled with tens of thousands of dollars of debt for student loans.

In all actuality, American education since this speech (and even before it) has never been about Education. Instead what American education is about is teaching children about how to be good little cogs for the American Corporatist, and Statist system. The last thing the Amercian educational system desires to produce are students who have the capacity for critical thinking.  Those kinds of students would foment counter-revolution overnight.

Instead what American education is, is cultural Marxist social engineering at its finest. It is about teaching 7-year-olds to come home and lecture Mommy and Daddy about not letting the water run lest the Mississippi river run dry. It is about teaching 9-year-olds about their white guilt against non-Caucasians.  It is about teaching 4th graders about how to put condoms on cucumbers or bananas. It is about a 3rd grader learning about who Harriet Tubman was before he learns about who George Washington, Thomas Chalmers, or Christopher Columbus was. (These are all true stories of which I have first-hand knowledge.)

American educators use mottos like, “No Child Left Behind,” but what they don’t tell you is that the necessary corollary to that statement is that “No Child Gets Ahead.” The reason that no child is left behind is that those who excel are slowed down and forced to mentor the dim bulbs. What “No Child Left Behind,” did was to yoke thoroughbred racehorses to plow horses. This is socialism in education that results in everyone being equally dumb.

Now, some might appeal to the American University, but in all truth, the American University is to our secondary education what the finishing school is for turning out ladies of etiquette. With precious few exceptions the American University system, as well as the American Seminary system, churn out graduates with an underlying commitment to recoil against anything that smells of historic Christianity.  Patriarchy? Revolting! 5th commandment unique love for one’s kith and kin? Racist! Disgust for sodomy? Homophobe! All of this is learned behavior as taught by the best Luciferian social engineers that money can buy. 

 In the end, if children can be taught at any level without seeing the connection between the God of the Bible and His Christ and what they are “learning” then they are being catechized into a false religion, as headed by a false god, with the consequence that the knowledge they are gaining is false.

Contrary FDR, there is no right to a good education and when the government takes upon itself to guarantee such a false right you can be sure that the result will be what we currently have; to wit, the enstupidification of Americans. If you have your children in public schools, from secondary schools to University and Seminary, you can be sure your children are destined to be dullards apart from a remarkable work of Grace.  Do not put God to the test.

Research it for yourself,

The Cloning of the American Mind — B. K. Eakman
The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America — Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt
The Leipzig Connection (Basics in Education) — Paolo Lioni
Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling — John Taylor Gatto