Apologetics – Page 9

Fisking Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration) (Part I)

Today Humanist Manifesto III was dropped by the Boomer-Cons. They are calling it “The Antioch Declaration.” I hope to interact with it some over the next few entries

We will start with a quote by Augustine;

“Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains imbedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected, and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule.”

St. Augustine on Galatians 3:28

Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration — Hereafter AD)

“We deny that the Kingdom purposes of Christ and requirements of His Word can be equated with the seating positions of political actors during the French Revolution, or that the modern antithesis between right and left is equivalent to the antithesis that God established in the Garden of Eden between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, the kingdom of darkness and kingdom of light.”

Paleocon responds

I wonder if the Boomers who put this together know that even though the French Revolution gave us “the Left and the Right” as political categories realize that both the Girondists, who sat on the right nor the Montagnards who sat on the left belong to what today would be known as conservative. The difference between Girondists (“right”) and Montagnards (“left) is that the Girondists were moderate and soft left while the Montagnards were hard left. There was no right.

It is the same today. In wonderful irony these chaps writing this document belong to the soft-moderate left in the Church. They are not as far left as the WOKE left but they are still doing the devil’s work in opposing well established revisionist understandings of the post-enlightenment consensus.

Now as far as the antithesis goes, it is true that the Biblical antithesis is not the same as left vs. right but with that said can the Boomer-Cons give anybody on the left that doesn’t belong to the seed of the serpent? I can give all kinds of names of those on the Right that belong to the seed of the woman. So, there isn’t an exact mirroring going on here but everybody on the left hates the Messiah.

Humanist Manifesto II (AD) writes,

“We affirm that the modern neo-pagan secular project is bankrupt and desperately trying to hold the social order together by means of a fraudulent narrative and anti-Christian worldview. As a result, the lies of secular elites in all spheres have necessarily grown increasingly evident and outrageous.”

Paleocon responds,

I affirm that the Boomer-cons are likewise bankrupt, being a pale expression of the neo-liberal Enlightenment project. They are likewise seeking to desperately hold the ecclesiastical social order together by means of a fraudulent narrative that finds Hitler behind every thought that disagree with them and views themselves as being Churchills who won’t make the mistakes of Neville Chamberlain. I would contend that they likewise are holding to a anti-Christian world and life view, and in order to support it the lies of these would be gatekeepers necessarily grow increasingly evident and outrageous. This is a classic case of accusing your enemies what you yourself are guilty of.

Humanist Manifesto (AD) writes,

“We affirm that, as a consequence, some young men in the West have become jaded and cynical, with an element among them now rejecting or doubting the received account of virtually anything. The great danger is that now, instead of acting on the basis of revealed truth in Christ, they are in the unhappy position of reacting by choosing between opposing sets of lies.”

Paleocon responds,

I affirm that, as a consequence, many old Boomers in the church in the West have become bossy and imperious, with an element among them now rejecting or doubting the well documented revisionist history on just about everything over the last 200 + years since the Endarkenment. The great danger is that now, instead of acting on the basis of a Christian Worldview derived from Scripture that allows them to properly read and interpret history, they are in the unhappy position of choosing to believe the lies fed to them by the non-Christian court historians of the 2oth century.

Twin Spin #2 — McAtee Contra Wilson On The Value Of His Conservatism

In this 30 second clip the Modernist of Moscow tips his hand in a revealing fashion;

https://www.youtube.com/clip/Ugkx7CxL4q6HzpNHhIzYS7j1kJI0UjqHnL6p

Wilson is a classic example why Biblical Christians need to avoid the sobriquet of “conservative,” and why they need to be done with being followers of Wilson. Wilson has demonstrated for us that there is very little admirable in being “conservative.” This is why some of us have reached for other labels. Some of us have suggested “Reformed Dissident.” We certainly need some identification that marks us as distinct from the type of conservatism that Wilson embodies.

The three quotes below from Samuel T. Francis begins to limn out the problems that currently exist with being thought of as “conservative.”

“What paleoconservatism tries to tell Americans is that the dominant forces in their society are no longer committed to conserving the traditions, institutions, and values that created and formed it, and, therefore, that those who are really conservative in any serious sense and wish to live under those traditions, institutions, and values need to oppose the dominant forces and form new ones.”

Samuel T. Francis

“Abandoning the illusion that it represents an establishment to be conserved, a new American Right must recognize that its values and goals lie outside and against the establishment and that its natural allies are not in Manhattan, Yale, and Washington but in the increasingly alienated and threatened strata of Middle America. The strategy of the Right should be to enhance the polarization of Middle Americans from the incumbent regime, not to build coalitions with the regime’s defenders and beneficiaries.

Samuel Francis

“The first thing we have to learn about fighting and winning a cultural war is that we are not fighting to “conserve” something; we are fighting to overthrow something….While we will find much in the conservative tradition to teach us about the nature of what we want to conserve and why we should want to conserve it, we will find little in conservative theory to instruct us in the strategy and tactics of challenging dominant authorities.”

Samuel Francis

Wilson in that link is nothing but astonishing … maybe “shocking” is a better word. I think my readers will find this link interesting.

To set this up, we need to keep in mind that there is a rumor floating around that Trump’s Sec.Def. nominee, Pete Hegseth is no longer a zionist, but that is not confirmed and is meaningless at this point. It is also interesting that I also heard that Hegseth attended a CREC church.

Anyway … in this recent clip linked above, Doug expresses glee over the possibility that Hegseth IS a zionist, all because it puts a damper on those Doug label’s “Aunti-Zemite” and that crowd’s hope of prevailing against the advance of Zionism in America.

The great irony of this is that boiled down: DW would rather a Christian Heresy (zionism) continue to prosper and haunt our nation, just to shut down a group of people he has a personal grudge against. This even though this heresy of Zionism is really aimed at the strength of the church in favor of a heathen belief and people.

DW expresses glee over a heresy which has subjected our children and nation to constant war / poverty. He takes glee in the undermining of the Church and nation, so that these “Aunti-Zemites” he so detests personally would experience setback.

It’s also interesting that DW in the clip above talks about “bad forms of Kinism.” Does this mean that DW finally recognizes that there is a Kinism that isn’t bad? And if he finally recognizes that would he possibly come out and say so?

Folks, conservatism is dead and ministers like Wilson (and Foster, and Sandlin, and Boot, and White, and etc. etc. etc.) are Pied Pipers either keeping us in the very bad place we currently are or worse yet leading us to an even worse place yet.

Dabney noted this long before Samuel Francis when he wrote of Conservatism in the 2nd half of the 19th century;

“It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This [Northern conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip.”

― Robert Lewis Dabney

Biblical Christians need to be done with conservatism and they need to be done with the clergy, like Wilson, who are the embodiment of the Conservative impulse.

Twin Spin #1 — McAtee Contra Wilson On The Nature & Character of America

Responding to Doug Wilson’s bloviating on the thread linked below;

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1857824129925476821.html?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR3a1SPDhUvNC-nX6pYuuYPYmtPBv9NRr-5MKRrxyw5Qa4EIIxZ5eAtg2zg_aem_RkYsp4e3U2k8YoFQYGPCJw

“The heaviest lift in our (America’s) process of assimilation was the descendants of the Africans who were brought here as slaves against their will. But it still was largely accomplished . . . until the advent of identity politics. Identity politics intends to melt the pot itself.”

Doug Wilson
Pope of Moscow

1.) Yes the descendants of Africa were brought here against their will as they were sold into bondage by their black African captors to, in many cases, Bagels who owned the shipping that was transporting these black Africans captured and sold as booty of war at at a great profit. It was a terrible thing for those people to endure but in the endurance of it the descendants of those black Africans have inherited a position and well being that could have never been theirs had their ancestors remained in Africa as war booty.

2.) Descendants of Africans were assimilated? They sure didn’t think so in the time of MLK. To listen to many today they don’t want to be assimilated instead preferring to be constantly playing the role of aggrieved victim. Those genuinely assimilated will have no foundation for pleading victimization.

3.) Identity politics came into being precisely because assimilation with its “America as melting pot” metaphor was NEVER true. It was only a matter of time once the project of white replacement got underway that identity politics was seen as the mask it was and is.

It is a mask, having been ripped off is now understood . If one looks at voting patterns, for example, going back decades and decades one can see the reality of identity politics in how minorities have voted over the decades. Identity politics merely became a problem, for people like Doug Wilson, once white people started voting in their interests. Identity politics was fine with the left up until the point when White folks began to realize that they had unique interests vis-a-vis other people groups.

“Until recently, America was a distinct ethnos that came into being as the result of many different ethnoi coming together at a pace that made assimilation possible—it was truly a melting pot.”

Doug Wilson
Pope of CREC

1.) What Doug doesn’t mention is that while it can be argued that America was indeed a distinct ethnoi, it was a distinct ethnoi as the European cousins inter-married. In other words, the US became a distinct ethnoi as comprised, in its majority expression, of White Europeans. That this is true is seen in census results from my own lifetime that registered America as being 88% white. This is a significant fact left off by “gate-keeper of Moscow.”

2.) Contra Wilson America was NEVER a melting pot. That was a myth sold to America in the early 19th century. I’m confident that current Reformed chaps seeking to be the Gatekeepers know that the more prevailing metaphor now is “America as salad bowl.” Interestingly enough the idea of America as melting pot was popularized by a early 20th century Russian Bagel immigrant, Israel Zwangli in a play he wrote. It has always been to the Bagel’s advantage to sell this dissimulation so that White Anglo Saxon Protestants don’t have a sense of ownership of their own nation. Those selling the whole “Melting Pot” myth have to know that America was, as recently as my birth, a nation that was 88% white and overwhelmingly Christian.

It is in the interest of Bagels to embrace and promulgate this false metaphor of “melting-pot” because by doing so no ethnic/racial majority is allowed to rise in order to “persecute” the Bagel population. A melting-pot metaphor keeps a people who are 2% of the population in an advantaged place as a “divide and conquer” technique. If there is no majority people group then it is easier for a group who has always refused to assimilate to control the whole nation.

“What these disparate groups were assimilated into was an Anglo Protestant culture that was superior to many other cultures. But any superiority that it had was because it was Christian, not because it was Anglo.”

Doug Wilson
Gate-keeper of Moscow

1.) If these disparate groups were assimilated into a Anglo-Protestant culture that was superior to many other cultures, then we might ask; “What the Hades has happened to that Anglo-Protestant culture these foreign elements were assimilated into?” I mean, if they were really ‘assimilated’ per the Gate-keeper of Moscow shouldn’t we still have that original Anglo-Protestant culture?

For the rest of the Wilson blathering immediately quoted above I quote the response of my friend DD;

2.) Wilson is arguing that America is not monoethnic but is a “melting pot” that at one point had an “Anglo-Protestant” culture. There are problems with this too numerous to deal with in a short post, but what I want you to see is the underlying egalitarianism.

If this is correct, there is no functional difference between ancient Greece, Japan, and the Aztecs because all were pagan.

At root, you see, there are no significant differences among the different peoples that cannot be primarily explained by the external factor of religion. There are men–not Dutchmen, Englishmen, Chinese, etc. and culture is reduced almost exclusively to one factor.

I once tried to explain to a pastor-friend, many years ago now, that the views he was articulating (similar to Wilson) were bound up in egalitarianism, which is a faith system that acts like leaven, poisoning the entire loaf. Once the camel’s nose is into the tent it is not long before you have women leading pastoral prayer or distributing the Eucharist. In time, they will be officers in the church, ruling and teaching. The knocking down of natural boundaries and categories does not stop, it is a ceaseless acid burning down the social order.

The Modernist of Moscow isn’t finished quite yet;

“The open borders policies of the last few years were not a continuation of our historic pattern of assimilation, but rather an ideological assault on the culture that was doing the assimilating.”

Doug Wilson
Embodiment of Modernity

1.) The last few years? Does the last few years begin for Dougie Doo Doo with the The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act,? That was when this ideological assault began in principle. What has happened in “last few years,” is merely the logical consequence of that act that overturned a previous immigration policy that was decidedly pro Western and pro White.

2.) As this immigration is indeed a part of an ideological assault on our culture it is obvious in order to save what is left of this once “superior culture” we must close the borders and repatriate tens of millions of people. Is Doug down with that? I have my doubts.

3.) If you scratch the surface of the Hart-Celler Act Doug isn’t going to be too pleased with which unassimilated people group in America were the ones pushing for the end of the previous Hart-Cellar policy.

Dougie Poo continues with his genius IQ;

“In light of all the foregoing, Clarence Thomas is a far better representative of—and defender of— our Anglo Protestant cultural heritage than, say, a gross ton of anon crusader accounts with laser eyes.”

Doug Wilson
Egalitarian Maestro

If Japan found a Clarence Thomas defending their cultural heritage I imagine that they would be glad for that Clarence Thomas. However, that doesn’t make such a thing ideal or the expected norm.

So, inasmuch as Clarence Thomas does defend Anglo-Protestant culture then three cheers and more for Clarence Thomas. May he remain healthy for many more years. May he find himself continued to be hated by the overwhelming majority of his own people.

However, that an anomaly exists doesn’t mean that we should keep looking for anomalies as the norm.

Dougie Poo ends with a flourish;

“So those who want to defend America as a monoethnic state need to take care lest they wind up defending a morono-ethnic state instead.”

Doug Wilson
Moron in Chief

Look at how clever Doug is. Did you see what he did there? he changed out “mono” for “morono.” My that is clever. Head of the class type of stuff. Makes me wish I could be clever just like Dougie.

Hey …. I’m trying.

I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends; Mueller & Chambers On The Inconsistency Of Arminianism

“Arminianism, like the Molinist theology on which it drew, is little more than the recrudescence of the late medieval semi-Pelagianism against which the Reformers struggled. Its tenets are inimical to the Pauline and Augustinian foundation of Reformed Protestantism.

In the Arminian system, the God who antecedently wills the salvation of all knowingly provides a pattern of salvation that is suitable only to the salvation of some. This doctrinal juxtaposition of an antecedent, and never effectuated, divine will to save all and a consequent, effectuated, divine will to save some on the foreknown condition of their acceptance of faith, reflects the problem of scientia media. The foreknowledge of God, in the Arminian view, consists in part in a knowledge of contingent events that lie outside of God’s willing and, in the case of the divine foreknowledge, of the rejection of grace by some, of contingent events that not only thwart the antecedent divine will to save all, but also are capable of thwarting it because of the divinely foreknown resistibility of the gift of grace. In other words, the Arminian God is locked into the inconsistency of genuinely willing to save all people while at the same time binding himself to a plan of salvation that he foreknows with certainty cannot effectuate his will. This divine inability results from the necessity of those events that lie within the divine foreknowledge but outside of the divine willing remaining outside of the effective will of God. Arminian theology posits the ultimate contradiction that God’s antecedent will genuinely wills what he foreknows cannot come to pass and that his consequent will effects something other than his ultimate intention. The Arminian God, in short, is either ineffectual or self-contradictory. Reformed doctrine on the other hand, respects the ultimate mystery of the infinite will of God, affirms the sovereignty and efficacy of God, and teaches the soteriological consistency of the divine intention and will with its effects.

Richard A Muller

Grace, Election, and Contingent Choice:

Arminius’s Gambit and the Reformed Response.

Philosophical and Theological Problems with Arminianism in all its various forms.

“1. Free will theology absolutizes the will of man and thereby reduces god to ontological equality with man. The knowledge of god is bound to the temporal actions of men. God cannot know the future acts and actions of men because those actions, products of a libertarian volition, do not yet exist in time. Thus God cannot know the future.

2. Foreknowledge being impossible, God’s knowledge is contingent on future potentials. God must learn from actions of men that occur outside of His mind and independent of His will. God cannot know all things, His knowledge being dependent on the arbitrary and indeterminate choices of the libertarian will of man. Thus god is not omniscient.

3. God then is not sovereign in all spheres and therefore not sovereign at all as sovereignty is understood in the classical Christian sense. God is limited and no longer all powerful. This is not the Christian God who declares the end from the beginning or who works all things after the counsel of His will. This is a god who learns and reacts to events that occur in a creation that has an existence independent of Himself. This God is not omnipotent.

4. Since there are conditions that occur outside of Himself, conditions which of necessity cannot be known in advance, events which He must learn as they occur, God must react and change to adapt to these circumstances. This God is not immutable.

5. In order to keep creation moving towards his desired end, he must of necessity intercede at times and violate the indeterminate will of man. But this is the very will that is said to be inviolable in the soteriological act. This god is compromised and inconsistent. This god is arbitrary and capricious. This god is confused and contradictory.

6. This god, it is said, has died for all men for all time, knowing full well that His plan of salvation will not save all men. So while some men decry the determinate God of Calvinism, they are more than willing to accept a god who knows the future infallibly, knows his plan will be ineffective for the majority of mankind and institutes this plan anyway knowing full well that it’s result will be the death of most who have ever lived.

7. Free will adherents reject a God who determines all things. But they are willing to accept a god who knows all things and chooses to do nothing about them. This is, so they say, because the will of man is free. God knows full well that terrorists will fly a jet into the WTC and chooses to do nothing. He is capable of doing something but values the libertarian will of men above the eternal destiny of all those in the buildings and so chooses, by his refusal to intercede, to consign most of those inhabitants to eternal death. If I observe a crime and have the ability to do something to prevent it or know in advance of it’s occurrence and fail to notify the proper authorities I am as guilty as those that perpetrated the crime. This god is guilty of complicity. He is an accessory before the fact.

8. In the case of open theism, god didn’t know what he was doing or what He would get by doing it (sin, evil, murders, war, untold human suffering on a massive scale) yet was willing to take that chance. This is the god who risks, but exactly who and what were affected by this risk? To add to the conundrum god could not know if there was anything he would be able to do to correct the mess he created. And the open theist suggests that the god of Calvinism is cold hearted and despotic?

9. This god potentially died for no one. The atonement is universal in scope. God has not done anything more for one person than He has done for any other person and the one thing he has not done for those who are lost is to save them. Salvation is for everyone in general, but for no one in particular. This god is dependent and ineffective.

10. Libertarians tacitly reject total depravity. Man is not dead in sin but merely sick. He is inclined to do evil but is not in fact evil. Salvation is a potential that must be appropriated by the individual. Man cannot be wholly dead in sin and make this choice. The potential for good must be present. Man must overcome the inclination to reject God in order to accept the offer of the Gospel. Unfortunately, the Gospel itself, while evidently powerful enough to save those who choose to accept it, is impotent to convert the hearts of most of mankind. Free will theology suffers from its own type of particularism, but it’s an arbitrary particularism dependent on the condition of the individual. Salvation is “available” only for the ethically advantaged.

11. No wonder then that the evangel is often reduced to begging and pleading. God is not going to do anything but offer a potential. MAN is the decisive factor. Man is the determinative agent. We must convince man to make a positive decision for Christ. Better salespersons are more effective evangelists. Solus Christos is lost as salvation is synergistic. Arminianism stands on the same epistemological ground as atheism.”

Mark Chambers

Texas State Congressman James Talarico Says Something Really Stupid

“Christian Nationalists are not interested in Christian values. They are only interested in legislating Christian dominance. Christian Nationalism (CN) is putting prayer in schools and taking free lunches out. CN is teaching the bible in schools but refusing to give teachers a pay raise. CN is forcing schools to post the ten commandments while nominating a candidate for President who has violated almost all of them. It is not about Jesus. It is about power.”

James Talarico
Texas State Congressman

1.) If Christian Nationalists are not interested in Christian values then they are not, by definition, Christian Nationalists.

2.) What could possibly be wrong with legislating Christian dominance? Is it only Christianity when one legislates the dominance of other non Christian religions?

3.) I am a Christian Nationalist. I am not interested in putting prayer in schools but I am interested in taking “free” lunches out. In point of fact, what I am really interested in is legislating a dominance that results in closing down completely government schools.

4.) There is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody, somewhere is paying for that lunch.

5.) I am a Christian Nationalist. As a Christian Nationalist I am opposed to the humanist hacks they call “teachers” to teach the Bible in government schools. Can you imagine how badly they would do so? I am also opposed to giving teachers a school raise. In point of fact, in my Christian Nationalist world all government school teachers would be out of work since all government schools would be shut down. I would shut down government school since, as a Christian Nationalist, wanting dominance, I do not want humanists being dominant over children as seen in their teaching the children that humanism should be dominant in their thinking.

6.) If schools are shut down then the idea of posting the ten commandments is now big deal. However, if government schools are not shut down, why shouldn’t the ten commandments be posted since the refusal to post them demonstrates the States desire to have its religion be dominant.

7.) This chap was adamantly opposed to posting the 10 commandments in Texas schools and he contributed to killing the bill in Texas.

8.) In desiring to post the ten commandments while nominating Trump who has violated all of them, Christians are involved in contradiction for sure. However, all because someone supports something wrong (nominating Trump) doesn’t mean it is wrong for them to support a good thing (posting the ten commandments.) It merely means they are inconsistent. Talarico’s inconsistencies are all over this stupid quote. Does that mean everything the man does is wrong?

9.) What ever could be possibly wrong with wielding power? So what if it is about power? When one embraces Christ are they at that point no longer to have authority or power? Should they not have the power of Fathers or Husbands? Should they not have the power of employer or politician?

10.) Why is it that the idea of embracing Jesus automatically means the idea of giving up power? I don’t doubt that for some Jesus is used as a mask to grab power but that doesn’t mean that automatically Christianity and power are incompatible.