Andrew Sandlin Wrong on America Not Being Race or Place

“Not race or place, but ideas, have always been at the root of what it means to be an American.”

Andrew Sandlin
2023

This was certainly not true of the founders as we will see below. It only became true when that criminal proto-Marxist Lincoln fundamentally changed the definition of America with the support of the immigrant Revolutionary German Forty-Eighters.

So, sans Sandlin America was a race and place and not merely about ideas. America was founded as a ethno-nation.

That was the original intent. Yes, it was a confederacy but all members of the confederacy were European in their origin. American was a nation where all the European cousins married one another. So … if you’re not non-Jewish European, you’re not American. And you can probably make the case that originally Eastern Europeans need not apply.

“The policy or advantage of [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws: in a word, soon become one people.” — George Washington

Or this description of the “new American man”:

(America qua nation began as a mostly English but also Western, European people:)

“…whence came all these people? They are a mixture of English, Scotch, Irish, French, Dutch, Germans, and Swedes… What, then, is the American, this new man? He is either a European or the descendant of a European; hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. . . . The Americans were once scattered all over Europe; here they are incorporated into one of the finest systems of population which has ever appeared.”

John Hector St. John de Crèvecœur
Letters from an American Farmer in 1782 

Or John Jay’s comment that American are a single people:

“Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, without which a common and free government would be impossible.”

~~John Jay, Federalist #2

Or John Dickinson:

“Where was there ever a confederacy of republics united as these states are…or, in which the people were so drawn together by religion, blood, language, manners, and customs?”

~~John Dickinson, Delaware delegate to the constitutional convention

Similar quotes could be found from Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris as well as later figures like Teddy Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge.

SCOTUS Justice Gorsuch on our Founding … McAtee on Gorsuch

“The Declaration of Independence had three great ideas in it.

1.) That we were all created equal
2.) That each of us have inalienable rights given to us by God and not Government
3.) We have the right to rule ourselves

Our nation is not founded on a religion. It’s not based on a common culture, even, or heritage. It’s based on those ideas. We’re a creedal nation.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch
The Reason Interview podcast w/ Nick Gillespie

I can’t imagine much that is more stupid than this as coming from a Supreme Court Justice.

First, the three ideas that Gorsuch claims are the ideas that America is built on are ideas that find their roots in some religion. For example, the idea that “we are all created equal” stems from some anthropological convictions. Where did those anthropological come from if not from some religion?

Second, the founders did NOT believe that all men were created equal in the sense that Gorsuch wrongly understands the Constitution. If the founders had believed that they would not have later in the Declaration referred to the Indians as “savages.” The founder’s complaint against King George is that King George was not treating the Colonials as fellow Englishmen and as such the bit about all men being created equal was in reference to all Englishmen being created equal. Even Jefferson would have never countenanced the idea that an Iroquois or a Hottentot slave was his equal in the egalitarian sense that we throw that word around today.

Third, where else does the idea that we all have inalienable rights given to us by God come from except from some Religion a-priori? A people who genuinely had no religion would never invoke the idea of God. Gorsuch is just gaslighting here.

Fourth, Gorsuch apparently is not aware that in a now-famous study published in the American Political Science Review, which is the flagship publication for political scientists, a political scientist by the name of Donald Lutz surveyed the political literature of the American founding. He was looking to see who it was that Americans were citing in this political literature. He reports that the Bible was cited more frequently than any European writer or even any European school of thought, such as Enlightenment liberalism. The Bible, Lutz reported, accounted for approximately one-third of the citations in the literature he surveyed. The book of Deuteronomy alone was the most frequently cited work, followed by Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws. In fact, Deuteronomy was referenced nearly twice as often as John Locke’s writings, and the apostle Paul was mentioned about as frequently as Montesquieu and Blackstone, who would have been the two most-cited secular theorists. Because of all this to say, as Gorsuch does that our nation was not founded on a religion is just more gaslighting and is utterly jejune. America was founded as a Christian nation by Christian people, informed by a Christians ethos.

Fifth, we are not a creedal nation. Not even our founders believed that nonsense. Witness founding Father John Jay’s thoughts,

“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”

Likewise founding father John Dickinson

“Where was there ever a confederacy of republics united as these states are…or, in which the people were so drawn together by religion, blood, language, manners, and customs?”

John Dickinson
Delaware delegate to the constitutional convention

 

Sixth, the right to rule ourselves was always window dressing and from the beginning has never been true. Like all other nations we are now and always have been ruled by the money interest.

Finally, the idea that there was no common culture or heritage owned by our founding Fathers is another knee slapper. Nine of the thirteen colonies at the time of the Revolution had state churches. They were different denominations, but they were all clearly Christian. Our common culture and heritage were Christian.

I hope Gorsuch doesn’t really believe the manure he’s shoveling, because if he does it demonstrates how incompetent he is. I suspect though as a member of the elite class he understands he has to keep gaslighting the hoi poloi with this drivel. I suspect that Gorsuch understands that if the religion of humanism is to continue as the State religion, then it has to be continually repeated that we were not founded on a religion.

A Brief Biblical Case Detailing God’s Opposition to Inter-racial Marriage

A common maxim in Reformed theology is that “grace restores nature.” What is being communicated here is that once the Triune God visits a man with redemption that man becomes, over the course of time in light of ongoing sanctification, the best version of himself.  Grace, in this understanding doesn’t make the man into something other than when he was when visited by and with grace but rather it restores what was taken from man by the fall and his sinful nature. So, because of this when a man or woman is visited by renewal unto eternal life he/she neither loses his maleness or femaleness. Neither do they lose their genetic predispositions, but grace restores those predispositions in a Christ honoring direction. In the same sense once a person is redeemed, they are not evacuated of their ethnic/racial identity. To insist that grace unmakes nature so that the convert is now something completely other than what they were before grace is a Gnostic position. It is a denial of nature and an insistence that grace un-anchors us from whom God providentially created us to be.

This is demonstrated in the reality that the Lord Jesus Christ, who is now at the right hand of the Father remains male, remains a member of the tribe of Judah, and retains His human nature. Even in resurrection (an event akin to our regeneration) Christ is not other than who He was, according to His divine and human nature, before His death and resurrection, though now glorified.

The scriptures teach that the Triune God ordained not only our redemption, but He ordained who we would be in creation as well. God ordained that we would be male or female. God ordained our genetic strengths and weaknesses. God ordained what family, tribe, nation and race to which we would belong. So, we see in scripture the beginnings of races, languages and nations according to God’s creational intent. These distinctions are maintained even after redemption. This is seen in texts like,

Rev. 7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,

Rev. 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,


Rev. 11:9 Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations [a]will see their dead bodies three-and-a-half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves.

Rev. 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people—

Rev. 20:3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

Rev. 20:8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea.

Notice the repeated mention of nations as nations being present in the New Jerusalem.  This is testimony that grace does not destroy nature. This is testimony that it is not God’s intent for distinct nations to disappear into a Gospel blob that finds all colors bleeding into one. Christianity does not put humanity in a giant genetic blender while hitting the high-speed button. This was the agenda of those at Babel (Gen. 11). The agenda of a coffee-latte colored multi-racialist/cultural nation has always been the agenda of the Marxists. Always.

Our Lord Christ Himself maintained the creational distinctions ordained from eternity. Jesus, whose own genetic descent was instrumental to His Messiahship (Matthew 1, Luke 3, Romans 1:3), sent His disciples first only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt. 10:6, cmp. Mt. 15:24) yet later the resurrected and ascended Lord Christ directs St. Paul to the Gentiles (Acts 22:17-29 cmp. Acts 13:2-3). During His own ministry Jesus says,

16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

A fold is a portion of the larger flock. The Lord Christ has one flock, but that flock is made of folds that exist in many ethnic/racial places. The Church has a unity (one flock) found in a diversity of folds. In the Church there is unity in diversity. There are German folds, Japanese folds, Ndebele folds but together they form one flock with Christ the chief shepherd. The reality and even necessity of various folds does not negate the unity found in the flock (Church). Again, even in heaven these folds will be present as one flock. When the New Jerusalem is let down upon the New Earth in the eschaton (Rev. 21:1-3) we read

Rev. 21:24 And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it. 25 Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). 26 And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it. 

Here we see the creational distinctions that God ordained in Gen. 10:5, Dt. 32:8, and Acts 17:26 would be perpetually established into the eschaton.

From these the coastland peoples of the Gentiles were separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations.

Dt.32:8When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations,
When He separated the sons of Adam,
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the children of Israel. 

Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,

The sin of Babel was the same attempt that modern man pursues now and that is the sin of amalgamation. The desire in Gen. 11 (Bable) was to adulterate the nations (adulterate in the sense of water down or dilute) with the humanistic purpose of fallen man apart from God seeking to “make a name for himself.” This attempt at adulteration/amalgamation of the races/nations is what the multi-racialist/culturalist pursues today. They are the intellectual descendants of Nimrod and Babel. The fact that many of these Babel-ites are clergy only increases their guilt.

The Scripture teaches that God condemned those who would remove these distinctions by means of amalgamation/adulteration.

Dt. 7:3 Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son.

Ezra 9:10 And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? For we have forsaken Your commandments,

Nehemiah 9:2 Then those of Israelite lineage separated themselves from all foreigners; and they stood and confessed their sins and the iniquities of their fathers. (See all of Nehemiah 9-13).

Now the typical Evangelical and Cultural Marxist Reformed response to these passages is to insist that the only segregation/separation that God requires is a forbidding of marriage and breeding between believers and unbelievers regardless of their race/ethnicity. The problem with this defense against the clear teaching of Scripture is found in the abhorrence of Isaac and Rebecca as to Esau’s choice of wives. Gen. 25-28 teaches that one of Esau’s rebellions was his miscegenation. However, Esau was no believer marrying unbelieving women who were not members of the covenant. Esau was an unbeliever marrying unbelievers. Now combine this observation that Jacob in marrying Rachel was hardly marrying a daughter who wasn’t from a pagan family. (Witness her theft of her father’s gods.) Clearly, there is something other going on in the Holy record besides Isaac and Rebecca being put out because Esau as an unbeliever married unbelieving Hittites or Ishmaelite women or Jacob as a covenant child married Rachel who could not be considered a covenant member at this time. Clearly, there are racial/ethnic considerations going on here. Isaac and Rebecca are put out because Esau married outside his kin and Rebecca sends Jacob to her brother Laban to find a wife among her and Isaac’s kin, even if Rachel, the wife to be, was not at that time a servant of Yahweh.

Also, we need to consider in all this that in the Ezra and Nehemiah texts where the requirement is to send away all the foreign women that the Israelites had married, that the requirement was also to send away children of those unions. If it was the case that the problem was only that the Israelites had married unbelieving women why then were the covenant children of those unions also to be sent away? Clearly, God held there to be such a problem with these unions that both the foreign wives and the children born of those foreign wives had to be sent away. The issue here in Ezra and Nehemiah is not one only of unbelieving wives. The issue in Ezra and Nehemiah is also one of ethnic mixing that displeased the God of the Bible.

Underscoring all this is God’s instructions regarding beast and crop;

Lev. 19:19 ‘You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.

Rushdoony comments on this passage,

“These laws forbid the blurring of God-ordained distinctions. The nature and direction of sin is to blur and finally erase all the God-ordained boundaries … God’s laws are case laws. If vegetable seeds are not to be mingled, nor an ass and a horse crossbred, then in the human realm it follows that the confusion of God-ordained boundaries is even more serious.”

R. J. Rushdoony

Commentary on Leviticus – p. 230

A second’s thought understands that if God wants lesser distinctions retained how much more would we expect God to desire greater distinctions as between races to be retained?Now, in this discussion we take notice of the 7th commandment.

“Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery”

Adultery includes the obvious sexual sins that are commonly associated with it. However, the forbidding of “Adultery,” includes the forbidding of “Adulteration.” The adulteration that is forbidden includes a watering down or diluting of the original stock. When a marriage is contracted between people of different races the issue from that marriage is an adulteration from both racial stocks.

Calvin in his commentary on Genesis 36 touches the subject of adulteration,

24. This was that Anah that found the mules. Mules are the adulterous offspring of the horse and the ass. Moses says that Anal was the author of this connection. [131] But I do not consider this as said in praise of his industry; for the Lord has not in vain distinguished the different kinds of animals from the beginning. But since the vanity of the flesh often solicits the children of this world, so that they apply their minds to superfluous matters, Moses marks this unnatural pursuit in Anah, who did not think it sufficient to have a great number of animals; but he must add to them a degenerate race produced by unnatural intercourse. Moreover, we learn hence, that there is more moderation among brute animals in following the law of nature, than in men, who invent vicious admixtures.

John Calvin

Commentary — Genesis 36:24

Calvin clearly here shows the modernly ignored meaning of adultery: to bastardize/adulterate. While marital adultery (promiscuity) is definitely a sin, the inherent meaning of miscegenation/mongrelization is included in the word “adultery” and “adulterate” and that is all but forgotten in our modern context. As we have also seen in Genesis, God referred to Esau’s taking of wives outside his racial family as fornication (Hebrews 12:16)!

The reader would profit greatly from taking the time to learn about adulteration from this article

A Kinist Commentary on the Ten Commandments: The Seventh Word

Heritage Reformed people, following Calvin, have always had this abhorrence of all attempts to wipe out God ordained distinctions. We follow Calvin here,

“But the notion that what ails the world [inseparably from sin] is confusion had much practical value for Calvin … Thus, when Calvin associated disorder with obscurity, he could conceive of correcting it by sharpening the contours of the various entities composing the world; once one thing has been clearly distinguished, physically or conceptually, from others, it can be assigned its proper place in the order of things … Thus he abominated ‘mixture,’ one of the most pejorative terms in his vocabulary; mixture in any area of experience suggested to him disorder and unintelligibility. He had absorbed deeply not only the traditional concern for cosmic purity of a culture that had restricted mixture to the sublunary realm but also various Old Testament prohibitions. Mixture, for Calvin, connoted ‘adulteration’ or ‘promiscuity,’ but it also set off in him deep emotional and metaphysical reverberations. He repeatedly warned against ‘mixing together things totally different.’ …

The positive corollary of Calvin’s loathing of mixture was his approval of boundaries, which separate one thing from another. He attributed boundaries to God Himself: God had established the boundaries between peoples, which should therefore remain within the space assigned to them … ‘Just as there are in a military camp separate lines for each platoon and section,’ Calvin observed, ‘men are placed on the earth so that each nation may be content with its own boundaries.’”

W.J. Bouwsma

John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait — p.34-35

 

The reason this kind of defense of intra-racial marriage is necessary is due to the constant Cultural Marxist hyper push on achieving what those behind the Tower of Babel could only have dreamed of achieving. If this kind of push in the larger culture (Governments, Media, Hollywood, Advertising, etc.) didn’t exist these kinds of arguments here would not be needed. Clearly, it is not the occasional occurrence of a inter-racial marriage here or there that calls for this kind of clarity. What demands this kind of clarity is the ever-increasing achievement of the long-held Marxist dream of eliminating all races and nations. Further, what demands this kind of clarity is the clear intent to completely genocide the White race — particularly White Christians. Replacement theory is no myth.

It is obvious that this reasoning can be taken to extremes that I would not be comfortable with and that I would oppose. Being a believer in freedom of association, I would not support laws that would find the state trying to legislate on these matters. These matters are better being put under the government of the family. Further, I understand that inter-racial marriages are going to happen, as much as I don’t think that is profitable, especially for the children of such unions. Compassion on those children as well as on my people group requires me to speak as a Christian minister. What I am trying to lift my voice against is the current Babel zeitgeist that finds miscegenation being stuck in the face ad nauseum of what at one time was referred to as Christendom. There clearly is an agenda here and that agenda needs to be opposed the way Samson opposed the Philistines.

There is nothing that I oppose more than the presence of the New World Order in the Church and the attendant clergy who have reinterpreted Christianity through the lens of Cultural Marxist worldview.

 

 

 

 

James Lindsey Complains About Folks Saying, “Christ Is King”

“‘Christ is King’ is, in addition to its malicious uses, a Christian virtue signal. Christians say it’s true. Nobody else does. Repeating it shows you’re on the team. Refusing to brings suspicions. That’s why it works. Bad actors can abuse it and lots will go along and defend it.”

James Lindsey
Atheist
Platformed by “Christian” Michael O’Fallon

1.) What possible malicious uses can a true statement possibly be leveraged?

2.) Of course it is, at the very least, a virtue signal. Just as someone saying “There is only one God; Allah, and Muhammed is his prophet” is a virtue signal among some types.

3.) Of course only people who believe it is true say it is true. This statement by Lindsey is like warning people that water is wet. NSS.

4.) Of course saying it proves one is on the team. And your point is?

5.) If I were an employer, for example, I would be so suspicious of someone not confessing “Christ is King,” I would not hire them. Yet another Captain Obvious statement by Lindsey.

6.) The primary reason why saying “Christ is King” works is because Christ is King.

7.) The idea that there is, out there, this galaxy of bad actors who will say “Christ is King” in order to abuse it is the kind of reasoning that the denizens of Hell come up with in order to make sure nobody ever says “Christ is King.”

8.) Of course “lots will go along and defend people saying “Christ is King.” That is primarily due to the fact that lots of people believe that “Christ is King.”

Michael O’Fallon, if he is a Christian, will have a good deal to answer for by platforming James Lindsey, the Christ hater.

Continuing Chit Chat Between Spurgeon & McAtee

Rev. Jospeh Spurgeon (Hereinafter JS) writes,

Where we fundamentally part ways is that you collapse categories that Scripture keeps distinct.

The Bible teaches that sin is universal in Adam. It does not locate the primary engine of evil in one people group. It does not teach that one ethnos functions as a kind of ongoing, central delivery mechanism of satanic opposition.

BLMc responds,

1.) I categorically deny that I am collapsing categories that Scripture keeps distinct.

2.) I admit that in Adam’s fall, we fell all. Indeed, I subscribe to it.

3.) I also affirm that some people groups can excel in wickedness over other people groups. To put it another way, I do affirm that there can be such a thing as people groups who are senior Devil agents compared to other people groups who can be junior Devil agents. The Bagels have a long and storied history of opposing Christ and therefore, I follow the Holy Spirit who said that,

Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52 Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him—

And again,

II Thess. 2:14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone 16 in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.

We see here, Joe, that just as Cretans per Paul, had dispositional sins that meant that they excelled at certain sins over other people groups, so the Bagels have a disposition of excelling at rejecting Christ. Now, this does not mean that individual Bagels can’t be redeemed by a graciousness that is beyond their treachery but it does mean that they are to be considered Senior rebels who excell at rebelling against the Lord and His Messiah.

JS writes,

On the question of neighbor, you have repeatedly avoided the clear teaching of our own tradition. John Calvin explicitly states that the Good Samaritan teaches that every man is our neighbor, precisely because all men are made in the image of God. He says this plainly and repeatedly. The Reformed tradition does not restrict the definition of neighbor to tribe or kin. It affirms ordered love, yes, but not restricted love.

Bret responds,

Joe, if there are differing degrees of neighborliness, which our Reformed Fathers taught, then all men are not our neighbors in the same way and in the same sense. As such to say “All men are our neighbors” apart from any of the kind clear qualifications that we find in the quote below from the Puritans Willard and Winthrop is a significant confusion that will lead people astray in their thinking in an area that has become overwhelmingly important in the ongoing replacement enterprise that WASPs are experiencing,

There are diverse degrees of Neighborhood. The word ‘neighbor’ is very (comprehensive); it comprehends in it all with whom we may have any civil (Communion) and so the greatest and strangest, and (all) of men. And it involves all the several (nations) and religions. So, in this respect, some may be our nearer neighbors than others. A brother is nearer than a stranger, etc. Hence, there are necessary degrees of the Law. That we are to love all equally alike is asserted, and from (variance) of the relations with God hath (created) among men unto which are to be discharged by a special love one to another. Hence Psalm 16:3, ‘But to the saints that are in the earth, and to the excellent, in whom is all my delight.’ There are some who we ought to be more concerned for than others.”

Samuel Willard
Puritan
Body of Divinity – pgs. 584-585

We are not bound to exercise mercy to others to the ruin of ourselves.”

John Winthrop

Life and Letters of John Winthrop – p. 183

So, we see at times ordered love is restricted love in the sense that the word “love” has come to be used in our modern lexicon.

JS writes,

I believe in ordo amoris. I also believe the Scriptures call us to love those whom God places in our path, including those outside our immediate circle.

Bret responds,

But here everything hinges on what the word “love” means. Everything also hinges on understanding that one cannot love others to the ruin of ourselves or our kith and kin as Winthrop states above. So, I believe I am to love those God places in our path and my wife and I have lived that out. Several years ago we took in a homeless 21 year old professing Christian. It’s a long story but out of a sense of the requirement to “love” the least of these we took him in and gave him a home. I mention this only to distance myself from any accusation that I’m a cold hearted-bastard.

JS writes,

I have read Luther and Chrysostom on the Jews. I agree with much of what they said, especially in their historical contexts. Chrysostom, for example, was addressing a version of Hebrew roots movement in his day. But neither Chrysostom nor Luther made the Jews the central explanatory category for evil in the world. They spoke strongly, at times sharply, but they did not replace the biblical doctrine of sin with an ethnically centered framework.

Bret responds,

I strongly recommend that you read Calvin’s booklet “Response to questions and objections of a certain Bagel.” You can find it online.

Again, I say unto you, I am NOT denying that in Adam’s fall we fell all. I am affirming that some people groups excel at rebellion against the magnificent Lord Christ. Bagels are the Senior Rebels among all the people groups. Keep in mind that our Master said of the Bagels, “you are of your Father, the Devil, he was a murderer from the beginning. When he lies he speaks his native tongue.” As bad as the Cretans were as we see in Titus 1, this is pointed and direct ethnic language.

JS writes,

The issue is not whether Jews can be enemies of Christ. Of course they can and often are. So can Gentiles. So can anyone in rebellion against God. The issue is whether you elevate one group into a kind of ongoing, defining category for understanding evil itself.

BLMc responds,

I don’t think I can make my position any clearer than I have above.

JS writes,

The enemy is not flesh and blood in that sense. The enemy is sin, the world, and the devil. And those realities cut across every tribe, tongue, and nation.

BLMc responds,

I quite agree … and in some people group more than others. Also, in some people groups with different expressive dynamics than others. (Hence the Cretans.)

JS writes,

So no, I am not denying that evil works itself out concretely. Nor am I in support of Judaism, dispensationalism, or egalitarianism.

BLMc

Hmmm…. I’m pretty sure we still disagree on these fronts.

JS writes,

Let’s narrow this to the question of neighbor, because that’s where you continue to avoid a clear answer.

BLMc responds,

You keep on using that phrase “you have avoided giving a clear answer.” I do not think that means what you think that means.

I have been consistently clear. It is only your cognitive dissonance that accounts for your inability to read my clarity.

JS,

Do you agree with Calvin that every man is our neighbor because every man is made in the image of God?

That is the question.

BLMc responds,

One cannot consistently say “every man is my neighbor,” and then turn around and suggest that there are different degrees of neighborliness. Every man can’t be my neighbor in the same sense if it is true that there are different degrees of neighborliness.

One must find other words for “neighbor” if one is going to insist that there are vastly differing degrees of neighbor that differing “neighbors” correspond to. This is like saying all people are hockey players but some people don’t skate.

So, if you allow me to define the different degrees of neighbor — the different neighborly ways that some neighbor people can be treated than other neighbor people than fine … “all people are neighbors.” BUT, you and I are importing different meaning into that word and so we are not really agreed, are we?

JS writes,

You keep appealing to degrees of love and responsibility. I have already affirmed that. Of course there are degrees. A man has greater obligations to his wife than to a stranger. We are limited in our time, resources, and responsibilities. No one is denying that.

BLMc responds,

Great… so we agree that not all neighbors are treated the same therefore the appeal to “treating everyone like a neighbor” tells no one anything of any concrete value.

JS writes,

But that is not the issue.

BLMc

Ummm… yeah, that kind of is the issue.

JS writes,

The issue is whether the category “neighbor” is universal or restricted.

BLMc

Joe … if everyone is fast, then no one is fast. If everyone is my friend then no one is my friend.

If everyone is my neighbor then no one is my neighbor.

Do you understand this concept?

JS writes,

Calvin says it is universal. Every man is our neighbor. The degrees come in how we discharge our duties, not in who qualifies as neighbor.

BLMc responds,

Sigh

Right … every man is my neighbor therefore no one is my neighbor.

We are the world
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So, let’s start giving
There’s a choice we’re making
We’re saving our own lives
It’s true we’ll make a better day
Just you and me

JS writes,

You continue to blur that distinction.

BLMc

LOL … and you continue to not get it.

JS writes,

Now, to be clear, I do agree with you in part. Scripture itself recognizes that different peoples can have characteristic sins. Paul says as much about the Cretans. History shows that different nations can, at times, excel in particular forms of wickedness. That is not controversial.

And yes, there are times when certain individuals or groups act as more immediate or intense enemies of Christ and His people. That also is not controversial.

BLMc

There’s nothing I like more than the smell of a lack of controversy in the morning.

JS writes,

But none of that justifies redefining the category of neighbor or treating some people as though they fall outside of it.

BLMc responds,

Let’s see if we can reach some kind of accord here that will satisfy your insistence for one catch all word.

There are neighbors

Some neighbors receive natural affections
Some neighbors receive human affections
Some neighbors receive Christian affections
Some neighbors receive opposition affections

So, we have all these different people wherein we have different affections but they are all neighbors.

Admission – I got this idea from the Puritan Thomas Wilson on the subject

JS writes,

When a man is in front of me, I am not permitted to ask first about his ethnicity before determining whether I owe him love. Love is not mere sentiment. It is obligation. It is responsibility. And that responsibility is grounded in the image of God, not in tribal proximity.

BLMc writes,

When I have a man in front of me and my Son next to me and both of them need a dollar who am I to show neighborliness to first and foremost Joe? Well, of course, the one in tribal proximity to me.

Silly boy.

JS writes,

So again, the question remains:

Do you agree with Calvin that every man is our neighbor?

Bret responds,

So, again the question remains, do you agree with Thomas Wilson above about the different type of affections neighbors are to receive?

JS (thinking he has me pinned … LOL)

Until you answer that directly, all of your appeals to degrees of love and historical examples are beside the point.

BLMC responds,

I have answered it directly. Until you can understand the nuances of the conversation your DEMANDS serve to embarrass you.

JS writes,

That is the issue.

Bret

Rev. Spurgeon, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.