Category: Culture

Ambrose contra Symmachus, Piper, Mohler & all R2K

“Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive against them.”

Proverbs 28:4

In the 4th century Emperor Gratian’s removal of the pagan altar of victory from the Senate was the occasion for a great debate between Symmachus, the leader of the pagan aristocracy, and the ablest Italian ecclesiastic, Bishop Ambrose of Milan (St. Ambrose). Symmachus was the classical Liberal in this debate and was arguing against Ambrose that all the ancient pagan religions should be reinstated in Rome and Christianity not be allowed to be the unique religion of the people. Symmachus had all the liberal qualities that arise when liberals are in the minority. Symmachus was tolerant, generous and simply wanted fairness. Symmachus argued that many roads lead to God — why should the old religion of Rome, under whose aegis the Roman state had prospered, not be left in Peace he reasoned.

“We demand then the restoration of that condition of religious affairs which was so long advantageous to the state. Let the rulers of each sect and of each opinion be counted up; a late one(3) practised the ceremonies of his ancestors, a later(4) did not put them away. If the religion of old times does not make a precedent, let the connivance of the last(5) do so….

(Formerly our Emperor) enquired about the origin of the temples, and expressed admiration for their builders. Although he himself followed another religion, he maintained its own for the empire, for everyone has his own customs, everyone his own rites…. Now if a long period gives authority to religious customs, we ought to keep faith with so many centuries, and to follow our ancestors, as they happily followed theirs….

Let me live after my own fashion, for I am free….

We ask, then, for peace for the gods of our fathers and of our country. It is just that all worship should be considered as one. We look on the same stars, the sky is common, the same world surrounds us. What difference does it make by what pains each seeks the truth? We cannot attain to so great a secret by one road; but this discussion is rather for persons at ease, we offer now prayers, not conflict.”

Read those words of the champion of the pagan cause, Symmachus again, and ask yourself how similar they sound to modern day Symmachus like Christian clergy.

“Well, Christians should step back for a moment and recognize that there is something important here at stake. There is no reason why Christians should argue against having a Muslim holiday on the school calendar if there is a significant group or percentage of Muslims in the community – that would simply be fair and it would simply makes sense. We should not claim the privilege of having our religious holidays on the calendar and consider it some kind of Christian victory to keep other religious holidays off the calendar.”

Albert “Symmachus” Mohler

“We express a passion for the supremacy of God… by making clear that God himself is the foundation for our commitment to a pluralistic democratic order-not because pluralism is his ultimate ideal, but because in a fallen world, legal coercion will not produce the kingdom of God. Christians agree to make room for non-Christian faiths (including naturalistic, materialistic faiths), not because commitment to God’s supremacy is unimportant, but because it must be voluntary, or it is worthless. We have a God-centered ground for making room for atheism.”

John Symmachus Piper

Contrary to Symmachus of old, and modern day Symmachus’, Ambrose was the man who stood upon the principle that Christianity as the one true religion must by necessity eclipse all other religions as the God of the Bible eclipses all other gods. Ambrose dealt with Symmachus’ arguments one by one exposing the fallacy in each of them. In that context he addressed Theodosius as to the need to put away the old pagan of religions as they were empty and ineffectual rites. In 392, after Theodosius gained control of the whole empire, he issued an official proscription of paganism, forbidding anyone in any place whatsoever, even in private, to exercise any of the ancient rites of the ancient religion. This action supporting the Christian faith the “Christian” clergy Piper and Mohler would be aghast over.

Ambrose argued against Symmachus, Piper, and Mohler such,

But, says Symmachus, Piper, and Mohler, let the altars be restored to the images, and their ornaments to the shrines. Let this demand be made of one who shares in their superstitions; a Christian Emperor has learnt to honour the altar of Christ alone. Why do they exact of pious hands and faithful lips the ministry to their sacrilege? Let the voice of our Emperor utter the Name of Christ alone, and speak of Him only, Whom he is conscious of, for, “the King’s heart is in the hand of the Lord.”(1) Has any heathen Emperor raised an altar to Christ? While they demand the restoration of things which have been, by their own example they show us how great reverence Christian Emperors ought to pay to the religion which they follow, since heathen ones offered all to their superstitions.

I have answered those who provoked me as though I had not been provoked, for my object was to refute the Memorial, not to expose superstition. But let their very memorial make you, O Emperor, more careful. For after narrating of former princes, that the earlier of them practised the ceremonies of their fathers, and the later did not abolish them; and saying in addition that, if the religious practice of the older did not make a precedent, the connivance of the later ones did; it plainly showed what you owe, both to your faith, viz., that you should not follow the example of heathen rites, and to your affection, that you should not abolish the decrees of your brother. For if for their own side alone they have praised the connivance of those princes, who, though Christians, yet in no way abolished the heathen decrees, how much more ought you to defer to brotherly love, so that you, who ought to overlook some things even if you did not approve them in order not to detract from your brother’s statutes, should now maintain what you judge to be in agreement both with your own faith, and the bond of brotherhood.

Now, it is true that our leaders are hardly Christian but the principle we see in Ambrose is a Christian contending that the one true faith should be honored as the recognized unique faith of the people. This is contrary to the argument that Symmachus, Piper, and Mohler (and all of R2K) advance when they contend that the one true faith of the people is that all the faiths are equal and should be equally honored.

Who will you stand with? Christian Ambrose of Milan or the consummate Liberals Symmachus, Piper, Mohler and R2K?

The full discussion between Symmachus and Ambrose can be found here,

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/ambrose-sym.asp

The Destructive Nature of Affirmative Action

The fault with affirmative action is,

1.) that by by trying to compensate a group for past injustices, affirmative action rewards people who have suffered no individual harm, and does so at the expense of those who have done no individual harm.

2.) that it proposes to achieve cultural color blindness by way of only seeing color. Recently, an Institution that I am associated with, has encouraged people to be colorblind and then turned around and resolved to gain racial-gender equality by hiring people because of their plumbing and pigment in order to reach a benchmark gender – racial goal.

3.) that it guarantees a lack of self respect and injury among those advanced via affirmative action so much so that no sense of accomplishment can ever be arrived at since the one advanced wrongly always knows he did not earn what he putatively achieved.

4.) that it punishes achievement and rewards mediocrity.

5.) that it guarantees tensions since those advanced, via affirmative action, will never be looked upon as being worthy of their positions since it is widely assumed that all those advanced via affirmative action are only where they are at because of their incidental attributes and not because of their abilities.

6.) that it continues racism and genderism due to how it subtly communicates that the beneficiaries of affirmative action are not qualified enough to achieve without being given advantages over people more qualified than them. This is commonly called “Tokenism.”

7.) that in destroying the natural nexus between ability, hard work, and achievement it disincentivizes hard work and creates a cynical citizenry pertaining to the professional class.

Marinov’s Mistakes On Immigration

Recently, a social media site found former Communist and Bulgarian Bojidar Marinov commenting on a Dr. Joel McDurmon thread. He is addressing a learned and mature Christian with whom he disagrees on the issue of immigration. I place it here in order to demonstrate Mr. Marinov’s dissembling and exaggeration techniques. I place the quote first followed by analysis.

Mr. Marinov wrote,

“Your pathetic attempts at sarcasm show you are out of arguments. Like I said, I don’t care for Sowell, Woods, or Hoppe; their thinking is not Biblical and therefore is schizophrenic and inconsistent where moral issues are involved. And like I said, Woods is not even following von Mises’s methodological individualism in his essay but speaks as a collectivist. And like I said, Rushdoony didn’t mention any immigration restrictions in the Law of God, and what he criticized was not free movement of individuals but forced movement by the state. If you have to say anything on my arguments, do it. If you are just going to babble in desperation, hoping to prove something about yourself, you are only exposing yourself in a not very favorable light. Thomas Jefferson couldn’t give the Barbary pirates work permits because “work permits” didn’t exist then as a policy of the Federal government. Unlike you, these men had at least some Biblical worldview, and they were not so eager to accept tyranny as you are.”

Mr. Marinov has a bad habit of exaggeration, pejorative, and creative dissembling. In this brief quote we see this in the following,

1.) Earlier Marinov complained about certain people that his target was quoting as not being Christians and yet here he seems to see the non-Christian Ludwig Von Mises as an authority to be cited. Note a few of the quotes from the Von Mises that Marinov takes as some kind of authority. I post these quotes here because Christians like Marinov are redefining Christianity in the direction of Misean Christianity with its “von Mises-ian methodological individualism. In point of fact it is my conviction that the whole institutionally organized Theonomy and Reconstruction movement has been co-opted by Misean Libertarianism. Below is some of what Mises thought of Christianity.

Mises says that the gospel of Jesus was

‘utterly negative.’ “He [Jesus] rejects everything that exists without offering anything to replace it. He arrives at dissolving all existing social ties. The disciple shall not merely be indifferent to supporting himself, shall not merely refrain from work and dispossess himself of all goods, but he shall hate ‘father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life’ . . . His zeal in destroying social ties knows no limits. The motive force behind the purity and power of this complete negation is ecstatic inspiration, enthusiastic hope of a new world. Hence his passionate attack upon everything that exists. Everything must be destroyed because God in His omnipotence will rebuild the future order . . . The clearest modern parallel to the attitude of complete negation of primitive Christianity is Bolshevism. The Bolshevists, too, wish to destroy everything that exists because they regard it as hopelessly bad. But they have in mind ideas, indefinite and contradictory though they may be, of the future social order. They demand not only that their followers shall destroy all that is, but also that they pursue a definite line of conduct leading towards the future Kingdom of which they have dreamt. Jesus’ teaching in this respect, on the other hand, is mere negation.”

Theonomic Christians must start asking themselves if they want to rely on sources like institutional Theonomic-Reconstruction organizations given the fact that these organization are increasingly selling out Reconstruction thought to Libertarianism.

As Mises saw it, since Jesus simply repudiated all values of this life. Mises again on Christianity,

“His (Jesus) teachings had no moral applications to life on earth.” In another place he said: “Jesus offers no rules for earthly action and struggle; his Kingdom is not of this world. Such rules of conduct as he gives his followers are valid only for the short interval of time which has still to be lived while waiting for the great things to come.”

Marinov’s Libertarianism, with its “Methodological individualism” is throwing off the heritage of R. J. Rushdoony. Rushdoony, embraced Libertarianism in light of Theonomy but todays putative followers of Rushdoony are embracing theonomy in light of Libertarianism.

2.) Marinov fails to realize that current immigration patterns are indeed being, “forced by the state.”
Mr. Marinov doesn’t seem to realize that our current immigration patterns, and so problems, have been NWO policy for some time.

This book spends a little time telling that story,

http://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Revolution-In-Europe-Immigration/dp/0307276759/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414013297&sr=8-1&keywords=Christopher+Caldwell

The Humanist Governments of the West have, since WW II, been implementing policy that is designed to remake the West into a non Christian reality. Mr. Marinov is just wrong to suggest that our immigration problems are not the cause of Western Christ hating governments.

3.) Mr. Marinov notes that “Jefferson didn’t give work permits because they didn’t exist.” Marinov almost seems to suggest that if work permits had existed circa 1800 Jefferson might well have given the Barbary Pirates work permits instead of canon fire.

4.) Jefferson — the man who excised all of the miraculous accounts from the famous “Jefferson Bible” — is thought by Mr. Marinov to have had more of a Biblical Worldview then the learned and Christian man he is targeting with verbal explosions.

5.) Elsewhere Mr. Marinov, in the same dialog, wrote,

“For all your quoting of Rushdoony, you should have been aware that Rushdoony specifically separates between those two in his commentary on the naturalization laws of Deuteronomy, and specifically adds: “These are NOT immigration laws.” Another testimony that you either can’t read, or you read selectively and dishonestly.”

“Rushdoony was emphatic that the Law of God doesn’t contain immigration restrictions and therefore the civil government is not allowed to impose such restrictions.”

This is a rather bold claim by Mr. Marinov, and as it turns out, consistent with Mr. Marinov’s debating technique is also a patently dishonest claim as can be seen by what Rushdoony wrote on Dt. 23.

“Immigration laws protect a nation by state discrimination, which can be good or bad, whereas these laws established the discrimination on a family level.”

So, we see that as Rushdoony interpreted Deut 23, those specific laws mentioned concerned the family and NOT national immigration policy. Notice also what Rushdoony says, “Immigration laws are for the protection of a nation” and they can be “good or bad.” We see then that Marinov was in error in his report.

6.) More errant commentary by Mr. Marinov on Immigration

Marinov wrote,

“The US Constitution doesn’t allow the Federal government to control immigration.”

Yet the Constitution disagrees with Mr. Marinov’s “wisdom.”

Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power … to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.”

Article 1, Section 9: “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight.”

The implication clearly here is that Congress *could* prohibit the migration of said persons after 1808, which it of course did.

Also this from Constitutional scholar William Rawle,

“If war should break out between the United States and the country of which the alien resident among us is a citizen or subject, he becomes on general principles an alien enemy, and is liable to be sent out of the country at the pleasure of the general government, or laid under reasonable restraints within it, and in these respects no state can interfere to protect him.”

—William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution,” Chapter 9

Mr. Marinov repeatedly has revealed himself as a person whose declarative statements of “fact,” and whose citation of sources needs to be carefully checked.

The Death of Robin Williams and the Question of the Proper Christian Response

The suicide of Comedian-Actor Robin Williams has provided a rather interesting window into the worldview of various and sundry Christians. I was caught quite surprised over the emotion that Williams death would generate among those who claim the name of Christ. It could be the reason for all that emotion is that Williams has been a poster child for large segments of both the Baby Boomers and Generation X. In losing Williams these large swaths of people are losing a cultural identifier that was woven deeply into their psyche. No one can doubt that Williams, for good and for ill, made a huge impact on the zeitgeist.

In this discussion, I think I can understand both the perspective of those that insist that, as Christians, we should be respectful of the dead and so not speak ill of them as well as the position that observes that Williams should be used as a negative example of the danger of gaining the whole world while losing one’s own soul.

An example of the former disposition can be found in the following quotes provided by sundry Christians,

“We can’t say for certain whether or not he is in peace right now so being respectful and gracious is the right thing to do. RIP”

“Well, we can certainly dissect the lives of anyone who has died, believer and non believer alike at their deaths. But, is it kind and is it necessary to do so? Is it the place of those who knew him so little to make fun or to criticize those who have grief right now? There are unpleasant stories in the past of us all. People right now are desiring to focus on the positive and pleasant memories of Robin Williams and his brilliant wit and comedy. We are all shaped by those around us: family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, those in the political realm and those in the fashion/music/entertainment world. In spite of the negative influences that the Lord allowed to be part of the shaping of who I am today, i hope that when I take my final breath, that others who may not care for me will allow those that do to grieve. My life was not damaged by Robin Williams, though not all that he did was I fond of. It is like eating fish… Spit out the bones when you get a few in your mouth and move on. Enjoy the good things that a person did.At this time, the death of a well loved man, perhaps our testimony as Christians shines brighter by showing respect rather than making a mockery of others and their memories and grief.”

“It honestly just bugs the hell out of me when people say things negatively about people like him when they die. Its not as if he committed genocide and deserved to die.

I feel more terrible that a man who was a thinker and had such a great mind for comedy probably wont be in heaven. You should grieve more for people who don’t have any hope…because they are damned. At least when our fellows in Christ die, they get to move onto the afterlife of peace and tranquility. Not so for unrepentant. Show your quality as Christians by being sympathetic.”

There are texts in Scripture that seem to support this disposition. Proverbs 24:17-18 for example says:

“Do not rejoice when your enemy falls and do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles; or the Lord will see and be displeased and turn His anger away from him.”

The Proverbs 24 passage echoes other passages. Job, for instance, believes himself righteous because he hasn’t rejoiced in the death of his enemies (Job 31:29). Scripture indicates that when we see the wicked rejoicing over the death of their enemies, we automatically know it isn’t right (Judges 16:25; 2Sa 16:5-6; Psalm 35:13-15; 42:10; Micah 7:8).

Certainly then there is a place for sensitivity and tenderness in an untimely death. We can all admit that there is a certain sadness when the wicked die. After all, there but the grace of God go any of us. We can be sad at the waste of all that talent as the talent was not used for God’s glory. We can be sad at what might have been. Sad for the damage they did to themselves and to those who loved them. We can be saddened over how the enemy kills and destroys image bearers of God.

However, sadness and a pious respect are not the last words on this subject. We must also consider that Scripture repeatedly speaks of joy over the death of the wicked. Proverbs 11:10 says,

“When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; they shout for joy when the wicked die.”

In Psalm 58:10 this idea of God’s people corporately rejoicing in the death of their enemies is recorded,

“The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked.”

Here we note that God expects His people to rejoice over the death of His and their enemies. And why should we be surprised at that? The wicked are those who oppose the advance of God’s Kingdom. The wicked are those who prefer their triumph over God’s triumph in the land of the living. The wicked prefer their glory being known as opposed to God’s glory being known. The wicked desire to make a name for themselves at the expense of God’s people making a name for God. There can be no doubt that the removal of the wicked should be a cause for celebration, if only because their attack on God’s reputation is finished.

The greatest mind ever produced by America, (Rev. Jonathan Edwards) preached a sermon once that captured some of this. Edwards reminded his listeners that the most intimate of relationships would not cause the redeemed in the relationship to not rejoice over the destruction of the unredeemed. Edwards wrote,

“You that have godly parents, who in this world have tenderly loved you, who were wont to look upon your welfare as their own, and were wont to be grieved for you when any thing calamitous befell you in this world, and especially were greatly concerned for the good of your souls, industriously sought, and earnestly prayed for their salvation; how will you bear to see them in the kingdom of God, crowned with glory? Or how will you bear to see them receiving the blessed sentence, and going up with shouts and songs, to enter with Christ into the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world, while you are amongst a company of devils, and are turned away with the most bitter cries, to enter into everlasting burnings, prepared for the devil and his angels? How will you bear to see your parents, who in this life had so dear an affection for you, now without any love to you, approving the sentence of condemnation, when Christ shall with indignation bid you depart, wretched, cursed creatures, into eternal burnings ? How will you bear to see and hear them praising the Judge, for his justice exercised in pronouncing this sentence, and hearing it with holy joy in their countenances, and shouting forth the praises and hallelujahs of God and Christ on that account?”

Our current Christian culture, such as it is, has no problem with the empathy side of the equation. Unfortunately, in our current culture most of our empathy is on the side of fallen men. But understand, that those who properly rejoice at the death of the wicked are also demonstrating empathy. It is a least possible that they are demonstrating empathy for God and His Christ in rejoicing over the death of the wicked. Is there not a place for empathy over God’s glory being diminished and then a place for rejoicing when those who have diminished God’s glory are removed? Is there not a place for empathy for God, when His name and character are denigrated, and then a place for rejoicing when those who have denigrated the Holy name of God are removed so as to never denigrate it again? Not all rejoicing over the death of the wicked is a case of insensitive clods who don’t understand what it means to be Christian. And some of the tenderness over the death of the wicked is a case of insensitive (to God) nekulturny who don’t understand what it means to be Christian.

The point here plainly stated, for those who may have missed it, is that it is possible that sympathy and empathy for the fallen wicked may come at cost for sympathy and empathy for the Transcendent, Holy God.

So, we must own both sides of the equation in this matter. I think that we can both rejoice at the death of fallen men and not rejoice over the death of fallen men by remaining God centered. We can rejoice in God’s name being cleared and we can not rejoice when remembering that it is only God’s grace alone that causes us to differ from God haters. In the death of the wicked we have to satisfy both sides of the equation.

Postscript,

Clearly it is possible that Robin Williams turned to Christ just before he jumped off the chair to hang himself, (odd combination there to think about) but if we were only to look at his body of work it is clear that the man did not own Christ and so is eternally separated from God. There is nothing inappropriate about noting that as a warning to people.

http://www.goodfight.org/a_v_williams_robin.html

Fisking American Vision Published Blog Regarding Immigration

http://covenantaldivide.com/open-and-closed-borders-lets-have-both/

I will not be fisking the whole article above. Those who want to read the whole article are encouraged to go to the link to read the parts that I’ve passed over.

Publisher American Vision writes,

“What about a scriptural alternative to the cacophony of opinions being blurted out on the issue? Notice I didn’t say Christian alternative. We Christians today are many times out of touch with what scripture has to say in the civil realm.”

Bret observes

The answers that are provided here, in this article, are not exactly clear. American Vision blog, while bringing out some great points, does not succeed in giving us a nuanced picture of immigration in the Old Testament.

American Vision Blog writes,

Beyond common sense and logic, the issue is biblical. Matt is on target in that the heart of the issue lies within a discussion of borders (boundaries), laws and enforcement. We need to ask ourselves, what kind of borders? Who makes the laws? Who has authority to enforce the laws? What laws should govern immigration? What is the source and standard for such laws?

1.) Biblical is beyond common sense and logic? How would we know that without using common sense and logic to determine that?

2.) R. J. Rushdoony asked these questions back in 1965. Here are some of the answers at which he arrived.

“The purpose of this immigration policy then is to unify man, to bring about the unity of the godhead. Its purpose, and its premise, is not economic but religious. It is theologically rooted in this religious dream, the United Nations.”

So, Rushdoony realized that the immigration push was to eliminate all borders so that the humanist global order could come to the fore. Rushdoony understood that the immigration act in 1965 (and what is currently happening is merely the flowering of that Legislation) was being pushed by Humanists desiring to destroy the Nation State order. Rushdoony understood that such immigration was not Biblical.

America Vision Blog writes,

Let’s begin with the last question first. I believe the Word of God should be the source and standard. With this pre-commitment in mind, it would make sense to look at the first nation in Scripture to tackle the immigration issue God’s way.

See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the LORD our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today? (Deuteronomy 4:5-8)

Israel was to be a light among the nations. If they operated their nation in terms of God’s revealed law, all other nations would take notice. Not only would they take notice, many would be drawn to Israel.

Bret responds,

Certainly we can agree that God’s intent for Israel was to be a Witness to the Nations. However, that in no way implies that God desired open borders so that the Nations lost their National Identity as the various Nations’ identity was submerged with Israel’s National Identity. Nations were to be drawn to Israel so that they, as Nations, bowed to Yahweh.

A Reformed Old Testament scholar Martin Wyngaarden recognized this when he wrote,

“Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Martin J. Wyngaarden
The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture pp. 101-102.

American Vision blog writes,

God promised blessing and freedom if Israel followed his prescription for running their nation. Freedom is only possible when men govern themselves according to the Word of God. God’s covenant people were required to render judgment in their families, the assembly and the state according to God’s revealed law. As they did so, their light would shine as a beacon to other nations that were in bondage.

Not only was Israel a light, it was a shelter. Someone could recognize the light and sojourn in Israel. If they subjected themselves externally to the law of the land (the law of God), then they would enjoy the blessings promised in the land.

For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the LORD. (Numbers 15:15)

Here the American Vision blog does not nuance enough given the different words for “stranger” in the Old Testament.

James Hoffmeier, in his book, “The Immigration Crisis proves that a State is under no compulsion to have a generous immigration policy and does have a responsibility to protect its borders –just as States did even in the Old Testament. The texts used by Christian organizations like American Vision, Sojourners, etc. are ripped out of their context in order to guilt the laity into thinking being a good Christian means disinheriting one’s self and children.

The book of Joshua goes into great detail about the allocation of the territories of the Promised land to the tribes of Israel but the ger (resident Alien) did not receive their own allotment. The Ger (resident Alien — perhaps our equivalent of a perpetual Green card holder) could receive social benefits (i.e. — gleaning rights, a portion of the third year tithes) but they could never own land and so they forever would remain ger (stranger).

The resident alien (ger) in Israel was never so integrated and assimilated into the Israeli social order that the distinction between citizen born and alien evaporated. The resident alien (ger) was held to the same law, could become part of the worship cult BUT they were always known as distinct from Israeli born. Hence they are continuously referred to as ger (stranger).

So there was continuity between the native born Israeli and the ger but there was discontinuity as well and it strikes me that it is the discontinuity is what American Vision desires to ignore.

In short the ger (stranger) would always be known as “other.”

In the Old Testament the alien (ger) was a person who entered Israel and followed legal procedures to obtain recognized standing as a resident alien. Hence ger (alien) is the term for legal immigrants. However, the ger (legal immigrants) in the OT were still distinct from those who were permanent residents (citizens). In the OT then there is a distinction between the alien (ger) the foreigner (nekhar or zar) and the permanent residents of the Israeli tribes.

The American Vision Blog continues,

The stranger could worship who and how he wanted within the confines of his own home but as long as he was a resident in Israel he had to submit externally to God’s law….

This is a major component with the issue of immigration because with no handouts and a requirement to live according to God’s laws, the borders of Israel were to some extent self-regulated. Those that immigrated into the country were most likely law-abiding, productive residents that would add value to the society. This was inexpensive, inside-out border enforcement. It was in one sense an open border policy by God’s design.

Bret responds,

Hoffmeier differs with this assessment regarding “self-regulated borders,” as he points out that ancient territorial borders were taken seriously and that national sovereignty was recognized. Hoffmeier points out that not only were wars fought to establish and settle border disputes, borders were vigorously defended, and battles occurred when a neighboring state violated another’s territory. So, national boundaries were normally honored.

Numbers 20:16-21 yields an example of Edom’s refusal to allow Israel to pass, even with Israel paying a Toll. This was out of keeping with the socially accepted custom of offering hospitality to strangers in the ancient and modern Middle East. Still, it is worth noting that even a traveler — a foreigner — passing through the territory of another had to obtain permission to do so, thus revealing that in the OT borders were taken seriously. Likewise Judges 11:16-20 gives another example of borders being taken seriously.

These episodes demonstrate clearly that nations could and did control their borders and determined who could pass through their land.

On the individual, family, and clan level, property was owned and boundaries established. Personal property and fields were delineated by landmarks — stone markers of some sort. For this reason, the Mosaic law prohibited the removal of landmarks. (Dt. 19:14, 27:17). This parlayed itself into the idea of National boundaries merely being an extension of the reality of property owned by individual, family and clan. During the period of the divided Kingdom (8th cent. BC) the prophet Hosea decried the leaders of Judah for seizing territory of her sister kingdom Israel by taking their boundary stones (cmp. Job 24:2).

So we see that nation states, large and small in the Biblical world were clearly delineated by borders. These were often defended by large forts and military outposts. Countries since biblical times have had the right to clearly established borders that they controlled and were recognized by surrounding Governments.

The borders of countries were respected, and minor skirmishes and even wars followed when people and armies of one nation violated the territory of their neighbor.

All this meant that nations, including Israel had the right to clearly established secure borders and could determine who could and could not enter their land.

American Vision blog continues,

“There was though, another critical component to God’s open door policy. Those that did immigrate into Israel and lived as residents could not hold civil office as a judge. They could enjoy the blessings through submission to external laws but could not judge in the civil realm. This could only change if they professed that Israel’s God was their God and were circumcised.

Again, this was critical. Someone who was not in covenant in the visible community of God’s people, professing Jehovah’s Lordship and authority over them, could not exercise temporal authority over others. This includes their ability to vote. (Voting is rendering judgment against those who hold office.) Practically this means that if you did not profess God’s Lordship over you for all eternity, you would be restrained from having a voice among his people temporally. In order to preserve the purity of his people and blessings that come from living according to his laws, you would be restrained from civil authority.”

Bret responds,

This is all true but there are a couple other components that the American Vision blog is missing and that is important to this discussion. First, is the fact that a stranger and an alien could never own land in the Israelite community. Land was to be kept within the Tribes and returned to the various Tribal ownership upon every Jubilee. This provision ensured that the alien and the stranger (ger) would never rise higher than the native born.

“The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia” offers,

The Ger.

This word with its kindred verb is applied with slightly varying meanings to anyone who resides in a country or a town of which he is not a full native land-owning citizen; e.g., the word is used of the patriarchs in Palestine, the Israelites in Egypt, the Levites dwelling among the Israelites (Deuteronomy 18:6 Judges 17:7, etc.), the Ephraimite in Gibeah (Judges 19:16). It is also particularly used of free aliens residing among the Israelites, and it is with the position of such that this article deals.

Secondly, the ger, if bond servants, were not released in the Year of Jubilee. This again is suggestive that distinctions were maintained between Native born and ger (Exodus 12:43,45; Leviticus 25:45,46).

All of this is suggestive that we need to be very very careful when we seek to translate Old Testament immigration reality from OT Israel to 21st century Immigration issues in the States. Would American Vision blog support Strangers coming here with the stipulation that they could never own land? Would American Vision blog support unfettered immigration if the condition was known before hand that the immigrant would always and forever be known as “ger?”

American Vision blog,

“To do otherwise would be to leave a crack in the door and the potential for an ethical invasion from within the camp. Don’t miss this concept. If my god is different than your god, I will inherently work towards a competing law-order. My god will skew my ability to render judgment according to the law of your god. In a practical and organizational sense it would be a structural, judicial compromise with God’s sovereignty. This competing law-order would no-doubt be a stumbling block given the sinful nature of man. There is only one alternative to God’s law. It is man’s. So, in essence, to give an outsider an inside voice would be to tempt the entire nation with the opportunity to captain their own ship rather than leave God in control.

In Israel you had to be a member of the “assembly” or Old Testament church to be a full citizen and judge within the civil realm. Upon formal acknowledgment that you were under God’s eternal sanctions, you could place yourself in the position of carrying out God’s temporal sanctions in history.”

Bret responds,

Here, we appeal again to Rushdoony who taught that the kind of Immigration that is going on now was a immigration that Christians should oppose precisely because it was seeking to establish an alien social order. Rushdoony lectured,

“… The continuing purpose of American history, according to President Johnson is union, union of the races, closer union of the states to the federal union. It is also civil rights, federal aid, the unity of man with the world he has built, the United Nations, the New Immigration policy, and the Great Society.’

Rushdoony understood what we fail to understand and that is that the immigration policy cobbled together in 1965 and which still guides our policy today is a policy intent on Humanistic Union. This is why Biblical Christians must oppose this immigration folly right now. This immigration policy, as Rushdoony knew, was about pushing us nearer and nearer to a Humanist Statist regime where tyrannical centralized control would be established.

Rushdoony, in the same lecture continues on pointing out the now obvious,

“The U.N. charter preamble declares that its purpose is to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to gain fundamental freedom for all, the first chapter declares, without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Disunity is the one great evil. The godhead must be united, and this faith, which appears in the U.N., is a product of a grassroots faith. We see it all around us. We see it in the churches, in the pulpits. We see it in a multitude of private agencies which indeed very often outrun the U.N. in their enthusiasm for this one world state, this new god. But certainly it is a part of the United Nations program, and its IMMIGRATION LAWS is an expression of this policy, to unify mankind.”

Here we find Rushdoony saying explicitly that Churches and Organizations that support the kind of Immigration we are seeing this very day are Churches and Organizations who are “outrunning the U.N. in their enthusiasm for this one world state.”

American Vision blog offers,

“So, if this was such a great system then why did Israel suffer from such a poor track record in history? First of all, guarding the nation from within through limiting citizenship was not a failsafe against national moral decay. This was only one aspect of God’s law. The fundamental principle was one of Lordship. If the people of God ceased to walk according to his statues in any area, they were liable to his judgment. There are no political solutions for sinful rebellion among citizens.”

Bret responds,

American Vision blog speaks about how Israel failed in Christ’s Lordship and yet were we,as Biblical Christians, to support the current Immigration boondoggle we our currently staring at we likewise would be failing in Christ’s Lordship.

Consider again the great Rushdoony when speaking against the 1965 immigration act,

“The purpose of this 1965 Immigration Act law is threefold.

First, it has been described by Senator Javits as the civil rights legislation for the world. Now, had we so described the bill, we would have been accused of misrepresentation, but we have the authority of Senator Javits that this bill is the civil rights legislation of the world. In other words it will establish, as a civil right of any person, anywhere in the world that they have a right to come to the United States, that immigration is no longer a privilege, a right which we hold and which we extend as a privilege to whomever we choose, but a civil right of anyone in the world. This then is its first function.

Its second function is to transfer immigration control from the legislative branch to the executive, so that the control of immigration, which has historically been in the hands of congress will be transferred to the administration.

Third, the law would be basically secondary to the president’s wishes, so that the basic law would be the will of the president, and it really would be a blank check. There would be no effective prohibition of anyone, whether subversive, mentally defective, a prostitute, a pervert, anyone would have the right to come into the country. There would be no effective {?}.

This then, is the nature of the Kennedy-Johnson bill…. The purpose of this immigration policy then is to unify man, to bring about the unity of the godhead. Its purpose, and its premise, is not economic but religious. It is theologically rooted in this religious dream, the United Nations.”

What we are facing right now with the borders on the edge of being extinguished is the full flowering of the 1965 Immigration act that Rushdoony was so animated against. As Biblical Christians should we not be just as animated as Rushdoony was in 1965?

This immigration policy is NOT about economics. It is about expanding the humanist global state by creating the North American Union which is a precursor step to the the global state. This immigration policy serves to capture the country irretrievably for socialism, because this policy will forever entrench the Marxist (Democratic)party as the ruling party. This immigration policy serves to bring socialism to the country because it provides cheap labor which in turns redistributes wealth upwards by 3% annually and so again, turns us ever more into a Marxist state, as the Uber wealthy eliminate the middle class in the push towards Corporatism. This immigration policy serves to socialize the country because it serves corporatism and the fact that people can’t see this merely means that they are not self aware enough of what the humanist globalist elites are doing …. which R. J. Rushdoony understood in 1965.

The American Vision article finishes quite well. I encourage the reader to read the whole thing.

In the end we must keep in mind the necessity to fight for the reality of nations as nations against the humanist global order that Rushdoony warned against.

Wyngaarden understood this as well. I finish with this quote,

“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, though each nationality remains distinct.”

“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance” (Isaiah 19:25).

Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Wyngaarden, pp. 101-102.