Category: Evangelism

Thinking About “Spirit-Wrought Revival”

“One of the ways that we can know that the current vibe shift (which I most certainly welcome) is not yet a Spirit-wrought revival is that there is way too much accusation of others in it.”

Doug Wilson
CREC Pope

This quote got me to thinking in a couple different directions. First, is the obvious irony in the quote. Nobody is better at the “way too much accusation of others” than our own Pope Doug. Wilson has demonstrated repeatedly that the minute somebody else begins to get traction (read Ogden lads, Kinists, Spangler, McAtee, Seabrook, etc.) Doug is right there to accuse them of something. Physician, heal thyself.

The second thing I got thinking about is somewhat unrelated in terms of the point Doug was getting at. Doug wrote above about “Spirit-wrought revival” and that made me think about the general subject of Spirit wrought revival. I started to think if it would be remotely possible for me to agree with Doug upon his identifying “Spirit-wrought revival.” I mean I think Doug Wilson and the CREC are so bad on so many subjects that I can’t imagine that I would conclude that we are in “Spirit-wrought revival” if Uri Brito, Toby Sumpter, and Rich Lusk concluded we were in the midst of “Spirit-wrought revival.” In point of fact if those chaps thought we were in the midst of “Spirit-wrought revival” I might well conclude that we were in the clutches of old Scratch.

And that would not apply to just the CREC mavens. I can’t imagine rejoicing with the Thomists if they started chortling and praising about “Spirit-wrought revival.” Indeed, I would go into my prayer closet and pray that God would shut down their “Spirit-wrought revival.” A few years ago down in Asbury, Kentucky the Wesleyans were all writing about their “Spirit-wrought revival” going on at their College down there and upon witnessing (via video) what they were calling “Spirit-wrought revival” I thought I would wretch.

So, I can’t help but wonder if one man’s “Spirit-wrought revival” is another man’s concluding that “God has turned them over to their sin.”

But, keep in mind dear reader that I am a aging curmudgeon and there isn’t much out there, movement wise, where I would find myself cheering if they started believing that we were in the midst of “Spirit-wrought revival.”

On Those Reputed To Be Jews

“The Six Million constitute a lay religion with its own dogma, commandments, decrees, prophets, high priests and Saints: Saint Anne (Frank), Saint Simon (Wiesenthal), Saint Elie (Wiesel). It has its holy places, its rituals and its pilgrimages. It has its temples and its relics (bars of soap, piles of shoes, etc.), its martyrs, heroes, miracles and miraculous survivors (millions of them), its golden legend and its righteous people. Auschwitz is its Golgotha, Hitler is its Satan. It dictates its law to the nations. Its heart beats in Jerusalem, at the Yad Veshem monument … Although it is largely an avatar of the Hebraic religion, the new religion is quite recent and has exhibited meteoric growth … Paradoxically, the only religion to prosper today is the “Holocaust” religion, ruling, so to speak, supreme and having those sceptics who are openly active cast out from the rest of mankind: it labels them “deniers,” whilst they call themselves “revisionists.”

Robert Faurisson

Former French Professor of Literature at Lyon University
Statement regarding the religious implications of the Holocaust narrativeNow, immediately there will be those who will scream that Faurisson was a holocaust denier. This in spite of the fact that the uber-Leftist Jewish Academic Noam Chomsky once wrote; “I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the Holocaust…I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson’s work.” One should also note that if even Auschwitz in the early 90s had to revise their originally grossly inflated death count total down from four million. The Chicago Tribune reported in 1992;

“Jewish and Polish scholars of the Holocaust now agree that the Auschwitz death toll was less than half the four million cited here for four decades. The actual number was probably between 1.1 million and 1.5 million-and at least 90 percent of the victims were Jews.”

It would seem to be reasonable to believe, that in light of this gross overestimation (a gross overestimation that lasted for almost 50 years) of death totals in Auschwitz that it is likely the case that gross overestimations were made in the numbers reported from other camps. The idea that the numbers were routinely grossly inflated has been reported not only by Faurisson but also by others such as David Irving and Ernst Zundel.

I, myself, do not have a concrete opinion on the matter of total deaths suffered by those reputed to be Jewish though I can easily see how it serves as an advantage for those reputed to be Jewish to continue to cling to these numbers. While, I do not have an established opinion on the total death toll on those reputed to be Jewish I do find it curious that so much is made of this death toll in comparison to the horrendous death toll of other tribal communities that receive comparatively little attention. For example, there was a horrendous holocaust of Christian Ukranians by Jewish Bolsheviks under Stalin. Also, there was a horrendous holocaust of Christian Armenians by the  Dönme (Jewish) “Muslim” Turks (members of the Sabbatai Zevi cult). We should also mention that holocaust of over 1 million German “disarmed enemy forces” (nomenclature used to skirt the Geneva Convention treatment requirement for POWs) inflicted by the Allies upon surrendering German troops after WW II, the holocaust visited upon the Khmer people by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in the late 1970s, and the holocausts of Mao visited upon the Chinese in both his “great leap forward,” and during the later “cultural revolution.” Indeed, the 20th century could be labeled as the “Holocaust century” — especially were we to add the holocaust of the unborn.

And yet I’d be willing to bet the farm that 9 out of 10 Americans have heard only of the Holocaust visited upon those reputed to be Jews. One is left asking… “Why is that?” A cynic might say that the answer presents itself when one notices what people group it is that has been the guiding light of the Western media / Hollywood since its inception. Those who own the news/entertainment report the news.

Those reputed to be Jews have gotten a good deal of mileage out of their unique ownership of the trademarked word “Holocaust.” They have been able to play the global victim due to their trademark ownership. This is an insurmountable advantage when living in a WOKE global philosophy that prioritizes the oppressed victim over and above the evil oppressor class. Those reputed to be Jews have, because of their holocausted status, have become the greatest victims of them all. In the game of Cultural Marxist poker, where he who is the greatest victim hold the greatest hand, the reputed Jews who were holocausted hold the royal flush against all competing victimhood hands. The reputed Jews who were holocausted are the trump that trumps all trump. Nobody can out victim them.

Their victimhood card was played again just a couple days ago when their Prime minister Netanyahu, invoking the holocaust, said;

“No Nation Came to the Aid of Jews During the Holocaust.”

I think all those boys who died on the beaches of Normandy might argue otherwise.

But, all argumentation is irrelevant. When you hold the royal flush of victimhood nothing else matters, and that was the card, Netanyahu played when he said that.

This returns us thus to the opening Farisson quote. The Holocaust has been turned into a religion. Some wags have taken to calling it “Holocaustianity.” Farisson fails to mention above that Holocaustianity also has its own unique Messiah and the Messiah of Holocaustianity are those who we routinely call “Jews.” They are their own saviors, and one of the means of saving themselves is this new religion wherein all have to bow before their very real tragic history, being required at the same time to ignore the very real tragic history of many other groups who have experienced attempted genocide. If other peoples are to be sympathized with then the sympathy with which those reputed to be Jews are sympathized with becomes diluted and reduced in its guilt invoking power.

Another advantage of Holocaustianity is that serves as a “get out of jail free” card. Any behavior by those reputed to be Jews can be overlooked because, “after all they are the greatest victims of all time.” Whether it is the Deir Yassin massacre, or the sinking of the USS Liberty, or the bombing of the King David Motel, or the ethnic cleansing of Christian Palestinians, it can all be washed away because “we were holocausted.”

Even if Faurisson was wrong about holocaust death totals, the point he makes about the creation of a new religion is spot on. That Faurisson is accurate on this point is seen by that Lawmakers in several U.S. states have recently pushed for laws defining antisemitism so as to censor wrong-speak. One sees the problem here when one considers that there has been no push for laws defining anti-Christian speech so as to censor wrong-speak against Christians. I would submit this is an example of holocaustianity at work. Especially, when living in a climate where antisemitism is defined as disagreeing with someone reputed to be Jewish.

These kinds of things need to be said with the coming of Trump. Trump has surrounded himself with Zionists (Hegseth, Stefanik, Huckabee to name just a few) and Trump has been labeled by Netanyahu as “the greatest friend Israel as ever had in the White House.” Radio Personality Mark Levin recently introduced Trump as “Our First Jewish President.”  In light of all this voices need to be raised warning, (paraphrasing Pat Buchanan here) about the continued increasing Israeli occupation of America.

I shouldn’t need the tag that finds me saying, “I am not pro-Arab or pro-Muslim.” I am not even “anti-those reputed to be Jews.” I am merely pro Christian and I don’t think that anybody but Christians should have special protection in a nation that was established on Christian principles and I am against politically correct poker.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

McAtee Contra Dr. Clay Libolt On The Penal Substitutionary Doctrine Of The Atonement

On his Blog former CRC Pastor Dr. Rev. Clay Libolt begins to explore the idea that all those who hold to the Penal Substitutionary teaching of the Atonement as recorded in Scripture are advancing the idea that God is mean.

I sometimes browse Dr. Libolt’s blog (“The Peripatetic Pastor”) because;

1.) Libolt was my assigned “mentor” when I began to date the CRC. New chaps dating the CRC, according to their book of Church Order have to be assigned mentors, presumably to help the newbee wade into the denomination. This “relationship” between Clay and I was a comedy of theological/ideological explosion. It was the classic example of when an immovable force meets an unstoppable object. Clay was and remains so far left that it is difficult for me to imagine how anyone could get more left. He was in his time the Robespierre of the CRC. Of course I was and am a touch to the right. In our few meetings we would invariably, within seconds, be debating as if the world’s future depended upon convincing one another of their error. To this day, the fact that I was assigned Clay Libolt as a mentor is proof to me that the thrice Holy God has a sense of humor.

2.) I also browse Clay’s blog because it is a handy dandy way to keep up to date on the latest boneheaded theory being advanced by the “Christian” left. Clay reads a good deal of the garbage put out by the “intellectual” left and so it is a way to keep up with the latest WOKE theology. One way to keep one’s mind sharp is by knowing the enemy’s strategy and thinking.

Not that Clay or anyone else cares but I seriously doubt that Clay is a Christian in any historic or Biblical sense of the word, and yet he Pastored one of the CRC flagship churches for decades and by his own accounting had a considerable influence in the denomination, being a voice for the “progressives” as they largely solidified their hold over the denomination during the time he “served.”

Libolt, as noted above, believes that the idea that Jesus Christ, serving as the penalty bearing substitute for the elect makes God mean. Clay writes,

“‘Is God Mean?’ And, in line with the direction of my Bad Theology series, to ask whether a mean God leads to mean politics. (The answer is yes.)”

As you can see in one fell swoop, Libolt has indicted historical biblical theology and contemporary politics as being mean.

Of course a question arises that Libolt does not answer and that question is “Mean to whom?” Certainly, it could not be argued that God is mean to the elect for whom Christ was their substitute, nor I shouldn’t think it could be argued that God was mean to the reprobate who only received what they earnestly desired. I mean is it “mean” to give to people what they want and/or what they deserve?

I would say that in the Penal Substitutionary atonement the only person that God could possibly be seen as being mean to is Himself. Now, I don’t believe that but if we use Libolt’s logic then as it was God Himself in the God-Man Jesus Christ who took on His own punishment for sin then there is no meanness to anyone else since there can be no being mean to those who were substituted for nor for those who weren’t substituted for since they didn’t want to be substituted for and since they received what they deserved.

In the OT we see that what Libolt is advocating just isn’t true. In Genesis 15, God enters into covenant with Abraham and whereas traditionally both parties to a covenant would walk between the slain bodies of the covenantal sacrifices in order to communicate that if the covenant agreement should be violated what had been done to the covenantal sacrifices would be done to the party that broke covenant. However, at this crucial part of the covenant ceremony the God of the Bible who is never described as “mean” chooses to put Abraham to sleep and takes on the full weight of the covenant punishments on himself walking alone between the bodies of the slain animals.  This is a “non-mean” covenant of grace.

Then, 2000 years later, in light of the fact that Abraham and his descendents repeatedly violated covenant, God, in the incarnate Jesus Christ, does take upon Himself the covenant curses for Abraham and the true sons of Abraham. And Libolt wants to call that mean?

To the contrary, of course, it is Libolt’s theology that creates for a mean God. Libolt would have us believe a God who does not punish sin thus showing a meanness to those who have had sin visited upon them by those who are mean. Libolt’s “non-mean” God means the judicially innocent never are avenged. The countless millions abused, tortured, and slain by the Soviet and Chinese communist gulag system are told “sucks to be you.” Libolt’s “non-mean” God means is unrighteous. A sovereign God who is also not righteous is a mean God. Libolt serves a mean God and because of that Libolt advances mean politics.

Honestly, this kind of talk (writing) by Libolt has to be considered blasphemous. I continue to pray that Libolt and his leftist legions repent and so discover for the first time the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. I also pray that God would remove this kind of theology and its adherents.

Nationalism – because the magic dirt theory is just plain stupid.

“The World has never before known a godlessness as organised, miltarised and tenaciously malevolent as that preached by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin and at the heart of their psychology, HATRED OF GOD is the principle driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends, Communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails a destruction of faith and nationhood. Communists proclaim both of these objectives openly, and just as openly puts them into practice.”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

And yet legion is the name of the Christian clergy who are adamantly opposed to Christian Nationalism, opposed to nations being regulated by God’s Law-Word, opposed to Magistrates taking oaths of fealty to the Kingship of Jesus Christ, opposed to the overt presence of the vilest of idols in the public square and opposed to our children being educated in all disciplines in relation to the reality of the God who is and who reigns over all.

Of course all of this is driven by a dualism that separates out the Lordship of Jesus Christ as over the public square. Over one hundred years ago Dutch Reformed Theologian Dr. Herman Bavinck complained of the same;

“Therefore Christ has also a message for home and society, for art and science. Liberalism chose to limit its power and message to the heart and the inner chamber, declaring that its kingdom was not of this world. But if the kingdom is not of, it is certainly in this world, and is intended for it. The word of God, which comes to us in Christ, is a word of liberation and restoration for the whole man, for his understanding of his will, for his body and his soul.

. . . It [the Gospel] does not kill but makes alive. It does not wound but

heals. It is pure grace. And this grace does not cancel nature but establishes and restores it.”

Herman Bavinck
 The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church

Clearly, those members of the clergy who oppose Christian Nationalism do not understand that Christ’s sovereignty is totalistic. Of course, these folks who oppose Christ and Christian nationalism don’t really oppose the general concept of religious nationalism. They merely oppose Christian nationalism. We know this because since there is no such thing as neutrality — I mean it is Jesus the Christ who said; “He does not gather with me, scatters” — there is no such thing as a non-god controlled public square. Even if our clergy lock out Jesus Christ and His Lordship from the public square by opposing Christian Nationalism, they still support the Lordship of some other pissant god. Most generally the pissant god in question is the State God who determines just how far any of the various public square gods can exercise their will in the public square. Sorry folks …. Jesus Christ doesn’t share dominion time with some other pissant god.

Clergy who oppose Christian Nationalism oppose the Jesus Christ of the Bible in favor of a toothless, fangless, tamed Jesus Christ of their own making are to be pitied because on that final day their made up Jesus is going to be meeting the real Jesus. It won’t be pretty.

What Christians Are Up Against

Not even in the time of the Crusades has Christian civilization been under such threat of dissolution by being conquered. In 1095 Christian civilization was hemmed by the conquering hordes of Islam when Urban II at the Council of Claremont pronounced “Deus Vult” in the raising up armies for Crusade to defend Christianity from the offensive assault of Isalmic madness that had been going on for centuries already.

Today we are in a much more dangerous place as Christians. We are challenged not only by a revived Islam, but were are also challenged by the rise of Globalism, which is an expression of the New World Order Religion of Luciferianism with its written “scriptures” called the Talmud.

On top of that we are beset with serious fifth column movement within the Church — the one Institution that should be leading the way in resistance. We not only have to fight the enemies of Talmudic Globalism and revived Islam from without, we have to fight R2K, WOKE Christianity (anti-Christian Nationalism, refusal to stand up for White Christians, embrace of sexual perversion, etc.), and Federal Vision, etc. from within.

The remnants of Christian civilization has been lulled to sleep and the hour is no so late that one has to wonder if it is too late now to awaken to beat off these threats to Christian civilization.

One thing is certain. We will not beat off these threats by prayer absent the sword. We will not defeat our enemies by pacifism. We will not push the enemy back by means of pietism. Those who desire the soft Christianity that lived off the capital won by hard and muscular Christianity in the days when Islam was rolled back and heresy meant with severe penalty need not apply. They and their descendants will be forgotten.

If you’re 30 and younger… if you want Christian civilization to survive you must learn the art of war. If you’re between 35-50 you must learn the strategy and tactics of war.

In a time soon coming, peace will not be a choice unless it is the peace of the cravenly, the coward, or the dead.