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.

How Do I Love My Racist Neighbor? — A Parody

I think it is time we discuss how we can best evangelize our racist neighbor. This subject needs to be examined so that we know best how to build bridges to our racist neighbors as opposed to just offending them because everyone knows that our racist neighbors will never be won to the Gospel by just calling them “racist,” as if that is the only thing that might be thought of or said of them. There is more to the humanity of a racist than just their racism. Keep in mind inside every racists is a non-racist just wanting to get out and wanting to be loved.

First, we have to get out of the way of ourselves. It is true that it takes a lot getting used to the hound dogs in our racist neighbor’s yard and the chickens roosting everywhere. It is true that seeing bootleg copies of Luther’s “The Jews and their Lies,” and David Duke’s “Jewish Supremacism” and a copy of “The Best of Chrysostom and Calvin on the Jews” sitting right out in the open in their living rooms without any kind of book covers covering the titles can be a pornographic sight. It is true that we might find their lack of hygiene, as seen in so many of them only have one tooth remaining, to be repulsive but as St. Paul says … “Such were some of you.”

Second, we need to realize that our racist neighbors are image bearers just like we are. It is true that they have this great sin about them that we find so objectionable but when we look at them we need to see them as God sees them and that is as people who bear the image of God. We have to realize that although a racist disposition denies God’s will for human dignity, we need to affirm that people who prefer the company of their own people should not have legal rights to protect their legal and economic security stripped from them. Remember, we are required to do unto the racists as we would have them do unto us. As Christians it is the least that we can do. I would submit that only when we make our racist neighbors feel safe can we expect to have a harvest of souls from among them.

So, instead of insulting them or not welcoming them in our churches we should go our of our way to see them as whole persons and not merely as racist pigs. How would you like to be known just by your besetting sin of uniquely loving your children, or paying only your families monthly bills?

Think about it for a second. We don’t think about sodomites only in terms of their sodomy. We don’t think about Pedophiles or Zoophiles only in terms of their pedophilia or zoophilia. We don’t think about cannibals or trannies only in terms of their cannibalism or trannie-ism. Why should we think of racists only in terms of their racism? I mean after all, wouldn’t Jesus think about the feelings of racists before condemning them to hell? Can we do any less?

For my part, I can only tell you that some of the nicest people my wife and family and I have ever met are racists. We’ve known some of these racists to befriend not only other white people but actually to greet non white people in stores, to visit with non-white people in public gatherings, and even to help non-white people in their need. It is true that they still won’t give their children in marriage to non-white people and they still insist that multi-cultural social orders breed low trust societies but we need to learn to give credit where credit is due and realize that the grace of God can save such people. I’ve seen these racist people perform deeds of kindness that would put our church people to shame. Does not God’s common grace count for something?

Of course the wife and I are careful to teach our children that we cannot turn a blind eye to these racist friends lifestyle. We point out to our children the disgusting sin of inter-ethnic preference. In family devotions we expose the racist sin of our neighbors by pointing out to the children how they only go shopping in safe areas of town. However, I think we in the church need to get past only seeing the most grotesque thing about a person (their racism) as if that is their only truth. These are people who love their mothers and family just like we do. We need to build on that to give them the Gospel.

We need to recall that just as God’s rain falls on the just and the unjust so that same rain falls on the racists and non racists alike. This teaches us about God’s incredible mercy and if that mercy could reach us when we were not yet Christian certainly it can reach even the racist while they are not yet Christian.  Where is the tenderness and kindness that was characteristic of the Church through the centuries? Where is the historic love of Jesus for the least of these? Would you die for your racist neighbor to see them won to the Kingdom? If not, then maybe you should slow up in your ready condemnation of the racist.

Given all this we need to start treating our racist neighbors as real people. Go ahead and say “hello” to your racist neighbor. I know enough of them to assure you that they won’t bite you. Make them a meal. Help them get to the hospital if they are hurt. Donate blood or an organ to help them return to health and great will be your reward in heaven. Remember underneath that racist veneer is a human whom Jesus died for. His or her racism does not negate their humanity. Remember that.

Remember, without your willingness to be a channel of grace, your racist neighbor may well go to hell. Let that motivate you in your outreach to racists.

Addendum — Even some our clergy need help on this subject. Call up your parson and take him out to lunch and talk with your clergy member about his or her shrillness on the subject of racism. Remind your minister that racism is not the unforgivable sin. Remind your minister that your church as well as (s)he and the church staff may well can learn something from the racists.

Remember… it only takes a spark to get a fire going.

Inspired by Paul Tripp


The Left’s Invoking of Morality & Examining the Left’s Distinguishing of Patriotism & Nationalism

In the last 24 hours I have seen people on the Left make arguments built upon an appeal to “moral values.” I always enjoy the Left invoking the “moral values” argument because they never tell us where they are getting their moral values from. They invoke moral values and at the same time do everything they can to undermine traditional Christian Western moral values. Were I a cynical person I’d believe that they are cynically invoking a morality that they don’t themselves believe but know that hoi polloi believe and on the basis they expect the hoi polloi to get their minds right.

What is interesting in the two examples I am using for this article is that “moral values” are being invoked to support immorality. Our first examples comes from the French President (Macron) who married someone old enough to be his mother. Bridgette Macron had children her future husband’s own age. Be leery of the moral values of any world leader who marries someone old enough to be his mum.

Anyway, here is the French President’s quote;

Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism…nationalism is the betrayal of patriotism. By saying we put ourselves first and the others don’t matter, we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it great, and what is essential: its moral values.”

Wouldn’t it be helpful here to know where Macron is getting the idea of moral values from? Was is the standard for Macron wherein he derives his moral values? Macron is a strong supporter of Abortion. Macron is a strong supporter of euthanasia. Where do these moral values come from upon which Macron makes such broad sweeping statements? If a nation holds dearest its moral values … if a nation is given life by its moral values … if a nation is made great by its moral values where is Macron finding these moral values. What is the source of Macron’s moral values that allows him to declaim that nationalism is evil?

Of course in asking about this question of where does Macron’s moral values come from – moralism that allows for killing babies and old people but does not allow for nationalism – we do not consider the absolute idiocy of opposing Patriotism to Nationalism.

First we consider the meaning of “Patriotism.”

From French patriote (15c.) and directly from Late Latin patriota 
“fellow-countryman” (6c.), from Greek patriotes “fellow countryman,” from patrios “of one’s fathers,” patris “fatherland,” from pater (genitive patros) “father” (see father (n.)); with -otes, suffix expressing state or condition.

Now we consider the meaning of “Nation” from which Nationalism comes from;

c. 1300, nacioun, “a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language,” from Old French nacion “birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland” (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) “birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe,” literally “that which has been born,” from natus, past participle of nasci “be born” (Old Latin gnasci), from PIE root *gene- “give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

Clearly Macron has his head up his southern most aperture if he thinks he can make the word “Patriotism” oppose the word “Nationalism” in their essence of meaning. In other words, Macron is gaslighting people here.

It might be handy to keep this knowledge in your back pocket because it is not only French Presidents who try to pull of this linguistic charlatanism but American “Evangelicals” as well are constantly trying to play Patriotism off against Nationalism. There is even a book out by one Adam Wyatt titled, “Biblical Patriotism: An Evangelical Alternative To Nationalism,” as if Nationalism can’t be Biblical also.

This attempt to play Patriotism (Angels sing) off against Nationalism (Devil’s poke with pitchfork) is just the kind of thing that Doug Wilson or one of his CREC lapdogs (insert Crosspolitic podcast guys here) would try to sell. When one takes off the veneer what one sees is the ongoing attempt to introduce the idea that we love our own kin and family best when we allow the foreigner, stranger, and alien (Macron’s “others”) to eliminate us (White Western Christians) as a people. In Macron’s world and in the world of Evangelical leaders today Patriotism is the word used to describe what it means for White Western Christians to embrace the suicide cult that is now the new definition of Christianity and Nationalism is the word used about the evil vile people who resist the New World Order with its required ethno-masochism, xenophilia, and oikophobia.

To be a good Patriot today means one gets on the trains taking you to the death camps without murmuring. To be a good Nationalist today means taking your children’s and grandchildren’s inheritance and giving it to Pablo, Mohamed, and Sanjay.

Our second example wherein we find one of the NWO elites invoking the importance of moral comes from Jen Psaki.

“This is not normal, moral, human behavior.”
Jen “Circle Back” Psaki
ormer White House Press Secretary
Complaining about Conservatives refusal to believe the Paul Pelosi story


Now, what standard do you suppose Jen uses to determine “normal, moral human behavior?”


I love it when the left appeals to normal, moral human behavior.

Keep in mind this is a woman who believes in abortion up to birth, sodomy, transgenderism and who knows what else. This is a woman who worked for perhaps the most in your face immoral administration that has ever existed and she wants to lecture Americans on “normal, moral, human behavior.”

The hubris is skull breaking outrageous.

Musings After Listening to Sodomite but Celibate Rev. Dr. Greg Johnson Interview

After listening to a Greg Johnson (he of PCA celibate sodomite Pastor fame) interview last night followed immediately by reading the PCA open letter penned and signed by 13 of the past 15 PCA Moderators assuring God and the world that all is fine in the good ship PCA I was struck with the fact of how this is a classic worldview contest.

I am convinced that these moderators who penned this open letter as well as the nearly 600 Elders who signed the previous open letter are completely bumfuzzled as to why anybody could possibly have a problem with Dr. Greg Johnson serving as a PCA minister. In point of fact, these folks believe that Johnson is proof of God’s rich mercy and thank God for Johnson’s presence in the PCA.

Meanwhile, I am at the same time equally convinced that those who oppose Johnson are overwrought with the shame that Johnson brings to the PCA.

These two groups might as well be living on two different planets speaking two different languages. There is simply no way that anyone member of one group can thoroughly understand the position of the other group on this subject.

This kind of thing happens when people on both sides are each using the same words but are filling those words with completely different content. And that happens because there are two completely different worldviews. Words take their meaning depending upon the worldview in which they are operating.

So in this PCA mess, everyone is talking about “grace,” “sin,” “God,” “forgiveness,” “sanctification,” etc. but each side is obviously filling those words with a different meaning. The PCA wouldn’t be at this point if that was not the case.

In my estimation, those who are championing Johnson have their roots in some way in the Sonship movement originally started by Jack Miller. The hallmark of this movement is the graciousness of grace but the danger is that grace would often end up being defined by the Sonship advocates in such a way as to leave the door open for antinomianism. Grace was so wrongly emphasized that it diminished the necessity to take seriously God’s word when we are instructed,

20 But ye have not so learned Christ;21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: 22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; 24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Johnson, in embracing his same-sex attraction reality that can’t be changed as somehow normative for him and others who have the same attraction Johnson champions a kind of grace that makes way for an antinomian license. Grace not only reminds us of how we are always forgiven, loved, and accepted in Christ. Grace also drives a gratitude that is relentless in making it our goal to please God.  God is not pleased with His children turning grace into license.

In the past the knock against some Sonship devotees is that they forgot St. Paul’s words, “Shall we go on sinning that grace may abound? God forbid.” As this works itself out in the Dr. Greg Johnson (a celibate sodomite Pastor) case, it is my conviction that God’s grace is being used as a cover for the embrace of Johnson’s same-sex attraction.

Another thing this means is that the PCA has to split or congregations have to start individually leaving as they can. This is a massive worldview split that is going to start revealing itself more and more all the way down the line in every subject matter.

Was Judas Predestined to Betray Christ? … Answering a Pastor’s Objection

“Things Jesus never said:
Judas, I wanted to let you know that my Father has predestined you to betray me, so it’s really not your fault.”
Rev. Duncan Bryant
Bret responds,
 This statement was made tongue in cheek but I thought I would answer it as if someone really did believe that because Judas was predestined to betray Christ therefore he it was really not his fault.
Turning to the matter at hand we know from Scripture that the final days of the life of Jesus on earth were foreordained to include the betrayal of Judas, just as were the cross and resurrection (Mark 14:17-21; Acts 1:16 and Psalm 109:5-8).
17 And in the evening He came with the twelve. 18 And as they sat and ate, Jesus said, “Verily I say unto you, one of you who eateth with Me shall betray Me.” 19 And they began to be sorrowful and to say unto Him one by one, “Is it I?” And another said, “Is it I?” 20 And He answered and said unto them, “It is one of the twelve that dippeth with Me in the dish. 21 The Son of Man indeed goeth, as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! Good were it for that man if he had never been born.”
Jesus went as it was written and every detail that led Jesus to the Cross was planned as well. Judas’ role was understood as ordained as seen by Peter’s words in Acts 1,
16 “Men and brethren, it was necessary that this Scripture be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spoke before concerning Judas, who was the guide to those who took Jesus.
In Psalm 109 Luther found Messianic material touching on Judas’ role. The heading given for the contents of this inspired poem is in a modern Luther’s German Bible: “Prophecy Concerning Judas and the Unfaithfulness against Christ by the Jews, and Their Curse.” Luther in a collection entitled: “The Four Psalms of Comfort,” dedicated to Queen Mary of Hungary, in the beginning of his exposition of this Psalm wrote: “David composed this psalm about Christ, who speaks the entire psalm in the first person against Judas, his betrayer, and against Judaism as a whole, describing their ultimate fate. In Acts 1:20 Peter applied this Psalm to Judas when they were selecting Matthias to replace him.” So, even though Rev. Bryant as a Pastor doesn’t see God’s plan in Judas’ work, Rev. Martin Luther saw God’s plan in Judas’ work.
Clearly, if Luther is right that the Psalmist speaks of Judas as the betrayer then what else can we conclude that God determined for Judas to betray Jesus? Both Jesus and Peter, as well as the Psalmist, in the above passages, verify that Judas was specifically chosen for the job of betrayal. Following Scripture then we rightly insist that Judas was predestined, called, elected, and/or chosen to betray Jesus.
And of course, we can’t forget Peter’s sermon,
Acts 2:23 He (Jesus) was handed over by God’s set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross.
Now it beggars the imagination that God planned the actual crucifixion of Christ without planning every particular moment to that end including Judas’ betrayal. If I plan an omelet I also must plan to break eggs. If God planned to hand over His Son then God planned the means by which the Son was to be handed over. So, Judas had no free will. However, this does not mean Judas had no choice in the matter.
The Westminster Confession teaches regarding causation,
ii. Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.
A “second cause” is simply “a cause caused by something else.” This expression is used in theology to distinguish between God as the ultimate cause of everything that comes to pass and the myriad smaller causes we see at work in the world. If I drop a cup of water gravity is the secondary cause that causes it to fall, but God is the one who causes gravity. He is the primary cause.
Judas was a secondary cause of Christ’s crucifixion. As a secondary cause, Judas did what he desired to do because of his fallen human nature. But behind Judas’ free choice was the God who ordains all things to come to pass. We certainly don’t believe that when Judas betrayed Christ, the Father said to Himself, “WOW, I did not see that coming,?” or, “Well, that wasn’t in the plan but I’ll work around it somehow.” Only a free will theist “reasons” that way.
Next, we would say that Judas was responsible (at fault) simply because God held Judas responsible. God is the creator and by being the creator all are responsible to Him simply because He holds them responsible. Can Judas say to the creator, “Why did you make me this way?”
So, we know, from Scripture that the eternal predestinating God did ordain Judas to betray Christ and that Judas remained responsible for this betrayal. All of this is why Scripture could call Judas, “The Son of perdition.”
This title of Judas (John 17:2), which he shares in Scripture with the Anti-Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:3) is a well known Hebrew idiom whereby someone who embodies a trait or characteristic or destiny is called the son of that trait, character or destiny. The name “Son of perdition,” as applied to both Judas and the antichrist represents them both as given over irrecoverably and totally to the final perdition; and this from the foundations of time since it was God’s destiny for them. A destiny they very much freely chose.
God predestined Judas from his conception to his hanging himself inclusive of his betrayal of Christ. To believe otherwise introduces us to a non omnipotent God and a completely different definition at all points of the Christian faith.