The FEDS Pursuit of Divinity

Proof that the FEDS desire to be as God

1.) Passed the FISA act thus reaching for omnipresence.

2.) Womb to the tomb care thus reaching for total providence.

3.) Knows all your correspondence & purchases thus reaching for omniscience.

4.) Bureaucracy that can’t be fired thus reaching for immutability.

5.) Desire to control movement of citizens and present denial of freedom of association thus reaching for omnipotence.

6.) Embrace of anarcho-tyranny thus reaching to own the wrath of God.

7.) Embrace of all different peoples (illegal immigration) as under their umbrella thus reaching for the Unity of the Godhead since the FEDS are the expression of all peoples.

Readers Return Holiday Greetings to the FBI

Just before Christmas the FBI posted on X a picture of a romantic and nostalgic fire in a fireplace, wishing folks a “Happy Holiday season.”
People did not reciprocate the FBI’s well wishing as seen in the scathing comments left.

“Are you guys burning evidence that could convict Hunter Biden in that fire?”

🎶Inconvenient citizens roasting on an open fire …”

“You being unemployed or in prison is the holiday gift America needs.”

“Even their fire leans left.”

“In case you haven’t noticed, Americans have lost all respect for you. You
have no one to blame but yourselves.”

“How fitting! A Dumpster Fire.”

“Still investigating churchgoers?”

“Good thing the FBI is busy prosecuting grandmas who walked into the Capitol holding a flag on January 6th…”

“Want me to have a happy holiday season? How about setting your HQ on fire?”

“How happy are all those J6 citizens you entrapped this holiday season?”

“Hell’s going to be a lot hotter than that, when you finally arrive.”

Fly over America no longer trusts, likes, or wants the FEDS, in any of its incarnations, least of all a Federal Police unit that has no sanction for its continued existence in the US Constitution.

Christian Nationalism & The Use of Force

“God’s law, and the punitive stipulations attached to it have never been rescinded.

The Gospel is to preached to all men. Those whom God has chosen from eternity will hear and believe.

God’s law is to be applied and upheld in every sphere of man’s endeavor. It is not meant to convert but to control the lawless and when necessary remove them from society. The state wields the sword and enforces the law but it must do so in submission to Christ the King.

The failure of the church to operate as described above is testimony to effeminacy. It is anti Christ.”

Mark Chambers 

This is the answer to the old canard from “Christians” insisting that Christian Nationalism (CN) should not be supported by Christians  because it implies the use of force. The argument is that CN is not legitimate because nobody can be forced to convert.

To the contrary CN can and should use force upon people in order to be installed. People have to realize that the force that CN must and should us is not intended to convert people, but rather force is intended to make the lawless respect the King’s law. Whether they will convert or not is the work of the Holy Spirit in the context of the preaching of the Gospel. That people will be forced to obey is the work of the Christian magistrates sword.

As such there is nothing desultory and there is no degradation to a Christianity which uses force to make people outwardly conform to the law of God, even if inwardly those people hate doing so. We do it all the time. We used force to make sure that people who might want to murder, rape, and steal don’t murder, rape, and steal. The fact that they are not doing the murdering, raping, and stealing that they might otherwise do if force wasn’t promised against them if they did so may make them hypocrites but that is irrelevant as to living in a social order within the bonds of God’s law.
They may secretly desire to disobey that which they are being forced to obey but they don’t and they don’t for the fear of force used against them if they do. That is a good thing.

The above explains how CN is not inconsistent with the usage of force. It is true that force can’t convert people but that is not it’s intent. The intent of force is have people obey God’s law outwardly whether they want to or not. And that would be a good thing.

The usage of force in the rise of CN is no different than the usage of force in a Christian family. 12 y/o Johnny may not like any number of the family rules but force will make sure that Johnny complies. Now, to be sure, the hope is that Johnny will one day enjoy and own the family rules but until that day arrives little Johnny is kept in line by the promises of consequences (force) if he does not comply.

“Christians” who bring up the canard about how the prospect of force in CN make CN a non-starter are not really complaining about the prospect of force. What they are complaining about are laws in God’s gracious Law-Word that they don’t want enforced. If they could force their law on the world (whatever that might be) they would be perfectly fine with force.

Think about it a second…. the Baptists are some of the Christians who are screaming the loudest about how the usage of force is not consistent with Christianity. These Baptists are therefore against CN. However, keep in mind that the pluralism that we have now that is kept as expressive of our social order by force is a pluralism that is an expression of Baptist theology. Pluralism is the child of Anabaptist thinking, so naturally many Baptists  oppose a CN coupled with the usage of force because that would mean the end of their preferred social order (pluralism) which is maintained by force.

In the end, force is an inescapable concept when it comes to how social orders operation. That force will either be put into the service of God’s law or it will be put into the service of some other god’s law (like polytheistic pluralism).

Dr. Strange and the Multicult of Madness — Part II

Over here;

We find a Mid-America sponsored podcast featuring Dr. Alan Strange inveighing against Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s vision of Christian Nationalism. This is the second podcast wherein Dr. Strange deals with this subject and so subsequently my second blog post interrogating Dr. Strange.

Dr. Alan Strange in his podcast against Christian Nationalism marches out the old canard that “Pentecost was the reversal of Babel,” when in point of fact Pentecost was the sanctification of Babel. If Pentecost had been the reversal of Babel then all the peoples from various nations would have heard the Gospel in Esperanto. Instead each peoples heard the Gospel in their own tongue, thus sanctioning nations and by extension Nationalism.

Strange also insists that the time period in Reformed that Stephen Wolfe appeals to on church and state matters is no longer the consensus by Reformed churches. The response to that is “so what?” If Wolfe (rightly) understands that the WCF as it was accepted by Americans and the TFU as accepted by the 20th century Reformed church with its deleterious changes by Abraham Kuyper were gross aberrations why should it matter what modern Reformed denominations currently think? Modern Reformed denominations have so altered the original intent of the original confessional documents on church and state so as to make Christian Nationalism almost impossible. That was not the case in the original autographs. If Wolfe wants to presuppose the original autographs who is Strange to wave a red flag on that issue?

Dr. Strange perhaps doesn’t realize how those changes changed the whole Reformed faith and made it less Reformed. Wolfe is reaching back to a earlier time when Reformed theology on Church and state explicitly taught Nationalism.

Dr. Alan Strange in his podcast analyzing Christian Nationalism also faults Dr. S. Wolfe for saying that Christianity has not come into its own (into its full flower) unless it is instantiated in every Institutional expression of any given set culture. Strange seems to think that by saying this Wolfe is diminishing both the necessity for regeneration and the preaching that leads to that and so the Church’s role in placarding Christ.

Wolfe, contra Strange does not negate the importance of the church’s proper jurisdictional role. Indeed, I have no doubt that Dr. Wolfe would agree that the Church needs to be about properly handling the keys of the Kingdom. Dr. Wolfe’s point remains though. If a social-order doesn’t embrace Christianity… if the Magistrates are not nursing fathers for the Church — then Christianity most certainly will not have the far reaching impact that it otherwise would and so indeed has not come to its fullest expression.

Thirdly, in his podcast against Christian Nationalism Dr. Alan Strange clearly inveighs against any kind of use of force in order to re-establish a Christian ethos to this nation. Strange even cites both Rushdoony and Bahnsen as being against the use of force to establish a Christian National Reformation.

I think Strange, Rushdoony, and Bahnsen clearly wrong here. Returning to Christian nationalism might quite possibly require force just as Charlemagne used force to establish Christianity among the Franks. Just as Alfred the Great had to use force. Just as Charles Martel used force to maintain Christianity against the Muslims. So also, the period of the Reformation was characterized by conflict. The Crusades established Christianity by force in the Holy Land for a period of time. The Dutch only achieved freedom from Catholic Spain by use of force. Cromwell established a particular kind of Christianity by force. Even our American war for Independence was an example of the Protestant Dissenters with their Reformed Christianity going to war against British Episcopalians. It’s just silly to think that any kind of major worldview shift cannot use force to establish its presence.

Now, naturally enough, we would all love to have “velvet counter-Revolutions,” but it is not realistic that every cultural worldview shift can be achieved by a velvet Revolution. As such, to suggest, as Strange does, that the use of force is just abhorrent to Christians is just utter nonsense.  Throughout history Christians have repeatedly used force against paganism to establish or defend Christian Nationalism.

It is true that both Rushdoony and Bahnsen spoke against the use of force but we are living in quite different times from when RJR and Bahnsen lived. Maybe they would still insist that force is not an option. If they were still alive and did insist that, I would counter with the conviction that they were in error.

We might as well just belly up to the bar and admit all this. We can advise to go slowly on the usage of force. We can say “only in the last resort,” we can warn against being lured into using force when not yet ready but taking force completely off the table in order to establish Christian Nationalism is just not well thought out.

Obedience to tyrants is disobedience to God.

Baptist Prof Analyzes Theonomy … McAtee Analyzes Baptist Prof

“Theonomy is a facile hermeneutic that channels an eschatology of triumph. Historically undesirable, it instrumentalizes religion, blurs church-state relationships, and jeopardizes religious dissent. And it proves unnecessary because of how other covenants showcase the benefits of common grace and natural law.”

Andrew T. Walker
Associate Prof. – Christian ethics @ Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center
The Gospel Coalition Article

1.) If the Bible teaches a eschatology of triumph (and it does) then there is no problem with having a hermeneutic that channels an eschatology of triumph

2.) Historically undesirable according to whom? According to Satanist or Humanists or Baptist? But I repeat myself.

3.) Any religion that isn’t instrumentalized is useless as a religion.

4.) Only a Baptist would complain about the blurring of Church and State relations since the Baptist religion requires the Church and State be divorced. As such anyone who disagree with the idea that the Church and State must be divorced is someone, per the Baptists, who are guilty of blurring Church and State relations.

5.) The jeopardizing of religious dissent is a good thing when that religious dissent is dissenting against Christianity. The jeopardizing of religious dissent is only a bad thing when it is Christian dissent against false religions like Baptistianity that is being jeopardized.

6.) Common grace and natural law are myths in the way Walker wants to define them.

7.) Walker is an over educated not wise man.