The Divine Right of Judiciaries?

It was Samuel Rutherford in “Lex Rex,” who put a shimmy in the idea of the Divine Rights of Kings. This idea posited that as Kings were anointed by God none could gainsay their authority. When the King spoke it was ipso facto law. This was a Rex Lex (King is Law) model. Rutherford stood that on its head and insisted, to the contrary, that God’s law was King over Kings.

Over time the doctrine of the Divine Rights of Kings transmuted in England to, “Divine Rights of Parliament.” Actually, it was this thinking that the Colonialists in 1776 squared up against. English Parliament was acting in such a way that communicated that there was no authority above their authority. The Colonialists begged to differ.

You can even find epochs where some have argued that Presbyteries were acting like they believed in a doctrine we might call “the Divine Right of Presbytery.” John Milton complained once that, “New presbyter is but old priest writ large.” He was complaining about the instinct of Presbyters to invest themselves with “The Divine Right of Presbytery.”

Now we are living in a time when we have to put up with this old idea but now as invested in our Courts. We have arrived at a doctrine of “The Divine Rights of Judiciary.” Witness the Obergefell decision. No Federal legislative body has passed laws saying Marriage no longer means marriage and yet SCOTUS and its sycophants are insisting that a mere ruling from these Black Robed Clowns means that the States have to embrace their decision as if it has the force of law. It doesn’t. It’s their opinion and that is all it is.

Even if a Federal Legislative body codified not-marriage as marriage that wouldn’t make it legal. It is not possible for legislation that seeks to legislate non-reality into existence to be legitimate. Legislation that calls a cow-pie, a jelly-roll doesn’t make it a jelly-roll. And legislation that calls perversity “marriage” doesn’t and can’t make it marriage.

Inasmuch as many many of our Institutions have rebelled against God’s Law and have rebelled against the “Divine Right of God,” in that much we no longer owe these usurpers our obedience.

SCOTUS Gives White Kids A Lift Up With Quota Requirements

White kids everywhere were rejoicing when it was announced today that the US Supreme Court decided that University of Texas admission official may legally consider the race of student applicants in a limited way in order to build a diverse student body on the UT campus.

Knowledgeable White students realize that the implication of this ruling is that their chances of making it into historically black schools like Grambling State University and Alcorn State University were now dramatically improved thanks to the SCOTUS ruling.

Wise Latina female Supreme Court Justice Sotomayer was quoted as saying, “It’s long past time that White children have the same opportunity at these prestigious Universities that others have had.”

 The decision was a surprising win for advocates of affirmative action, who say the benefits of diversity at the nation’s colleges and universities are worth completely ignoring the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection that forbids and makes no provision for the government making decisions based on racial classifications.

Some Supreme Court watchers and legal experts believe that the implications of this decisions will mean more white point guards on NCAA division one teams as well as a influx of White and perhaps even Asian defensive lineman on University football teams.  Sports professionals insisted that one implication of this decision would be the diminution of quality at these positions in the future. One General Manager of an NBA team said, “I look for the output at the point guard position in the NBA to decline over the next 15 years.

The Obama Administration’s response to the SCOTUS decision was mixed. White bread White House Spokesman Josh Earnest said to reporters that, “I look forward to the day when a Kenyan can hold this position. Diversity is the strength in the Spokesperson business.”

Libertarian Tyranny

Does anybody except me see the irony in people calling me “Isis like” when I object to a sodomite marriage ruling that forces the sodomite definition of marriage upon the social order.

I object to their heavy handed Tyranny and I’m the one who is “like Isis.”

Theonomy has forever been accused of wanting to implement a top down law order. People have, over the years, been absolutely apoplectic that Theonomists wanted to be ruled by God’s law in the social order. Yet, having defamed, slandered, and libeled Theonomy for insisting that law is always religiously derived and in turn law always reflects the will of some God, god, or gods (thus always giving Theocracy) what we find happening now is that in a top down fashion the law of the sodomite god “Molech” is now being forced upon us. Many of the movement Libertarians are, in effect, telling us that we have no liberty to have marriage defined, for our social order, in a Christian fashion. Instead, marriage must have a forced Libertarian sodomite definition. Ironically enough many Libertarians are pleased that the State is forcing this on us. The best that the Libertarians can do is howl about how this wasn’t left up to the states to decide. As if states have some kind of inherent right to thumb their nose at God’s law.

You have to hand it to those of the Libertarian and Isis faiths. At least they each believe, unlike R2K and Baptist “Christians,” that the will of their respective gods should be honored in the public square.

Look, in the end law is always going to have a aspect of “top down” about it. We are now learning that you can have your top down law aspect from as from God’s law or your can have your top down aspect as from Molech, Talmud, or humanism.

Topless Baristas & The Modern Gospel vs. Historic Christianity — A Conversation

Out on the West Coast, in Spokane, Washington topless women are serving up Coffee and breasts as the Nightline report above exposes. This reality drove a late night conversation between myself, a friend, and your garden variety Evangelical (minister?) who “leans Calvinist.” I post it here to demonstrate an apologetic encounter and to demonstrate where much of the contemporary Evangelical Church is today. Names have been changed to protect the identity of Zombies.

Dan Brannan

Being paid for sexual acts/displays is not the description of a barista. It is the description of a prostitute.

Christian Toddson

Just curious why you think (at least your comment appears as such) that serving coffee or pretty much doing anything in a bikini is prostitution? Is modeling prostitution? Is going to a pool, ocean, lake, river, etc… in a bikini, prostitution?

Dan Brannan

Yes, if a girl dresses in bikini (essentially underwear) for money, she is engaged in prostitution. A woman selling her body, and performing sexual exhibitionism is a prostitute.

On the other hand, a woman who dons a bikini (underwear) in public without pay, is not a prostitute. She’s merely a harlot.

Christian Toddson

Wow, Dan. Really? This is what you truly believe 100% dogmatically? Clearly your position is rooted in your religious faith. I’m Christian myself, though I don’t ascribe to legalism, but rather lean more heavily on grace and don’t judge by appearances I’d rather face God directly than anyone rooted in legalism on any issue. I would venture to say that at the deepest root of your aversion to bikinis and such, it has more to do with your own personal struggles rather than being substantiated in Christian doctrine.

Really? Prostitute? Wearing a bikini (or anything else, even being nude) selling coffee or anything else for that matter other than sex doesn’t define being a prostitute. Nor does it have anything to do with association to harlotry… other than perhaps within your own mental videos.

Dan Brannan

Christian, your mush-mouthed dissembling embarrasses me. You know that the whole motive of bikini baristas is sexual voyeurism and exhibitionism. And you know that by definition, paying for sex acts is prostitution.

Dan Brannan

Lying to yourself only tarnishes your witness.

Christian Toddson

Dan, though admittedly I say this somewhat with sarcasm, perhaps it would serve your legalistic leaning to relocate to an Islamic country where prescribing what females can wear is a culturally accepted practice?

The motive of having a coffee stand with bikini baristas is nothing more than a common marketing strategy. It is something entirely acceptable within our culture. Anyone who takes issue with it is expecting that all America (if not the globe) ought to conform with your perspective of Scripture. And that’s very unrealistic. It is fine for you to hold your position (though I would encourage you do some deeper study rooted in grace and choice), but to imagine that it’s acceptable to dictate what may be done by and for others based upon doctrine is highly problematic.

Perhaps you may take it upon yourself to visit these type of bikini coffee stands if you truly believe what you’ve shared here, and pass out Bible tracts and attempt to share the Gospel?

But I wouldn’t suggest you carry signs that say anything such as “God Hates Prostitutes!!”, or “Harlots Are Going To Hell!!.” You won’t make much impact other than defamation to Biblical Christianity, and give justifiable cause to most everyone who already despises institutionalized religion and it’s blind adherents.

Dan Brannan

Your doctrine, Christian, is “Do as thou wilt be the whole of the law.” That is the explicit plausibility structure  of Satanism. You cannot hold that view and be a Christian. What’s more, I think you know that.

Dan Brannan

Christian, you  wrote,

“The motive of having a coffee stand with bikini baristas is nothing more than a common marketing strategy. It is something entirely acceptable within our culture.”

^This is an admission that you simply don’t care about the reality of the matter. You want your titillation no matter what God’s word and the common definitions of words mean.

Dan Brannan

That ‘common marketing strategy’ you mention is selling sex. Which is to say, PROSTITUTION.

Christian Toddson

We live within a framework of ‘culture’ and within any such framework, the role of a Christian at best is to pray for your concerns, love others (not judge), and graciously, compassionately seek to build a bridge between the perceived “sinners” and the heart of Christ.  Your label slinging falls awfully short of those goals. You can go unto all the world sharing the good news, but when it’s done in a spirit of judgmental legalism rather than love, then your just clanging cymbals, Dan.

Dan Brannan

You’re peddling Satanism in the name of Christianity, Mr. Toddson.

You apparently don’t know the definition of legalism either. Legalism is defined as,

1) the belief that fallen men can be saved by perfectly keeping the law, or
2) that you are at liberty to add to or change the law.

By the second definition, it is you who are the legalist, not I.

Further Christian, the scripture nowhere instructs Christians not to judge. Matthew 7 instructs us to judge righteously. And St. Paul assures us that we must “judge all things” as we will even judge angels.

Christian Toddson,

Your label slinging falls awfully short of those goals. You can go unto all the world sharing the good news, but when it’s done in a spirit of judgmental legalism rather than love, then your just clanging cymbals, Dan. Sorry you see it that way, Dan. Though nothing of the sort. Your highly judgmental. Grace, Dan. Lack of Grace is what comes through loud and clear in what you’ve expressed. It would serve much of modern day Christendom well to devote itself to Grace, as Christ intended, rather than the legalism that He expended such great energy to rebuke.

Dan Brannan — You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Christian Toddson,

Dan, in my legalistic season, I utilized the very scriptures about ‘judging’ as you have demonstrated yourself here.

Dan Brannan

Stop judging me, Christian.

You say Christians aren’t to judge, so, I’m asking you to be true to that Satanic standard and desist judging me.

Christian Toddson,

Ok ok… Dan is right. Christians, Go ahead and smite the coffee stands with fire and brimstone, and stone the bikini donning, satan worshipping, “prostitute” and “harlot” baristas to death.

Dan Brannan

You can’t convince people that they need grace unless they know they are sinners. And we aren’t at liberty to revoke God’s standards.

Christian Toddson,

Teach Grace and the purpose of Grace, and your nets will catch more ‘fish’. Try it.

Dan Brannan — Grace is incommunicable without Law.  Please, give coherence a chance.

Bret L. McAtee

Christian is a legalist. He is insisting that his law that insists upon legalized voyeurism be forced upon all those who would rather not their sons and daughters be lured into this lifestyle and Christian does this all in the name of “grace.” Of course this is grace redefined as license.

Then what Christian does is to turn around and label Dan Brannan a “legalist” because Dan has a right understanding of the law that isn’t consistent with Christian’s own legalism.

Fascinating how the Libertarian are confused with Christians.

Christian Toddson,

Dan, Bret – You two ought to know that it ‘s of far greater appeal to share with “sinners” that God is for them and that He loves them, than to judge them harshly, condemn them, and tell them they are going to Hell. You will not scare any one into Heaven. Jesus didn’t approach the unknowing sinful that way, nor make appeal to you to do such a thing; so why are you?

Dan Brannan Just because your false gospel is more appealing to the world than the actual gospel, is no reason to abandon the genuine article, Christian.

Bret L. McAtee

How can I tell sinners (i.e. those in rebellion to Christ) that “God loves them,” when Scripture expressly teaches that “God hates workers of iniquity”? (Psalm 5:5)

Bret L. McAtee — And secondly, how dare you judge me Mr. Toddson. Where is the appeal in that?

Bret L. McAtee — Christian, I suggest you might read Romans 1 to see how God challenges recalcitrant sinners.

Dan Brannan

If you preach a form of grace that knows no law, you aren’t teaching grace at all, but as Bret said, you are teaching license and licentiousness.

Christian Toddson,

Dan, you said that, “Grace is incommunicable without Law.”

That’s a terribly sad way to think.

A very simple and endearing book about Grace is Chuck Smith’s 1994 book, “Why Grace Changes Everything”

You need to share an appealing message with those you feel are “sinners.” Not express condemnation. Introduce the sinner to Jesus… how about that?

Bret L. McAtee — Chuck Smith was a Heretic

Dan Brannan

When Paul asks rhetorically, “shall we sin the more that grace may abound?” he answers, “may it never be.” But you say of Paul’s argument that “that’s a terribly sad way to think.”

If you are introducing sinners to an antinomian Jesus, you are introducing them to a false Christ. Jesus kept the law perfectly and commanded men to repent.

Bret L. McAtee

And our Lord Christ said that he had not come to condemn the law but to fulfill it. Further, the Lord Christ told the Pharisees that they should have kept the slightest of the law found in tithing mint, dill, and cummin.

Dan Brannan

Right. Christ condemned the pharisees for neglecting God’s law and making up new laws in its place — just what Christian is doing.

Bret L. McAtee — Hence, proving, as I said, that Christian is the legalist here.

Christian Toddson

Do you guys wear Tefillins on your heads?

Carry a Torah attached to the end of a battle club, and mock Jesus with things like “He saved others, but He can’t save himself!” ?

Dan Brannan — No, we say that YOU should stop doing those sort of things.

Bret L. McAtee

Ephesians 4:17 So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; 19 and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.

Christian Toddson

Bret, when the individuals you and Dan are judging are the bikini baristas, are you assuming they’re Christians or unsaved sinners?

If unsaved and ignorant of God’s grace, ‘sinners’ – are you at all concerned with making a compassionate, loving appeal t
o them as befits Christ? Or condemnation?

To the Christian we can speak in different terms than the unsaved.

You two come across as highly judgmental, un-compassionate, lacking love, very unappealing fundamentalists.

John Kevan,

Bottom line, if you think girls selling coffee in bikinis is wrong, then don’t go to that coffee stand — there are plenty of places to get coffee that don’t feature bikini clad baristas – – but there is most certainly no legitimate justification for government restrictions on such business.

Bret L. McAtee,

Mr. Toddson, the best thing I can do for the bikini baristas and all those who are in rebellion to God is to inform them that if they do not repent God may well turn them over to their rebellion. I also tell them that God has provided mercy in Christ upon repentance.

It would be sheer hatred for me to do anything else.

I find your judgmentalism against me very disconcerting. You are demonstrating a lack of love for me and are obviously unconcerned with the prospects of hurting my feelings. This makes me cry.

Bret L. McAtee

John, God’s law strikes me as a legitimate foundation for government restriction.

Libertarians … what a confused bunch.

Christian Toddson,

I see a clear, near identical likeness between the Statist and Institutionalized Christian. Statism is a religion, and Institutionalized Christianity is a law imposing, judgmental, condemnatory, punishment driven system of intimidation.

Dan Brannan … quoth Lucifer.

Bret L. McAtee

You’re the one doing all the condemning here partner.

And all States … All States codify their religion into law. Especially Libertarians.

Dan Brannan Yes, Libertarians believe in a Libertarian god, and they institute the law of Liber., and they do so rigidly.

John Kevan,

Bret, the only legitimate reason for government restriction is if I am doing something that harms another; it is legitimate for the government to restrict me from stealing from you or injuring or killing you. A girl selling coffee while wearing a bikini is harming nobody.

Dan Brannan — Wrong. Such prostitutes strike at the whole society.

Bret L. McAtee

John, the Libertarian Non Aggression Principle (NAP) is a myth.

Only God and His Law Word can provide the standard for what does and does not constitute aggression.

Dan Brannan — Amen.

Bret L. McAtee

NAP = Libertinism.

NAP = drug dealing Crack houses, whore houses, wife swapping, legalized sodomy … all because none of it is putatively “hurting anybody.”

Dan Brannan — NAP = open borders, predatory capitalism, etc., etc., etc.

The NAP is a Trojan horse which allows predatory forces to dismantle every aspect of genuine law and right from within our own gates.

Christian Toddson,

Dan, Bret – Between yourselves and me, who do you suppose could best build a bridge for the bikini baristas (if they don’t already know Him) to Jesus? You guys and your hell fire “repent or die!” approach, or my compassion driven, love based, appeal by Grace?

Of course all of it is the work of God, but what approach did you see Jesus take with the prostitute as opposed to those who were condemning her?

Dan Brannan — The trouble is, Christian, the bridge you’re trying to build leads not to Jesus, but to hell.

Bret L. McAtee

Psst … there is no building bridges to those who are dead dead dead in their sins. You act as if you’re just nice enough a dead person will respond. Dead people don’t respond Christian.

You’re a functional Arminian.

Second, when I see someone convicted of their sin, like “the prostitute” you mention it is obvious at that point that the law has already done its work and needs not to be stated again.

You have no idea what evangelism is Christian. Evangelism requires the soul shattering work of the law’s condemnation.

Christian Toddson

That’s an ignorant comment, Dan. You don’t know me. Nor have I anyplace here in our dialogue given free license to sin. I know that love is of far greater appeal than fear, and wins every time.

Dan Brannan

Jesus commanded that prostitutes and publicans must repent, Mr. Toddson. Your spewing B.S. Anti-Christ nonsense, Mr. Toddson.

Bret L. McAtee

Christian, are you actually trying to compare the repentant prostitute who wiped the feet of our Lord Christ with tears with the brazen bikini baristas in the video above? You’re not a wise man in the least.

Christian Toddson,

Dan, you noted that, “Jesus commanded that prostitutes and publicans must repent, Christian.”

I say to that Dan that, Jesus commanded that every one must repent.

Dan Brannan —  That’s the FIRST correct thing you’ve said so far, Christian.

Christian Toddson —  You guys need to abandon your love of law for the love of Christ, and for the sinner.

Bret L. McAtee,

Do you suppose that the brazen bikini baristas will agree that they must repent Christian?

I do agree that I need to repent and that my repentance even needs repenting over, inadequate as  it is.

Dan Brannan — and back you go to your anti-Christ schtick Christian

Bret L. McAtee,

You are the one who is hateful of the bikini baristas Mr. Toddson. You are a eminent hater by your theology as seen in your unwillingness to plead God’s Holiness.

Christian Toddson,

Bret – they won’t agree that they need to repent if they hear the message delivered with your tone and swagger.

Dan Brannan LOL.

Bret L. McAtee,

I can’t separate Christ from God’s law since Christ was the very incarnation of God’s law.

And I continue to see your Arminianism Christian. If I speak just the right nice way they will come to Jesus but if I tell them the truth they won’t. Is that it Christian?

Christian Toddson — Christ is the fulfillment of the law, Bret. Not you, not Dan, not me.

Bret L. McAtee,

Right Christian, and we are His champions and so we must set forth His legal character and let the law do its convicting work before we apply the balm of grace. To do what your advocating would damn the souls that, in love and compassion, we are seeking to woo.

Christian Toddson — I lean Calvinist actually, Bret.

Dan Brannan — No you don’t.

Bret L. McAtee — No you don’t. You’re a functional Arminian, and probably a Seminary grad to boot.

Christian Toddson — You are the two who speak in a manner demonstrating a works oriented salvation.

Dan Brannan — Exactly the opposite of the case.

Christian Toddson  — It’s true, Bret.  I’m dead on, Dan.

Bret L. McAtee

Nuh Uh. Neener neener neeener. I’m rubber. you’re glue. Whatever you say bounces of me and sticks on to you.

Dan Brannan

Mr. Toddson, far from the doctrines of grace, you preach licentiousness based upon Satanist nomology. Further,   you preach a works righteousness of “niceness” rather than grace.

Christian Toddson

Bret – how many churches have you left?

How many have you been asked to leave or told to leave?

Bret L. McAtee,

Zero and Zero.  How about you?

Besides being asked to leave a Church in this current zeitgeist is, more often then not, a badge of honor, Christian

Christian Toddson — Dan, I see you enjoy the pet usage of satan, and nomology. Neither of which I find value with.

Dan Brannan — And yet, you preach him.

Christian Toddson — Did Jesus condemn? If so, Who?

Bret L. McAtee — Jesus condemned people like you who were exercising their self righteousness.

Christian Toddson  — No self righteousness here guys. That would be ignorant.

Dan Brannan,

Christian, the Lord repetitiously condemned those doing as you are, Christian. Because you refuse His Lordship, and prefer to make up your own law to impose upon Him.

Christian Toddson,

Dan, He fulfilled the law for me, for you, for Bret, for all of us. It’s the two of you who are seeking to impose it.

Dan Brannan — We seek to obey Him. But you say obeying Him is the greatest crime.

Bret L. McAtee,

There is no way we can know that Christ fulfilled the law for those who refuse Christ. That is Arminian again.

Christian Toddson,

I would venture to say that Jesus is more concerned with how the two of you are behaving in His name than with the bikini baristas.

Bret L. McAtee — Of course you would say that. So say all Luciferians.

Dan Brannan — Because you hate His law and reject His Lordship.

Christian Toddson — That is a terribly condemnatory thing to say Bret.

Bret L. McAtee — Just how I would expect a Luciferian to respond.

Christian Toddson

No Dan, I abhor Pharisaical self righteousness and law imposing condemnation as Jesus Himself did.

Christian Toddson — That’s quite childish, Bret.

Bret L. McAtee,

And yet here you are condemning us with every post because we are not keeping your law. Talk about childish.

Christian Toddson —   Think of it more like a rebuke.

Bret L. McAtee — Psst …. its not working.

Christian Toddson — It will.

Bret L. McAtee — says you.

Dan Brannan — You’re rebuking Christ’s Lordship, Mr. Toddson. Anathema.

Christian Toddson —  Geez guys. do you two have any idea, even the least bit, how unappealing you make Christ and His message? What a repellent that you are?

There is no (expressed) love at all in you two and that concerns me both for the salvation of yourselves, and the damage you no doubt cause to the appeal of God for the unbelieving who already have plenty of reasons to despise institutionalized religion.

Dan Brannan,

^And thus they called for Him to be crucified. Jesus was not murdered for being a winsome lounge lizard.

Bret L. McAtee,

Christian, first off, I suspect your definition of love is not my definition of love. If Christ is the incarnation of God’s law then God’s law is also Love.

Second, you appeal to the idea of a Gospel that is appealing to sinners. Would you mind too terribly explaining by what standard you adjudicate a proper appeal?

Third, you’re actually surprised that people who hate Christ find plenty of reasons to despise the institutional religions that bears Christ’s name to the world?

Fourth, it is you who are doing the damage by condemning the use of God’s law that is intended to expose sin.

Bret L. McAtee — Christian, I have to ask. Are you a minister?

Bret L. McAtee

Christian, Is there a reason that Scriptures say that the Message is a stone that makes men stumble and a rock that makes men fall?

For Christian is seems the message is a bikini that makes men horny and a coffee that tastes good.

Dan Brannan — And God’s ethics are such a bummer, man.

Christian Toddson

Sure Bret, because the Jews couldn’t accept justification by faith, but believed it necessary for laboring at the works of the law. Jesus was/is their stumbling block.

A bit like you two… No?

Christian Toddson,  Dan – Your equating doing of the law, with ethics, or Godly principals?

Bret L. McAtee So you’re actually telling me that “justification by faith alone” obviates the causal connection with good works in relation to sanctification?

Antinomianism anyone?

Christ has set me free from the condemnation of the Law. I am not free to be disobedient Mr. Toddson.

Christian … are you a minister?

Dan Brannan

Jesus called the Pharisees to repent of their law and return to God’s Law … which presupposed from the beginning the atoning work of Christ and establishes the ethics of His universe.

Christian Toddson

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God”

Dan Brannan — Now just let that sink in, Christian.

Bret L. McAtee — Christian, are you a minister?

Christian Toddson — It’s sunken deep, Dan.

Dan Brannan — A sinister minister.

Bret L. McAtee — Shall we go on sinning that grace may abound Christian?  God forbid.

Bret L. McAtee

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and hath not works? Can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you say unto them, “Depart in peace; be ye warmed and filled,” without giving them those things which are needful to the body, what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, “Thou hast faith, and I have works.” Show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well. The devils also believe — and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Christian Toddson  — Of course, Bret.

Bret L. McAtee — 11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, 13 looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ,14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

Christian Toddson,

As regards the bikini baristas (back on point), What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church (if in fact they are)?

Bret L. McAtee  –Christian, are you a minister?

Christian Toddson — Bret, Aren’t we all?

Bret L. McAtee — No, we are not.

Christian Toddson — 1 Cor. 3

Bret L. McAtee — James 3:1

Bret L. McAtee,

Why did Paul judge the Athenians at Mars Hill since they were outside the Church? (Acts 17)

Dan Brannan,

Why does the 10 commandment insist that the covenant people impose God’s law on the stranger within thy gates?

How does the assumption that those outside the church need the gospel not amount to a judgment upon them?

Christian Toddson,

Bret, Why did Paul write the letters/epistles to the Corinthians? 1 Cor. 5:12?

Dan Brannan — To assume unbelievers need saving is to judge them.
Unlike · 2 · 8 hrs

Christian Toddson,

No Dan, we know that everyone needs saving. And that “there is none righteous, no, not one”, is a universal indictment.

Dan Brannan — Then you admit to judging unbelievers.

Christian Toddson,

No Dan. I mostly rest in not judging so that I won’t be judged, as per Matt. 7 Judging is not fun, nor is being judged. We humans are very very poor at it.

Dan Brannan — That’s a lie. You just issued judgement over unbelievers. That they are sinners and need salvation.

Bret L. McAtee — Yet here you are judging us all over the place Christian. Contradictions anyone?

Bret L. McAtee,


Paul judged the unbelievers at Athens.

I Cor. 5 is in the context of Church discipline. The Church can’t bring discipline against those who have not closed with Christ. However, the Church must have the law do its work with those who are in rebellion against Christ.

Christian Toddson,  Bret – Paul made a bad decision in Athens and because of it, saw little success there.

Bret L. McAtee — LOL ^

Bret L. McAtee — ROFLOL ^

Dan Brannan — WTH?

Bret L. McAtee — ROFLMAO

Dan Brannan  — Now you’re judging Paul!

Bret L. McAtee — I’m sitting here falling off my chair cracking up

Dan Brannan — Same here.

Christian Toddson,

Paul gave it up as a bad job with regard to his approach with the Athenians. How is it you don’t know that?

Bret L. McAtee — I guessed I missed that day when they taught that in Sunday School.

Christian Toddson — You must have…. or else went to a poorly teaching church.

Dan Brannan — That must be in the Devil’s Bible I’ve heard so much about.

Bret L. McAtee,

So … Christian … do tell please. What other parts of the Bible are considered failures where not expressly pointed out in the text.

Bret L. McAtee,


Seriously. Out of a compassion for you I plead with you to trust Christ and repent of your making a false Christ in your image to worship.

Dan Brannan.

Just to make sure I’m following … are you really judging Paul because he judged the athenians as a proof that we shouldn’t judge?

Bret L. McAtee — LOL ^

Christian Toddson,

Paul avoided mention of the cross in Athens, and the result was a meager harvest. After continuing on to Corinth is when he emphasized that he “resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.”

Have you never read that, or was it never taught to you?

It’s not a secret that many have considered Paul to have been disappointed with his message in Athens.

After all, how many were saved in Athens?

Dan Brannan — So, your are judging Paul for judging the Athenians. How is this level of hypocrisy possible?

Bret L. McAtee,

Paul preaching at Athens Christian,

Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to to all by raising him from the dead.”

Now, how could have Christ had been resurrected if Christ had not been dead and buried?

Sounds like the Cross is clearly implied in Athens Christian.

Christian Toddson,

 Dan, Paul omitted mention of the cross to the Athenians and one woman was saved as a result of his message to the crowd. Then he placed heavy emphasis on the cross in Corinth and many were saved. Paul didn’t use the philosophical approach again after Athens.
Bret L. McAtee,

Are you ever going to quit digging that hole your standing in and let us help you out Christian?

All of this “failure of Paul in Athens” is clear only to you Christian. No orthodox Christian would ever say what your saying about Acts 17. In point of fact, two of the greatest Christian minds of the 20th century (Van Til and Bahnsen) both insisted that Acts 17 was a template for doing Evangelism and Apologetics.  — Van Til’s treatment of Acts 17 — Partial look at Bahnsen’s work on Acts 17

Christian Toddson,

Folks – Paul left Athens disappointed, that is clear enough. His message to them wasn’t a “success” in terms of his listeners coming to salvation. He lost their ear, he left. He never taught in such a manner again.

Bret L. McAtee Folks,

Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit as He was, did not fail in Athens. The idea that you can measure the success of the message by counting the converts is heretical nonsense and the fact that Christian holds this demonstrates, perhaps better then anything else he has said, that his Gospel is pure existential pragmatism and not the Gospel belonging to Christianity.

Dan Brannan,

Yes. The notion that the divinely-enabled preaching of Paul could be condemned by Christians because it doesn’t fit the “church growth model” of emergent churchianity is a level of pharisaism unknown to me till tonight.

Further, I find the idea that Paul could be judged by modern apostates as a pretext to create a new law against judging people according to law absolutely hysterical.

To judge those who judge (even those divinely guided) according to a law which forbids law. New Age churchianity is like a giant web of zen koans — all self-contradictory.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Justifying Sodomite Marriage … McAtee Analyzing Ginsbur

“[Same-sex couples] wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.

There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Here we find this the Luciferian Ginsburg (LG), using a mere five sentences to explain, in oral arguments yesterday, her opinion, as to exactly why marriage was long understood to be incompatible with homosexuality.

We should note here,

1.) If we accept her tacit presuppositions the Luciferian Ginsburg (LG) is right. If one posits an egalitarian (vis-a- vis Patriarchal) foundation for Marriage then sodomite “marriage” makes perfect sense. This reminds us that the contest here must be waged at the presuppositional level. This debate is not primarily about sodomite “marriage.” This debate is about what worldview sodomite “marriage” can exist in in order to be seen as rational.

2.) In order to tease #1 above out it is necessary to observe that LG explicitly begins with the premise that marriage is a man made institution dictated by social and political circumstances. She argues that marriage once operated one way but men changed the way it operated and now, because this man controlled institution changed to become egalitarian, it can now change to become non gender specific.

Of course the problem here is that Christians do not agree that marriage is a man made institution. Marriage, because it is God ordained and defined, cannot be changed in its definition, like a wax nose, in order to satisfy the most current wandering lust of modern Luciferians. Unless we challenge sodomite “marriage” thinking at the presuppositional level of “who gets to define ‘marriage’ sodomite “marriage” will become legal.

3.) #1 and #2 together remind us that this decision is all about religion in the public square. It reminds us that it is not possible to separate Church and State. If SCOTUS requires the legality of sodomite “marriage” in all 50 states it will be due to the religious presupposition that man, playing God, can redefine words and create fiat meaning at the bang of a gavel. Such a decision would provide clear linkage proving that Church and State are never segregated. Conversely, if SCOTUS rules that the meaning of marriage is static and unchangeable that also will be due to some a-priori, (even if left un-articulated in the decision) religious presupposition.

4.) Note how clever LG is when she uses the language of “a millennium ago.”   She is trying to make it sound as if 1000 years ago marriage was one way but now, being so much smarter, marriage is another way for us moderns. However, the fact of the matter is that all this change has happened not over the course of a millennium ago but over the course of just a few decades. Indeed, when LG was married in 1956 the marriage laws then were far closer to a millennium ago then to what she envisions marriage transforming into.

5.) LG uses the term “egalitarian”, but imports her leftist meaning into it. She was talking about old “coverture” laws that provided no property rights to women. She thinks the very nature of man/woman is one of *improper* subordination. We can argue about whether the change ditching coverture law was good/bad/indifferent, but that change occurred in the context of man/woman as fundamental foundation of the relationship. What we are dealing with today is altogether different. It is one thing to tinker around the fringes of marriage amending coverture laws. It is quite another to allow the fringe element of society to redefine marriage.

6.) Note LG rightly defines what marriage once was which she is seeking to change. She is entirely accurate when she describe that marriage used to be defined as a dominant-subordinate relationship between the husband and wife. This is exactly how God’s word describes marriage (Eph. 5). However has the words “dominant” and “subordinate” have been so vilified even Christians cringe when they think of marriage like God defines it.

7.) Allow me to say again that as long as the Left’s presuppositions hold sway their conclusion (“sodomite marriage”) will be impossible to stop. LG’s beginning point (Man as the definer of what marriage is and means) her argumentation used to prove that beginning point, and her ending point arrived at (sodomites should be allowed to “marry,”) is all bound up together.