Uncategorized – Iron Ink

Statutes To Satan Are All The Rage On State-Property Everywhere

It seems that displays/statues honoring Satan on or around State grounds of various state capitals is becoming all the rage these days. This season both New Hampshire and Minnesota had such displays for the eager public to witness. Previously, as we know, Iowa had a display before it was demolished by a ardent supporter of all things Christian. It seems Illinois in the past has also been a part of this Ba’al Zebub hit parade.

In Minnesota the State House removed its statue honoring Satan during this Christmas season but leaves a similar Satanic symbols up on the State House grounds as seen by a Hanukkah menorah remaining on display on the Capitol grounds. The New Hampshire displays seems to have gone through several different incarnations as it has had to be repaired after several visitations by different citizens of New Hampshire who apparently thought of themselves as the 2nd coming of Gideon. May the Lord Christ raise up many more such men.

On the surface displays honoring old Slewfoot is seen as a bad thing but, as I am one to always find the silver lining in every cloud I see all of this Satan pooping on State grounds potentially a good thing if people will just think through the implications. You see, the argument that these followers of the “Lord of the Flies” have been making is “that since there is freedom of religion, we, as Satanist ass-kissers have a right to ‘Hail Satan’ on the state grounds as much as the Jesus Worshipers have a right to their nativity scenes.” Frankly, this reasoning is sound if we grant the premise of freedom of speech and freedom of religion as those are currently understood by our brain dead overlords, thanks to the brain dead doctrine of incorporation given to us by the brain dead Supreme Court, courtesy the brain dead 14th amendment given to us by the brain dead US Congress. But I repeat myself.

Let’s just say it plainly, without horns or teeth; “The idea of freedom of religion and freedom of speech is skubala.” First of all there is the reality that such ideas are a myth. For example, I do not have freedom of religion because my religion and my God insists that I am not to live with any other Gods before my God. Freedom of religion for everyone means I do not have freedom of my religion to limit other religions as those other religions are now limiting my religion from recognizing that there is no God but God for both myself and for the social order. The God of the Bible is not the God in the Bible when He has to share time in the public square with statues (or even nods) to Allah, to the god of the Talmud, or to Satan. This is not freedom of religion. This is freedom of polytheism in the public square and it is all supported by the State which by inviting all the gods into the public square is therefore proclaiming, by way of policy, that the God of the Bible is not the true God. Freedom of religion is a myth. What we currently have is freedom only for the religion of polytheism/pluralism.

This idea of “freedom of religion” once worked here because the context of freedom of religion was a freedom of Christianity as it existed as among the various different expressions of Christianity. However, with the passage of time freedom for various different expressions of Christianity has become freedom of explicitly Satanic statues in the public square as exalting everyone from Satan to his subalterns Allah, the demon Talmud god, and the flying Spaghetti Monster. I’m sure that soon to come we will have statues honoring Vishnu, Buddha, and some porn queen Goddess. Can’t leave anyone out, you know.

So, we see that “Freedom of Religion” is a myth. By having all the gods in the public square any religion that insists only its religion should be honored as THE religion is ruled out of bounds. This means that the one religion that embraces all religions is the only religion allowed. That is decidedly NOT freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is a myth.

Second, the God that is ruling over all gods and so demanding its religion be adhered to by all is the State God. In the State we now live and move and have our being. The State decides how far any of the gods can proceed in the public square and that means that the state is now god over the various other gods. The state determines if the god of the heathen Mormons will be allowed to sanction polygamy for his adherents. The state determines if the god of some Indian tribe can smoke peyote for its religious services as their god requires. The state tells the Christian God that He will not be honored by requiring shopkeepers to close their doors on Sunday. On and on it goes. Not only if freedom of religion a myth but its also the case that the religion we are required to follow is Statism. Everything inside the state and nothing outside the state.

So, lets me done with the idea that somehow we, unlike other countries, have “Freedom of Religion.” We not only do not, it is not possible for such a thing to exist. Since there is no neutrality there will never be a social order where Freedom of Religion or Freedom of Speech exists.

Because this is true as Christians we should advocate a return to an explicitly Christian Nation, much as existed during our beginnings when State Constitutions would require belief in the Trinity in order to serve as magistrate or belief in God’s Word being inspired, or belief in Jesus Christ or sundry other expressions that were present in the various early and original state constitutions.

Something else to keep in mind here is that the existence of a plurality of faiths in a social order (multi-faithism) will always eventually bring about multiculturalism since faith(religion) drives culture. And since multifaithism and multiculturalism (which is synonymous with pluralism) really is given over to the pursuit of a unitary faith and a unitary culture (a singular undivided statist faith and culture) what has to be in existence at the same time in all pluralistic arrangements is multi-racialism, which is likewise committed to creating a singular undivided race/ethnicity. Just as in ancient Rome where you could serve any God you liked so long as that God served the One Emperor and One Empire so today you can have any religion (faith), any culture, or any ethnicity as long as they are not distinct and serve the State. Distinct faiths, religions, and ethnicities are a mirage. It’s like Henry Ford selling cars along ago…. “You can get the Model-T in any color you like as long as it is black.” So today you can have any faith, culture, or ethnicity you want as long as it isn’t distinct and serves the State. To use an analogy, the state is a giant blender and everything that is distinct goes into the state and gets blended together. If you refuse to be blended you are at best marginalized and at worst sent to the gallows.

So, as Christians let’s be done with not only statues to Satan but also statues to all Satanic gods and let’s once again be a distinctly White Christian culture and nation.

Holocaustianity; The New World Order Religion

“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 Laurison

JH wrote,

“The United States has the German records of how many were killed so the numbers normally quoted are accurate. The Germans were meticulous record keepers, and many of the records were recorded by the medical establishment – the doctors had to sign off on the quality of poison necessary to kill the amount of people.”

Bret L. McAtee responds

Please, do send a link for these undisputed numbers. I would love to see that.

In the early 90s Auschwitz reduced its death total. This from the Chicago Tribune 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.”

Given this report we learn the number 6 million is bollix. If this over-reporting was true not only in Auschwitz but across the camps then the number continues to reduce.

Then there is the testimony in the Ernst Zundel trial as coming from the death expert; Fred Leuchter. This expert testimony found no significant trace of cyanide compound in the rocks where the supposed gas chambers existed.

On this score I quote David Irving;

“The truly astounding results are as set out in this report: while significant quantities of cyanide compounds were found in the small de-lousing facilities of the camp where the proprietary (and lethal) Zyklon B compound was used, as all are agreed, to disinfect the plague-ridden clothing of all persons entering these brutal slave-labour camps, no significant trace whatsoever was found in the buildings which international opinion — for it is not more than that–has always labelled as the camp’s infamous gas chambers. Nor, as the report’s gruesomely expert author makes plain, could the design and construction of those buildings have made their use as mass gas- chambers feasible under any circumstances.

For myself shown this evidence for the first time when called as an expert witness at the Zündel trial in Toronto in April 1988, the laboratory reports were shattering. There could be no doubt as to their integrity. I myself would, admittedly, have preferred to see more rigorous methods used in identifying and certifying the samples taken for analysis, but I accept without reservation the difficulties that the examining team faced on location in what is now Poland: chiselling out the samples from the hallowed site under the very noses of the new camp guards. The video tapes made simultaneously by the team–which I have studied–provide compelling visual evidence of the scrupulous methods that they used.

Until the end of this tragic century there will always be incorrigible historians, statesmen, and publicists who are content to believe, or have no economically viable alternative but to believe, that the Nazis used “gas chambers” at Auschwitz to kill human beings. But it is now up to them to explain to me as an intelligent and critical student of modern history why there is no significant trace of any cyanide compound in the building which they have always identified as the former gas chambers.

Forensic chemistry is, I repeat, an exact science.

The ball is in their court.”

David Irving London, W. 1 May 1989

People should read up on the Ernst Zundel trial as well.

Then there are the Red Cross numbers that exist that definitely don’t match the 6 million number. The records (German and Red Cross) imply about 800,000 – 1.2M. No where near 6M. And that’s everyone in the camps, not just Bagels and is inclusive of all causes of death, most of which was typhus and starvation toward the end of the War after the Allies had cut the German supply lines.

Then there is Norman Finkelstein’s book, “The Holocaust Industry” which demonstrates how this narrative is being leveraged. Finkelstein’s book is given credibility by the fact that in the collective memoirs of Churchill, De Gaulle, and Eisenhower there is no mention made of these death camps.

Now add to this the fact that the number of 6 million persecuted, dead, or dying Bagels was tossed around repeatedly from around 1915 forward in Western media outlets.

Next, we have to consider the previous lies on this subject that were repeatedly advanced for decades until a final admission that such lies were utter tripe. Here I am talking about the lies that insisted that lampshades were made from Bagel skin, or that Bone China was made for Bagel bones or that lye soap was made from Bagel fat. How many lies have to be exposed before there is suspicion that lies were told in other areas?

I strongly recommend that people either read E. Michael Jones “The Holocaust Narrative,” or view the below documentary;

Next ask yourself why you can likely tick off several films that deal with “The Holocaust” but likely can’t think of one film that deals with the attempted Christian Genocide called “The Holodomor,” or even attempted Genocide of Armenia Christians aledgelly by “Turks.”

People refuse to believe what I believe regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which has far more factual evidence in its favor than the Bagel Holocaust does. Yet, you don’t see me insisting that people who don’t believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ be ostracized, shunned, or jailed because of their disbelief. Why should anybody then be ostracized or shunned because they refuse to believe that the evidence for six million Bagels is beyond being questioned?

Sundry Quotes and Thoughts From My Reading Surrounding Christ And His Work

“T. F. Torrance argued that, as the High Priest in the OT disappeared when he entered the Most Holy Place on the day of Atonement, so the atonement is a mystery. Limited atonement is seen as a rationalistic attempt to reduce a mystery to the bar of human logic, and so is imperssible.”

Robert Letham

Systematic Theology — pg. 573

I always love it theologians use logic to insist that we shouldn’t use logic.

If human logic is out of bounds as having explanatory power then we are all blind, deaf mutes when it comes to understanding anything.

Keep in mind Gordon H. Clark’s words here;

“in the beginning was the Logic and the Logic was with God and the Logic was God.”

——

John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.”

The good shepherd laid down His life for the sheep but many of those sheep the good shepherd laid down His life for were not yet born and would not be for millennium. This fact drives us to conclude that countless number of the sheep that Christ laid down His life for were His sheep before they were His sheep. That is, His sheep were His sheep from eternity past so that there existed an objective Union between the Shepherd who would give His life and the countless number of sheep yet to be conceived who would be the future beneficiaries of the Shepherd’s cruciform work.

Before Christ won me, I belonged to Christ. Objective Union with Christ from eternity. Subjective Union w/ Christ when we are regenerated with a regeneration that is a gift flowing from the Cross wherein Christ justified the people who were objectively justified from eternity.

——-

All those who hold to the idea that Christ’s death is universal in scope (or hypothetically universal in scope) cannot have a penal substitution understanding of the atonement wherein Christ makes effective atonement for particular sinners. If Christ died for everybody in general and nobody in particular then Christ’s simply suffered various sufferings so that eventually in time sinners in general might do something to effectuate what up until the point of effectuating was inert and without power. The Cross is latent with salvation but it does not save without something from the human being mixed with it to make it effectual. That something is usually a inverted definition of faith, wherein faith actually becomes a work that activates the Cross’s power and obligates God to give salvation in response to the human response of faith.

Those who don’t hold to the penal-substitution theory, at best, have a Governmental view of the Atonement where the Father punishes the Son to uphold a generic justice in His universe and whereupon men, feeling pity for the suffering Christ, come to Christ out of a sense of compassion.

——

“Calvin’s dominant theme on the atonement is satisfaction of the justice of God. Christ has abolished sin, banished the resulting separation from God, and acquired righteousness for us ‘by the whole course of his obedience,’ although peculiarly and properly by His death. Even in death ‘his willing obedience is the important thing because a sacrifice not offered voluntarily would not have furthered righteousness.’ He offered Himself to the Father as an expiatory sacrifice. By His obedience He acquired and merited grace w/ His Father. The substitutionary nature of Christ’s death is clear as Calvin cites Mt. 20:28, John 1:29, Rmns. 4:25, and 5:19, and Gal.4:4-5. Christ’s offerings rends ‘ the Father favorable to us, this propitiatory sacrifice being a provision of God’s love. Calvin affirms, ‘Christ’s grace is too much weakened unless we grant to His sacrifice the power of expiating, appeasing, and making satisfaction.’ ‘The righteousness He acquired for us when He reconciled us to God is as if we had kept the law. The link to justification is clear.”

Robert Letham

Systematic Theology — p. 566-567

Citing Calvin’s Institutes

————-

“The merciful Father … said to [his Son]: ‘Be Peter the denier; Paul the persecutor, blasphemer, and assaulter; David the adulterer; the sinner who ate the apple in Paradise; the thief on the cross. In short, be the person of all men, the one who has committed the sins of all men. And see to it that you that you pay and make satisfaction for them.”

Martin Luther

Luther Works – Vol. 26 – p. 280

——-

If you have a doctrine of the atonement that emphasizes satisfaction to God’s honor then don’t be surprised if the culture around that doctrine ends up being a honor culture.

The fact that the concept of honor has been so diminished in our culture, I would suggest, is proof positive that we have abandoned the Satisfaction theory of the Atonement.

—————-

John 17: 9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.

As our great High Priest Jesus prays for a very particular people. Part of the ministry of the Priest was not only to offer sacrifices for the sins of the people (which Jesus did by offering up Himself as our sacrifice) but the ministry of the Priest was to represent the people to God in prayer.

If that is true (and it is) then if Jesus as our Great High Priest only prays for those the Father has given Him then consistency demands that this same Great High Priest only renders up Himself as the sacrifice for those same particular and unique people He prays for.

Non particularistic doctrines of the Atonement are NOT Biblical and really should be read out of Christendom.

Fisking Humanist Manifesto III; Antioch Declaration (Part VI)

We finish fisking the Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration)

We will start with a quote by highly regarded Reformed Theologian Gisbertus Voetius

“The frauds, the injustices, the greedy excesses, the rapacious plunders, the usuries, the calumnies, by which they incessantly attack Christians, are hidden from no man, except for him who never has seen Jews, or never heard anyone tell him what a Jew is.”

Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676)
Dutch Theologian

Humanist Manifesto III (Antioch Declaration — hereinafter referred to as AD)

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We deny that the church of Jesus Christ in its particular locale has any compulsory quotas or assigned ratios for ethnic mix. The make-up of any local church community will be dependent on many socio-cultural, lingual and regional factors, and there is no requirement that any given congregation “look like the new Jerusalem.” But We FURTHER deny that a Christian congregation has the right to arbitrarily exclude any person based on prejudice, malice or bigotry toward their ethnic group.”

Paleocon,

The church is a place where all sinners, of whatever tribe, tongue, and nation, are welcome to hear the word of God.

However, having said that I do believe that Churches will operate better as practicing what is called “The Homogenous principle,” as articulated by Donald McGavran. Like the Greek Jewish widows in Acts 6, people will do better with leadership that comes from their own people groups. I agree with Reformed Theologian John Frame when he wrote;

“Scripture, as I read it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially. Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God’s grace into one body. They were expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers inthe faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups.”

John Frame,
“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We affirm that the ultimate bond or good for temporal human life is not grounded in absolute loyalty to blood and soil, family or nation, but in the totalizing bond of the Kingdom of God through the Covenant of Grace (Matt. 3:9; 6:10; 8:11;12:46-50; Lk.14:26; Eph. 2:11-21; Rev.7:9-10).”

Paleocon

Well the key above is that word “absolute” isn’t it?

If the above is saying we may not make a idol out of our family (familolatry) then who could disagree?

However, why must we make a dichotomy out of faith and family. Isn’t it possible that many in our family will own Christ and so we can have allegiance to both family and covenant at the same time.

Also, let us keep in mind Romans 9. Paul did not seem to make the kind of false dichotomy there that is made above. Listen to Reformed Theologian John Murray here;

“The use of the term ‘brethren’ bespeaks the bond of affection which united the apostle to his kinsmen. ‘According to the flesh’ is added to show that those for whom he had concern were not contemplated as brethren in the Lord…but it also expresses what is implicit in the term ‘kinsmen’ and supplies an additional index to the bond of love created by this natural, genetic relationship.”

John Murray
Commentary Romans 9:3

In the previous century Reformed Theologian Charles H. Hodge could also write;

“Brethren according to the Flesh.”

Romans 9:3

Paul had two classes of brethren; those who were with him the children of God in Christ; these he calls brethren in the Lord, Philip, i. 14, holy brethren, &c. The others were those who belonged to the family of Abraham. These he calls brethren after the flesh, that is, in virtue of natural descent from the same parent. Philemon he addresses as his brother, both in the flesh and in the Lord. The Bible recognizes the validity and rightness of all the constitutional principles and impulses of our nature. It therefore approves of parental and filial affection, and, as is plain from this and other passages, of peculiar love for the people of our own race and country.

Charles Hodge
Commentary Romans 9

The Boomer-Cons don’t sound like previous generations of Reformed theologians on this subject.

Humanist Manifesto III (AD)

“We affirm that in all things, including the treatment of our fellow human beings, the model man and example is not the life and teaching of Aristotle, nor any other merely historical personage, but the Lord Jesus Christ himself, Son of Man and eternal Son of God.”

Paleocon,

Correct. And that explains why I have written to unwind your nonsense Manifesto.

O. B. Frothingham & The Spirit of the Age

“The interior spirit of any age is the spirit of God and no faith can be living that has that spirit against it. No church can be strong except in that alliance. The life of the time appoints the creed of the time and modifies the establishment of the time.”

O. B. Frothingham

Note first when OBF speaks of “God” he is not speaking of the Christian God but is speaking of man as God. It is man who creates the spirit of the age and so it is man who is Frothingham’s God.

Second, we would offer that this explains the current condition of the “Conservative” church today. The “conservative” Church is in alliance to one degree or another with Cultural Marxism, since Cultural Marxism is the spirit of the age. This quote also explains that rabid hatred for Theonomy in the Church because theonomy always pushes back against the spirit of the age. As the Church is infected with the spirit of the age the Church hates theonomy.

This quote also explains the rise of the Church growth movement and then after that the rise of the Emergent Church. They are both reflections of Christianity as syncretized with a Cultural Marxism which is now the spirit of the age.

Frothingham gives us a classical definition of humanism. If there is no God and no divine law word then if the Church wants to prosper it must yield to the Spirit of the age — a spirit defined by sovereign man’s will. This quote is also a pledge of allegiance to philosophical existentialism which teaches that existence precedes essence, which is to say that man has no nature and as such man can, at any moment, completely remake himself in to whatever he wants himself to be. Man has no “ought” in his life from above or from his past to which he is required to conform. He is a totally free being without constraints. All that exist is the existential moment and this moment is uninfluenced by any sense of oughtness … by any sense of what has gone before … by any sense of outside norms. Because of this existentialism that Frothingham identifies man takes up the great Luciferian commandment of “Do What Thou Wilt,” and if man will not take up this existentialism/humanism man will be left to be solitary swimming against the cultural current and too often likewise alone in the modern church. He will be as Bunyan’s “Pilgrim” in the classic “Pilgrim’s Progress.”

This kind of philosophy gives us what has been called “the religious spirit of transgression,” but it can only be known as such by those who have not quaffed from this spirit. This is so because even the idea of “transgression” can only be spoken of by those who have a standard beyond and/or above them. Those who embrace this Frothingham philosophy cannot speak of “transgression” because they have no objective measure for what is in bounds morally and what is out of bound morally. The only time modern man can speak of transgression is when someone commits the sin of not transgressing.

All of this means that for modern man to be religious today he must be one who is determinedly non-Christian. He must be the man who breaks every commandment of God. He must be the man who forswears any taboo of the past that was based on Christian reasoning and/or tradition. This means the religious people in our culture today, per the Frothingham quote, are the Feminists, the sexual perverts, the George Floyd rioters and those who supported them. The deeply religious people of our age are those who overthrow the faith once and forever delivered unto the saints in favor of rainbow flags, illegal immigration, Lesbian Bishops, and new creeds like the Cultural Marxist Belhar Confession.

For our modern deeply Frothinghamian religious age, it is the case that the more wicked a person is, by the previous standard of Christianity, the greater their faith is seen to be and the more intensely is their religious commitment exhibited. This means that the flaming sodomite, the proud surgically created hermaphrodite, the militant feminist are some of the most deeply devoted religious people you will ever meet. It’s just that their religion is the religion described in the Frothingham quote. These are folks living out the religious creed of their time.

In all this we are reminded, as Christians, that when we dip into this mindset, or give in an inch to this Spirit of the Age we are at that moment committing celestial treason. We have joined in high rebellion against the God of the Bible. When we insist that the Church must move in the direction of this new religion or must be sympathetic with these religious adherents of this different faith, we at that point denying the truth that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth.

We are thus living in an age where the question that demands being answered is, “Who will live more consistently in terms of their faith?” One has to give a tip of the cap to the Frothingham religionists who are so dedicated to their faith that they will surgically remove body parts, who will alter their speech and dress in order to keep the commandments of their religious order, who will completely unsex themselves in order to follow their religious code of transgression.

Unfortunately, for them, all those who hate God love death and try as they may to be good little religious doobies their religion of transgression will only end in both temporal and eternal death. The Frothingham age, undergirded by anti-Christ philosophy inspired by Hegel, and Kant, before Frothingham and carried on by Sartre, Camus, and the postmodernists after Frothingham, is dying. This is a philosophy built on sand and now the waves of reality are blasting it and unsurprisingly the house is collapsing. It can not bring the blessedness and freedom it promises.