Category: Uncategorized

Political Cesspool … A brief Defense of Nationalism.

When we consider the biblical case for ethno-Nationalism we build a cumulative case that begins in Genesis at the creation of Eve. Citing R. J. Rushdoony here we observe that,

“Since Eve was created from Adam and is Adam’s reflected image of God, she was of Adam and an image of Adam as well. The meaning of this is that a true help-meet is man’s counterpart, i.e. that a cultural, racial, and especially religious similarity is needed so that the woman can truly mirror the man and be his image.”

– RJ Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 351

The point here is that in order for Eve to be a genuine helpmeet to Adam she had to be a reflection of Adam. There had to be commonality between the first man and first woman and those commonalities we would today consider to be along racial and cultural lines. From here we would insist that these very same kind of commonalities give marriages the best opportunity to be successful. It only stands to reason that in bringing a man and a woman together in marriage that you want as much common ground as possible and a large part of that common ground desired in marriage is sharing the same racial and socio-culture background.

So, the creation of Eve for Adam as one who was taken from Adam points us in the direction of ethno-nationalism given the fact that Eve was a proper fit for Adam as a helpmeet. No one really believes that Eve as Adam’s helpmeet was a decided stark contrast to Adam in her ethnic and cultural characteristics.

Citing Rushdoony again,

the whole point of marriage is that the wife be a helpmeet to her husband, and the term “helpmeet” means in effect a mirror, an image, one who reflects him spiritually; that is, in terms of faith, in terms of a common background, in terms of a common purpose. Now, marriage between persons of very different races generally doesn’t fulfill that requirement, you see.

“The Law of Divorce”

“[T]he biblical doctrine is that the wife is a helpmeet. Eve was created to be Adam’s counterpart, his image. This means, therefore, in the first marriage, which is a pattern of all marriage, there was a racial, a cultural, and especially a religious similarity and congeniality. Therefore, we must say that mixed marriages, religiously and culturally and racially, are not in conformity to the biblical standard. The wife cannot be a helpmeet, a counterpart to her husband, if she reflects an alien standard. As a result, cross-cultural marriages are normally failures.”

From Rushdoony’s sermon, ‘Marriage and Woman’

From there we see that the idea of distinct nations are first mentioned in Genesis 10 with the listed table of nations. Here we find a clear articulation of distinct nations post-flood. These nations are listed by heredity. They all share Father Noah but like branches off a common trunk the nations are named as an extension of the sons of Noah. From here the word “Nation” is used consistently in Scripture as those descended from a particular common ancestor.

The desire to build the first New World Order wherein all peoples and nations are to disappear was first concocted by a chap named Nimrod. Nimrod desired to bring all the peoples together in order to make a name for themselves as opposed to making a name for God. This was the first attempt at Empire we might say. With this commitment to a global political unity God is displeased because He knows this is a humanistic attempt to fuse all of mankind into a giant blob in order to seize divinity. In order to squelch this God confuses the language of the men of Babel so that they are forced to obey the original command to fill the earth. Genesis 10 and 11 thus form a clear articulation that God intends and delights in nations.

And the presence of nations is not limited to what we find in Genesis 10. Throughout the OT we are presented with the reality of the nations as nations as well as the continuity of nations into the New Jerusalem. For example in Isaiah 2 the prophet writes anticipating the final day,

Isaiah 2:2 And it shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the Lord’S house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it.3 And many people shall go and say, “Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. 4 And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

Here we see nations remaining in their nations on those last days. This is a theme taken up again in Isaiah 19 and again we see a promise that a day was coming when other nations would have God as their Lord and would be counted a people of God’s inheritance.

24 In that day Israel will be one of three with Egypt and Assyria—a blessing in the midst of the land, 25 whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, “Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.”

Here we see the Spirit inspired prophet writing that in the course of history, as the Gospel would go forward other nations besides Israel would be people of God’s inheritance. Now, to undergird this as not being just my opinion allow me to cite a chap who I have cited before,

NT Calvin Seminary Reformed theologian Dr. Martin Wyngaarden offers here,

“Now the predicates of the covenant are applied in Isa. 19 to the Gentiles of the future, — “Egypt my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance,” Egypt, the people of “Jehovah of hosts,” (Isa. 19:25) is therefore also expected to live up to the covenant obligations, implied for Jehovah’s people. And Assyria comes under similar obligations and privileges. These nations are representative of the great Gentile world, to which the covenant privileges will, therefore, be extended.”

Martin J. Wyngaarden, The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011), p. 94.

And again,

“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, though each nationality remains distinct.”

“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance.” 19:25.

Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria, and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Martin Wyngaarden
The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture — pp. 101-102.

So, I agree with Dr. Wyngaarden that national distinctions, because they are ordained by God, do not go away even into the new Jerusalem. The reasoning is, if they remain present in the New Jerusalem in the New Heavens and earth then who are we to suggest that they are not important today and should be ignored?

But more important than what Dr. Martin Wyngaarden or I think Scripture itself bears out the continued existence of the nations into the new heavens and earth in Revelation 21,

Rev. 21:24 And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it. 25 Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). 26 And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it. 

Here we see the creational distinctions that God ordained in Gen. 10:5, as well as Dt. 32:8, and Acts 17:26 would be perpetually established into the eschaton.

5 From these the coastland peoples of the Gentiles were separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations.

Dt.32:8When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations,
When He separated the sons of Adam,
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the children of Israel. 

Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,

Now we must end here by asking, “who is it that historically and philosophically speaking has always opposed this Christian doctrine of the nations.”

And the answer to that question is the Atheistic, Materialistic, Humanistic Marxists. The Marxists have always embraced, as central to their program, the elimination of all nations. The Marxists have always desired to rebuild the Tower of Babel.

‎”What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?

The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and hereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”

~ Frederick Engels in “The Principles of Communism”, 1847

Or we might consult one Nikita Khrushchev on the matter Bojidar.

“Full-scale Communist construction constitutes a new stage in the development of national relations in the U.S.S.R., in which the nations will draw still closer together until complete unity is achieved…. However, the obliteration of national distinctions and especially of language distinctions is a considerably longer process than the obliteration of class distinctions.”

Nikita Khrushchev

Or perhaps Marx himself,

“Even the natural differences within species, like racial
differences…, can and must be done away with historically.”
 
K. Marx’s Collected Works V:103,
 
As cited in S.F. Bloom’s The World of Nations: A
Study of the National Implications in the Work of Karl Marx, Columbia University Press, New York, 1941, pp. 11 & 15-19:


So, when we maintain that God delights in national distinctions we are standing with Scripture, with the Church Fathers, and against those who have most thoroughly hated Biblical Christianity.

 

 

McAtee Contra Jay Dyer’s Offerings On Justification On Tucker’s Show – II

McAtee Contra Jay Dyer’s Offerings On Justification On Tucker’s Show – I

Tucker Carlson interviewed Jay Dyer. Many years ago on EZ Boards Jay Dyer and I crossed swords more than once. Jay Dyer at one time thought he was a Calvinist but clearly he never was and this interview demonstrates that. Dyer set up a straw man of what Calvinism is, and then proceeded to tear the straw man down.

Jay Dyer said on Tucker’s show,

It’s (Calvinism) also Christologically errant in that the whole idea of what salvation is. (Calvinist’s hold) ultimately (to) one’s legal standing in terms of what’s called justification by faith alone or penal substitutionary atonement. This idea that you’re justified by God through a sort of notional acceptance of a set of ideas and then God’s attitude towards you changes. So it’s dispositional but it’s not focused on an actual ontological change in the person. (Eastern Orthodoxy is very different. God’s disposition is based not on purely a legal stance but on your actual ontological change.

Bret Responds,

1.) Right out of the gate Jay demonstrates that he never understood what Calvinism is, even though he claims he once was a Calvinist. No Calvinist says that justification and salvation are exactly synonyms. For the Calvinist salvation is all God’s Work via election, regeneration, justification, sanctification and glorification. All of that together defines salvation. So, when Jay insists that for the Calvinists salvation = justification he just demonstrates he doesn’t know what he is talking about and so he is building a strawman.

2.) Next Dyer complains about penal substitutionary atonement and the Reformed doctrine of Justification by faith alone. Now, keep in mind here that these doctrines teach that God alone does all the saving. For Jay to denigrate the clear Scriptural truth that God justifies the ungodly (Romans 4:5) Jay has to own that his position is that God only justifies the godly. Yet, that is precisely contrary to what Scripture explicitly teaches.

“But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.” Romans 4:5

“Know that a man is not justified by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” Galatians 2:16
 
“He has saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works, but by His own purpose and by the grace He granted us in Christ Jesus before time began.” II Timothy 1:9

So, Jay Dyer can bleat all he wants about Nominalism, William of Ockham, Gabriel Biel, etc. but at the end of the bleating stands the testimony of Scripture that Dyer’s Eastern Orthodoxy denies. What Dyer and Eastern Orthodoxy want to reach for is salvation by theosis. In theosis the Eastern Orthodox turn justification into a process whereby via our cooperation with grace we contribute to the final realization of our divinization so that God justifies us because we are just. Clearly, there is, for Eastern Orthodoxy and Jay Dyer a required cooperation with grace, which turns grace into not grace. After all, grace is defined as God’s unmerited favor to the ungodly.

3.) Dyer’s complaint reduces here to the age old canard accusation that the Reformers were involved in a “legal fiction.” This accusation finds its anchor in the idea that somehow it is not proper of God to pass a legal declaration upon the ungodly that they are righteous for the sake of Christ’s finished work being imputed to them upon irresistible grace given faith. In brief, Eastern Orthodoxy, like Roman Catholicism and Arminian Protestantism hates the juridical/legal realities that are everywhere spoken in Scripture. Justification is a legal term. In Romans 8 we are told that “there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” The idea of an absence of condemnation is juridical/legal language.

The problem that Jay has here is he is once again, ignoring the Scriptures. It is not Jay’s supposed realism that explains Scripture. Nor is it nominalism that Jay complains about. Scripture interprets Scripture and Scripture clearly says in Romans 4:17

“I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.”

God, by His grace alone, calls into existence the righteous who are of themselves ungodly and He does so by a legal declaration of our righteousness because of Christ’s finished work on the Cross.

4.) Jay again demonstrates his cluelessness about what Calvinism (and so the Scriptures) teach by injecting all this nonsense about how our notional acceptance causes God to change His disposition towards us.

a.) First, God never changes His disposition towards us. Jay forgets that God’s people have been elect since eternity and that even while we were still sinners Christ died for His people. The idea that we do something (accept notional ideas) that forces God to change his disposition towards us defies the teaching of Scripture.

but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.  Romans 5:8

The reason that Christ died for us is because we were already, even as sinners, set apart for justification (salvation). God does not love us because we accepted notional ideas about God. Rather we accepted notional ideas about God because God loved us from all eternity.

Ephesians 2:4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 

The “us” here in this passage is the elect. God’s great love has never been absent from the elect. Even when under the wrath of God, the wrath of God was grace intended to chase those whom God’s never started to love (because they were loved from eternity) to God’s grace of forgiveness.

4.) Finally, on this quote, Dyer, never really being a Calvinist, despite his claims, fails to take into account that salvation in the Calvinist (that is Biblical) understanding incudes union with Christ and regeneration. Salvation, for Biblical Christians is not only legal (though it certainly is legal) but it is also ontological. Before Christ, because of our sin nature all we can do all the time is sin. Upon Union with Christ we are given a new nature and now because we have the Holy Spirit as a deposit guaranteeing that which is to come we now can say “no” to sin as we continue to put off the old man and put on the new man created in Christ Jesus. So, in the Calvinist view there is ontological change … there is a change in nature however, that change in nature is not theosis in the Eastern Orthodox sense. There will always be a creator creature distinction, even in our glorification, though we are pleased to admit that we are being transformed in this life from glory unto glory.

Jay Dyer was never a Calvinist, though he might have thought he was. Jay Dyer may not even be a Christian though he thinks he is. The denial of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is a denial that finds one on thin ice before a thrice Holy God. Jay’s belief that he can, via a process, eventually be justified because he is just threatens his eternity. It is my prayer that Jay would one day become a genuine Calvinist and give up his synergistic efforts to become what he never can become without God’s legal declaration of Christ’s righteousness imputed to Jay.

 

Sundry Quotes From Maurice Pinay’s “The Plot Against The Church,” & Commentary

1.) “The Jewish historian ends the chapter with the most contemptuous opinion concerning the utility of baptism for the Jews, by his placing into the mouth of a Jewish defendant the following assertion: ‘There are three ways of wasting water. 1. To baptize a Jew. 2. To allow it to flow into the sea, and 3. To mix it with wine.’”

Maurice Pinay
The Plot Against the Church — p. 433

2.) “One thus sees that the Jews have made use of the trick of marrying their females into the family’s of nobility in Europe for five hundred years.”

Maurice Pinay
The Plot Against the Church — p. 431

I have read elsewhere that the English crown and nobility is so thick with this problem that one can no longer distinguish the Englishman from the Jew. Perhaps this explains why the long used but now deleted Good Friday prayer in the Roman Catholic liturgy referred to the “perfidious Jew” while at the same time there has long existed the catch phrase, “Perfidious Albion?”

Some modern examples of the above mentioned “trick” have been

AND U.S. politicians’ daughters often marry into the tribe! Chelsea Clinton, Karenna Gore, Ivanka Trump, and Caroline Kennedy.

3.) “Accordingly it must have been three hundred thousand Jews on the entire peninsula, inclusive of the pure-blooded and the half-pagan relations. The former were not so numerous. All in all they represented in the state organism an all-embracing, unassimilable community in no way to be despised. The Jews who had been converted to Christianity, together with their most distant descendants, were known in Jewish circles by the name Asunim, ‘Compelled’, i.e. persons who were compelled to accept the ruling religion but did so falsely . . .”

Maurice Pinay
The Plot Against the Church — p. 427

Pinay spends some time exposing the Jewish technique of falsely converting. This occurrence in Spain was also a reality in Turkey where the mock Jews there were told to convert to whatever they were told to convert to and then practice their own religion in private in Ottoman empire. These were called “donmehs.” Instead of false Christians these were false Mooselimbs. Dönmeh were a group of Sabbatean crypto-Jews in the Ottoman Empire who converted outwardly to Islam, but retained their Jewish faith and Kabbalistic beliefs in secret. The movement was centered mainly in Thessaloniki.

In the Spanish Empire crypto Jews were also called besides, “Anusim” “Maranos,” “Conversos” and “Chuetas.”

Throughout history those who believed themselves Jews would often infiltrate and then subvert their host peoples. This technique continues today.

4.) “The aims of the infiltration of the Jewish mock-Christians in the clergy are clearly laid down in an interesting document which the Abbé Chabauty had published, and which is also mentioned by the archbishop of Port Louis, Monsignore Leon Meurin, S.J. This concerns a letter from the secret leader of the international Jews, who lived towards end of the 15th century in Constantinople, to the Jews in France. As answer to an earlier letter to him from Chamor Rabino de Arles, he gives them in this the desired instructions. This document fell into the hands of the French authorities and Abbé Chabauty had it published. The letter runs literally:

‘Beloved brother in Moses, we have received your letter, in which you report of your anxieties of soul and the misfortune which you must bear. We suffer this sorrow with you. The advice of the Grand Rabbis and Satraps of our laws runs as
follows:

“You say that the King of France compels you to become Christians. Well then, do his will, but preserve the law of Moses in your hearts.

“You say that they wish to seize your goods with violence. Let you children become merchants, so that through trade they may rob the Christians of their property.

“You say that there is a striving after your life. Let your sons become doctors and chemists, so that they can take life from the Christians without having to fear punishment.

“You say that your synagogues are destroyed. Let your sons become priests and abbots, so that they can destroy the Christian Church.

“You say that you are oppressed in other ways. Let your sons become lawyers or notaries or undertake some other profession which has usually to do with public affairs. Thus you will rule the Christians, you will gain control of their land and
avenge yourselves upon them.

“Follow the commands which we give you and experience will so teach you that, although you are now downtrodden, you attain the high point of power.”

Signed V.S.S.V.E.F.
Prince of the Jews of Constantinople to
Leader of Casleo, 1489 

From “The Plot Against the Church”
Maurice Pinay  – p. 223

Again, we see here that the plot against the Church by the Jewish element has always been to infiltrate and subvert from within. Unlike the Mooselimb who attacks overtly the malevolent Jews, per Pinay attacks with subtlety and treachery.

5.) “The Jewish ‘Fifth Column’ in the clergy is thus one of the basic pillars of international Jewry.”

Pinay
The Plot Against the Church — p. 422

Infiltrate and subvert.

6.) “These facts show us how the Jews, when they saw themselves threatened through the victory of the Christian people in Castile, under the leadership of Henry of Trastamara, knew how to cross at the right time to the opposing side, i.e. to that of Trastamara, in order to thus transform approaching catastrophe into a triumph. This Machiavellian enterprise was perfected even more by the Jew in the course of centuries, and in our time they no longer wait until their enemies are on the point of victory. If a Christian or anti-Communist opposition threatens to disturb their dark plans, they introduce elements into their ranks which makes them fail, or at least occupy a valuable position in the enemy camp, and give the latter the death blow at the first opportunity.”

Maurice Pinay
The Plot Against the Church — pg. 417
Here is the skinny on Immigration in America and Western nations.

The Jew is always insecure about his status being such a overwhelming minority in host countries and so the way to stay secure in their minority status is to pursue policy that insures that there will never be a population majority that can threaten the Jew’s dominance. So, in order to protect themselves from the consequences of being in the minority — and a minority justly persecuted for their past actions against peoples not Jews — they pursue immigration policy wherein they can both abuse their host countries while insuring that they will never be a minority surrounded by a justice minded majority. In creating multicultural nations by way of immigration the Jews can divide and conquer and not have to be concerned with being the focus of a hostile host population.