Category: Uncategorized

E. Michael Jones posits that Denconstructionism in English Literature is merely Sola Scriptura as applied to other literary texts.

WHAT AN IDIOT

Dr. Jones, in his many books, is often brilliant in his cultural analysis but when it comes to his commentary on the Reformation and the Reformers he is every bit as atrocious on that subject as he is brilliant on cultural analysis. Below is another example. This is a quote from Jones’ Degenerate Moderns:

“Lutheran ideology unleashed libido to achieve its political and ecclesial ends, and Luther, like Hugh Hefner, discovered that the only way to make use of libido effectively was to create for his contemporaries an escape from the guilt that accompanied its satisfaction. The sixteenth-century equivalent of the Playboy Philosophy was justification by faith alone, culminating in the doctrine of the enslaved will. De Servo Arbitrio, it should be remembered, was published in the same year that Luther married. Luther, in creating his doctrine of the enslaved will, became the first modern man, and Lutheranism became the first modern ideology. Its primary attraction to the hordes of apostate priests and nuns who flocked to Wittenberg to follow him lay in its ability to rationalize sexual license and broken vows.”

So you see, Dr. Jones is an idiot when it comes to his comments on the Reformation. However, understandingly enough Dr. Jones took exception to my characterization and a conversation ensued

—-

E Michael Jones Before you call someone an idiot, it’s always good to know what he actually said. I said that the New Criticism was a form of sola scrptura. Deconstructionism is Talmudic.

Now in order to understand this conversation let us define briefly “New Criticism” and “Deconstructionism”

New Criticism was a 20th century American invented methodology for reading literary texts. It stresses close attention to the internal characteristics of the text itself, and it discourages the use of external evidence to explain the work. As such, matters like authorial intent, usage of words in their original historical and cultural context, historical influences upon texts as well as historical circumstances out of which the text arises are all largely ignored. Some have characterized it as texts where the author has disappeared.

Deconstructionism, as a hermeneutical grid for reading texts takes the New Criticism one further step and eliminates the presence of the text. The text itself no longer has any objective intent or meaning, thus allowing the reader to engage the text to give it whatever meaning the reader can read into the text. The text is deconstructed in any original meaning and reconstructed in the image of the reader.

Now that we have that down we can observe the conversation between myself, Dr. Jones and a few other conversational partners.

 

Bret L. McAtee 

Dr. Jones,

The New Criticism is merely a 1/2 step away from Deconstructionism. It’s still an idiotic statement. You’re a person who has a mental or learning disability when it comes to all matters Protestant but yet someone who is extremely gifted in analysis on many other matters. You should just put your pen down when writing on Protestantism.

I’ve read tons of your stuff and will continue but you are of Rome and I am of Geneva and never the twain shall meet.

Now about your statement that Muslims and Christians serve the same God?

Note — Dr. Jones has publicly said that Christians and Muslims serve the same God. Since I had his attention I thought I might try to draw him out on that subject.

E Michael Jones writes

 Bret L. McAtee Your intemperate language and unsupported claims are giving Protestantism a bad name.  

Bret L. McAtee I’ll take my chances Doc.

Now … what about your statement that Christians and Muslims serve the same God? 

Dan Brannan Believe it or not, E Michael Jones, you are among Protestants who appreciate your work in many dimensions here. But on the subject of Rome v Geneva — and you’ll forgive my intemperance — you have lost the plot, entirely.

Bret L. McAtee

Doc Jones,

Just to confirm Dan’s statement that your work among the Protestants engaging you here is true here is a list of your books I have read.

1.) Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation & Political Control

2.) The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit: And Its Impact on World History

3.) The Jews and Moral Subversion

4.) Jewish Privilege

5.) Catholics and the Jew Taboo

6.) Dionysos Rising: The Birth of Cultural Revolution out of the Spirit of Music

7.) Degenerate Moderns: Modernity As Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior

8.) Monsters from the Id: The Rise of Horror in Fiction and Film

I think this makes me a fan. It certainly makes me someone who is lining your pocket. 😉 Thanks for your work Doc.

However when it comes to the Christian faith… well, my love for you requires I call for you to repent. 

Dan Brannan I’ve probably read half that many of his books, but I long since lost count of the articles, podcasts, interviews and debates of his which I’ve imbibed. 

Bret L. McAtee Oh … and so as to just keep on track Dr. Jones…

What about your statement that Muslims and Christians worship the same God?

Dan Brannan When Papists claim on one hand that Protestantism was actually an Islamic movement, or a Jewish movement, and on the other, that Islam and Christianity worship the same God all I can think is that they are speaking with a Talmudized tongue, themselves.  

E Michael Jones responds to Bret

 Monotheists worship ipso facto the same God. They differ in their understanding of God, not the object of their worship.  

Bret L. McAtee So … Jews worship the same God also?

I must admit that I find this answer wildly unsatisfactory.

Let me get this straight. If Mohammed the Muslim insists that the God he worships is non-Trinitarian, (thus denying Logos) and requires the death of Jews and that the infidel when alive to pay the Jizya tax and that Allah requires Hjra in order to conquer Christians and that Allah takes pleasure in the honor killings of women for the slightest of infractions and that Allah will serve up 70 virgins to warriors who strap on a vest bomb to blow up children (shall I continue?) is the same God as the God of the Bible?

Let me get this straight. If Levi the Jew insists that the God he worships is non-Trinitarian, (thus denying Logos) and insists that Jesus is boiling in semen in hell, and insists that the Jews are their own Messiah, and commands the Gentiles must have fixed upon them the Noahide laws, and teaches that a woman’s unborn child is “rodef” and so can be killed, and teaches that Jews cannot be held responsible if they kill a gentile you believe this “ipso facto the same God” the Christians serve.

Dr. Jones … I can’t believe you really believe that

Rev. John Rutowicz writes,

 Dr. Jones’ confession does not sound like the confession of a Christian but that of a monotheistic type of Perennialist. The Christian agrees with St. John “Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” 1 John 2:23 

Bret L. McAtee Jesus speaking to the Monotheist woman in John 4

22 “You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship…”

E Michael Jones  responds to Bret L. McAtee 

Muhammad worships a God whom he does not understand. Jews worship money. The quote from John 4 makes my point not yours. 

Dan Brannan You cannot worship something which you do not know. That’s the point of the verse Rev. McAtee quotes.

Which is why Hebrews 11:6 says “And without faith it is impossible to please God.” Faith has doctrinal content. 

Bret L. McAtee responds,

Dr. Jones,

Pray tell, how is it that you know that Mohammed worships a God whom he does not understand? What text tells you this?

It seems by my observation that Mohammed understands perfectly the nature of Allah as seen by the fact that the character of the demon God Allah becomes incarnated in the sons of Allah, just as the character of the Jewish demon God is incarnated into the sons of the Jewish demon God.

It seems we ought to take seriously what the sons of Allah would say here. I’m confident that they would say that they do indeed understand whom they serve. They serve a Unitarian God which Scripture itself says is no God.

“Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” 1 John 2:23

But I understand here that you are making the same error that C. S. Lewis made in his novel, “The Last Battle.” In that novel Lewis has the servants of Tash being accepted by Aslan because those servants didn’t really know they were serving Aslan when they were serving Tash. This error seems to be the error that many Pelagians, semi-Pelagians, and Arminians make.

You are being inconsistent Dr. Jones. If the sons of Allah serve the same God as the Brothers of Christ serve then so do the monotheistic Jews. 

E Michael Jones responds to Bret,

 Bret L. McAtee The intensity of your opinions is in inverse proportion to their plausibility. 

Bret L. McAtee Says you Doc.

Anyway …. thanks for what you get right despite your denial of logos. I can see the hand of God’s common providence in your work. Your work has helped me immensely. 

I do think you are not marketing yourself well in order to sell as many of your books as possible Dr. Jones. Your natural market is unto conservative Christians and when you start going all “Christians and Muslims worship the same God,” you are at that point alienating your natural constituency.

But … it’s your dime.

By the by … if Christians and Muslims worship the same God does that mean that moral Muslims are accepted by God?

E Michael Jones writes,

Bret, I never said that Islam was efficacious for salvation.

Bret L. McAtee I know you didn’t say that. I was asking just to make sure where you were on that.

Dan Brannan If Islam is not efficacious for salvation, they are not, in fact, worshiping the true God. Because worship of the true God is the prerogative of the Regenerate, not Heathen, nor Reprobates. 

Bret L. McAtee 

Dr. Jones,

In point of fact it is not possible for Muslims to worship the same God as Christians since worship of the one true God can only occur as one is covered by the Son and united to the Son.

5 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

No faith in the covering of Christ … no peace with God … no worship of God.

As such (as Dan has implied) either Muslims in their worship are accepted by God OR Muslims and Christians don’t worship the same God.

Stuart DiNenno Christians are monotheistic and worship the true God. Muslims are also monotheistic, therefore Muslims must also worship the true God.

John drives a car which is a Mercedes. Harry also drives a car, therefore Harry must also drive a Mercedes.

Bret L. McAtee John drives only one car which is a Mercedes. Harry drives only one car which is a beat up Kia Forte.

John and Harry drive the same car.

 

A couple self-important Catlicks decided to take out after the Reformation mocking Martin Luther and insisting that the Reformation really wasn’t necessary.

My response?

____

Rome … forever protesting the Reformation despite the fact that they were

1.) Selling forgiveness
2.) Denying the plain meaning of Scripture
3.) Lifting the Church in its authority above Scripture’s authority
4.) Perverted nunneries and monasteries
5.) Grifting the rank and file with superstitious pablum
6.) Iconadules foisting idolatry on the Church
7.) Ubiquitous Simony
8.) Illiterate Priesthood
9.) Persecution of the Saints
10.) Anathematizing the Gospel
11.) Blaspheming Christ via dumbass Eucharist doctrines
12.) Mariolatry
13.) Multiple Papal claims simultaneously
14.) Turning Salvation into a human performance contest
15.) Laughable and idiotic elevation of relics to worship status
16.) Fundraising by purgatory
17.) Blending the Occult with the Faith
18.) The vile presence of the Bastard Jesuits

But, y’all go ahead with your bloviating about the Church not needing a Reformation. Whatever helps you keep your miserable Christ dishonoring lives together.

Cort Kirkwood continued the conversation

Father Martin Luther “reformed” nothing.

BLM responds,

Yeah right. Never mind the Reformation that came

1.) In the Table.
2.) In the number of sacraments.
3.) In the Priesthood of ALL believers
4.) In the Authority of Scripture over the Magisterium
5.) In the tyranny of the Church exercised over the laity
6.) In Ecclesiology
7.) In Soteriology
8.) In Anthropology
9.) In social order
10.) In the nature of the ministry (sacerdotal vs. ministerial)

The Reformation Reformed every area of life. For anybody to insist to the contrary just testifies to a willful blindness born of fish face bias.

CK wrote,

Hanging his hat on those abuses, he staged a revolt and invented a new religion to rationalize his sexual and other misbehavior, as well as to dispose of guilt owing to the sin of scrupulosity, which we know today in some cases to be obsessive-compulsive disorder.

BLM

Actually, Brother Martin staged a counter-revolution against the Revolt that was Rome. Rome had long revolted against Scripture and Martin revolted against that revolt.

Quite obviously then Martin did not invent a new religion but returned to the Christianity of Scripture.

And sexual behavior? I know you don’t want to get into the perverted sex habits of Rome’s finest. Give Luther credit… at least he wanted his sex in the proper boundaries of marriage, unlike countless numbers of Priests, Popes, Monks, and Nuns.

CK brilliantly wrote,

That is why he denied free will, fiddled with the text of scripture, and jettisoned scripture that undermined his new religion.

BLM

He denied Free Will because the Scripture denies free will. He fiddled with the text of Scripture in order to undo all the fiddling that the fiddlers of Rome had done.

And he jettisoned nothing of Scripture.

It never amazes me how stupid Rome continues to be on these matters.

Lessing’s ditch is a term used to describe a view of Gotthold Lessing (1729 – 1781) which argues that there is a ‘ditch’ between history and eternal truths that cannot be crossed. As a result, revelation in history is not possible, for historical truth cannot be demonstrated. Furthermore, he drew a distinction between the accidental truths of history and the necessary truths of reason. This view “grew out of his conviction that rationalism could be the only universally acceptable mode of understanding the world,” and thus he was “convinced that the bible could not be trusted as a source of description of any truth, let alone the truth of God.”

Theopedia

Lessing outlined the concept of the religious “Proof of Power”: How can miracles continue to be used, Lessing asked, as a base for Christianity when we have no proof of miracles? Historical truths which are in doubt cannot be used to prove metaphysical truths (such as God’s existence).

1.) Lessing is denying that one can reach eternal truths. However, by affirming this Lessing has contradicted himself by reaching his necessary one eternal truth that allows him to insist that no one else can reach eternal truths.

2.) If there is a impassible ditch between history and eternal truths that cannot be crossed how does Lessing know that there are eternal truths that one might try to cross over to? Lessing’s statement presupposes the existence of something that he himself suggests can’t be known. If eternal truths can’t be known than it can’t be known that they might exist to know. What we can’t say we can’t say, and we can’t whistle it either.

3.) We do have the best of proof of miracles because God’s Word says that Miracles happened. There is no need for more proof. There can be no greater or better proof. Lessing, presupposes his own autonomous word as being legislative. By Lessing’s autonomous word God’s Word is ruled out a-priori. However, God’s Word is authoritatively self-attesting and so if God’s Word says it is Revelation and if God’s Word records Miracles then Miracles have all the proof they need to be accepted and Revelation in history is indeed, not only possible, but certain. There is no ditch.

4.) In order for Lessing’s ditch to be impassible one has to presuppose anti-Christianity in order to prove anti-Christianity. If one presupposes that God’s Word is not authoritative, and if one presupposes that God cannot speak in time and space history, then it is indeed the case that Lessing’s non-God God can’t cross over Lessing’s ditch. Lessing, by locking God out of His universe, proves that God is locked out of His universe. That is an analytic statement wrapped inside a tautology, and accomplished under the canvas of alleged neutrality.

5.) Scripture teaches that by Christ all things consist.



 ¹⁶ For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. ¹⁷ He is before all things, and in him all things are held together.

Scripture teaches that Christ as God’s creative and sustaining Word is the point of integration for all reality. If Scripture is accurate than no ditch can exist between history and eternal truths as both find their point of integration and existence in Christ. To suggest that their is a ditch between the accidental truths of history, and eternal truths that exist would be, by necessity, to deny both Scripture and the person of Christ as the point of integration of all reality.

6.) What can a “accidental truth of history” even mean if that accidental truth is cut off from eternal truth? Anything cut off from eternal truth can have no weight of truth about it unless one is using the word truth in a totally specious manner. Indeed, without eternal truths giving gravitas to accidental truths of history all those accidental truths are, in the words of Henry Ford, “just one damn thing after another,” which anyone can shape to their pleasing.

7.) Lessing’s ditch presupposes a God who is so transcendent He has lost contact with His creation. This kind of transcendence is not the transcendence of Biblical Christianity, instead it is the transcendence of Islam’s God, Allah. It is also the transcendence of neo-orthodoxy. Biblical Christianity posits a God whose immanence does not negate His transcendence. He is a God nearby by coming near to us in Christ. If God were transcendent the way Allah is or the way the God of Barthianism is Lessing would have a ditch he could not cross. However, the transcendence of Christianity allows for no ditches because of the doctrine of God’s immanence.

“Now by the nature of things, a Worldview is always ‘unified.’ As long as we have not understood, however, all the realms and spheres of creation as parts of a whole, our worldview is not rounded out and complete. Of course, the question here is not whether we have already brought our worldview to that point or ever shall do so, there can be no essentially different worldview in religion and in philosophy, for the common people and for the learned, for the academy and for life. If religion contains a worldview in seed form, and philosophy, in searching for the final ground of all things, always seeks after God, then it follows naturally, that they, in all their distinctions, have to conform inwardly to the essence of the matter and cannot compete with each other.

Only the Christian Worldview can fulfill this demand, because it makes known to us one God, the living and true God, and cuts the root of all polytheism.”

Herman Bavinck — Christian Worldview – p. 53-54


This quote teaches us again that Theology remains the Queen of the Sciences as well as Queen of the Humanities. To deny that the God of the Bible gives a unified meaning to all disciplines because He is the author of all disciplines is to embrace, by necessity, a polytheistic religion.
And with the casting off of the truth that theology is the Queen of the Sciences what we have at the same time accomplished is to embrace an “Enlightened Polytheism.”

This is evidenced by the fact that our Universities no longer have a “Uni” in their “Versity.” Instead now what we really have are Multi-versities where there is no unity wherein all the various disciplines can congeal and cohere. This is evidenced by the fact that our secondary schools by way of a sort of un-named catechism teach students to compartmentalize their thinking. There is zero search in our schools (or our churches for that matter) for a unifying motif in all learning. This is evidenced by the fact that it is a commonality to engage with people who reason by way of contradiction, and that quite without even knowing that they have contradictions littered throughout their noetic engagements. This is evidenced by our separating fact from value, logic from implication, and history from metaphysics (Lessing’s Ditch). This is evidenced by the fact that a theology that yet remains in the ascendancy in many quarters goes by the sobriquet “theology by contradiction.” One can only conclude that we are the most anti-Worldview social order which has ever existed.

And yet, this all is to be fully expected in a social order that has been given over to the enemy. Mephistopheles, is, after all, the author of confusion and the architect of chaos. It is impossible to not have dis-order in thought and life where Beelzebub has the whip hand.