Kalergi … Then & Now

“The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.”

Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi (1894- 1972)

Some truth is so painful to hear it is considered impolite to mention it. That kind of awkward truth eventually becomes the proverbial elephant in the room that everybody has to step around but nobody dares mention.  The above quote by Kalergi (whose Father was Austrian and whose Mother was Japanese) was prophetic in terms of the goal that remains for the Deep State elite. The Great Reset crowd earnestly desires to fulfill Kalergi’s vision of a blenderized globe where, consistent with the strains of U2’s Bono, “All colors bleed into one.”

Quotes like Kalergi is the reason that people familiar with the movement of social history since WW II (actually before but we will start with that event) talk so freely about the agenda to replace white people in the West. 

The evidence for this is considerable. In 1998 President Clinton could enthusiastically offer in a speech at Portland State University;

“Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston or New York City. Within five years, there will be no majority race in our largest state, California. In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States. No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time … [These immigrants] are energizing our culture and broadening our vision of the world. They are renewing our most basic values and reminding us all of what it truly means to be American.”

President Obama chimed in on this theme when he noted during his presidency,

“That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic can not stand.” “The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least can not stand.” “The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews can not stand. These hallowed walls we must tear down.”

Barack Obama – Berlin, July, 2008


Vice President Biden in 2015 went even a little further echoing the vision of Kalergi when he offered his insights about the nature of American Democracy;

“There is a second thing in that black box: an unrelenting stream of immigration, nonstop, nonstop.” Folks like me who are Caucasian, of European descent, for the first time in 2017 we’ll be in an absolute minority in the United States of America, absolute minority,” he said. “Fewer than 50% of the people in America from then and on will be white European stock,” he said. “That’s not a bad thing, that’s a source of our strength.”

If we were to read this trend through Biblical lenses we would easily see that this is all a push to return to Babel. We all call it “the New World Order,” but actually it is a return to the “Old World Order,” that envisions the elimination of distinctions of not only race and ethnicity but also of sex and age. The elimination of distinctions between race and ethnicity is of a piece with the elimination of sex, gender, and age. Loving vs. Virginia was just as much of a piece of this NWO attack on distinctions as was Lawerence vs. Texas or Obergefell vs. Hodges. In the not too distant future, there will be another SCOTUS case that will legitimize sex between children and adults.

The greatest threat to the Christian faith today is the Marxism that continues to attack all distinctions in favor of creating a globe where all men are bastards and border-men, where all men and women regardless of whether they are children or not can have copious sex, where all men share the same sulfur smelling religion and where nobody knows if the person they are marrying is male or female.

I am four-square against the Kalergi vision because I am a disciple of Christ.

A Conversation On (Mostly) 20th Century American History

If those soldiers who gave their lives for this country were still alive, whom everyone is talking about in relation to the whole flag imbroglio, they would be the first to take a knee for the National Anthem.

Do you really think they gave their lives so we could have an abortion, sell baby parts, and witness sodomites marrying one another? Do you really think they died for their country so that their descendants could be disinherited by a third world immavasion? Do you really embrace the notion that they died so the country could be overrun by crazy Marxist organizational kind of thinking?

Nope … if they hadn’t sacrificed their lives and were still alive they’d be the first one’s kneeling.

Louis Morin

The men that fought in the American Revolution would probably turn in their graves if they saw the state of things today.

  • Robert M Shivers
    It seems both sides can make a case for protesting the anthem, it’s just that we are in diametrical disagreement on the motive.
  • Laurie VandenHeuvel
    Totally disagree Bret.
     

    Bret L. McAtee

    Not surprised. I would bet that nearly everyone from your generation would disagree.

     

    • Thomas Laurie VandenHeuvel
      I would ask what generation has to do with anything, but I’m not asking it because I don’t want to get embroiled in this argument.
    • Robert M Shivers
      A friend of mine’s father, Laurie, served in the Pacific (as did several of my uncles) and was present on the BB Missouri at the surrender in Sept ’45. Later in life, looking at what had was happening to America, he said it looked like they had wasted their time and effort fighting the war. I understand what he meant by that. 

      Some nations win the battle but ultimately lose the war. In the case of the US and Britain in WWI & WWII, it looks like we won the war, but will ultimately lose the nation. It’s because the “Greatest Generation” made a golden calf of federal govt power and bowed to worship it.

       

       

      Bret L. McAtee

      And let’s not even mention that history books in 500 years, in giving one paragraph each to WW I and WW II will report something like the following,


      W. W. I is to be remembered primarily because it brought Bolshevism to power in a European Nation-State while WW II will be remembered primarily because it brought that same Bolshevism to power as an international superpower. The winners of both WW I and WW II were the Bolshevists. Everyone else lost.

       

    • Robert M ShiversWWI & WWII & the Cultural Revolution in late 20th/early 21st Century America, Bret, will just be seen as the logical and inevitable fulfillment of the promise of the French & Russian Revolutions.

       

       

      Bret L. McAtee


      Yep…

      Enlightenment

      French Revolution

      Revolution of 1848

      Civil War

      WW I

      Jewish Bolshevik Revolution in Russia

      WW II

      Frankfurt School blossoms in America

      Adele LaVeau

      Laurie, on which specific points do you disagree, and why?

       

    • Robert M Shivers
      T
      he only other things I would enumerate Bret would be the post-war “civil rights” movement and Third World immigration to the West, which will be seen as having an impact comparable to effect on the Roman Empire of the barbarian migrations of the 5th and 6th centuries 

       

      Bret L. McAtee


      Good and necessary additions Dr. Shivers.


      Laurie VandenHeuvel 

       

      None of the predictions of how our history will be written years from now really matter to the point of honoring our country and our country’s heroes. Go through all the comments above–regarding past and current sins of our country and dire predictions for the future, and none of them impact our duty, right, and privilege of honoring our country and those who have given of themselves to preserve it. Does anyone REALLY THINK that I do not share in the heartache of seeing what is happening in our country? If you do, then you do not really know ME. But the point is, that I see my love for my country, much as a parent sees his/her love for a wayward child. I thank God every day that He has led all of our children and their spouses and families, to love Him and serve Him. But if there were one wayward child, I would love him or her just as intensely, and never cease to pray day and night, and work for the salvation of that child. With the same type of intensity, I love this land that God Himself has given us and prospered. I trust Him fully for the future of this country. I realize that He may be thundering judgment from heaven in His recent natural upheavals. But that doesn’t change, one wit, the blessings He has heaped upon us from our beginning. All of the naysaying spoken above doesn’t alter one iota of the fact that God has blessed each and EVERY ONE of us, including all the naysayers, through this country and its sacrificial people. Anything other than this is a refusal to acknowledge this, and a futile attempt to predict a future which only God knows.

       

      Bret L. McAtee

      If I had a wayward child Laurie I would anguish and pray. I would also keep the door shut in his face until he repented. I also wouldn’t honor that child in any way. It would kill me but love for God and that child would require it.

       

      Laurie VandenHeuvel

      I believe that kind of response of rejection, is totally contrary to the example of the father of the prodigal son.

       

       

      Bret L. McAtee

      20 And he arose, and came to his father. But while he was yet afar off, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and [f]kissed him. 21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight: I am no more worthy to be called thy son[g]. 22 But the father said to his [h]servants, Bring forth quickly the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:

       

      Only when the son returns does the Father embrace. Until such a time the son was without honor or standing.

       

      Bret L. McAtee 

      It is love for God and my kinsmen that finds me refusing to stand for the Pledge or for the anthem.

       

       

    • Thomas Laurie VandenHeuvel

      “But while he (the son) was yet afar off…” shows a father yearning for his son. Case closed from my end.

       

      Bret L. McAtee

      Did I say anything about not yearning?

       

      I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing pain in my heart. 3 For I could [a]wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren’s sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

       

    • Adele LaVeau
      I sincerely thank you Laurie for answering with an obvious passion about the subject. But I also believe you have no understanding of the comments above. As a former Marine, you would refer to me as a hero. That would be idolatry. My service as a Marine did absolutely NOTHING to perpetuate liberty or freedom. My service only helped to further enrich the satanic bankers who have destroyed this country, casting everyone into slavery and tyranny. If you believe American troops are protecting your freedom fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, you must ask yourself how Iraq and Afghanistan ever took possession of your freedoms, necessitating intervention to liberate them.

      I refuse to stand for a flag that honors every evil thing permitted in this country. I refuse to stand and grant honor to a flag that represents the spread of global tyranny, and I refuse to stand for a flag that has been waging war against my countrymen and kinsmen since 1861.

       

       

    • Jack Burhenne
      The enemies were not all internal Adele. The commie threat was real and needed to be opposed. I did my time in the military during the Vietnam era, and it’s clear that service in the military can involve tremendous sacrifice, whether or not that sacrifice is twisted by evil men in an evil society. That sacrifice ought to be recognized and respected, and your blanket condemnation of the motivations of those involved is arrogant. 

      Bret L. McAtee

       

      Then call Maj. General Smedley Butler arrogant. He was a two time Congressional Medal of honor winner. In his book. “War is a Racket” he takes much the same tack as Adele LaVeau.

      Short book … you should give a read

       

    • Adele LaVeau
      You might have a valid point Jack, had the American Imperial forces actually ever fought to defeat Communism. Instead, going back to America’s first Marxist president, Abraham Lincoln, America has fought on the side of Communism, and has all but ensured Communism’s global victory. I’ll take arrogance over ignorance every time. I would recommend Anthony Sutton’s “The Rise and Fall” triology of books to sustain my observations here.
       
    • Jack Burhenne
      You mean those Russian subs we were playing cat & mouse with Adele in the North Sea were a figment of my imagination? Or that Uncle Ho wasn’t determined to turn all of Southeast Asia into a commie hell hole? You’re the one who’s ignorant and blind to boot.
       
    • Adele LaVeau

      Typical of one who serves in a low-level position and believes involvement in a few tactical exercises equals mastery of the strategies of those holding all the pieces on the board.

       

    • Jack BurhenneYou cannot deny, Adele, that the “American imperial forces” had a horribly bloody confrontation with the commies in southeast Asia and that those Vietnamese commies were supplied by the Russian & Chinese commies. No matter who you think was pulling the strings, we actually DID engage the communists. Period.

       

    • Adele LaVeau
       I like you, but you don’t make it easy. Considering there would have been no global communism without American finances, and both world wars were fought to usher in communism on a global scale, it matters not that Americans engaged their teammates. Of course, my nation was involved in a brutal war against communist forces flying the U.S. flag. Lincoln’s Yankee commies were every bit as Marxist as those of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Just further proof that America has never fought against communism, but merely engaged fellow communists.  
    • Jack Burhenne
      – I’ve been watching the Ken Burns Vietnam documentary the last several daysAdele, and there is no doubt in my mind that those poor bastards were fighting evil men operating under a terribly brutal communist ideology, and no matter what this country’s faults are, I’d rather live under our system than theirs. And, there is also no doubt in my mind that a significant number of those men, in their minds and hearts, WERE fighting to keep this country free from the global communist threat, and they were heroic and it is a crime of ingratitude to denigrate their terrible sacrifices just because they don’t line up with your rigid ideology. 
    • Adele LaVeau
      You don’t pay attention very well Jack. It is a lie to accuse me of ‘denigrating’ the sacrifices made by those who thought they were fighting for liberty. I thought the same thing. But for you to be consistent, you would have to honor the sacrifices made by the warriors of every nation fighting for what they are told is their own liberty. And you would especially have to honor those noble peasants and farmers in Dixie who fought, suffered, and died protecting their Christian homeland from communist American Yankee invaders. And while on that subject, I think you’ve identified your problem for us: Ken Burns.
       
    • Jack Burhenne
      I fully stand with the people of the South and their fight against the Federal monster Adele. As for Ken Burns, as much as he tried to spin the Vietnam documentary, enough truth slipped by to convince me that if we’d had rolled over and played dead for the commies in Vietnam, it wouldn’t have improved our situation today at all. 
    • Adele LaVeau
      I’m delighted Jack, to see that you understand Ken Burns’ federal slant. But again, you’re missing the point. It matters not how evil the communist foes were. We did nothing to ensure liberty here at home by fighting them in their backyard. Again, there would never have been a communist faction in SE Asia, had not Wall Street banksters financed the Bolshevik coup. Had we engaged Stalin in Europe, instead of allying with him, we could have forever diminished the threat of the spread of communism. It is in that spirit that you must understand that NOTHING our military has done has helped to stop the global spread of communism. On the contrary, the American military has been fighting for corporate and financial interests for a long time.

      I mourn the needless death and maiming suffered by our fighting forces in the false name of liberty. I blame not the brainwashed minions who are merely acting in accordance with the Huxleyian programming with which they have been inculcated since before birth. However, their sacrifices are just that: sacrifices on the altar of Molech, to ensure that the bloodlust of the foreign gods of Talmudic communism is perpetually satiated.

Rome, EO, and Protestantism … All Expressions of Christianity Who Find One Another To Be Heretical?

Andrew Johann wrote,

I have more in common with unwoke (base) Catholics and EOs than I do with those who hold the exact same doctrinal commitments as me.

Nathanael Strickland responded

It’s because the Faithful of Protestantism, Catholicism, and E Orthodoxy consider each other to be heretics of the same religion in contrast to Liberalism which is an entirely different religion.

Darrel Dow observes,

Nathanael, this is concise and profound.

Bret L. McAtee  objects,

This is concise but it is most certainly not profound. Indeed Nathaniel’s analysis is inaccurate. Protestantism, RC and EO are themselves entirely different religions that use the same language but fill that language with a completely different meaning. I have no more in common with an RC or EO than I do with a Cultural Marxist. IF RC or EO ever get the whip hand they will be after Biblical Christians the same way that the Cultural Marxists are right now.

Anybody who finds the statement profound that “Faithful of Protestantism, Catholicism, and E Orthodoxy consider each other to be heretics of the same religion” hasn’t yet thought through the massive differences between Christianity and what is not Christianity as expressed by RC and EO competing religions.

It is a profound misunderstanding of Reformed doctrines vis-a-vis the doctrines of Rome or the EO that allows someone to suggest that we are all Christian though heretics to one another as within the Christian faith. I do not doubt that Rome and EO have Christians in their communities of faith. I do insist though that neither Rome nor EO in their official expression of Christianity is Christianity. In their official expressions of the faith in their doctrinal formulations, Rome and EO are anti-Christ.

The Delight in Mocking Doug Wilson

 “For various reasons, I consider this post as one of the more important things I have written. Not to overstate it, or to puff it up, or to give way to ungodly hype, but I do believe we are converging on a crisis moment in our nation, and the way we respond to that crisis moment when it comes will be critical….

So the takeaway lesson for conservatives is: don’t take the bait. Under no circumstances should we take the bait. I think I may have mentioned before that we should not take the bait.”

Rev. Doug Wilson 
Blog & Mablog post

Great statements are made of the fortunes of fate
Speeches delivered imploring men to be brave
Of the need to refuse ever playing the slave
Words urging that against odds men never cave
But Wilson’s wise words said with conviction and rave?

Be wise all my followers and “Don’t take the bait.”

Doug Wilson’s Advice As Seen Through History

 

1.) In 1775 Paul Revere rode through the Massachusetts countryside warning the colonials, “Don’t Take the Bait,” “Don’t Take The Bait.”

2.) During the Battle of the Bulge in World War II General Anthony McAuliffe was defending Bastogne, Belgium when he became encircled by the German Army. That German army sent a surrender ultimatum to McAuliffe and his 101st Airborne division.

McAuliffe is celebrated for his one-word reply to that surrender ultimatum:

“I’m not taking the bait.”

3.) The Texians had been fighting for their Independence against Santa Anna when word was received that a small garrison of Texian fighters had fallen in San Antonio, Texas.

Suddenly a new watchword and battle cry went up in remembrance of the honored dead who fell in that garrison known as the Alamo.

That honored watchword?

“Don’t take the bait.”

4.) When I was a little boy my mother inspired me with the immortal words of Captian John Paul Jones:

“I have not yet begun to avoid the bait.”

5.) The Great American Patriot Nathaniel Hale, caught for spying in the services of General Washington was hung on 22 September 1776 by the British. The last words of this young Patriot have passed down to us through the ages,

 

“I only regret that I lost my life for my country by taking the bait.”

6.) And what little boy didn’t love C.S. Lewis’ Reepicheep? Valiant, sure, but really clever in never being baited into a fight.

“My friendship you shall have learned Man,” piped Reepicheep. “And any Dwarf–or Giant—in the army who does not give you good language shall be promptly ignored. I’m not taking that bait. I mean, just look at how small and powerless I am. I wouldn’t stand a chance.”

 

7.) General T. J. Jackson’s nickname was first applied to him at the First Battle of Manassas on July 21, 1861, by Confederate General Bernard Bee. Inspired by Jackson’s resolve in the face of the enemy, Bee called out to his men to inspire them: “Look, men! There is Jackson standing like taken bait! Let us determine to die here, and we will conquer!”
 
From that time forwards they referred to General Jackson as “Taken Bait Jackson.”
 

8.) Remember when Frodo found out that the One Ring could only be destroyed in the fires of Mt. Doom? “Yeah, I’m not taking that bait.”

9.) Then there is the famous Patrick Henry speech that still inspires men and fills them with courage;

Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, I’m not going for liberty if it means taking the bait.”

10.) The Original Script from Cruise and Nicholson’s “A Few Good Men.”

Lawyer Kaffee: You coerced the doctor! Colonel Jessep, did you order the Code Red?                    

Judge: You don't have to answer that.
Colonel Jessup: You want answers?                     

Lawyer Kaffee: I want the truth!                   

Colonel Jessup: You can't handle the truth!                   

Son, we live in a world with walls that must be guarded.                   

Who's gonna do it? You?

You, Lt. Weinberg?                   

I have more responsibility

than you can fathom....                   

I haven't the time or inclination to explain myself ...
Lawyer Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red?

Colonel Jessup: I am not taking that bait.

11.) “They may take our lives, but they’ll never take our bait!”

William Wallace

 

 

 

The Kingship of Jesus — Kinism & Missions

Last week we continued our trek through the implications of the Kingship of Jesus Christ.

We have posited and demonstrated from Scripture that Jesus Christ is a King… indeed a King of Kings. We have labored to demonstrate that this Kingship is not limited, nor is it etheral, nor is it pietistic nor is it Gnostic. He is King and His Kingship exercises authority and so flows into every nook and cranny of life.

This passage that we are again considering this morning teaches the Kingship of Christ. All authority has been given to Him in heaven and in earth. Only a King has all authority and Christ is King. This is what we have been examining and this has been the Testimony of the Church through the ages;

“It is a profound political reality that Christ now occupies the supreme seat of cosmic authority. The kings of this world and all secular governments may ignore this reality, but they cannot undo it. The universe is no democracy. It is a monarchy. God himself has appointed his beloved Son as the preeminent King. Jesus does not rule by referendum, but by divine right. In the future, every knee will bow before him, either willingly or unwillingly. Those who refuse to do so will have their knees broken with a rod of iron.”

R.C. Sproul

, “In one word, if anything is made clear in the Bible concerning ministerial duty, this is clear: that Christ has appointed the pastors and evangelists of his church to be the teachers of religion to men, the appointed school-masters of the world in the one science of theology. But as Lord Bacon shows, this is the splendid apex of the whole pyramid of human knowledge. It is the mistress of all sciences to whom all the rest are tributary, history, ethnology, zoology, geology, literature, and especially philosophy, her nearest handmaid. The mistress must dominate all and rule all lest, becoming insurrectionary, they should use their hands to pull down the foundations of her throne. The teachers of the supreme science must not be ignorant of any other science. They ought to be strong enough to lead the leaders of all secular thought; for if they do not, the tendencies of the carnal mind will most assuredly prompt those secular leaders to array their followers against our King and his gospel.”

R. L. Dabney

Of course the point of the Dabney quote is that the minister is responsible to trumpet the Kingship of Jesus Christ over every thought discpline making sure that every thought discipline continues paying tribute to Christ the King.

With that in mind, taking a minimalist approach, and looking at matters deductively we have taken a birds eye view of the Kingship of Jesus Christ. As Reconstructionist … as Biblical Christians … as those who take every thought to make it captive to King Jesus we have considered the following items in this series. We have admitted there is overlap in these but when you slice matters thin that is inevitable.


1.) Theocentric thinking
2.) Organic or Holistic thinking
3.) Presuppositionalism
4.) The Reformation Solas
5.) Limited and Constrained Government (which implies Hard money)
6.) Jurisdictionalism (Sphere-Sovereignty / Subsidiarity)
7.) Covenant Theology
8.) Postmillennialism

Today we wrap up this series by considering Missions and Oikaphilia.

Perhaps the best way to start this morning is by noting in the text the requirement of Christ to

19 [g]Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to [h]follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you [i]always, to the end of the age.”

There is here the requirement to go to the nations and teach them to follow all that Christ has commanded.

It is the nations – nation by nation – which are to be taught all that Christ commanded (theonomy). This presupposes that Christ intends to own the world as it is gather nation by nation in their nations and this ownership includes their being instructed in Christ’s commandments.

So, here we see the bringing together of Missions, Theonomy, and Kinsim.

It appears here then what we have is what we spoke of last week and that is theonomy dressing itself consistent with National covenantalism. We are to collect the nations by Baptism and then disciple the Nations teaching them all things Christ has commanded. Just as Israel was separated and brought into National Covenant at Sinai so the nations are to be gathered to be discipled, taught God’s law (all that Christ commanded) and are to swear National covenant, thus both segregating one ethnos from one another while at the same time bringing in a spiritual unity by their mutual national allegiance to Jesus Christ. This segregating of the various ethnos (people-groups) continues unabated until they enter the new Jesuralem nation by nation in the eschaton

Revelation 14:6 – “Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth– to every nation, tribe, language and people.”

Revelation 15:4 – “Who will not fear you, O Lord, and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before you, for your righteous acts have been revealed.”

The nations in their nations come into the New Jerusalem.

Rev. 20:23 And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb. 24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth [ad]will bring their glory into it. 

So, in the Great Commission the nations are gathered in their nations and in the eschaton the Nations continuing as nations will bring their glory into the New Jerusalem.

The national emphasis of the covenant is reiterated in the Great Commission, commanding all covenant nations to conform to all that God hath commanded.

Now we pause here to note that when Christ says to the disciple to teach the nations all that Christ has commanded we see that as being harmonious with what God has commanded of men in all times and places. We don’t argue, as some do, that the God of the OT had one law while Christ as a new and different command for people. So when Jesus says … “teaching wherein all I have commanded you,” we hear the law according to its original intent and yes that includes the general equity of the civil law.

So, we see in this Great Commission that Jesus lays upon the disciples includes both a overt presupposition of Nationalism but also an overt insistence on theonomy.

We should not miss that Nations begin with patriarchal lines of authority. That is the way it was in the Old Covenant and there is nothing in the NT where we get the sense that Nations are not patriarchal in their lineage. Fathers of people groups are the gatekeeper of those nations and so when Christ commands to disciple the nations I understand that to mean that we are to begin with the heads of household (Fathers) in converting the nations.

So, what have we seen here so far. We have seen there is laid upon the Church by King Jesus to gather the Church nation by nation via baptism which proclaims Christ crucified and upon the gathering of the Church there is to be a theonomic push to disciple the nations. We have seen the nations should be gathered, baptized and discipled through the Fathers as Nations are understood by means of patriarchal lines. The Fathers are the heads of the family covenant lines. Many household lines descended from one patriarch comprise a nation. The idea of the word “household” in the NT underscores this idea as generally (not universally) in the NT the heads of households were patriarchs.

So, in this Great Commission is implied, familialism, missions, and theonomy. Each strand contributing to the whole enterprise. The Great Commission does not overthrow the covenantalism of the Old Testament wherein the family and the father is at the center of the organizing principle of the nation.

One implication of all this is that no one can credibly argue that the Great Commission abolishes the idea of a distinction of nations and races because the Great Commission itself affirms their meaningful continued existence, and abiding distinction when it calls for a gathering, baptizing and discipling of all NationS.

All said, Christ’s Great Commission so thoroughly presupposes familialism (Kinism) that any attempt to construe it in an anti-nation by nation fashion only pits the Christ against His own words. Which is merely to render the Christiantiy self-contradictory and incoherent.

So, Christianity does not create a New World Order where internationalism becomes the socio-political means of the organization of mankind. The success of the Gospel means that the Nations as Nations continue to exist. In such a way the long standing Christian principle of unity in diversity is maintained. When the Great Commission is taken in its Biblical context, according to its original intent, the converted World finds a spiritual unity in Christ while the diversity of who God has ordained them to be as Nations continues on. In such a way the created One and many reflects the un-created One and Many.

Supporting this older reading that focuses on nations as nations in discipleship are chaps like Matthew Henry who could say on Matthew 28,

[2.] “What is the principal intention of this (Great) commission; to disciple all nations. Matheµteusate-“Admit them disciples; do your utmost to make the nations Christian nations;’ not, “Go to the nations, and denounce the judgments of God against them, as Jonah against Nineveh, and as the other Old-Testament prophets’ (though they had reason enough to expect it for their wickedness), “but go, and disciple them.’ Christ the Mediator is setting up a kingdom in the world, bring the nations to be his subjects; setting up a school, bring the nations to be his scholars; raising an army for the carrying on of the war against the powers of darkness, enlist the nations of the earth under his banner. The work which the apostles had to do, was, to set up the Christian religion in all places, and it was honourable work; the achievements of the mighty heroes of the world were nothing to it. They conquered the nations for themselves, and made them miserable; the apostles conquered them for Christ, and made them happy.”

Note in that Henry quote the implied postmillennial eschatology.

What Christ envisions in the Great Commission was exactly what was anticipated in the Old Testament. Theologian Martin J. Wyngaarden speaking of Isaiah 19 wrote 60 years ago,

“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.

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.”

Wyngaarden, pp. 101-102.

And the heirs of the Reformation have taken this task of Missions seriously through the centuries.

Before we chronicle some of that let’s make something clear here. Missions is one of those inescapable category realities. Everybody is a missionary for their God or god. Everybody seeks to evangelize those who don’t agree with them on the subject of religion. The Government schools, for example, are great Missiological Institutions. Every day they are working to convert the poor souls present. Legislation is all about Missions as legislation seeks to coerce you to worship a particular god. Authors, Musicians, painters and sculptors are all doing Missionary work with their art… they are seeking to win you to think like them in terms of religion.

So Missions is inescapable and the question is never whether or not you will be a Missionary. The question is only what kind of Missionary for what god or God will you be.

This passage calls all of us to be Missionaries for the God of the Bible. As we are going (“Go and make Disciples) we are to be heralding Christ. The need to be Missions minded as never been so great. The Institutional Reformed Church, exceptions notwithstanding, isn’t doing Missions for the God of the Bible. I’ve seen their Mission to the World up close and personal and I can tell you that the God they champion is a different God than the God of the Bible. I suspect that is true of all Reformed denominations. Consider how bad the rot is that you see in the Church in the West and ask yourself if you believe the Mission sending agencies of those churches have escaped that rot?

The Church, when healthy has always been a Missions sending agency.

The Reformation itself was a Missions reality and those of the Reformed faith more than any other have been God’s Missionary’s extra-ordinare.

The Reformation restored the Gospel and without the Gospel there is no Missions. Without the proclamation of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ’s righteousness alone any Missionary effort would have been converting people to another faith besides Christianity.

The Reformation was Missionary through and through. Ironically enough it took the Gospel to what was known as Christendom. Calvin’s Geneva pumped out Missionary after Missionary to herald the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Nations that had become pagan because of the bastardy of Rome. Because of the Missions effort of the Reformation France would see the rise of the Huguenots pushing that nation towards Reformation as upwards to 1200 Pastors left Geneva to plant 2000 Churches in France. Those French Reformed Church then in turn sent Reformed ministers to Brazil for the first time.

Knox was trained in Geneva and was sent out to win Scotland and that is what happened. The authors of the Heidelberg Catechism were trained in Geneva and we are to this day touched by their missionary efforts.

The Reformed have always been God’s Missionaries whether it was John Eliot with his praying Indian Towns (Algonquian) or David Brainerd working with the Seneca & Delaware Indians or Jonathan Edwards working with the Mohicans.

It was the Reformed during the 19th century who packed their belongings when headed to Africa in coffins because they knew they weren’t coming back and were going to be buried in Africa so they packed their belongings in their coffins. Read the great Missionary stories of Henry Martyn, of Stanley Livingstone, of John Paton of the New Hebrides, of Hudson Taylor, William Carey to India. Read them … Read them all. Give them to your children. Read them and learn of the great Missionary impulse among the Reformed to see men bow to King Christ.

And what of us today? Is there any less of a need to be Missionaries right where we are? If the Reformation excelled in Missions to then Christendom what greater need is there today to excel at Missions to the former Christendom in the West that is now crumbling down around us. How much greater the need to be God’s Missionaries who speak forth the Vanilla Christianity that we have been considering these past few weeks? There is a need for Missions here in America. Our communities … our families, out country needs the Reformed, postmillennial, theonomic, covenantal, anti-Statist, blood soaked Gospel of Jesus Christ. We again must command all men everywhere to repent. We must again stand on the Scripture alone presupposing God and His Word as our starting point. It is this Gospel that we must speak forth once again and that into the teeth of whatever resistance.

Good Missionaries should be pucker up or duck kind of people. That is what we see of St. Paul and those who went with him on the Missionary journeys. People either loved the stuffing out of them or they hated them. Was this not what St. Paul was getting at when he said,

II Cor. 2:15For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. 16To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life. And who is sufficient for these things?