Revolution & Language

[ Otto Scott ] This is the same step. It is not new, not new at all. It is the same step in every revolution. It begins with the misuse of language. It beings with changing terms (and) so disguising the purpose of the revolution and the goal of revolution. In the French Revolution they began with first eliminating the titles of courtesy, monsieur, madam and so forth. Then they eliminated the titles of nobility and they substituted citizen or its equivalent. Finally they eliminated the monarchy and the aristocracy all together and you had accompanying this changes in the French language. Words that became forbidden and words that became mandated.

Pocket college lecture
Truth and Consequences

 

In any attempt at revolution step #1 is bastardizing the language so that it can conceal the ugliness of the Revolution and reveal the vile character of those who oppose the Revolution. “Sodomite,” becomes “Homosexual,” becomes “Gay.” “Christianity,” becomes “Christianism,” becomes “Bigotry.” “Perversion” becomes “Alternate liftestyles.” Theft is called “taxation” and “redistribution of wealth,” indoctrination is called “education and socialization training.” Most recently a Green New Deal is called “The Inflation Reduction Act.” We have gone so far down this rabbit hole that we no longer can even now use language to answer the question; “What is a Woman.”

Language, the original function which was to be that used to reveal the truth becomes a weapon in the service of concealing the truth.
The West is now far down the road of the bastardization of its language and only heaven sent Reformation can reverse the side.

An Oldie but Goodie From Joe Carter (aka — Joke Harder)

“The alt-right is anti-gospel because to embrace white identity requires rejecting the Christian identity. The Christian belongs to a “chosen race” (1 Peter 2:9), the elect from every tribe and tongue (Rev. 7:9).

Joe Carter — Affectionately known as Joke Harder

The Gospel Coalition — 2018 Article

1.) False dichotomy

As if one can’t embrace their race or ethnic identity while at the same time embracing Christianity. Would Joe also say that to embrace maleness as part of one’s identity would be to require men to reject our identity in Christ?

2.) Incipient Gnosticism

Does Joe really believe that upon conversion those creational categories (such as race and ethnicity) disappear in favor of Gnostic “spiritual” categories that deny and erase creational realities?

3.) The Problem of those Nations in the New Jerusalem

Did Joe miss that part about the elect being from every tribe and nation?

If the elect are chosen from every tribe and nation who are we to say that tribes or nations don’t exist? The book of Revelation, which Joe cites as his spoof text itself mentions the presence of distinct nations in the new Jerusalem.

4.) Scripture says Joe is all wet

Consider how Paul retained his ethnic identity. Would Joe argue that St. Paul is ‘anti-Gospel?’

Romans 9:2 I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.

Depending on which Alt-Right representative one considers the Alt-Right has its problems but to suggest that the Alt-right is anti-Gospel merely because it tells people it’s alright to embrace their God created and God-given racial and ethnic identity smells of sulfur and is the thought child of Satan’s offspring, Herbert Marcuse, and Theodor Adorno.

5.) Reductios Abound

‘To embrace [Carter] identity requires rejecting the Christian identity.’

‘To embrace [American] identity requires rejecting the Christian identity.’
‘To embrace [denominational] identity requires rejecting the Christian identity.’
We can play this game all day.

You see … the thing here is that it is not even close to being thoughtful. One would expect their ill 5 year old golden retriever to offer this up as a piece of solid reasoning. Instead we have the Church leadership going all profound on us with these “gems.” This would be profound if relayed through the sign language of Koko the Gorilla. But coming from a Homo Sapien?

Away with this Gnostic curse that has infiltrated and poisoned the church. Away with childish reasoning inspired by minds trained in Government schools and Cultural Marxist Universities and Seminaries.

The Libertarianism of the Tuttle Twins Put On Display and Slain — A Presuppositional Reading of “Fate of the Future”

Just finished reading “Tuttle Twins: The Fate of the Future,” to two of my Grandsons.

The Tuttle Twins are becoming increasingly popular among Biblical Christian homeschoolers. All I can say after reading my first Tuttle Twins book is that parents better be ruddy well careful. This volume is toxic.

1.) It reduces ultra Libertarian Murray Rothbard’s “Anatomy of the State” to a child’s level.

2.) On the first two pages you find pictures of different races of peoples in a kind of multicultural setting.

3.) A quote from the book;

“Over time, these societies have created cultures — different foods, clothes, music, language, and religions.”

The problem with the above quote is that it is false that societies create cultures and it is false that societies create religions. In point of fact, it is Religion and People groups (as theology is poured over ethnicity) that create religions and then the culture that flowers is but the outward manifestation of a people’s religion and ethnicity. This Tuttle Twins book as it backwards. Culture is always downstream of religion. Sans the Tuttle Twin religion is NOT downstream of culture.

4.) Another quote from the book lifted from Rothbard

“The state is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory.”

Certainly, this is likely true of any non-Christian state. However, this would not be how a Christian would define a state in a Godly Christian order. In a Christian order the state is not necessarily negative. In a Christian order the state is the means by which God brings order into a designed and very limited jurisdiction in concert with other governments in other jurisdictions in the same society. The Libertarian definition above of the State casts the State in a purely negative sense and pushes the reader (remember) towards a anarcho-capitalist type of position.

5.) Another quote;

“Most people in charge of the State want to do good things and help people — they’re not trying to be bad like gangsters.”

If the last quote above was overly negative in defining the State this quote is downright Pollyanna laughable. No child in any Christian home should be taught that kind of tripe. Children need to be told that the current State and the people in charge of the current State want to do harm and hazard to the American citizen and that the current people in charge of the State make gangsters look like Boy Scouts.

6.) Another quote;

“But these governments tend to always expand their power. Instead of just protecting the people, they begin controlling them and limiting what they can do.”

I thoroughly agree that it is a significant injurious problem that governments tend to always expand their power. However, the problem in the quote above arises with the intimation that it is always wrong for “governments to control and limit the population in what they can do.” The presupposition undergirding this statement is that the individual is sovereign and should not be controlled or limited in any way. Biblical governments, for example, should control and limit the population in what they can do if the population desires to do those things that are contrary to God’s Law Word. For the Libertarian authors of the Tuttle Twins the individual is sovereign. For the Biblical Christian God’s Law-Word is sovereign and because it is sovereign the government may well have to control and limit the population in what they can do.

7.) Another quote;

“Chief Ron says it’s never okay to use force in aggression, only in defense.”

This is the Libertarian cornerstone maxim called “the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).” Of course it is utter nonsense. There are times when using force in aggression is required by God in his assignment to the government. For example, a Godly government would use force in aggression to put pornographers out of business. For example, a Godly government would use force in aggression against those who provide abortion.

The NAP prevents rectification of past crimes or injustices, so long as the original criminal has transferred the proceeds of his iniquity to someone else. In such cases those who have profited by ill-gotten booty can not have aggression visited upon them because their gain did not occur as a result of their aggression.

8.) Another Quote

“We’re people with rights just like them.”

Space does not allow to go into the details of all that is wrong with the “human rights” language. For our purposes here the Biblical Christian is more comfortable talking about the rights that arise out of and are a consequence of human duties laid upon us by the God of the Bible. Technically speaking, only God has right. People have duties. If we want to speak of “human rights” we better be very exacting in tracing those rights back to the authority of God’s word while at the same time demonstrating how if men will do their duty unto God the proper human rights will be the consequence.

9.) Another quote;

“‘The state is one type of government — but in society there are other types (of government) that don’t use coercion’, Mrs. Tuttle added. ‘Our family even has a a government.'”

Though it is not said explicitly the intimation here seems to be that the family is a government that doesn’t use coercion. A Biblical Christian still believes that the rod of correction is a proper instrument for parents. However, it is altogether believable to me that some true blue Libertarians would say parents using coercion are in error.

10.) Another quote;

“But ideally the government would persuade you to do business with them Rather than bullying people, they would have to be very nice and fair, just like the businesses we shop at every day. They would do their best to serve their customers.”

Here we see blatant in your face humanism. Notice the God of this system is the demands and desires of the customers. The customers and their demands and desires becomes the norm that norms all norms. However, what if the customer wants those things that God’s Law disallows? Should the government be very nice and fair and provide the customer those things? For the twins in the Tuttle home it is the desire of the consumer that is the lodestone by which all is governed. This is just humanism.

11.) Another quote:

“You know, there’s a name for this concept … it’s called polycentric law — when two or more governments compete in the same jurisdiction.”

If the previous quote was humanism on display this quote advocates polytheism. Keep in mind that law is always a reflection of some God or god concept. If there are many law centers in one social order that can only be as a result of many gods in one social order. Polycentric law requires polytheism. And for Libertarianism the god behind the different gods of polytheism would be the consumers (see #10 above) who choose which law (and so God) they prefer. There would be as many law systems and gods in one social order as there are consumers who prefer to be ruled by these differing polycentric law systems and polytheistic gods.

 

Four Simple Arguments Why Baptists Are Wrong About Baptism

1.) Following the conviction that there is no such thing as neutrality  we Biblical Christians understand that if we do not baptize our children we are then presuming either they are not sinners and so have no need of the sign and seal of the washing of regeneration or we are presuming that our babies do indeed belong to their Father the devil and so are counted seed for Lucifer. Holding to neither of these presumptions, we presume, following Scripture, a charity regarding our children’s covenant identity and so following Scripture we baptize our children as God’s children.

2.) Infant Baptism is consistent with the proclamation that salvation is by faith alone through grace alone. The paedo-Baptists are consistent here. The Creedo-Baptists are not. The creedo-baptist by demanding an ability of a covenant child to confess Christ before he or she can be baptized is denying faith alone through grace alone because whatever the confessing creedo-Baptist person is bringing to Baptism that the covenant infant paedo-Baptist cannot bring (because they are an infant) is the something that is being added to so that faith alone through grace alone is being denied. As such there is a synergistic something in Creedo-Baptist beliefs. Creedo-Baptists are latent Arminians. This is a consequence of jamming together Ana-Baptist ecclesiology with Reformed soteriology.

3.) Scripture records the outrage of the Jews over the Gentiles being let into the Covenant community minus all the cultural accouterments of being Jewish. Yet, we are to believe that the Jews said nothing about their children being excluded from the covenant community in the new and better covenant where, per the Creedo-Baptists, the children were, for the first time ever, forbidden the sign and seal of covenant membership. Jews were outraged by Gentiles coming in but silent about their children being cast out.

4.) We would expect that with the collection of a first generation Church the demand would be placed upon adults to “repent and be baptized.” However, Acts 2 makes it clear, as heard through the ears of a covenantal non-Anabaptist people, that the promises were to “you and to your children.” So, yes, the New Testament record, in gathering a first generation Church would emphasize the necessity for adults to “repent and be baptized” but that does not negate that those same adults, as well as the subsequent generations would have understood that their children as belonging to them belonged to God and so should receive the sign and seal of the covenant.

Wherein Doug Wilson Goes All…. “Hey; Some sweJ Make Great Neighbors”

Today our favorite wordsmith penned a column titled; “Affection for Israel as Biblical Requirement.”

I must admit that Doug Wilson has an ability like few others to awaken Iron Ink from its dogmatic slumbers. Wilson has that ability to just make me slap my forehead and say … WTF? (What the facsimile?)

“Talmudic Judaism really was a distortion of God’s Word, but you can’t really draw a straight line from that to various modern ills like communism, environmentalism, globalism, and the like. A number of Jews went that direction, sure enough, but some other Jews went on to carve a cure for cancer out of a bar of soap, which made all the anti-Semites even more irritated. In other words, the Jews are a high performance people, and so when they are bad, they are really bad, but enough about the Frankfurt School, and when they are good, they are really good.”

Doug Wilson

1) Notice the craftiness and word wizardry of Wilson. Elsewhere in this column Doug will pen that being weJ has never been about blood but about covenant. Now, here there is a switcharoo because here sweJ are a high performance “people.” However, if one is a weJ, per Doug, only because of covenant and not because of blood, then how can we characterized sweJ as being a ethnic group of people who are by nature “high performance?”

2.) Can it really be said, when looking at the preponderance of historical evidence that sweJ (though what it is to be weJ is really up in the air given Wilson’s linguistic legerdemain) have been an equal blessing to Christians as they have been a curse? Is there no reason why Christians nations have over 100 times cast the weJ out of their countries? Is Wilson denying all the Medieval Church history that consistently found Mother Church in mortal combat with the sweJ?

Doug is putting his thumb on the scales here to suggest that “yeah, some sweJ have been real bad guys but there have been other sweJ who were really good guys so it all washes out in the laundry.”

Read your history. See the ongoing conflict between those whom Jesus called “a brood of vipers” (and what else is a brood of vipers but the seed of the serpent) vis-a-vis the Christian Church — sometimes referred to as the seed of the woman.

File Under: And another thing;

“One last thing. It is often said that Ashkenazi sweJ are not sweJ at all, and that there is not a drop of Abraham’s blood in their veins. And so it is maintained that this is all a lot of fuss and bother over a bunch of nothing. “A gift is not irrevocable if it was never given.” This overlooks the fact that being a weJ was always about covenant, and not about DNA…. Ashkenazi and Sephardic sweJ are sweJ by covenant. And because they are sweJ by covenant, it will be a piece of cake for God to graft them into the olive tree again.”

Doug Wilson

1.) Has Doug ever read Romans 9:3. Apparently no one told the Holy Spirit as he inspired St. Paul that that “being a Jew was always about covenant, and not about DNA.”

For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my KINSMEN ACCORDING TO THE FLESH.

2.) For the sake of argument assuming that Ashkenazi are originally Khazars and so not really blood sweJ, how can Ashkenazi non sweJ be disobedient Talmudic sweJ by covenant (and God certainly didn’t make a covenant with non racial Talmudic sweJ) if neither the original sweJ that covenant was made with were Talmudic nor the original Ashkenazi people didn’t embrace Talmudic Judaism until the 8th-9th century? How can a people in no way related by blood to the sweJ nor by related by covenant as seen in their identity as Talmudic sweJ be considered sweJ?

Doug, like Tolkien’s Saruman is losing his ability to cast a spell that people can’t see through.