McAtee Continues To Pick Apart Tchividijan’s Nonsense

“So much of what passes for “Christian influence” today sounds more like Christian control. We hear calls to “take back the culture,” “reclaim America for Christ,” and “restore Christian values.” But the kingdom of God doesn’t come by seizing cultural control. It doesn’t advance by force or fear. It spreads through weakness, confession, forgiveness, and love. “Christian nationalism” turns the Christian’s calling to serve into a crusade to conquer. It assumes that the kingdom of God is something we build, when the gospel says it’s something we receive. Grace frees us from the burden of “taking back” anything. The world doesn’t need our dominance — it needs our service. The gospel doesn’t build empires — it resurrects sinners.”

📷Tullian Tchividjian
Previous advocate for Anti-nomianism
Now Advocate for Anabaptist theology

1.) There is no such thing as neutrality. Either the Christian faith is in control or a Christ hating faith is in control. Hence Christian control when it is indeed Christian is a reality to be pursued and delighted in.

2.) Tullian is advancing the idea that we seize cultural control by not seizing cultural control. Tullian argues that the Kingdom will indeed be received and so come but it is only to come and be received “through weakness, confession, forgiveness, and love.” Tullian doesn’t have a problem with the Kingdom of Christ coming. His only insistence is that the Kingdom of Christ come as Christians pursue cultural defeat and surrender. So, Tullian wants Christian dominance as much as the person he is complaining about but only in his way — the way of defeat and surrender.

3.) Tullian is seeking to advance his view of cultural control by seeking to shame Christians who disagree with him. That’s not very forgiving or loving or a matter of weakness on Tullian’s part. If Tullian really wanted to be weak he would just shut up on this matter and go into his prayer closet and just pray for his view of the Kingdom to come to pass and so quite lecturing other people because in his lecturing of other people there is a lack of weakness on his part.

4.) Notice that Tullian is seeking to advance his version of the Kingdom by means of fear. The fear that Tullian is trying to stoke is the fear of being displeasing to God if we advocate for the Lord Jesus Christ who is King be owned as King. Tullian would have it that Christ is only going to owned as King when His people do not insist that Christ be owned as King. Per Tullian, only by living as if Christ is not King can the Kingdom be received.

5.) Notice the glaring false dichotomy from Tullian here;

“‘Christian nationalism’ turns the Christian’s calling to serve into a crusade to conquer.”

Who says that a crusade to conquer can not be a matter of service? When cultures are conquered for Christ those who are in bondage to crimes such as sex trafficking, abortion, sodomy, etc. are no longer living in the context where such things are allowed. They may not yet be redeemed individually, but they are no longer living in a culture that is contrary to God’s expressed law-order. Is not the change that would come by Christians conquering be a service to those who would otherwise be plowed under and destroyed by such illegal legalities that exist in anti-Christ cultures?

In brief, there is nothing inherently sinful in conquering and conquering can be done as a means of service. Tullian is involved in a false dichotomy here. It would be a good thing for Talmudic or Mooselimb cultures to be conquered. It would be a matter of service to the people in those cultures if Christ who is King were to be owned as King.

6.) Tullian has another false dichotomy when he puts receiving the Kingdom in conflict with building the Kingdom. Because all is of Grace it is simply the case that when building the Kingdom we are also receiving the Kingdom. If I build a house as a Christian I understand that God is the one who has given me all the resources to that end and so it can be said at one and the same time that as I build my house I am receiving my house. Tullian’s reasoning here is of a nature that we should not plant a vegetable garden to get vegetables because God will provide vegetables, or similarly, we should not seek to build a family by the normal means of having children because God will provide children. In the same way Tullian is saying we should not seek to build God’s Kingdom because we are going to receive God’s Kingdom. Tullian is operating from a completely pietistic/retreatist worldview where man doesn’t work out what God works in.

7.) Tullian gives us another gem with;

“Grace frees us from the burden of “taking back” anything.

Really? Grace frees us from the burden of “taking back” family relationships that were destroyed because of a previous absence of grace? Grace frees us from “taking back” the harm that was inflicted in our business relationship with consumers because of a previous absence of grace? Grace frees us to be obedient and being obedient means that we take back those matters (for God’s glory) that were so injured by the absence of grace. That sentence from Tullian is just really pietistic bloviating. It sounds good but it really has little meaning.

8.) As mentioned earlier, Christian dominance when it is Christian is a service that the world desperately needs. What the world or the church doesn’t need is the kind of Christian dominance by surrender that Tullian is pushing.

9.) Tullian ends with another false dichotomy;

“The gospel doesn’t build empires — it resurrects sinners.”

These two realities are not mutually exclusive. In point of fact the Gospel as it resurrects sinners does build nations. The two go hand in glove. Where the Gospel resurrects sinners the effect is going to be that those resurrected sinners are going to in turn, in obedience to Christ desire to live in social orders that are pleasing to Christ and His authority.

So, while the Gospel may not build empires, it certainly does build nations and social orders where the Gospel and the whole of Christianity is honored.

10.) In the end this is a debate about two very different visions of Christianity. I would insist that Tullian is dishonoring Jesus by not taking Christ’s office of King seriously. Indeed, I would say Tullian completely dismisses the idea of Christ as “Lord.” For Tullian Christ’s Lordship is a Gnostic kind of reality. It is the same kind of Kingship that one finds in R2K thinking. It is the kind of Kingship that says “Jesus is King in a non Kingly way.”

McAtee Contra Tchividijan On The Evils Of Christian Nationalism

“When you start blending the gospel with nationalism, you don’t just confuse categories—you corrupt the message. The gospel isn’t about reclaiming a country; it’s about redeeming people.

This kind of distortion doesn’t stay contained. It ripples out—generation after generation—leaving behind a trail of disillusioned people who think Christianity is about moral superiority and cultural dominance instead of forgiveness and grace.

Lord have mercy.”

Tullian Tchividjian
Billy Graham Grandson
Former Presbyterian

1.) Blending the Gospel with Nationalism?

Yet isn’t this what Jesus did when He told his disciple to teach the nations to observe all things that Jesus had taught them?

These chaps keep using the word “Nationalism” like it is this poison rag that is inconsistent with the Gospel. Yet, the Gospel has every intent of having all nations owning Christ as Lord. After all, Christ must rule until all things are placed under His feet …. including nations.

This also demonstrates the age old Baptist type behavior of insisting that the Gospel is only an individualistic thing. The Gospel is to have no corporate or Institutional impact. Individuals can be saved, so the thinking goes, but not families, ethnicities, nations or cultures.

Indeed, I would go so far as to say that if the Gospel is not blended with a proper and biblical understanding of Nationalism, that it is NOT the Gospel.

2.) The Gospel is about redeeming individuals and reclaiming countries. Does Tullian really believe that the LORD Jesus Christ is not interested in reclaiming countries. What does Tullian do with the idea that the Gospel has the power to restore “wherever the curse is found?” I suspect that Tullian, and all people who talk like this own a pessimistic eschatology. If they are postmills (and Andrew Sandlin talks this way) then they have contradictions all over their eschatology.

3.) One wants to shake Tullian, and his ilk, and ask them why they are so opposed to Nations owning Christ and upon owning Christ weaving into their constitutions and law order the teaching and standards of Biblical Christianity. How could that possibly be a bad thing?

4.) Christianity can be both about forgiveness and grace as well as about moral superiority and cultural dominance. A Christian people who are part of a Christian nation should be morally superior to nations who are anti-Christ and should also have cultural dominance over them until such a time as they repent.

Now, if Tullian is talking about the self-righteousness that can come from those who do not understand themselves sinners saved by grace alone then of course that kind of moral superiority should be abominated and the culture that produces should NOT have dominance but a people believing that they are morally superior and so should have cultural dominance – only because of Christ’s favor – while they continue to embrace that they are simultaneously sinner and saint are to be celebrated. All Christians should strive for that type of moral superiority and cultural dominance. It is a righteous thing and not evil in God’s sight that the righteous should rule over the wicked Christ hater.

A Tale Of Two Completely Different Christianity’s Using The Same Language

James 2: 14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

As I will be on Holiday for the 508th celebration of the Reformation, I thought I would take a couple Sundays focusing on truths that the Reformation restored. These truths are still abominated by much of the Church world. Indeed, when one becomes Biblical and so Reformed one is immediately on the wrong side of the popularity game – even within the Church.

And so there is a ongoing need to return to these treasures in order to understand the Biblical foundation of Biblical Christianity. To do so we look to James 2 this morning in order to take up the matter of Salvation – Justification and Sanctification.

The enemies of Biblical Christianity, whether Arminian, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic, will come to James and say… “Ah … here we have proof that the Biblical doctrine of Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone that you Reformed type come up with is utter nonsense.”

Well, is that the case? Is James contradicting Paul who could write explicitly in Romans

Romans 4:2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[a] 4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those

whose transgressions are forgiven,

whose sins are covered.

8 Blessed is the one

whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”[b]

9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12 And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. 13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, 15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. 16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

So, the question is, is James contradiction Paul? Is God of two minds when it comes to this issue of how it is one is right w/ God. Paul says

5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

Yet here comes Randy Rome insisting that James says it is faith plus works wherein men can become right with God eventually.

As we come to James 2 we have to keep before ourselves what the problem is that James is dealing with. This is essential in order to understand this passage aright thus avoiding the soul damning mistakes that Rome makes when it comes to this passage.

James is dealing with the problem who claims to have faith in God. They would insist they are Christian but there is no evidence in their lives of this vital living faith. What does James say… The Holy Spirit says that such people are clearly lying to themselves about this so-called faith they have, because, the Holy Spirit says, genuine faith (as opposed to mere claims of faith) manifests itself in the person who has been declared righteous by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Seeking to be succinct and pithy so as to be memorable…

Paul deals with how it is a person is Justified … how it is they are right w/ God
James OTOH is dealing w/ how it is a person’s claim to being right w/ God is vindicated

Do you see the difference there? If we were to boil this down even more we would say;

Paul teaches how a man is justified
James teaches how a man’s justification is justified.

They are two completely different issues and so not in contradiction in the least. In point of fact Paul will say repeatedly in His writings what James says here. Paul will say…

Eph. 2:10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

And again Paul speaking of;

Titus 2:13 Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.

Paul agrees with James because Paul and James are being inspired by the same Holy Spirit of God to write what they write and God does not embrace contradictions.

Of course this matter of how a man is accepted by God became one of the main contentious points of the Reformation. Rome then, and still today, insists that man will eventually be accepted by God, in some measure, by man’s cooperation with grace – by his behavior, while the Reformers insisted that man is now accepted by the behavior of Christ for Him.

And so Rome connects man’s behavior … his cooperation with the grace found in the sacramental system, with man’s eventually becoming right with God. While the Reformers following Scripture insisted that man does not become right with God over the course of time in concert with the Roman sacramental system combined with purgatory. The Reformers following Scripture insisted that God declares man right with God by God’s alone grace, through faith alone, in Christ alone. The alone are significant. They were placed there for the very reason of cutting out the ground beneath all claims that somehow man’s cooperating behavior is contriubtive to being right with God.

That is why to this day Rome, and Remonstrants, and Eastern Orthodox will howl whenever a Reformed chap comes along with the Gospel message. This is why to this day a Reformed person who stands on God’s Word on this matter will be greeted with hostility and will be considered a pariah. Especially if said person insists that this is the ONLY way of understanding how we are right with God and that all other ways may well lead to a person being eternally damned.

There is another matter we should note here in order to hopefully clarify matters in our mind. When we say that being right before God is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, we are at the same time saying w/ Paul in Romans 4:5 “that God justifies the ungodly.” Heathen Romish ways that misinterpret James teach that God only justifies the godly.

Why do I say that … well, it is due to the fact that the Roman sacramental system combined with purgatory is a system of salvation wherein a person is only finally declared righteous once they finally are righteous. By continuing to attend to the sacraments of Rome … followed by the time spent in purgatory burning off remaining sin, Rome teaches that the believer is finally justified in and of himself so that God can now say … “Well, because you are now just, I justify you.”

This is exactly contrary to Scripture. In the scriptural account God declares man, for the sake of the finished work of Jesus Christ to be be justified – man is right with God. Not because the redeemed man is now in and of himself all that God demands of Him, but because Christ put to the account of the ungodly His righteousness.

So … seeking for the pithy and memorable again …

Rome teaches that one is declared right with God because they have become right with God by cooperating with grace found in the sacramental system.

Scripture teaches that one is declared right with God because justifies the ungodly because of Christ’s finished work.

If we examine this in another way we would say that Rome, Remonstrants, and EO, have given us what we might call Christian Humanism. In this Christian Humanism man saves himself by his good works, his behavior, and his attendance on the sacramental system. This isn’t grace. This is self-salvation w/ God getting a hockey assist.

You see my friends as we consider James again, Rome looks at James and says it confirms their position. For them James is insisting that God works are combined with faith to the end of being right with God. For them these good works are seeking to attain something (being declared right with God) that is uncertain without their contribution. For the Reformed these good works are not in the least contributory to being declared right with God. For the Reformed these good works are the consequence of knowing that they have been declared right with God.

What does this mean? Well one thing it means is you could have two people (One who is Roman Catholic and one who is Reformed) doing the same exact good works and one is on their way to hell while the other is heaven bound? Why would that be? Well it is because Rome is working to obligate God to given them a salvation they cannot have apart from their cooperation while the Reformed is working out of gratitude to God for the salvation that can never be revoked or taken away. The difference is found in the motivation. Rome is motivated by gaining salvation. The Reformed are motivated because they have been freely given salvation.

This is why James can say marry faith and deeds. James insists that faith is dead without good works not because faith and works are required in order to be right with God, but rather because the consequent product of genuine faith that rests in Christ alone for being right with God is a zealousness for good works. When James complains of Faith unaccompanied by works he is not teaching that our behavior contributes to our being right with God. It is Jesus’ behavior alone that finds us declared right by God. James is saying that Faith unaccompanied by works is dead because such a faith is not faith. Even the demons have that kind of faith.

Look… we need to remind ourselves here that even after conversion our good works without being accepted for the sake of Jesus Christ still fall short of God’s standard for being good. It’s all a matter of God’s favor my friends. God accepts me for the sake of Jesus Christ’s work on the cross. God accepts my good works only for the same reason. The Spirit of Christ is daily increasingly conforming me to Christ in my thinking and behavior but even when my thinking and behavior are at their top level best they are still received and delighted in by God, not for the sake of their intrinsic righteous value but for the sake of the Father being pleased by Christ.

My friends, people who think that God accepts their good works as contributory along w/ Christ’s finished work unto the end of eventually one day in the future being right with God have not ever really understood the sinfulness of their sin.

This is why Christ is center for the Christian. It is why we hang crosses everywhere. My only hope is nothing less than Jesus and His righteousness.

Last week I had a Eastern Orthodox ask me;

Where do you even get this unbiblical idea that you are righteous simply by trusting Christ alone? My answer was, “Why, from Scripture alone of course.”

Galatians 2

15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified[a] by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. 17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness[b] were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

Look, when Rome comes to James insisting that James proves that our works are part of our being right with God what they are saying is that Christ doesn’t by Himself save His people by His righteousness imputed but instead people must add their additional works to Christ’s incomplete work and if they don’t add their additional works they will forever be damned? As such Christ doesn’t save but gives us the opportunity to save ourselves with maybe a little help from Him. That’s very good of God to allow us to save ourselves.

This is why I said earlier that this is nothing but religious humanism. It is a man centered religion where Christian language is used in order to cover up the fact that men are involved in an enterprise dedicated to saving themselves.

Now having said all this what do we do with James 2

24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

The Roman Catholic here will run to this verse in triumph insisting that our idea of salvation by Grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone is nonsense.

But again, remember the context here. The context is people claiming to have faith but not having correspondent works. The question that James is answering is … “How is that Christian faith is seen as vindicated.”

The Greek word in vs. 24 for “Justified” has a range of meaning that includes the idea of vindicated. This same word is translated that way in I Tim. 3:16. So, James is saying that if man claims to have faith (which is the context of this passage) then the vindication to that claim is the justified man’s behavior. However, has we have been laboring to explain, teaching how a man’s faith is vindicated is far different than teaching how a man is made right with God.

A person’s justification needs vindicated in James, as we see in James 2, because false claims are being made. People are saying they are justified (declared right w/ God via forensic declaration through faith alone in Christ alone) when there was no evidence to their claim. The evidence of which is good works. But good works are the evidence of Justification and NOT the foundation of Justification.

All of what we have said was zeroed in on by our own catechism in LD 11;

Q. Do such then believe in Jesus the only Savior, who seek their salvation and welfare of saints, of themselves, or anywhere else?

A. They do not; for though they boast of Him in words, yet in deeds they DENY Jesus the ONLY deliverer and Savior; for one of these two things must be true, either that Jesus is not a COMPLETE Savior, OR that they who by a true faith receive this Savior must find all things in Him necessary to their salvation.

Scriptural Support

1 Cor. 1:13, 31. Gal. 5:4 Col. 2:10. Isa. 9:6, 7. Col. 1:19, 20

Rome does not give us a complete savior. In the Romish system that insists that James is teaching our works are required for being declared right w/ God we find the denial that Jesus Christ is a complete savior.

With that in mind we now read James 2

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

And with this all Protestants agree. Our only insistence is that works are the inevitable consequence of a living and vital faith and not contributory in the least to being right with God. As I cast my eyes across the dead churches of the West, I would say to our modern dead Church as James writes here … “You claim faith but your lack of good works as defined by God’s law means your faith is dead.”

Conclusion

I have tried to demonstrate, once again, that the religion of Rome and the religion of Geneva really are two completely different religions. Perhaps they both are not Christianity but it is certain that they both can NOT be Christianity.

We each own two different chaps both named Jesus. We both embrace completely different ideas of salvation. We both have completely different understandings of Church. We each have completely different worldviews.

And all this despite using the same words. It really is quite amazing and demonstrates how Worldviews affect EVERYTHING.

Old Toby Sumter & Proof Of The Conservative Resurgence In Israel

“‘a conservative resurgence in Israel;’” I’m talking about people I met personally who take the 10 Commandments seriously.”
Toby Sumpter
Chief Lieutenant to Doug Wilson
Article Insisting that he is not a shill for Israel

Now, when Old Toby talks about being in Israel and relates the conservative resurgence to people he met personally who take the 10 commandments seriously, I can only conclude he can’t be serious.

Consider, that Old Toby very likely here is talking about Jews he met in Israel who “take the 10 commandments seriously.” Here is Toby Sumpter, a minister, who wants me to believe that Christ hating Bagels take the 10 commandments seriously. I thought it was Christian doctrine that only people who trust Jesus Christ as their alone savior were people who could take the 10 commandments seriously since in order to take the 10 commandments seriously one has to trust the Christ as savior to whom the 10 commandments are pointing. In order to take the 10 commandments seriously One has to trust in Jesus Christ who alone can fulfill the requirement of the law in our stead and impute to us his law keeping righteousness. These are the only people who take the 10 commandments seriously.

Elsewhere in the same article Old Toby writes;

For example, did you know that there is an anti-Pride parade in Jerusalem every year? Don’t you think that matters? Israel also has the highest birthrate among Western nations. Doesn’t that matter at all?

Toby Sumpter
Shilling For Israel

For Old Toby the above proves that there is a Conservative Resurgence in Israel.

So, our enemies have the highest birthrate among “Western” nations and that is supposed to convince me there is a conservative resurgence in Israel? Is this like telling the tribes that provided the sacrifices for the Aztecs;

“Not to worry, there is a conservative resurgence in Tenochtitlan. We know this because the Aztecs are having more babies.”

I’m sure that would be quite comforting to those tribes conquered by the Aztecs.

Methinks that Rev. Sumpter needs to bone up on his theology.

Bagel Inroads In America Continue In Our Culture & Our Churches


Recently, there has been a great deal of attention (even more than usual) to all things Bagel. The most glaring recent example is how the Bagels are gobbling up, in a more intense manner than previously, the media outlets in America.

We know that the last letter that Charlie Kirk wrote to Netanyahu (in May) was full of pleading that Netanyahu pay attention to the fact that Israel was losing the propaganda war. Since then Bagels have gobbled up the propaganda machine knowns as “Tik Tok” (Michael Bell, Rupert Murdoch, and Larry Ellison).  This is in addition to all the other media giant conglomerations that the Bagels control.

This means that whether it is TikTok, MTV, Paramount, CBS, etc. what viewers will be getting is disinformation (propaganda) that is heavily weighted in favor of the Bagel interests. This comes at the same time that an organization related to Doug Wilson just offered 10million to purchase “Christianity Today.” Now, knowing Wilson’s predilection for all things Israel;

“My affection for Israel is personal, in addition to being theological and political. My wife’s great-great-grandfather was Rabbi Cohn, one of my co-grandfathers is a Christian Jew, my kids and grandkids have cousins who are Israeli, and according to AncestryDNA, I myself am 2% European Jewish. Nancy is 11% European Jew, her mother 26%. What all this amounts to is that our family would be much more involved on an active personal level if terrorists overran Israel than we would be if terrorists overran Vermont.” 

Pope Doug Wilson

it is easy to understand why some wags have projected that if Wilson’s organization is able to secure “Christianity Today,” the name of the magazine will be changed to “Judeo-Christianity Today.” There’s even a funny meme going around with the latest proposed new Wilson owned cover for “Judeo-Christianity Today.”

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10236496790787244&set=a.1132919770643

Whether it is the Lamestream Lugenpresse or whether some future “Judeo-Christianity Today,” it seems that unless folks are willing to dig beneath the surface for the truth they are going to be just eating out of the troughs of Bagel propaganda.

The fact that the US is bedeviled by all things Bagel is seen in

a.) Israel’s role in JFK assassination
b.) Israel’s attempt to sink the US Liberty
c.) Jonathan Pollard spy case
d.) The Rise of Dispensationalism

Now add in the Dancing Israelis on 9-11 along with the rampant speculation that Israel was involved in the Charlie Kirk murder and it can be easily seen the need is for less Bagel influence in American affairs and not more such is going to be the case with the recent media purchases by Larry Ellison.

Still the drum of Bagel influence keeps beating. Recently, a couple chaps tightly tied to Doug Wilson and who run a podcast that is fairly popular among the CREC groupies were given an all expense paid 10 day trip to Israel by a Bagel organization. Toby and Gabe came back singing the praises of Israel. The same Israel that is the porn capital of the world. The same Israel where the pervert crowd goes to Tel Aviv to go on pervert holiday.

https://www.insidehook.com/travel/tel-aviv-queer-epicenter

Yet despite these objective facts old Toby, chief Lieutenant to Doug Wilson and full of great aspirations (along with Jared Longshore) to  be the one who most perfectly apes Doug Wilson in speech, mannerism, and writing style, insists that Israel is on the cusp of in Old Toby’s word’s, “a conservative resurgence.”

In many ways modern Israel is the front line defense against anti-Christian & anti-Western barbarism.”

Rev. Toby Sumpter
CREC

Doug Wilson Lieutenant

Can you imagine anyone having their brains being so soft as to repeat this talking point once returning from all expense paid trip to Israel? Now, no one doubts that there are a small minority of Bagels in Israel that are seeking to be true to a immoral morality but the idea that Israel is serving as a front line defense against anti-Christian & anti-Western Barbarism is just lunacy. Did Old Toby visit the Brothels of Tel Aviv? Did he go witness the porn manufacturing? Did he partake of the LGBTQ night life? Was Old Toby spat upon, as commonly happens in Israel, for sharing his Christian faith?

That Old Toby is inside the Evangelical tent shilling for Israel is seen in this statement from Old Toby;

 

“If we are to take the virtue of natural affection’ seriously, it really must be part of our conversation surrounding our relationship to Israel and the Jews because the Bible teaches that the Jews are our apostate older brother.”

Rev. Toby Sumpter

Blogger @ “No Legs … Still Walking”

Never mind that “Natural Affection” means NATURAL and not Spiritual. Paul did not mean that Jews were, by blood, our older brother. As such … “Natural Affection” does not apply.

Never mind that even in the Ordo amoris if someone who is blood related and they apostatize you treat them as if they are infidel. You shun them until they repent.

Never mind that modern day Israel bears virtually ZERO relationship to the Jews of the OT but instead are Khazars and Edomites by blood. There is a reason why, Toby, that Israel imposes significant regulatory restrictions on DNA testing, particularly those related to familial ties.

This is ASSININE beyond words and is doing the work of subversion. This may be some of the best evidence yet that Moscow. like the broader Lugenpress in America, is bought and paid for by the Bagels.

Beware the CREC.

Beware the American Reformed clergy.