Owen & Bret Chit Chat About The Possibility of Christian Nations

“Nations can’t become Christian.

Nations can be profoundly influenced by Christianity, but only people — sinners — can become Christian. This is why you shouldn’t try to coerce faith, nor force people to convert. You’ll only do damage to the gospel cause if you try.”

Dr. Owen ‘Strychnine’ Strachan

1.) If Nations can’t be Christian then neither can families be Christian. This presupposes that God only works individually and not corporately or covenantally. This is exactly the kind of “logic” one should expect a Baptist to use.

2.) All Government arrangements seek to coerce faith. In as much as all enacted legislation (law) is the residual expression of religion, any time a Government passes law it is seeking to coerce faith. Why shouldn’t Christian governments seek to coerce faith in the manner of passing Godly legislation?

3.) While people can never be forced to convert in the sense of subjectively embracing for themselves ownership of Christ, people can and should, in an objective sense be forced to convert so as to be forced to follow the strictures of a Christian social order.

4.) Such “forced conversion” would be good for any Christian nation. Forcing Christ-hating people to objectively convert and so walk in righteous laws, even if they don’t want to, is a good thing that is Christ honoring. Keep in mind that the opposite of this kind of “forced conversion” is a libertarian licentiousness where each man does what is right in his own unconverted eyes.

Dr. Joe Boot Joins The Stupid Brigade … McAtee Defends Wolfe

The confusion on the relationship between man as both a spiritual being and a corporeal being continues to flex its muscle among those reputed to be pillars in the Church. If this confusion were a disease the fatalities among the inhabitants of the Evangelical/Reformed/Lutheran Church would be so catastrophic that people would be thinking the church would never recover from this pandemic.

The most recent example of someone showing all the symptoms of diapslama-ia is Dr Joe Boot. I find this most disappointing since I’ve profited by the writings and speaking of Boot. I’ve read many of the man’s works and though I’ve had a quibble here or there, (like being too influenced by the Amsterdam philosophy school) on the whole I have recommended his writings.

Now I will have to explain to people, to whom I recommending reading Boot, that he is not trustworthy on the issue of the man as a dichotomous being.

Before we get to the Boot quote, allow me to interject that I am no apologist for Dr. Stephen Wolfe. I offer that because the Boot quote comes as lodging a complaint against Wolfe. My problem with Wolfe is his reliance on Natural Law theory. However, this complaint by Boot as little to do with that aspect of Wolfe’s thinking.

So, here is the monstrously stupid quote from Dr. Joe Boot;
 

“Wolfe seems oblivious to the fact that, had his course of making a given country the absolute cultural possession of its people – simultaneously absolutizing a ‘natural right’ of ethnic and cultural particularity – been taken seriously by missionaries to the Anglo-Saxon world, none of us would be Christians today, but would still be drinking the blood of the dead! Nor would William Carey, the remarkable British missionary to India, have worked against his host culture to abolish the heinous custom of Sati (burning the living wife on the funeral pyre of her dead husband). In his enthusiasm to preserve the remnants of the Anglo-European Christian culture of America, Wolfe fails to grasp its religious, not ethnic root (incredible in itself, since America is a new nation of immigrants) and cuts a re-paganizing America off from the possibility of godly transformation by incoming Christian missionaries from around the world calling the nation to repentance.”

Joseph Boot
“Christianity Versus Racism”

1.) Boot’s accusation here, boiled down to its essence, is that Wolfe is a ethno-cultural particularist to such a degree that Wolfe is saying that if we really took seriously the necessity of every people to have its own cultural particularity then we would not take up the Great Commission in order to herald Christ to heathen anti-Christ cultures for fear of changing their cultural particularity.

The problems with that assertion by Boot against Wolfe are;

A.) Nowhere, have I read Wolfe propose any such nonsense.

B.) The accusation that Wolfe would not be interested in Missions endeavors in no way follows the idea that Wolfe favors cultural particularity for people of a particular country,  who are the absolute possessors of its culture. It does not follow because when the Gospel works to redeem Christ-haters from their empty way of life as handed down to them from their ancestors it does not mean they lose their cultural particularity. What redeemed cultures lose, is the sinfulness that characterized their culture. Boot seems to forget that grace restores nature and the nature that grace restores is what makes for the particularity of any given people. Now, to be sure, there will be changes in those cultures but those changes that come from being redeemed will not eliminate the particularity of any given people. Wolfe can hold to cultural particularity of any given people and still believe in the necessity of the Great Commission, knowing that a redeemed people and so culture will still be unique vis-a-vis other redeemed people’s and cultures.

2.) Basically, Joe Boot is arguing that to believe ethno-cultural preservation and separation precludes receiving the Gospel and repenting as corporate national salvation would require giving up the sinful expressions of an ethnicity’s identity. Boot is saying that Wolfe so favors nature that Wolfe’s position requires the refusal of grace to restore nature.

So, this accusation despite 2000 years of Church history that teaches that the Gospel changes people, peoples, and cultures while still leaving them a particularly ethnic people. Does Boot think that if different people groups become Christian therefore all cultures lose their particularity and so are going to be the same across the board?

As my British friend Henry Plantagenet said in a conversation concerning this monstrously stupid Boot quote;

“It’s as insane as saying that if we believe gender is fundamental to being human that we are precluding the Gospel from redeeming men and women because to do so would change the particularity of their gendered expression.”

3.) Joe Boot’s presupposition here is that to believe that blood relations have inherent and defining characteristics upon the nature of man, as Wolfe and all sane people do, is to reject the spiritual power of the Gospel. Boot is accusing Wolfe of absolutizing the corporeal side of man so that it would be impossible to own spiritual impact. As such, Boot is accusing Wolfe of being a materialist in this accusation, which I find interesting because it is the kind of accusation one might expect to find a Gnostic make against someone who claims that man’s material (genetic) side is really real. Is Boot laced with Gnosticism?

4.) Boot’s accusation that Wolfe prioritizes a people’s ethnic over religious root is insane. Indeed, some of us have been saying that Wolfe prioritizes man’s religious root over his ethnic roots. Wolfe has gone out of his way to insist that his theory of “Nationalism” does not absolutize, nor even necessarily prioritize ethnicity/race.

5.) We need to realize here that culture is merely the outward manifestation of a people groups belief. Culture is theology poured over ethnicity as existing in a particular place. Given that definition of culture (theology made manifest) when Boot accuses of Wolfe of what Boot accuses him of, Boot is saying that Wolfe is not interested in seeing a people’s theology changed to be Christ honoring. This is a serious accusation to make against a fellow Christian. Does Boot really believe that Wolfe desires for the unconverted to remain unconverted?

6.) Boot raises the old canard, that just isn’t true, that America was a nation of immigrants as if it never had a ethno-racial base, but was solely founded on ideas (propositional nationhood). I have demonstrated so often here, with quotes from the founding fathers, that the founders would have said that Joe Boot was full of fertilizer when he insists that we are a nation which has not ethno-racial base. If anyone happens to be reading this and wants me to reproduce the quotes once again, I’ll be happy to do that.

Let’s here from Henry Plantagenet again;

“I don’t get why everyone today fails to recognize that the redemptive order is simply the original Creation order cleansed from the power of sin.”

So, unless Boot repents, count him as just another platformed Reformed scholar who is stupid when it comes to the issue of basic Christian anthropology.

Pope Doug Attempts To Gaslight on the Bagels… McAtee Demurs

Here we find a roundtable discussion w/ Pope Doug I of the CREC. His discussion partner is primarily Andrew Isker with a couple other guys thrown in for optics.

In this discussion Wilson is defending his unrelenting and indefatigable defense of the Bagels for which he is now becoming famous. There is no doubt that Wilson has become a bulldog for philo-Semitism.

Wilson defends the Bagels by arguing (and here I am paraphrasing);

“Well, you have to understand, that the Bagels are a high performance people and as high performance the Bagels are going to be very very bad and very very “good,” depending on which way they roll, and therefore the good Bagels cancel out all the evil Bagels so that we have a wash.” 

The problem here is that the high performance Bagel Heart Surgeons, Violinists, and Commodity traders that Wilson alludes to can never balance out the high performance Bagels who have murdered, in the 20th century alone, upwards of a 100 million people.

We can’t stop there though, we must take into account the pornography industry in the West which was predominantly created and sustained by the Bagels. Following that we have the reality of the Morgans, Rothschilds, Warburgs, and Schiffs as the Bankster class who have funded wars and stolen property. We needs mention also Hollywood which was so bad in the Jews (Bagels) corrupting the morals of Americans that they were forced into complying with a moral code (Hays code) under the threat of being bankrupted by the Roman Catholic Church in its stance against the Bagel vileness on film. That lasted until the early 1960s when the Bagel was able to throw that yoke off of them, resulting in filth upon filth being hoisted on the silver screen.

We shouldn’t slow down on this score unless we mention the Bagel Philosophers who have done so much for the West. Consider that Marx, Red Rosa Luxemburg, Marcuse, Adorno, Simone Weil, Betty Friedan, and countless others whose anti-Christ “philosophy” has destroyed the West were Bagels.

Does Pope Doug really want to suggest that the high performance Bagels on the good side of the balance cancel out all the evil of the high performance Bagels who over centuries have done their flat level best to kill as many White Christians as they can?

Does Pope Doug really want to look at Church History and tell Augustine, Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, etc. that they each and all had it wrong when it came to the Bagels? Is Wilson really going to try and tell those lads that “Jeepers guys, if only you had understood that the Bagels were high performance for good also.”

 

They would laugh in his face with Luther lobbing a choice epithet in Wilson’s direction.

As the conversation continues, Rev. Andrew Isker, who does not share Pope Doug’s convictions tries to throw in a “yeah, but” every so often but it is clear (at least to me) that Isker was invited to this conversation not to strongly put forth the counter point to Wilson’s philo-semitism but rather Isker is present to serve as a whipping boy in order for Wilson to blather his inanities and false dichotomies wherein he has become a legend.

As the conversation continues Pope Doug pauses to argue that genetics has nothing necessarily to do with being Bagel. Doug says, “no, it was about being covenantally bound, and that included shared customs, culture, language, etc.”

 

Now, if that is true then why was it so important that Jesus be able to trace His blood lineage to both David and Abraham? If Doug is right why in the world do we have all those genealogical tables in Scripture? If Doug is right then why all the prohibitions like;

Dt. 23:3 No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation.

If being a Hebrew was only about being covenantally bound then why these prohibitions against blood descent coming into Israel? Could not Ammonites or Moabites choose to be covenantally bound?

If Doug is right then how do we explain the actions of Ezra and Nehemiah against not only foreign wives but the covenant children of Hebrew males birthed to those foreign wives?

Clearly Doug is engaged in  his “full on gaslighting mode.” A mode that is getting more and more common for Doug and his mindless CREC clergy blatherers.

As we continue fisking this “conversation” we next hear Doug asking, “Why do Bagels draw so much hatred?”

 

This prompts me to respond that if Pope Doug really doesn’t know the answer to that it only tells me that the man needs to take a few courses on Church History to learn that the Bagel is hated because of the way he has treated Christians throughout history. I might recommend that Doug starts his education on the matter by reading Maurice Pinay’s “The Plot Against the Church.” If Doug wants something more current he could flip the pages of Giles Corey’s “The Sword of Christ.” It’s all there of the ongoing war of the Bagel against Christians. Failing reading those books, if Doug wants an answer to his question as to why do Bagels draw so much hatred he might want to consider;

I Thessalonians 2:14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone 16 in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.

However, I suspect Doug knows all this and in the asking of his question he is merely being Doug, which is to say he has an agenda and is merely being clever. Plus, we can’t ignore the fact that Doug has himself talked about the axe he is grinding here for the Bagels;

“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.”

So, Pope Doug identifying as Bagel, is all the explanation we need in order to understand his massive gaslighting.

As we continue with the youtube conversation we hear Doug saying again;

“Being a Bagel did not have to be about blood.”

Perhaps it did not have to be but that it predominantly was is seen by the Bagels not saying; “May His blood be upon us and those who are covenantally bound to us?”

Instead what we hear is the Bagel self-understanding that being a Bagel was a blood relationship;  “May His blood be upon us and our children?”

Also we should mention in the immediate quote above Doug himself talks about how Bagel blood flows through the veins of his wife and children. Contradict yourself much Doug?

Wilson complains about Isker’s Partial Preterist interpretation of Romans 11 and Gal. 4 since that means that the “covenant w/ Hagar” only lasted 30 years before God cut Bagels off.

In this complaint is Pope Doug somehow complaining that God was being unfair to the Bagels to only give them 30 years. Does Doug think that God wasn’t giving the Bagels a deserved break?

Not very Reformed Doug.

In the course of the interview Wilson again asks, all astonished, as to why people get up in arms about the Bagels. He notes that Jehovah Witnesses being Arians deny the deity of Christ (like the Bagels) but nobody gets whacked out about them and yet when Dougie brings up the Bagels “all the kittens and puppies come out to play.”

Honestly, this man either has no business being in the pulpit since he apparently knows zero Church history about the Bagels constant warfare against the Church and Christians or else he is being purposely clever and counting on the fact that people don’t know how the Bagels have consistently pursued and persecuted Christians. For Pete’s sake, does he not even know how many nations and people’s in history have tossed out the Bagels from their midst? Was it always all the time done because the Christian nations envied the Bagels?

We might want to keep in mind that Jehovah’s witness never murdered Christians and European peoples by the hundreds of millions or caused the collapse of innumerable nations through subversion, sexual degeneracy and usury.

Further, we ask if the Federal Reserve owned by Jehovah Witnesses (JWs)? Did Jehovah Witnesses murder the Tsar and usher in a communist revolution that enslaved half of Europe? Did JWs cause the Holodomor in the 1930s or advocate for abortion in the 1970sff? Did JWs attack the USS Liberty? Did JWs morally corrupt Germany in the 1920s and provoke a radical backlash?

You see, Wilson is just gaslighting. I refuse to believe that Pope Doug is so stupid as to not understand why all the kittens and puppies come out to play when he mentions the Bagels.

Next Doug invokes Woodrow Wilson as a Anglo-Saxon;

“Woodrow Wilson ruined the 20th century and he’s was Anglo-Saxon and what does that have to do it with it.”

Here Doug tries to suggest that Bagel ethnicity should have nothing to do with thinking about their behavior because after all, since Woodrow Wilson ruined the 20th century nobody indicts all Anglo-Saxons for that. The idea here that Wilson continues to gaslight upon, is that the Bagel blood is irrelevant to the fact of their ruinous behavior.

However, here Doug plays with US History. Very few people doubt the utter worthlessness of Woodrow Wilson as a President but lo and behold we learn that Wilson was Shabazz goy (a front man/ a puppet) worked by the Bagels;

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/woodrow-wilson-was-a-hero-to-jews

Some historians will even tell you that the Bagels made a quid pro quo with the British during WW I. That quid pro quo was “you promise us a homeland (Balfour Declaration signed in 1917) and we will move Wilson to come into the European war on your side.”  Diverse documentary evidence shows that Zionists pushed for the U.S. to enter the war on Britain’s side as part of a deal to gain British support for their colonization of Palestine.

So, Wilson’s appeal to Woodrow Wilson fails because Wilson was a tool for the Bagels.

Pope Doug Wilson complains next that people are negatively preoccupied with the Bagels, but one has to ask, “Why is Dougie positively preoccupied with the Bagels?” We actually know the answer to that question as Doug, as seen in the quote above, makes it clear that he is defending his Kin. Seems Doug really is a Kinist at heart.

Next Wilson tries to draw some kind of equation between the nefarious behavior of the WASP establishment during the beginning of the 20th century and the BAGELS today.

To this we note;

1.) The WASP establishment was a utter failure but let us forget that the P in the WASP was leftist. It was not Christian in the least.

2.) It doesn’t take into account the burgeoning influence of the Bagels upon the WASP. See, for example, the history of the run up to the Balfour Declaration. Indeed, the fact that the FEDS were protecting Bagels can be seen as far back as Lincoln’s revocation of Gen. U. S. Grant’s general order #11.

3.) Theoretically the WASP could argue that the West was their land to destroy. The Bagel has no claim on Western lands to justify their destruction of those lands.

However, I will agree with Pope Doug that the WASP establishment by the turn of the 2oth was disastrous for the White Anglo Saxon Protestant people. However, as the WASP had surrendered Christ we should not be surprised.

Wilson’s next line of note is a real knee slapper;

“On the one hand, Wilson says, “Most Evangelicals are semi-Gnostic.”

On the other hand, he argues that genetics has nothing to do with identity. Speaking of Jews, Wilson says that being a Jew is not about genetics, but instead “was about being covenantally bound, and that included shared customs, culture, language, etc.” Speaking of ‘Gnosticism.'”

This is  a case of Gnosticism for me but not for thee.

As Pope Doug continues he insists that the reason Americans hate Bagels is because we envy Bagels.

I suppose that might be true in some cases, however, for Christians the reason we hate Bagels is because of how they have killed our ancestors, sacrificed our children for their Passovers (see Ariel Toaff’s work) and raped and pillaged our lands. Could it not be the reason that Christians want to keep Bagels at arms length is the same reason that nobody goes around trying to get intestinal parasites? If a person hates a parasite is it because they envy the parasite or is it because they’d prefer to be healthy?

Allow me to close out with a general observation. I do not blame the Bagels for the situation that the West is now in. I hold Christian responsible for abandoning and rebelling against Christ. If Christians in America has kept their first love the Bagels could have achieved no successful in roads in the business they have pursued. We are to blame and nobody else. However, part of waking up means we own our responsibility in rebelling against Christ and resolve to no longer be played the fool.

 

Vox Day, Vox McAtee

Over here;

MAILVOX: In Defense of Doug Wilson

Vox Day answers a letter defending Rev. Doug Wilson. It is a magnificent response. Still, despite that I can’t help but wanting to have my own go at this letter defending the Pope of Moscow.

Doug’s Defender (DD) writes to Vox Day,

Firstly, I acknowledge your critiques of Doug, and recognise that he has some enormous Boomer tendencies.

 

McAtee responds,

Is this like acknowledging that FDR was a cripple? I mean, Captain Obvious much?

DD writes,

But.

He has a growing appeal to disaffected young evangelical men (of whom I belonged).

McAtee responds,

Nobody can disagree with that sentence above. However, Doug should be to disaffected young evangelical men what marijuana was to druggies in the day, and that is only a gateway drug to the real narcotics. Doug is the wine cooler that opens the way someday to Tennessee Sipping Whiskey. If one doesn’t move beyond Doug, one remains stunted in their Christianity.

DD writes,

He spearheaded an enormous push towards Classical Christian schooling, founded on Western Civilisation (including the Greco-Roman underpinnings).

McAtee Responds,

Not to be too technical, but you do realize, don’t you, that the Greco-Romans were pagans? Classical Education has some real merit but unless it is reinterpreted through a Biblical Grid all it produces is pagans who now how to argue. I’ve seen my share of graduates from the Moscow Greystoke Manor who embody my observation.

DD writes,

It’s a huge movement, that is reintroducing the youth to the Good, Beautiful, and True.

McAtee responds,

If that is true, than certainly enough, these youths will see that Wilson and the CREC is still not that for which they are looking. If these youths are getting a taste of the good, the true, and the beautiful than soon enough they will push on from the holding tank that is not quite the good, the true, and the beautiful that is the CREC.

Imagine if you will a large room of painting canvases all set next to one another. The very first painting canvas is covered with a very watery red. The very last painting canvas is covered with a bold fire-engine red. All the canvases between the first one and the last one are canvases that each are a little more red then the previous one but a little less red then the next one in the series. Pope Doug and the CREC represents the entry level red canvas. It has introduced you to the idea of “red.” However, if you are really captivated by Red you will push on from the entry level red and eventually you’ll look back at the entry level red and see that it really isn’t that red at all.

DD writes,

They have cleaned up church liturgy, and recaptured theological maximalism, with many offshoot ministries pushing phrases like ‘Rebuilding the New Christendom.’

McAtee responds,

Cleaned up church liturgy and taken us back, in many cases, to a liturgy that goes back to smells and bells. Further, your CREC has taken up the cursed cause of Ecclesiocentrism and the fact that you may not even know what that word means, means that you have miles to go before you sleep.

And in terms of Wilson’s vision of “Rebuilding the New Christendom,” let me just say that if Wilson is successful in doing so, then I’ll be praying that the New, New Christendom will soon come to replace Wilson’s version because Wilson’s “New Christendom,” looks an awful lot like the old Liberalism of 1950. Tell me, please, how is Wilson going to build a New Christendom while holding on to the idea of “principled pluralism?”

DD writes,

This is all important foundational work to waking up Christians. It has led to me creating a homeschool co-op teaching the Classical method, and we are exposing our children to the glorious things that the Christian West has to offer.

McAtee responds,

And now someone has to come along and shore up the cracks on Wilson’s foundational work. I promise you there is something much larger than a pea under all those mattresses.

If you want your children exposed to the glorious things of the Christian West make sure you teach them about Lepanto, the Crusades, Jon Sobieski, Jan Valjean, etc.

DD writes,

Ministries like G3 ministries are on the warpath against ‘kinism’ which has significant sway over the Reformed Conservative movements.

McAtee Responds,

Have you been sleeping? Wilson’s warpath against Kinism makes the G3 look like a bunch of boy playing cowboys and injuns.

DD writes,

Guys like Doug want more mainstream appeal, so they have opted to go soft on the racial issue. They have ousted guys like Thomas Achord, which shows they mean business.

McAtee responds,

It’s clear to everybody who has eyes that Pope Doug is going for the neo-con/New York Times crowd.

And you think “outing guys like Thomas Achord” is a recommendation for Wilson and his peeps? This is like saying that Sherman should get a medal for raping and pillaging his way to Atlanta.

DD writes,

But it is worth noting that there are more guys like Thomas Achord in these organisations who will eventually start speaking out. The time doesn’t seem to have come for that yet.

McAtee responds,

And Pope Doug is the one we are all supposed to be waiting on to give the signal when the time has come for all that? Trust me… the time will never come because Doug is merely a gatekeeper interested in pushing his brand.

DD writes,

I’m sure you’re aware that racism is perhaps one of the most unforgivable sins in the Evangelical church and will get a robust and powerful reaction from the Evangelical base (especially the Boomers). He is pushing young men in the right direction, and Christian Nationalism, as promoted by Stephen Wolfe, is gaining significant traction.

McAtee responds by quoting Vox Day,

“Stephen Wolfe’s Christian Nationalism is fake nationalism. It’s a religious form of civic nationalism that substitutes Christianity for US citizenship. He’s just another gatekeeper.”

Refuting the Idea that Hate is Bad Form for Christians

Have to be blunt: if you harbor hatred in your heart for Muslims (please recognize the difference between the Muslim people and Islam as a religion) you are sinning. Period. Full stop. As a follower of Christ, hatred is NOT an option, and if your “theology” gives you a place for it, you have been led astray. Repent.

James White

This is magnificent claptrap. This is the kind of stuff that either brain injured people come up with, or people who have been raised as modern Christians. It is the simpering speech used by derelicts, drug addicts, or people with Ph.D’s in some kind of “theology.”

1.) No man can truly love anything without also hating that which has as its animating spirit the annihilation of that which he loves. For example, as James White loves His wife, I suspect that he would hate anybody who assaulted or even degraded the man’s wife.

2.) The idea of “hating the sin, but loving the sinner,” while communicating a wee bit of Biblical thought isn’t the whole word on the matter. After all, God’s Word explicitly tells us that “there is a time and a season for everything under the sun. A time to love and a time to hate.” Do we really believe that Solomon in Ecclesiastes was thinking while writing, “A time to love and a time to hate the sin but love the sinner?”

3.) If we are to hate the sin but love the sinner then why are we not to love the righteous works but hate the righteous?

4.) If we are to be “like our Father in Heaven,” then it would seem that we absolutely must hate the sinner as well as his sin. Throughout revelation God does indeed hate the sinner, along with and because of their sins (Lev. 20:23, Ps. 5:4-6, 11:5, Prov. 6:16-19, Hos. 9:15, Mal. 1:3, Rom. 9:13). Indeed God hates the sinner so much that He casts the sinner with their sin into hell for all eternity (Mt. 10:28).

5.) God hates His enemies so thoroughly that He;

a.) Closed the door of the Ark so His enemies would drown
b.) Showered Sodom & Gomorrah with Brimstone and fire
c.) Totally obliterated the Egyptians in plague and water

6.) Further the saints of old — our Fathers — hated sinners

a.) Joshua’s work on the Canaanites
b.) David’s work on the enemies of God
c.) Samson’s work on the Philistines
d.) Elijah’s work on the Prophets of Baal
e.) Phineas’ Javelin throwing contest
f.) Moses’ dispatching of the Egyptian overseer
g.) Jesus Christ peeled skin with a whip against the Jewish Bankers

7.) Scripture informs me to

a.) “Hate that which is evil, love that which is good.” Rm. 12:9
b.) “Hate evil, O you who love the LORD!” Psalm 97:10
c.) “Hate evil and love good; establish justice in the gate.” Amos 5:15

On the Amos 5:15 passage the Puritan commentator Matthew Poole offers;

“Slight dislikes will do little in this ease, you rulers and judges must heartily hate, and show that you hate, the evil, both ways, doings, contrivers, and abettors of the evil among the people and yourselves;”

Now, those like Dr. James White who insists that Christians are not to hate those enemies of God who hate God and His Christ will instantly run to Matthew 5:39; 

39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

This passage refers to just what it says, as it only applies to some kind of petty insult coming from a personal enemy. It seems past obvious that one can’t make this walk on all fours, and yet that is what we get from any number of those reputed to be pillars in the Church. Think about it for a second. Does making this text walk on all fours make any sense at all?

” But I tell you, whoever rapes you in one bodily orifice, offer him another,”

Or
” But I tell you, whoever bludgeons you with a pipe on one side of the skull, turn to him the other side of the skull to bludgeon.”
Or
” But I tell you, if someone abducts one of your children, give him another child to abduct.”

Or

“But I tell you, if someone rapes your wife, give him your daughter to rape.”

Now, all of the above does not mean that we don’t do good to those who are our personal enemies or who dish out to us petty insults. If my neighbor hates me throws paint balloons at me, I may well still bring them some hot chicken soup when they are ill and so show them a kindness. However, if that same neighbor goes after my grandchildren to harm them, they can be sure that fire and sulfur is going to rain down on them.

If you can’t find it in your heart to hate Muslims, Hindus, Jews, or Atheists as they seek to continue to bury this culture is Christ dishonoring laws and customs, you are indeed not right in the head. A lack of hate here communicates that you don’t really love Christ and His Law-Word.