Serpent’s & Head Crushing

Now we have yet to look at similar themes consistent with Gen. 3:14-19 but what we have learned so far is that,

1.) God destroys His enemies and those who oppose His people.

We need to keep this in mind as we live in times that are increasingly characterized by a preponderance of God’s enemies. We need to remember the Genesis promise of God that He would crush His enemies. This promise extends beyond the Cross. While it is true that ultimately God’s enemies were crushed in and by Christ’s finished work on the Cross we still look for God’s enemies to continue to be crushed after the Cross.

Rmns. 16:20;  The God of peace shall crush Satan under your feet shortly….

Epoch by epoch God’s enemies arise and epoch by epoch God eventually crushes the seed of the Serpent under the feet of His seed. Time and again throughout history it has seemed that the seed of the Serpent was getting the upper hand, but then God hears the groanings of His people and arises to bring forth a champion to crush the enemy. Often the seed of the Serpent has been used as a cleansing judgment against the seed of the woman as just judgment against their rebellion against God but always God arises and crushes His and our enemies.

Of course, this gives us great hope. It should also give us patience, endurance, and optimism. God will arise. God will not let either His name or His people be continually trodden upon. God will not allow New World Order Babylons to arise in the 21st century any more than He allowed them to arise in the ancient world. Kingdoms that stand opposed to God’s Kingdom may arise but the Kingdom of God will extend over all the world and no enemy will halt its advance.

E. C. Vines on the History of Gender Confusion

Gender confusion was part of Ancient Paganism. It should be understood in that context today. In other words, where you find gender confusion there you find a “new” old pagan religion with pagan gods steering the ship. Gender confusion is a religious phenomenon.

“On the same ground rested the law, which enjoined, that; 

‘the woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a
man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment.’

Maimonides§ found it commanded in the books of the idolaters, that men in the worship of Venus, the Astarte or Ashteroth of the Phenicians should wear the dress of women, and that women, in the worship of Mars, the Moloch of the east should put on the armor of men. Macrobius cites the old Greek author Philocorus, as saying, concerning the Asiatics, that, when they sacrificed to their Venus, the men were dressed in women’s apparel, and the women in men’s, to denote that she was esteemed by them both male and female. It was a common practice of idolatry to confound the sexes of the gods, making the same deity sometimes a god, and sometimes a goddess.
The Cyprians represented their Venus with a beard and scepter, and of masculine proportions, but dressed as a woman. The Syrians worshipped her under the form of a woman, attired as a man. At Rome, they had both a male and female Fortune; also, as Servius and Lactantius tell us, an armed Venus. This doctrine of a community of sexes in their gods led the idolaters to confound, as far as possible, their own sex, in their worship of them. Hence the custom, so widely diffused, of men and women wearing a habit different from that of their sex, in performing religious rites. Julius Firmicus describes this manner of worship as common among the Assyrians and Africans. From them, it passed into Europe. It was practiced in Cyprus, at Coos, at Argos, at Athens, and other places in Greece.* At Rome, it does not appear ever to have become a common practice, but we read of Clodius dressing himself as a woman, and mingling with the Roman ladies in the feast of the Bona Dealt.

Rev. E. C. Vines
The Roots of the American Republic — p. 78

Vines has a wonderful section here describing how many of God’s laws we take as archaic and strange were, in their original context, given so as to keep God’s people from the idolatry of the nations.

Continuing to Interrogate Horton’s Stupid TGC Article

See, there was a time biblically, when the church was the state and vice-versa Israel, the old covenant.

Mike Horton

TGC Article

If the Church was the state and vice-versus then why was it prohibited to combine offices of Priest and King in Old Testament Israel? I would insist that the fact that these offices were not allowed to be held in the hands of one man proves that it is not true that there was no distinction between church and state in Old Testament Israel and if I am correct here (and of course I am) Horton is once again seen as in error.

It is true that Israel was a theocracy but to say it is a theocracy is not the same as saying it was an ecclesiocracy. This mistake is commonly made by the R2K chaps. Theocracy is an inescapable category. All nations are theocratic. However, all Nations are not ecclesiocratic … that is all nations are not run by the priest-minister caste.

“If Israel broke the Mosaic covenant, then God would drive them out of the land just as he had their enemies as we see in Deuteronomy 28.”

Mike Horton
TGC Article

However, per Horton’s R2K Israel’s enemies weren’t beholden to God’s law since they never subscribed to God or came under His law. If that is true what right, per R2K thinking, did God have to drive Israel’s enemies out of the land since they were not nations covenanted unto God.?

And if Israel’s enemies in the Old Covenant were driven out of the land because they had violated God’s law standard then why can it not be the case today that nations are driven out of the land by God for violating God’s law standards?

Johnson Hurls the Charge of Unfairness

“Do not be deceived: Neither… men who have sex with men nor… slanderers… will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).

I’m sorry, but until denominations take the *second* one seriously — & defrock slanderous pastors & elders — claims of purity, peace & unity are false.

Greg Johnson
Twitter

Being interpreted … “My sin is perfectly acceptable until you stop the sin of the other guy.”

Even if Greg is right about inconsistency in how various sins are handled,  all because slanderers are not getting justice doesn’t mean that Greg Johnson is being treated unfairly because he is getting justice. It’s not unjust when Greg is treated justly… and that even when others are not being treated fairly by not being given what God requires.

Dow & McAtee On Doug Wilson’s Article on “Antisemitism”

Doug Wilson writes an essay on anti-Semitism. He never gets around to defining the “sin” other than alluding to its source as “envy.”

 

Wilson also writes: “The best thing we can do for the Jewish people is labor to build a Christian culture that runs the way Eric Liddell ran—under the pleasure of God.”

The problem, as E. Michael Jones has shown great length, is that a rejection of the 2nd person of the trinity is a rejection of Logos. Rejecting Logos leads to perpetual revolution against the social order. In short, it demands opposition to the “Christian culture” (whatever that may mean) that has been central to Christendom.

 

The charge of “anti-Semitism” has been a bludgeon and a weapon used against great men like Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran, who unlike Wilson provided a functional definition for the slander:

“An anti-Semite used to mean a man who hated Jews. Now it means a man who is hated by Jews.”

Darrell Dow
Columnist

———-

Of course, Wilson will dodge here by claiming that it is the case that all unbelief is a rejection of the Logos and so Jews shouldn’t take it on the chin any more than unbelieving goyim. The problem here is that, as Wilson himself notes in his article, the Jew’s rejection of Logos is cultural and has been refined by their superior intelligence over a millennium. Jews are too unbelieving goyim in terms of rejecting logos what a trans-generational cat burglar family is to the first-time bumbling burglar who is going after his first convenience store.

Elsewhere in that same article the doyenne of Moscow writes,

“It has to be acknowledged that a lot of people on the right appear to like hating.”

And yet how do we square that with Burke’s observation;

“They never will love what they ought to love who do not hate what they ought to hate.”

Edmund Burke

Contra Doug, I am glad to admit that I like hating those things that are contrary to those things I like loving. I think Wilson misses the boat here… and the dock … and the seashore. In brief, I think it is unchristian to not like hating what one hates. I like hating the Devil. He’s supposed to be hated. One should find it estimable to like hating that which is hateworthy.