Bits of Conversation With Rev. Joseph Spurgeon

“Take the language of invasion as an example. I think it is legitimate to speak in political terms about an invasion when referring to mass immigration being brought into a country. That kind of language functions the same way politicians speak about fighting or war. But that is very different from an actual military invasion.

If China or Russia or some other foreign power started paratrooping troops into my home city, with soldiers dropping from the sky, it would be legitimate for me to grab the guns I own and shoot those invaders. That is a real invasion. That is not the same thing as political rhetoric about immigration.

Rev. Joseph Spurgeon

Has this man never heard of guerilla warfare? Has he never read about the Vietcong guerilla tactics during the Vietnam war? Harmless civilians by day … terrorists by night.

Clearly, Spurgeon doesn’t know what time it is culturally speaking. We are being invaded unto the end of being replaced. This is not political rhetoric. It is religious rhetoric. God nowhere calls us to disappear as a people. That is the effect of Spurgeon’s inability to differentiate categorically between criminals/invaders and neighbors.

Here I quote one Elizabeth Makis (an attorney) who just eats Spurgeon’s lunch with her response;

“This post is a great example of classic, White naivete, where you project your own ethics onto foreign hostile groups. Russians and Chinese, etc., KNOW they could never accomplish a full frontal ground assault. It’s called asymmetrical warfare, and they intentionally use “immigration” as a weapon precisely because of attitudes like yours (Spurgeon’s). If the American communists are intentionally using 3rd world immigration as a weapon, would it matter if the people being imported knew the full extent of the intentions of those importing them? If the causal factor in their being here is the intended destruction of American culture and civilization, then it’s an invasion. They ARE the weapon. The whole reason why it works is BECAUSE we would not be justified in violently unaliving random people. That also doesn’t mean they’re legitimate neighbors anymore than the people still in Somalia are our neighbors.”

I wonder, if Spurgeon read “The Camp of the Saints” if he would get it even then?

____

“The question then becomes how they treat the people they actually meet. That calls for a different kind of action. I am not blurring distinctions. The people critiquing me are the ones doing that.”

Rev. Joseph Spurgeon

Illegals are criminals and invaders and so, to honor God, we are to treat them as criminals. You don’t give casseroles and babysitting services to a criminal.

As REO Speedwagon once sang,

That ain’t love
Well, at least it doesn’t sound like love to me

You would aid them if you happened upon them unconscious and beaten up on the side of the road. In that case you would take them to a ICE hospital where they could be stitched back together and then extradited back home. However, if you wouldn’t invite Ted Bundy or Charlie Manson to have tea and crumpets with your house as with your wife and children the principle is established that one treats criminals different than they would the Stewarts who have lived across the street for 20 years as your neighbor.

_____

“In particular, in his commentary on the Good Samaritan, Calvin says that Jesus teaches our neighbor does not end with those who are like us in nationality or religion. All people are neighbors, including even our enemies, which is why Jesus says we can love our enemies. So Calvin upholds the fact that distinctions are real, while also upholding a general love that we owe to all people. He affirms that civil magistrates can and should do what is best for their people, while also calling individuals to do good to their neighbors.”

Rev. Joseph Spurgeon

1.) Love for enemies here does not exclude doing that which they would consider “hate.” For example when one gives the Law to the sinner he considers that act of love to be an act of hate. In the same way love of civilian invaders can be an act that they would consider “hate.” Would Rev. Spurgeon insist that it would be a lack of love to enemy if I turned in my illegal invader neighbor to ICE? Would Rev. Spurgeon say it was an act of hate to my illegal invader neighbor if I asked them over for a meal and invited ICE agents as well in order to arrest them? I would say that these are acts of love. It is an act of love to not let the Criminal get away with their criminality and/or criminal behavior.”

2.) Rev. Spurgeon here also continues with his habit of forgetting about the necessity we have to love our White Anglo Saxon Christian neighbor. Is it neighbor love to them to welcome the stranger and alien thus allowing the stranger and alien to eat up resources that will not longer be available to the citizens of this nation? Rev. Spurgeon seems to be forgetting that these people we are to love are criminals as seen in their theft and fraud – not to mention being here illegally. Love does not allow the criminal to continue to be a criminal… does not reward the criminal for being a criminal. The illegals are criminals. God’s law does not say… “Treat the criminal as if he is not a criminal. Treat him as if he were the Stewart family who has lived next door to you for 30 years.” Love to God requires us to do all we an to make sure the criminal is arrested by ICE.

We see therefore that Rev. Spurgeon really does not understand what love is when dealing with criminals and invaders.

3.) Rev. Spurgeon makes the mistake of turning the criminal/invader into the victim as found in the parable of the Good Samaritan where the fact of the matter is, is that the criminal/invader are those who beat up the victim that the Good Samaritan finds beaten and bruised.

I close with a quote from a friend of mine, Dr. Jaime Castillo, a Filipino;

It looks like the example of the Good Samaritan has been used to defend (wrongly) the naïveté dealing with members of dangerous tribes. Helping a person with true needs does not mean being recklessly indiscriminate about groups that are physically proximal to us.

Clearly the Samaritan was being wise knowing that the person was indeed fully helpless and alone, and hence was not a threat. I will assist such a person too, regardless of their tribal affiliation. It is situational compassion however, not unity of tribes as happy neighbors in one multicultural Babylon and its many gods.

There are also scammers and criminals looking like they also direly need help after all. We know this. Mercy without discernment about them leads to one’s own destruction. If we are not screening people groups by number, faith, and culture, and we are neglecting that we still have priorities that obviously include safety and preservation of our own communities, we end up increasingly weakened and spread too thinly. We will soon be incapable of expressing true love because we are unable to help anyone who do need our assistance, especially those who belong to our own families and tribes.

The Clarity Of Doug Wilson …. NOT

“Sorry. I know something about that also. I have been working with words for over fifty years now. I make my living with words. I have had editors who have not felt the need to flatter me. And I have heard from countless readers who somehow did not notice the fog bank.

I suggest that the fog—which is admittedly dense—is coming from somewhere else.”

Doug Wilson
Mudflaps, Talmud-flaps, Flaps About The Talmud

In this column Doug Wilson writes an article fueled with outrage complaining about people who write things who are filled with outrage.

Irony much Doug?
Pertaining to the quote above Gordon H. Clark used to say; “You don’t come to truth by counting noses.” This is the approach Doug is taking concerning his detractors. Doug is saying; “Hey countless readers like me therefore I must be clear in my writing …. I must be right in my opinions. I, can’t be the problem when it comes to people misunderstanding me. They clearly are the problem.”

Doug seems to miss that another possibility is that like himself, countless numbers of people are, along with him, in error. I mean, I’m sure that all the crowds at Bunyan’s “Vanity Fair,” thought their Mayor was both clear and right. Did that make the Mayor both clear and right?

Doug needs to be reminded of other people who worked with words for 50 years.

Lenin worked with words for around that long. Mao worked with words for that long. Castro was a real prince with words, having worked with them for that long. Edward Bernays was so good with words he sold WW I. Ivy Lee, likewise was a master propagandist.

Indeed, all propagandists work with words. Someone tell Doug … that manipulating people with words is not that big of a deal. Oh, and while you’re talking to him tell him that his outrage is as unseemly as the outrage he sees in others as they are outraged with Doug.

The Conversation On The Race Issue Is Buzzing

Seeing numerous conversations on the issue of race.

However, while there will be some conversions in thinking in the Kinist direction the issue as a whole is not going to find the majority of people convinced, as if everyone is going to come over to a Biblical position.

Just think about how long race has been an issue in the West. Why would we think that it will be determined in such a way as to no longer be contentious?

The PCA was birthed, in part, because of the race issue. I think new denominations need to be birthed now the same way the PCA was birthed once upon a time. People don’t know this as it has been conveniently buried but the PCA came out of the PCUS for the reasons that we find unearthed from one of the PCA founding Fathers;

Causes of Separation in 1973 (PCA separates from PCUS)

  • The Socialist, who declares all men are equal.  Therefore there must be a great leveling of humanity and oneness of privilege and possession.
  • The Racial Amalgamationist, who preaches that the various races should be merged into one race and differences erased in oneness.
  • The Communist, who would have one mass of humanity coerced into oneness by a totalitarian state and guided exclusively by Marxist philosophy.
  • The Internationalist, who insists on co-existence between all peoples and nations that they be as one regardless of ideology or history.

    John Edwards Richards
    One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

On this subject I have also I’ve seen plenty of people say “this issue is not a Gospel issue.” I would say first, if this is not a Gospel issue then why am I hearing of churches splitting because those departing don’t want to be associated with fellow members of the church they are leaving due to the fact that those being left behind are “racist?”

I beg to differ though on this not being a Gospel issue. Now, I’m sure there are all kinds of Alienists who have not thought this through and so do not realize the implications of being an Alienist. However, there are others who should understand that this is indeed a Gospel issue.

Think about it. Alienism – that which is being pursued by those who hate Kinism – is based on the premise of egalitarianism. That premise whether consciously stated to the individual Alienists in question is; “all men are the same.” However, Egalitarianism cannot arrive at this premise without first consciously or unconsciously embracing other first principles.

Egalitarianism is both birthed by and the result of pulling down God off His throne. It can only be argued, as the Egalitarians argue, that “all men are the same racially” if one is operating from a (usually hidden) premise that God and man are the same. Egalitarianism in one’s theology leads to Egalitarianism in one’s social order thinking … and is reinforced as the conclusion also. In other words, one begins by holding that God and man are the same and then ends with concluding God and man are the same which in turn leads to all men are the same.  Said differently, one can’t flatten out their anthropology without first flattening out their theology.

This denial of racial distinctions is, at its core, a denial of distinctions both between God and man as well as the distinctions between the members of the trinity. I would recommend two books that demonstrate this;

R. J. Rushdoony — “The One And The Many”
Colin Gunton — “The One, The Three, And The Many”

Christianity does not allow, because of its doctrines of

1.) The Creator-creature distinction
2.) The distinction between the members of the Trinity

the egalitarian doctrine that “all men are the same, therefore all men can and should interracially marry.”

Now, as I’ve said a million times, these kinds of marriages may well be entered into but they should never be seen as the norm. If they are entered into Christians should try to support these ill advised marriages as much as they can.

Referring back to Dr. John Edwards Rice, who I quoted above, we explain;

“No human can measure the anguish of personality that goes on within the children of miscegenation… Let those who would erase the racial diversity of God’s creation beware lest the consequence of their evil be visited upon their children.”

John Edwards Richards
One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

And again,

“The vast majority of good thinking people prefer to associate with, and intermarry with, people of their respective race; this is part of the God-given inclination to honor and uphold the distinctiveness of separate races. But there are many false prophets of oneness, and many shallow stooges, who seek to force the amalgamation of the races.” ~

Dr. John Edwards Richards

Returning To Barth’s Geschichte & Historie

(For Barth) Geschichte (as opposed to his Historie) is a moment in which eternity enters time. Wrapped up in that moment is all the theology of Christianity; God, creation, man, evil, the fall, Christ, the incarnation, reconciliation, resurrection, and parousia. Occasionally some element of this complex will touch down in ordinary time and space, as Barth asserts of the resurrection. But that time-and-space happening is never to be identified with the saving event of Geschichte. Barth describes these happenings as ‘pointers’ to the real salvation that comes through the momentary revelatory Geschichte.”

John Frame

A History of Western Philosophy and Theology – p. 381

What is important to keep in mind here is that Barth does not believe in what most people would call the historical reality — the occurrence of the supernatural in time and space – as not true in the sense that all of it historically took place. For example, if you somehow would have had a cell-phone at the resurrection you could not have videoed Jesus resurrection because the resurrection didn’t happen in that sense. That would be the sense of Historie. Barth rejects Historie because it pertains to the supernatural of the Christian faith and the supernatural cannot occur in time and space as Historie.

For Barth it is possible (though not necessary) for Historie to point to Geschichte. Whether Historie points to Geschichte is person variable. As stated above by Frame, (but now put into my own linguistic magic) Geschichte is like the fairy dust that falls off and so emanates from the Historie. It is this Geschichte fairy dust that makes the Historie to be “true” even though it is not true. The Historie can point to the Geschichte the way that a sign on the road can point to a Gas Station (that isn’t really there). However, for Barth, the Geschichte is enough to convert because when the Geschichte is encountered in a personal event moment then the Gas Station becomes true for the person having the Geschichte encounter event. This is what Barth means by the Geshcichte being a pointer. The event that didn’t happen can serve as a pointer to the impact of the event as if it did happen and someone having that Geschichte encounter moment can now be considered a Christian.

All of this is true of the Scriptures as well. The Scriptures are tangled up with Historie and so as Historie they may or may not be true but they are not true as having the objective quality of inerrancy or inspiration. However, the Scripture, as Historie, may serve as a pointer to revelational encounter Geschichte that results in making the Bible true for the reader having said Geschichte encounter.

This is Barth’s Christianity and this is why some categorize Barth with the existentialist “theologians.”

I find this material fascinating because I know of a former CRC Pastor who was a Barthian but who got away with his Barthianism because most of the rest of the CRC were also Barthian, or if they weren’t, weren’t smart enough to know the games that this chap was playing in order to secure his ordination. The funny thing about this story is that this chap was assigned to be my mentor when I entered the CRC. You can imagine the fireworks that took place.

Gerhard Kittle & Christian Nations … A Biblical/Lexical Argument

When the term “ἔθνη” is used in the sense of Gentiles, it is often use with no sense of plurality of nations. The word is used non-sociologically to describe all the individuals who do no belong to the chosen people. But God is King of all the nations (Jer. 10:7; cf. Rev. 15:3). The divine order of the table of nations (Gen. 10) is in accord with this fact. From the first patriarchs there does not descend a single humanity, but a group of nations divided according to clans and differing language, custom, and situation The attempt to resist this in Gen. 11 has its origin in human pride. God intervene to re-establish the order imposed by Him. Similarly, in Dt. 32:8 the division of the world into nations is a divine order and not a punishment for human sin: ‘When the most high divided to the nations their inheritance, their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number (of the sons of God).’

Gerhard Kittle
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
9 TDNT, vol. 2, Kittle, 367.

“Note the interpretive framework that the TDNT makes here with regard to Gen. 10 and 11. He assumes that the division of nations in Gen 10 was God’s plan, and that the world existed in this state for a time. But then men came together in rebellion against this state to form the tower of Babel. God’s act to separate the nations at Babel was therefore, according to Kittle, to restore humanity to their previous state as recorded in Gen 10, separated according to their clans, languages, lands, and nations.

Hence, ethno-nationalism is NOT a sin.

But it IS a tautology.”

Rev. Michael Shover

Over and over again it has been demonstrated that nations existing as decided peoples operating together in a political and cultural atmosphere is the will of God for people(s). When coupling this with the truth that God intends for the nations to be disciple, and with the reality that we see in Revelation that they were indeed discipled unto Christ, we have to insist that the nationalism that is required in Scripture must be coupled with the adjective “Christian.” All nations should be Christian nations — and will be Christian nations — and because of that they all will be practicing one form or another of Christian Nationalism.

Now, we can discuss what Christian Nationalism should look like and there are sundry views on that (I have my own and it does not include top down rule) but it can not be denied that Christian Nations having a Christian Nationalism as their governance is the only and singular Christian position. Any other view is … “non-Christian.”