Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
Truth may live a wretched life,
but always survives the lie,
It bears deceit’s cutting knife
It bleeds but never dies
Truth keeps home with the odd
Is intimate with the very least
It bears the catcall of “lying fraud”
But its oddball household is increased
I listened to a lecture a couple days ago and a wonderful observation about walled cities was made. The lecturer’s point was that Walled cities kept like-minded people segregated and safe from those who were different mind and that with the removal of walled cities what increasingly happened is that individuals have built their own psyscho-emotional walls that works to keep the stranger and the alien out. So, walls are an inescapable category and it is never a matter of walls or no walls unto the end of segregation but it is only a matter of how walls are built. They can be built in a community context where like-minded people can gather or they can be built psycho-emotively by each and every individual against every other individual in communities that are characterized by manufactured and unnatural diversity. I was reminded of Robert Putnam’s work “Bowling Alone” where similar observations are made.
Sociologist Robert Putnam brought out in his book “Bowling Alone” that radically diverse societies, such as America is becoming, lose their sense of Weltanschauung and communitarian continuity. Putnam insisted that the more diverse communities become the more individuals in those societies become islands unto themselves. Massive communal heterogeneity is not conducive to the creation of healthy individuals. This societal manufacturing of the socio / psycho path personalty is accelerated even more with the grinding breakdown of the family as a cohesive cultural sub-unit. With the breakdown of the family and within this macro atomized, disintegrated milieu, sociopaths and psychopaths — individuals who have no sense of belonging or responsibility to others — are created and thrive. They thrive not only because of the interpersonal isolation that is created by heterogeneous social orders, but also by the lack of communitarian brakes on the behavior of the socio-path / psycho-paths. Oddly enough, a point is arrived at where scoio-pathic behavior is rewarded and valued in the hyper heterogeneous social order. Such order normalizes the socio-path and begins to view the person who has larger family and community ties as the “other,” and the “strange.”
Such an inverted view where the familial and community connected are seen as the “odd” is what is to be expected where “good” has become “evil” and “light” has become “darkness.” In an upside down inside out world only the right-side up in-side in are considered upside down and inside out.
We should add here that the creation of such hyper diverse cultures where the socio / psycho path is created is in the interest of those who desire centralized Government. Once a social order can be atomized enough the only thing that can hold the unrelated parts together is force and force is what Government is. As such, heterogeneity and balkanization is desired by Centralized states because such atomization is job security for the tyrant class. The Criminal Government has a interest in creating a criminal people.
Friedrich Hayek in his book, “Road To Serfdom” has a chapter that interfaces with all this. Hayek has a chapter on how sociopaths are drawn like moths to a light to Tyrannical Governments. Hayek contends that in Tyrannical Governments you’ll always find some of the most egregious socio-paths. When you combine our hyper heterogeneous social order with the insights of Putnam and Hayek the prospects for our culture are not particularly promising.
Returning to the lecture referenced at the beginning the lecturer said that this removal of walled cities has been translated anew into gated communities where segregation can work again in a pseudo walled context and where community can at least potentially be rediscovered. At some level, man desires to live among those who are like him — who share a common Worldview, heritage, and culture. Community that refuses to be homogeneous is the community of the sociopath.
Hat Tip —
Doing a little reading that tells of the Communist blueprint to gather a International order of undifferentiated peoples. The reading started off with the Marxist policy on ethnicity. It seems that the International Socialist viewed Nationalism favorably as a means and a tactic to reach International Socialism (NWO). Lenin wrote,
“Just as mankind can achieve the abolition of classes only by passing through the transition period of the dictatorship of the oppressed class, so mankind can achieve the inevitable merging of nations only by passing through the transition period of complete liberation of all the oppressed nations, i.e., their freedom to secede.”
As such Marxist thinking was to stir up ethnic minorities against the Majorities unto either secession or Civil War and then immediately capture those movements once they got rolling and then turn them, once successful in overthrowing the Majority Rule, to a movement that will sink itself in the International community.
As such Marxism, consistent with their dialectic, both supports ethnic identity and Nationalism and oppose it as each serves their ends of a International NWO. The Marxist reasoning was that just as Capitalism is a necessary stage on the way to NWO International Socialism so Nationalism was a necessary stage on the way to Internationalism.
Here is another quote by Lenin that gives us a glimpse of this,
“The aim of Socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and end all National isolation; not only to bring the nations closer together, but to merge them.”
Of course, this supports the claim by some Biblical Christians that International Marxism has, as its ultimate goal, the sinking of the Nations into a undifferentiated human mass and so suggests, once again, that many expressions of Christianity in the West today are in bed with International Marxism as much current Christianity continues to push the undifferentiated agenda whereby Nations lose their unique identity. We have gotten to the point where much of Denominational Christianity in the West is doing the Devil’s work under the Banner of the Lord Christ by advocating for a Christian Internationalism that looks a great deal like Marxist Internationalism.
Ian wrote,
But I have to tell you Bret, that when I read your words, “The phrase ‘non necessary condition,’ strikes me as oxymoronic since if you don’t have the condition you don’t have justification,” I almost fell off my chair. Really! I thought to myself, McAtee can’t really believe what he’s suggesting. Not the Bret McAtee I know.
Bret responds,
I prefer to think Sanctification as a necessary consequence to being regenerated, not a “non-necessary condition” for Justification.” Really, the whole idea of a “non-necessary condition” is a contradiction. (Go ahead and get up off the floor Ian.) If it is a condition for Justification it is, by definition, necessary. If it is non necessary, by definition, it is not a condition.
Ian wrote,
In your article and some of the attending comments, my real offense was apparently using the words “non-meritorious works” and applying the concept in the manner that I did. However, Bret, I think I have good biblical grounds for using that phrase. I further believe that your ordination vows and your own confessional standards require you to believe and accept the idea of “non-meritorious works.” Here’s why, and it’s something you and I discussed on more than one occasion. The Heidelberg Catechism:
Question 91. But what are good works?
Answer: Only those which proceed from a true faith, are performed according to the law of God, and to his glory; and not such as are founded on our imaginations, or the institutions of men.
Here is that most excellent summary by our 16th century forebears about the Christian life. And what a declaration. Good works, but not according to any old standard we might want to make up. No, only good works “performed according to the law of God.” But even that is not enough. They have to “proceed from a true faith.” So we see here two things linked together, faith and law. Good works are thus those, and only those, that combine a true faith with the law of God.
Bret responds,
Ian, I never said that good works were unnecessary for salvation. I said they were unnecessary for Justification. This is in keeping with Luther’s common refrain from the Reformation. “We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone.” Further, I’ve also consistently said that good works are the necessary consequence to Regeneration, and being filled with the Spirit. Ephesians 2:10 teaches,
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
This move of yours to insinuate that I’m somehow an antinomian will never do. I believe that the Christian life is attendant and ornamented with good works. I just don’t believe that good works are a non necessary condition for justification. In Justification it is Christ’s good works alone that are the necessary condition. When we imply that Justification is not Justification unless we add (in your words) our non necessary something we have stripped Justification of its purely gracious character.
You will notice that the question you cite from the Heidelberg Catechism falls in the third section of the Catechism which is devoted to man’s response to God’s Free Grace (Gratitude). This section of the Catechism is not dealing with how we are made right with God, but rather how we respond to God’s solo act in graciously acquitting us because of the finished work of the Lord Christ.
Notice how the Belgic Confession of Faith (Article 22) speaks on this matter of Justification,
… for any (Ian) to assert, that Christ is not sufficient, but that something more is required besides him, would be too gross a blasphemy: for hence it would follow, that Christ was but half a Saviour. Therefore we justly say with Paul, that we are justified by faith alone, or by faith without works. However, to speak more clearly, we do not mean, that faith itself justifies us, for it is only an instrument with which we embrace Christ our Righteousness. But Jesus Christ, imputing to us all his merits, and so many holy works which he has done for us, and in our stead, is our Righteousness. And faith is an instrument that keeps us in communion with him in all his benefits, which, when become ours, are more than sufficient to acquit us of our sins.
Clearly, Ian, on the question of Justification I agree with the Three Forms of Unity.
Ian continues
Before that question, however, the Catechism asks:
Question 86: Since then we are delivered from our misery, merely of grace, through Christ, without any merit of ours, why must we still do good works?
Here quite plainly two ideas are welded together. The first of these is “without any merit of ours.” That makes it very clear that the framers of the Catechism had no intention of allowing meritorious works into the plan of salvation. But they don’t stop there, they tag on the end of this the question they are posing: “why must we still do good works?” And there you have the “oxymoronic condition” that you reject.
Ian, Q. 86 is not teaching that our good works are a non-necessary condition for Justification. Did you read the answer to Q. 86?
Because Christ, having redeemed us by his blood, is also restoring us by his Spirit into his image, so that with our whole lives we may show that we are thankful to God for his benefits, so that he may be praised through us, so that we may be assured of our faith by its fruits, and so that by our godly living our neighbors may be won over to Christ.
Note carefully Ian that the answer to HC 86 speaks of God’s people of having already been redeemed antecedent to our doing good works. Our redemption is accomplished before our response of gratitude engages. We obey and do good works from the position of one being granted life, and not from the position of one who is trying to keep what has already been freely given via filling the condition of non meritorious good works.
Ian writes,
So “good works” are necessary? Well, necessary for what? How about we try sanctification, which is the part in our theology about godly living. Another question follows, then: is sanctification an addition to the whole concept of salvation, or an integral part of it? I think I know what your answer will be. I’m glad you mentioned the terms “justification,” “sanctification,” and “salvation”. Salvation is the broader term for what God does for us, while justification and sanctification are components of it, the ordo salutis I believe you described these activities.
Bret responds,
If you know what my answer will be why are we having this conversation?
Ian writes,
So I ask, is there any point in our salvation in which the door is opened for meritorious works? I do believe I heard a resounding “no” from you. Even this far away, half way around the world, I heard that “no” as crystal clear as if we were in the same room. I know you hold this view because you made reference to Dabney’s view that even our good works require the imputed righteousness of Christ. So good works are indeed “works” but they are not meritorious. I guess you could use the phrase you called “oxymoronic” and say they are “non-meritorious works.”
And at that point, my friend, you have ascribed to “non-meritorious good works” accepting it as a teaching in the Scriptures.
Do you see how I arrived at this conclusion? I don’t think I made it up. But I conclude there are such events, events that are properly classified “good works according to the law of God” but they are not, nor can they ever be, meritorious.
Bret responds,
But in the original conversation Ian (I went back and looked) you weren’t talking about the broad category of “Salvation” but the narrow category of “Justification.” And therein lies all the difference in the world.
Still, I wouldn’t, even in terms of Salvation as a whole, speak of good works as a “non-meritorious” Condition for Salvation. I think it is far wiser to speak of good works as a necessary consequence to all that God has done for us and in us.
Ian presses on,
Now allow me to take that phrase of yours and make just one change to it: “The phrase ‘non necessary condition,’ strikes me as oxymoronic since if you don’t have the condition you don’t have sanctification.” I’m sure you’ll notice I substituted the word sanctification for the original justification. I made the change only to indicate that I think both Scripture and the confession teach “non-meritorious works”. They certainly teach there are no meritorious acts to be added by the believer in justification; but they are equally adamant that there are no meritorious acts in sanctification either. So I’ll turn your comment back to you and ask, if sanctification is essential and good works are somehow involved in sanctification, in what way does the “condition” of good works apply to sanctification? And the answer has to be such that it excludes any kind of meritorious cooperation of the sinner with God in his salvation, no matter whether we are talking about justification or sanctification.
Bret responds,
Remember … I’ve never used “non-meritorious condition” in any of my language. I’ve consistently said that good works are the necessary consequence. It is precisely because “non-meritorious condition” is so confusing that I stay away from it.
Speech of Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos
Constantine XI was the last emperor of the Byzantine Empire. He fought to defend his empire, his people, and his religion from the invading Turks. Constantine led the Byzantine forces himself during the Fall of Constantinople. He died, as a soldier, on the battlefield on 29 May 1453 at the hands of the Turks, and Constantinople has been lost ever since. This was his final speech he delivered to his men before his death:
“Gentlemen, illustrious captains of the army, and our most Christian comrades in arms: we now see the hour of battle approaching. I have therefore elected to assemble you here to make it clear that you must stand together with firmer resolution than ever. You have always fought with glory against the enemies of Christ. Now the defence of your fatherland and of the city known the world over, which the infidel and evil Turks have been besieging for two and fifty days, is committed to your lofty spirits.
Be not afraid because its walls have been worn down by the enemy’s battering. For your strength lies in the protection of God and you must show it with your arms quivering and your swords brandished against the enemy. I know that this undisciplined mob will, as is their custom, rush upon you with loud cries and ceaseless volleys of arrows. These will do you no bodily harm, for I see that you are well covered in armour. They will strike the walls, our breastplates and our shields. So do not imitate the Romans who, when the Carthaginians went into battle against them, allowed their cavalry to be terrified by the fearsome sight and sound of elephants.
In this battle you must stand firm and have no fear, no thought of flight, but be inspired to resist with ever more herculean strength. Animals may run away from animals. But you are men, men of stout heart, and you will hold at bay these dumb brutes, thrusting your spears and swords into them, so that they will know that they are fighting not against their own kind but against the masters of animals.
You are aware that the impious and infidel enemy has disturbed the peace unjustly. He has violated the oath and treaty that he made with us; he has slaughtered our farmers at harvest time; he has erected a fortress on the Propontis as it were to devour the Christians; he has encircled Galata under a pretence of peace.
Now he threatens to capture the city of Constantine the Great, your fatherland, the place of ready refuge for all Christians, the guardian of all Greeks, and to profane its holy shrines of God by turning them into stables for fits horses. Oh my lords, my brothers, my sons, the everlasting honour of Christians is in your hands.
You men of Genoa, men of courage and famous for your infinite victories, you who have always protected this city, your mother, in many a conflict with the Turks, show now your prowess and your aggressive spirit toward them with manly vigour.
You men of Venice, most valiant heroes, whose swords have many a time made Turkish blood to flow and who in our time have sent so many ships, so many infidel souls to the depths under the command of Loredano, the most excellent captain of our fleet, you who have adorned this city as if it were your own with fine, outstanding men, lift high your spirits now for battle.
You, my comrades in arms, obey the commands of your leaders in the knowledge that this is the day of your glory — a day on which, if you shed but a drop of blood, you will win for yourselves crowns of martyrdom and eternal fame.”
Constantine XI Palaiologos
Last Emperor of the Byzantine Empire