He Was a Man, Take Him for All in All
July 21, 2011 
294 Comments
A friend of ours has been devouring the Rushdoony audio at pocketcollege.com, which is the second best website on the Internet of planet Earth, behind the Dabney Archive. Some of the audio clips referenced below are also available through this Youtube channel.
At 20:35 in the Q&A portion of this sermon, Otto Scott asks Rushdoony to comment on the finding of Charles Murray that the white race had then reached the same level of illegitimacy that blacks had reached 20 years earlier, which had led Sen. D.P. Moynihan to conclude that the black family had disintegrated. Rushdoony responds that few are willing to tell the obvious truths about minority groups, for obvious reasons. “They are unwilling because they are living in terms of fictions.” Then he says something fascinating, which is that libel and slander laws have become unenforceable in the courts because of the fear to be politically incorrect. He asks Otto for the name of his friend who had been the victim of “some amazing slanders.” Scott responds: “Jared Taylor.” They are referring to Taylor’s book, Paved With Good Intentions. Says Rushdoony: “The people who refuse to recognize the truth attack him for having called attention to it. And a society goes into slavery…when it abandons the truth. And we are moving very rapidly into [slavery].” Well, we don’t need to tell you what Taylor’s book is about, nor the truth to which Rushdoony alludes. Taylor just wrote a follow-up called White Identity, and it’s even better than the book that Rushdoony and Scott admired.
Can you believe that Mark Rushdoony is promoting the “racism” of Jared Taylor? Shocking.
And if you think that’s bad, listen at 20:15 in this sermon. Otto Scott comments on the rewriting of history. Rushdoony replies:
Modern historiography is contemptuous of all meaning…and an honest historiography is not tolerated. The news yesterday indicated that David Irving had been expelled from Canada, and he had been accused of being a racist, a Nazi, which is as far-fetched as anything can be. This is an intolerance of anybody’s attempt to understand the meaning of events.
Can you believe that Mark Rushdoony is promoting the “anti-Semitic” revisionism of David Irving? Doubly shocking.
We love it, of course, but the colorblind reformitards are going to have aneurysms after their fill of SWB today.
If you’ve never been exposed to the brilliance of Otto Scott, his lecture on The Family and History is as good a place to start as any, and there are 21 more on that page which are simply excellent. He calls the family a “little race,” and he laments that marriage is now “bloodless,” ungrounded in either the past or the future.
Calling families little races is not, when you look at it, very far off the mark. One notices physical types and even talents recurring through the family for generations. Such observations may no longer be fashionable, but they are unmistakable.
Clearly, Otto Scott has no use for Franz Boas. He links the survival of the family, and by consequence civilization, to agrarianism. You can hear quite a bit more of Scott on the Easy Chair talks and other recordings at pocketcollege.com.
Listen at 11:10 in this sermon to hear Rushdoony describe how Christians are masochistic because they are so afraid to speak the truth about various races and religions.
At 14:45 in this sermon, he says, “People are afraid to state obvious facts lest they be accused of racism… Guilt is a very powerful means of controlling and castrating people… It cannot even be said today that there is a higher rate of illegitimacy among blacks and others. That’s racism… If we are held to be guilty because of our race and national past, or because of the imagined sins of Columbus, there is no way of removing that ostensible sin and its guilt… We are in the business today of manufacturing new sins.” The definition of a barbarian, said Rushdoony, is one who has forgotten his past. He is like a man with amnesia.
“Sometimes the best business of an age is to resist some alien invasion; sometimes to preach practical self-control in a world too self-indulgent and diffused; sometimes to prevent the growth in the State of great new private enterprises that would poison or oppress it. Above all it may sometimes happen that the highest task of a thinking citizen may be to do the exact opposite of the work which the Radicals had to do. It may be his highest duty to cling to every scrap of the past that he can find, if he feels that the ground is giving way beneath him and sinking into mere savagery and forgetfulness of all human culture.” ~ G.K. Chesterton, Appreciations and Criticisms, A Child’s History of England
“To be born white is held to be an example of sin; it means an immediate inheritance of centuries of supposed guilt, exploitive propensities, and assumed arrogance. The white man is told he should feel guilty. The black man has a similar guilt trip laid on him. He is told that he is by nature inferior, or that the white man has made him inferior and exploited him, and that he is a betrayer of his race and destiny if he works, minds his business, and enjoys life. Wherever he turns, a guilt trip is laid on him. The same is true of every racial and national group; false pride and false guilt are posited, and a false doctrine of sin which blames others for their past, and then for failure to become engines of revolution.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, Chalcedon Report No. 174, February 1980
At 19:43 in this sermon, Otto Scott asks Rushdoony about the genocide then taking place in Rwanda. Scott observes that it was treated by the West as “a natural calamity and not the activity of people”; no accusations of discrimination. He asks if this is because there are no Christians or white people involved. Rushdoony states that the West has blinded itself to the evils of black Africa and has kept throwing more and more money at it. (This is the favorite hobby of white people, as you know.) White men created the boundaries in Africa that have guaranteed civil war, he says. Then Scott asks, “Well, if the blacks are not integrated with one another, why does everyone expect them to integrate with the whites?” “A very good question,” replies Rushdoony, for not even Indian tribes in America have integrated, even when the government puts them all on the same reservation. “And we felt that all would be well somehow. And we haven’t stopped doing that. So of course, it has meant trouble wherever we have applied that policy. We believe that there should be peace, so we put enemies together and say, ‘Now, don’t you really love one another?’… And yet nothing has been ever done to correct it or to say these people have hostilities that go back for centuries. They’re not going to live together in peace. Let’s give them each their own territory. There are boundaries of a natural sort there. But we will not recognize it.”
At 52:00 in this sermon, you’ll hear some very good comments from Rushdoony about the 1967 Detroit riots. He quotes Strom Thurmond that there were five reasons for “the racial explosions throughout the country”: Communism, false compassion, “the preaching of civil disobedience and so-called nonviolent resistance,” court decisions that have disarmed law enforcement and protected wickedness, and criminal instincts. Has anything changed since 1967?
At 38:00 in this sermon, Rushdoony comments on a press conference with Governor George Wallace, and he says the governor masterfully handled questions about race. (I presume this was in 1972.) An African reporter asks Wallace if he believes black people are human. Of course, replied Wallace, but what about you people (Africans)? “You eat them.” Rush had a good laugh about this, and so did the people of his church. Rush then read some other stories of interest about Negro gang leaders getting federal jobs, a black power conference, riots, and police being told not to arrest the rioters but to let them run wild. He connects the actions of “civil rights” revolutionaries to the Radical Republican terrorists during Reconstruction. He quotes Dick Gregory that riots were occurring in Democrat (i.e., pro-White) cities because Democrats were not giving blacks the same handouts as Republicans, and he connects this to the cargo cults of the South Pacific, where people believe that ships will someday arrive to give them everything they desire, “and the positions of black and white will be reversed.” Behold the Democrat Party. It’s unthinkable that most pastors today, much less a famous theologian, would follow a sermon with this kind of Kinist commentary.
”It is indeed a sorry white man and white woman who, when put on notice of the inevitable result of mongrelization of their race and their civilization, are yet unwilling to put forth any effort or make any sacrifice to save themselves and their offspring from this great and certain calamity.” ~ Senator Theodore G. Bilbo, Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization, 1946
At 42:45 in this sermon, Rushdoony is asked a fundamentally Kinist question: Is there a singular Christian culture, or are there Christian cultures? His answer is rather weak, sad to say, at first. He leans towards the former when he defines culture as religion externalized. “That’s all culture is.” But this is false. It ignores the gifts that God has bestowed on mankind, and God does not bestow gifts equally. If all the world were converted, there would not be a singular culture because there is not a singular people, as much as Alienists love to harp on the fact that we all descended from Adam. When the questioner asks him to clarify, Rushdoony answers correctly by denying his previous statement that culture is merely religion externalized. He correctly brings genetics into the equation:
God has created the diversity of mankind, and therefore each of the Christian cultures will begin with the sovereignty of God and the authority of His Word. But there are areas where their particular talents and diversities will be expressed, so that, even as I, for example, have aptitudes in certain areas and a very dear friend of mine has aptitudes in another area, and is every bit as zealous for the Sovereignty of God as I am, but when he talks in the area of sciences he loses me in about the second or third sentence. But he is applying the word of God…in the context of his situation. Now that’s a little more extreme than cultures or nations, but there is no question that different peoples have different aptitudes and abilities… I.Q. tests are today artificially constructed so that they will eliminate sexual differences (women will come out ahead in most fields except the two I mentioned) and racial differences, because there are variations. People of one ethnic background will have marked abilities in one area and not as marked in other areas, but they don’t want to believe that there are these differences, you see, therefore they try to eliminate them. Well, in a godly culture we will consider those as blessings of God to be developed.
At 46:02 in this sermon, Rushdoony calls slavery a welfare system, and slaves non-productive. Elsewhere he calls the laziness of slaves “an albatross that hung the South, that bled it.” He quotes Dabney, “one of the greatest theologians this country has ever produced, a tremendous man,” that “slavery was a form of Communism.” But Northern industrialists were creating a more vicious form of slavery, Dabney knew. Corporations, said Dabney, have no soul to be damned nor a backside to be kicked. In other words, the white race took the occasion of the Negro’s presence in the New World to make a choice between whether domestic government would survive or imperial government would usurp it. You can see this in every court decision that has transferred more power to the empire (power which does not belong to it). The excuse is always that the empire will prevent inequalities from manifesting themselves. But Ephesians 5-6 is clear that domestic government is built upon the very foundation of inequality! (See the anti-egalitarianism of Matthew 10:24-25 as well: “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master. It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master.”) Our people were not mature enough to choose liberty over slavery, and this is why we Kinists could never call ourselves “white supremacists.”
As Learned Hand said, liberty rests in the heart, not in constitutions, laws, and courts. And when it dies in the heart, “no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.”
At 20:35 in this sermon, Otto Scott observes that names have lost significance, especially family names. But what is really happening, he says, is the destruction of the genealogies of the people themselves. Rush agrees, saying that clan names also used to mean something.
As is true in some countries to this day, if your family is not known in some of the out-of-way portions of the world, you cannot get a job because you are anonymous. And if your family is not known, you are assumed to be an outlaw because you have separated yourself from those who can vouch for you, back you, and post, if necessary, a bond for you. So we have worked, actually, for anonymity… A desire for anonymity goes hand in hand with the rise of evil.
Otto Scott remarks that blacks have been rejected by their own people for bearing the names of white men. “Yes,” replies Rushdoony, “and that’s true in South Africa” as well. He says that prisoners were first given numbers rather than names in reformitories, whose purpose it was to “reform” the prisoners by dehumanizing them. Rush calls this a great evil. Scott adds that the same is true in the monastic orders, where new names are taken to symbolize rebirth in a new creation. But by doing so, they show that they are leaving the world that God called good for us, which is the heresy of Gnosticism. Perhaps this carried over to the masses by giving children the names of saints. A fascinating discussion follows about how Americans are treated as dehumanized prisoners by being assigned Social Security numbers for identification. And while even soldiers are asked to memorize the serial numbers on their rifles, Rush comments that frontiermen like Daniel Boone gave names to their rifles. Guitar players also give names to their guitars. The personal is always associated with a name, never a number.
Some interesting comments follow about statute law versus common law being the difference between democracy and theocracy. What we now call legislative bodies used to serve as watchdogs for the people over the aspirations of kings or elected officials. The common law was based on biblical law. Now the system is entirely man-centered, so that legislatures pass laws which courts are expected to authorize against the standard of precedent rather than Scripture. This is far different than establishing God’s law and charging councils with balancing the will of rulers against a true standard. The latter leaves courts with the adjudication of relatively minor disputes. But as the saying goes, if you reject God’s Ten Commandments, you’ll be forced to suffer under Man’s Ten Thousand Commandments.
Centuries ago, when clan government was replaced by police forces funded through coercive taxation, there was no longer a need for the frankpledge (frith-borh). According to this law of kinship, every ten households were joined under the leadership of a tithing-man, who was responsible for testifying for or against one of his number who had been accused of a crime. He was to either produce the accused before the court or stand in the place of the accused. Policemen came about through the Norman and Saxon conquests. But clearly, this is yet another example of how kinship really meant something to the old-fashioned Christians.
John Dewey rejected Christianity for being aristocratic, because it makes distinctions among men, and is therefore incompatible with democracy. Well, at least he was perceptive. The humanistic lust for imperial paternalism is summed up perfectly in the famous quote from Cicero: “The safety of the people shall be the highest law.” Remember that during the French Reign of Terror, Robespierre’s governing body was called the “Committee of Public Safety.” The American empire is patterned after the Roman empire, which was foretold in a vision to the prophet Daniel, and the “law” to which we are subjected has no higher referent than Man. Therefore, salvation to the humanist is of Man rather than Christ, and through law rather than faith. But by striving for salvation through law, the humanist renders all law meaningless, and brings down upon himself the curse of the law. Rushdoony discusses this here. Cornelius Van Til taught that unless God exists it is not even possible to argue against Him. Likewise, without God’s Law, which is His Word, which is the testimony of His eternal and infinite Being spoken to Moses through the burning bush in the words “I Am He Who Is” (Exodus 3:14), everything spirals into anarchy.
“The chuch today has fallen prey to the heresy of democracy.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 747
More hand-wringing from “Puritans” over Kinism, and whether Dabney should have been brought under church discipline for being a racist. One of them says, “If Dabney lived today, he wouldn’t be racist.” I’ve always wondered how anyone could write such a thing. What, besides the threat of semitical correctness and the loss of a job, would convince Dabney that anything about the perverted time in which we live proves that he was wrong? And what in Dabney’s life could convince anyone today that he would be so cowardly as to fear the opinions of beaten men?
This sermon against racism is illustrative of the lies that are told by ministers of the gospel to defend the present atrocities. There are so many lies that I can’t list them all. One is that “the South advanced into the North long before the North advanced into the South.” He could be referring here to Fort Sumter, but the fort was the property of South Carolina, the Yankee troops were repeatedly ordered to leave, and Lincoln lied that they were leaving, even as he was reprovisioning them.
Another lie in this sermon is that Southerners did not educate their slaves. It’s true that they didn’t want their slaves to read abolitionist comic books about how to murder them with farm implements, but they also built many schools and churches for their slaves.
Another is that a free black man who stepped foot in the South immediately became a slave. There were a quarter million free blacks living in the South in 1860! The number of free blacks in Maryland alone in 1860 was 90,000 and rising. There were also hundreds of black slaveowners in the South prior to the war, and one of these, William Ellison, was so wealthy that in 1835 he purchased the home of Stephen Miller, the former governor of South Carolina. Ellison owned 63 slaves and 900 acres of land where his family gladly grew much of the corn for the Confederate Army. (After the war, the Ellisons lost everything, and in 1879 their land produced only six bales of cotton.) It’s hard to take anyone seriously who tells such lies, and it makes it even more difficult to hear him pronounce “secede” as “succeed.” Remember when preachers were expected to be literate?
When such liars emphasize the fact that the South tried to protect slavery, don’t forget that the Constitution itself protected the institution. Believe me, they hope you’ll forget it, or they hope you were never taught it. They hope you won’t know that the North’s interference with allowing Southerners to migrate westward with their property was born of the same unconstitutional practice of refusing to abide by the Fugitive Slave Act. This preacher even says: “the Southern states believed that this was a breach of the Constitution.” Can you see what he’s attempting? It had nothing to do with what the South believed. It really was a breach of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court affirmed it in the Dred Scott decision. The subsequent anger over that decision was really anger at the Justices for refusing to legislate from the bench, as liberals are now taught to do in law school. The Justices read what the Constitution plainly said and rendered judgment accordingly. They were strict constructionists who were not willing to pacify the abolitionist mob. The irony is that ignorant Christians today associate Dred Scott with Roe v. Wade as two decisions that were infamously unjust. There is no comparison between the two. And now we have preachers excusing the crimes of the North, and effectively blaming the South for the North’s inability to amend the Constitution. Then they defend the North’s murderous war upon the South, which was punishment for secession, even though the North could not support Lincoln’s decrees legally. They even refused to put Jefferson Davis on trial after the war because they knew they would lose the case. From the perspective of the South, secession was the most peaceful resolution to the cold war of the 19th century. And there’s nothing unusual about secession; it occurs throughout the world on a regular basis. Just don’t expect your lying preacher to understand the nuances of history, because he has an agenda, and he’s going to give it to you good and hard.
My favorite part is when he says: “I’m not a human being anymore! I’m alive in Christ!” Which is far more serious than lies about history. This is a lie about the gospel of Jesus Christ. It fits well with the Satanic caption on his Vimeo page: “Colossians 3:2-17 | We must die to ourselves and be reborn in Christ so that we are no longer associated with a human race, but a heavenly Savior.” We Kinists have worked for years within the existing system of Christian churches, trying to salvage what remains of pure religion, but I must tell you, this bears no resemblance to Christianity. It is a false religion. The tree of Alienism bears the fruit of Gnosticism.
Imagine someone saying, “I’m not a male or female anymore! I’m alive in Christ!” At 7:05 in this sermon, Rushdoony counters: “Our sexuality is a property that we must not attempt to divest ourselves of, for to do so is an abomination in God’s sight. It is filthy behavior.”
The pastorcide above does make the good point, however, that in the Bible, the words “nation will rise against nation” really mean that race will rise against race. Obviously.
Then you have other impastors who are all too eager to belong to the human race as long as white people are not considered a race within the human race. But it’s perfectly fine to such people if a black race exists. At 37:50 in this sermon, the pulpit pirate declares that the following persons from the Bible are black: Caleb, Jethro, Moses’ wife, David’s relatives, Zephaniah, the Ethiopian eunuch, Simon of Cyrene, Simeon, Lucius, Tamar, Rahab, Bathsheba, and Ruth. The early church fathers Augustine, Athanasius, and Tertullian were also black, he says. I think he might have learned this from Jeremiah Wright.
Getting back to Lincoln’s War, the tariff on imported goods certainly didn’t help relations between North and South. One of the first laws passed in the new country was the tariff of 1789, which imposed a duty of five to ten percent, which raised more than 90% of federal revenue. Most trade came through Southern ports, and Southern planters were quite wealthy. Northern industrialists knew that if they could raise the tariff high enough, Southerners would no longer find it economical to trade with Europe, and would be forced to purchase Northern goods instead. Congress passed a tariff averaging 35% in 1824, then the “Tariff of Abominations” in 1828, raising duties to an average of 50%. John Randolph of Roanoke called the Tariff of Abominations the most selfish piece of legislation ever passed by a government. It meant that the South paid 87% of total federal revenues. Only 50 years earlier, both North and South called this sort of criminality “taxation without representation.” (You can see a good image of Yankee hypocrisy in the opening scene of The Birth of a Nation, where Puritans alternately bless the cargo of slave ships and thunder from their pulpits that the slave trade must be abolished.)
The famous orator Daniel Webster voted in favor of the Tariff of Abominations after having a history of voting against tariffs. In 1830 was the famous Webster-Hayne debate on not only tariffs but the future of the country. The French Revolution was then 25 years old, which was enough time for Jacobin ideas to work their way across the Atlantic. Feudal heritage gave way to the forging of a people under “the nation” as a unitary whole, without restrictions, and law was fashioned after the “general will.” What began as a debate over public lands brought Webster and Hayne to the fore, and it turned into a showdown between their respective states, Massachusetts and South Carolina. Webster ridiculed the idea that a public debt would corrupt the people; on the contrary, he believed that it would bind the Union together. (This is evidence of the “American System” of Henry Clay, Lincoln’s mentor.) Hayne countered that public lands were a sacred trust, not a common treasure to be sold. The purpose of the Constitution, he said, was not to consolidate the government but to consolidate the Union. (The perceptive reader will notice a strong similarity here in the Kinist-Alienist debate on absolute versus multifarious unity.) Hayne even reminded Webster that Massachusetts had not thought so highly of the Union in 1812 to support the war against Britain. In fact, the New England states almost seceded from the Union during their Hartford Convention in that year. Webster stood against South Carolina’s interposition or nullification of tariff law by avowing that the states are not sovereign, and the national government is the judge of the extent of its own powers. Therefore, in Webster’s view, South Carolina did not have the right to any judgment, even for its own welfare, if it was contrary to the “general will” of “the nation” (words straight out of France).
Here’s an example of Webster’s considerable skills of oration in weaving his Jacobin fantasy:
I have not allowed myself, Sir, to look beyond the Union, to see what might lie hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not coolly weighed the changes of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safe counsellor in the affairs of this government, whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the Union may be best preserved, but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should be broken up and destroyed. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. God grant that in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise! God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind! When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on States dissevered, discordant, and belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies steaming in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as “What is all this worth?” nor those other words of delusion and folly, “Liberty first and Union afterwards”; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear on every true American heart, – Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseparable!
As Richard Weaver wrote, this is grandiloquence but is certainly not the philosophy of a free society (just like Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address). The debate was between liberty and power, between history and possibility. The South was conservative and on the side of liberty and history. The North was liberal and wanted consolidation and power and money, and damn the Constitution if it got in the way. In Weaver’s words, the North epitomized “the Faustian obsession to decry limits and to reach out for an infinitude of experience and power.” (Again, the perceptive reader will recognize similarity to the debate between Calvinism versus Arminianism, or Augustinianism versus Pelagianism.)
The West sided with the North, and the die of war was cast. There is no doubt that slavery was “the most exciting and inflammatory of the symptoms of difference,” as Weaver wrote, but an honest appraisal of history reveals it to be merely the point of attack for one nation against another. Webster maintained that if any state was allowed a veto, the national union would be a “rope of sand,” and therefore weak, and therefore not what the founders intended. But he, like Clay before him and Lincoln after him, could not make this argument from history or law, but rather from the perceived demands of the “common welfare.”
Now that interposition – the right to resist imperial edicts without severing union or fomenting revolution – has been shot down, the Supreme Court, contrary to the intentions of the founders, has become the arbiter of disputes between the states and national government, with the result being that the states are impotent. In other words, the struggle between liberty and security was won by security, and 150 years later, we are more insecure than ever – our currency worthless, our future bleak.
The South, wrote Weaver, “represented legitimate aspirations toward unity insofar as these were reconcilable with liberty. Beyond that it had no right to go. A nation was a means toward a higher end, not a self-glorifying structure which improved as it gained size and authority for coercion. True nationality was always connected with historical facts which consolidated a people as far as that was compatible with their happiness in a state of civil liberty. These facts were geographical, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and political; and they furnished the substance for any claim to independence. Political union which transcended these should be for purposes limited in proportion to the transcendence.”
Thus did South Carolina respond to Yankee extortion with “nullification” of federal tax law. President Andrew Jackson agreed to roll back the tariffs to 1816 levels over a ten-year period. They were down to 15% by 1842, and in 1857 they were at the lowest level in history. Then, on the eve of war, came the outrageous Morrill Tariff.
Tom DiLorenzo has sold quite a few books on the theory that the South did not secede in order to protect the “evils” of slavery, but rather because the North squeezed the South with tariffs. This is not entirely true. The declarations of secession are concerned primarily with slavery and the North’s interference in trying to keep Southerners and their property from migrating west. On the opposite extreme, Karl Marx wrote at the time that secession “did not take place because the Morrill tariff had gone through Congress, but, at most, the Morrill tariff went through Congress because secession had taken place.” The truth is that the Morrill Tariff was yet another example of Northern aggression against the South. All together, it amounted to too much.
The North knew that “fining” the productive, agricultural South for purchasing foreign goods would result in the vast wealth that continues to give the North an economic edge over other parts of the country. The interesting thing about this is that the very same people’s descendants screamed “protectionist!” when Pat Buchanan ran for president. Buchanan knows that restoring tariffs will encourage the purchase of American rather than foreign goods (if for no other reason than that other countries do apply high tariffs), while his critics argue that it will cause higher prices and the loss of jobs. Buchanan counters that jobs will be gained since more American goods will be purchased. But the point is that even the critics of protectionism concede what was known in 1860. On December 10 of that year, just days before South Carolina formally seceded, the Chicago Daily Times wrote that Southern secession would have a brutal impact on the North’s economy:
In one single blow, our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half of what it is now. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufacturers would be in utter ruins.
You can see why they prosecuted the war relentlessly. The grand scale of murder was preceded by theft on a grand scale. Of course, it was not technically theft when North and South comprised one country. But it was felt as theft nonetheless in the South, and when the South left the voluntary Union to form a nation of its own, Yankees knew that only steel and gunpowder ripping the guts from the bodies of Southern men would allow the theft to resume.
The Morrill Tariff reversed Jackson’s compromise 30 years earlier, and the average rate rose from 15% to 37%, and then to 47% within three years. With no Southerners in the U.S. Congress to protest, the rate went to 49% by 1868. Since then, taxes have kept going up, and the value of the dollar has kept going down.
Obama’s “stimulus” only cost $278,000 per job. If he does any more to help the economy, there will be nothing left of it.
This is the most amazing thing I’ve ever seen published by Fox News (because it’s true):
Our Founding Fathers Would Not Have Recited the Pledge: Another patriotic tradition that gets a lot of attention, particularly around this time of the year, is the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge did not exist during our Founders’ lifetimes – something that is very clear when looking at its text. The Pledge was written over a century after America’s founding, in 1892. It was also written by a socialist – Francis Bellamy, whose original text was: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” According to our Founders, the states are not indivisible, but very much the opposite. In fact, when ratifying the U.S. Constitution, some states, such as Virginia among others, specifically declared the right to secede from the Union should they feel it necessary, just as an extra precaution to make sure that that state right was understood. Our Founders took their states’ rights very seriously and considered the U.S. Constitution to be a compact amongst the sovereign states so that any state could secede if it felt the federal government had become oppressive. So, if not with a pledge, how would our Founding Fathers begin meetings and celebrations? The answer: most likely with a prayer. In fact, the very first resolution brought before the First Continental Congress, and immediately passed, was the declaration that they would open every meeting with a prayer.
Who was the man “who led us out of the wilderness of hateful, monoracial, segregated families and churches?” You might be surprised by the answer.
The “Rev. Professor Dr.” Francis Nigel Lee wrote a very good paper in 1967 called Nationality, Race, and Intermarriage. Read it here. He explains race by expositing from Scripture the principle of pluriformity, beginning from the very beginning.
[W]e find eternal and indestructible differences between the three Persons. A profound variety, within the divine unity. Only the Father has paternity. Only the Son possesses filiation. And only the Spirit enjoys procession. All human attempts to minimize or eradicate these distinctions within the very essence of God, are basically blasphemous…and when even within the unity of the human race we see the variety of sexes, personalities, nationalities and racial colours – we must remember that God Who is Himself both a unity and a variety, from all eternity foresaw and foreplanned it all the way it actually is.
God even refers to Himself in the plural, with the pronouns “Us” and “We” and “Our.” Rather than being told in Genesis that God created the “universe,” with its singular prefix “uni,” we read that God created diverse heavens and earth, and then attended to the work of dividing and separating: light from darkness, day from night, water from water, land from sea, season from season, seed from seed, creature from creature, woman from man, Sabbath from work, children from parents.
And “God saw that it was good” and that all these creatures were destined not to interbreed, but to mate only with their own kind.
And that’s only the first two chapters! The rest of the book is about the division of mankind: Cain from Abel, the seed of the Serpent from the seed of the Woman, and covenant-keepers from covenant-breakers.
John Calvin on violating godly distinctions, from his commentary on Genesis 6:
Now, although all mankind had been formed for the worship of God, and therefore sincere religion ought everywhere to have reigned; yet since the greater part had prostituted itself, either to an entire contempt of God, or to depraved superstitions; it was fitting that the small portion which God had adopted, by special privilege, to himself, should remain separate from others. It was, therefore, base ingratitude in the posterity of Seth, to mingle themselves with the children of Cain, and with other profane races; because they voluntarily deprived themselves of the inestimable grace of God. For it was an intolerable profanation, to pervert, and to confound, the order appointed by God. It seems at first sight frivolous, that the sons of God should be so severely condemned, for having chosen for themselves beautiful wives from the daughters of men. But we must know first, that it is not a light crime to violate a distinction established by the Lord; secondly, that for the worshippers of God to be separated from profane nations, was a sacred appointment which ought reverently to have been observed, in order that a Church of God might exist upon earth; thirdly, that the disease was desperate, seeing that men rejected the remedy divinely prescribed for them. In short, Moses points it out as the most extreme disorder; when the sons of the pious, whom God had separated to himself from others, as a peculiar and hidden treasure, became degenerate.
Then we read of more divisions: language from language, race from race, nation from nation, tribe from tribe. We are even told when the nations were divided, in the days of Peleg. The Shemites, Hamites, and Japhethites were dispersed.
At this point, you’ve only read eleven chapters. Even among God’s own people, we read of Abraham separating from Lot, Isaac from Ishmael, Jacob from Esau, Jacob from Laban, Joseph from his brothers, and Israel from Egypt. The book of Genesis is filled with divisions! We go on to read about the separation of Israel from the nations, Northern Israel from Southern Israel, and Judea from Babylon. This is where Ezra and Nehemiah come into the story, and Dr. Lee quotes from the national repentance.
“We have trespassed against our God, and have taken foreign wives from the people of the land! Yet now, there is hope in Israel concerning this thing. Now, therefore, let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives and such as are born of them!”
“‘Separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the foreign wives!’… Then all the Congregation answered and said with a loud voice: ‘What you have said, we must do!’”
“I cursed them and smote certain of them and plucked off their hair and made them swear by God, saying: ’You shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor take their daughters to your sons or for yourselves! Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things?’”
But…but…but what about unity? Are Christians not of the same body? Dr. Lee answers:
It is sometimes contended by liberal theologians that…Christ would have all believers worship together, irrespective of their race, in the same geographical locality – on the basis of His high-priestly prayer, “so that they may all be one.” However, not only is this a geographical impossibility, but our Lord also indicated in what way he would have His children be one – “as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You – so that they too may be one in Us.”
In other words, the Lord Jesus Christ would have His children be of one existence, as He is of one essence with His Father.
Augustine described this as one Wisdom shared by the Father and Son but not one Word. (Christ frequently appealed to the authority of the Father.) This is the Athanasian, Nicene, anti-Arian theology which views Christ as being homooúsios with the Father. “In the fourth century,” wrote Rushdoony, “the church repeatedly condemned St. Athanasius, as the state listed him as a wanted outlaw. He was accused (by churchmen) of trying to stop the food supply to the capitol. He was accused of murder (but the dead man was proven to be alive). He was charged with magic and sorcery, and much else, and his life was lived in flight, with five periods of exile… [But it] was Athanasius and not his enemies, nor the powerful churchmen of his day, who shaped the future. History then as now is not shaped by majorities but by men who provide the faith and ideas for living.”
And He would have them differ in personality, even as the Father and the Son thus differ from One Another. The believers’ being “one in Us” – if taken geographically or without respect to their differences of personality (which includes even differences of nationality and race) – would thus amount to rank Pantheism!
(I think Dr. Lee means monism rather than pantheism, but a heresy nonetheless, and one which plagues our age.) For an example, he points us to Acts 6, where the unintentional neglect of Greek widows in the young Church was not resolved by pretending that everyone in the Church was equal since all were Christians. Instead, it was resolved by appointing Greek deacons to care for Greek widows; the Judean deacons were already caring for needy Judeans, which was the point of contention in the first place.
Even here we see national feelings exerting themselves in the Congregation – and this, among solely Jewish converts. [They were all Hebrews, even though some were of Israel and some were of Greece.] Yet those feelings are by no means discouraged by the Apostles, but rather understood and accommodated…
The Scottish Theologian Macpherson’s comment in his book Presbyterianism, is striking: “We have in Acts 6 an account of the election of seven men… [It may] be concluded with good probability that the seven became members of a Board, as specially representing that portion of the church out of which they themselves sprang, and that their presence on the Board secured for it the confidence of the Greeks.”
In other words, converts to the faith were not expected to abandon their filial duties. What was the result of this ethnocentrism and pluriform unity?
“And the Word of God increased; and the number of the Disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly.”
Dr. Lee reminds us that Paul intentionally preached to Gentiles in a building separate from the synagogue. “Yet liberalistic theologians never tire of pointing to Ephesians, Colossians and Galatians – in support of their integrationistic position.” They especially love to quote Galatians 3:28. Dr. Lee responds:
But here again, the reference is to spiritual unity – not the elimination of nationality or even class distinctions here on Earth… This by no means implies the unimportance of these categories…
So, in spite of the unity in Christ, there is also the variety. For Paul himself teaches us that even though we are “all one in Christ Jesus” – inside of this unity there are still Jew and Greek, bond and free, and male and female. And common sense irrefutably confirms this.
What was common sense in 1967 is no longer very common in 2011. Now we have lying preachers who boast that they are no longer part of the human race!
Briefly aside, the Eastern Orthodox, with their system of ethnic churches, are not confused on this point, even during the perverted time in which we live. They resolve:
In the Church there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek (Rom. 10:12)… [I]n her there is neither Greek, nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all (Col. 3:11)…
Compare this to any Protestant liar today who leaves out the spiritual-ecclesiastical-covenantal qualifications.
The universal nature of the Church, however, does not mean that Christians should have no right to national identity and national self-expressions. On the contrary, the Church unites in herself the universal with the national. Thus, the Orthodox Church, though universal, consists of many Autocephalous National Churches. Orthodox Christians, aware of being citizens of the heavenly homeland, should not forget about their earthly homeland. The Lord Jesus Christ…identified Himself with the people to whom He belonged by birth… St. Paul, in his letters teaching on the supranational nature of the Church of Christ, did not forget that by birth he was an Hebrew of the Hebrews (Phil. 3:5), though a Roman by citizenship (Acts 22:25-29)…
Among saints venerated by the Orthodox Church, many became famous for the love of their earthly homeland and faithfulness to it. Russian hagiographic sources praise the holy Prince Michael of Tver who gave his life for his fatherland, comparing his feat to the martyrdom of the holy protomartyr Dimitrius of Thessaloniki: The good lover of his fatherland said about his native city of Thessaloniki, “O Lord, if you ruin this city, I will perish together with it, but if you save it, I will also be saved.”
In all times the Church has called upon her children to love their homeland on earth and not to spare their lives to protect it if it was threatened. The Russian Church on many occasions gave her blessing to the people for them to take part in liberation wars. Thus, in 1380, the venerable Sergius the abbot and miracle-maker of Radonezh blessed the Russian troops headed by the holy Prince Dimitry Donskoy before their battle with the Tartar-Mongol invaders. In 1612, St. Hermogen, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, gave blessing upon the irregulars in their struggle with the Polish invaders. In 1813, during the war with the French aggressors, St. Philaret of Moscow said to his flock: If you avoid dying for the honour and freedom of the Fatherland, you will die a criminal or a slave; die for the faith and the Fatherland and you will be granted life and a crown in heaven…
The Orthodox Christian is called to love his fatherland, which has a territorial dimension, and his brothers by blood who live everywhere in the world. This love is one of the ways of fulfilling God’s commandment of love to one’s neighbour which includes love to one’s family, fellow-tribesmen and fellow-citizens…
If only Protestants could return to the faith and sound as reasonable (i.e., sound like their own fathers), what a wonderful world it would be.
“The heroes in the novels of the English author A.E.W. Mason and the Southern author Thomas Nelson Page all have one thing in common: they are uprooted from their one special spot of ground that they love over all, and must fight for spiritual and physical survival in foreign lands. In the case of Mason’s English heroes, the foreign land is usually India, and in the case of Page’s Southern heroes the foreign land is the North. But the heroes do not go to the foreign lands alone. They take their homeland and the code that sustains their homeland with them; it is in their blood. Hence, when Mason’s heroes face down howling devil worshippers, the servants of Kali, and prevail against all odds, they have made that spot of ground part of English soil, part of Christian Europe. And when the Southern heroes of Thomas Nelson Page refuse to abandon their bred-in-the-bone chivalry for the ethics of the utilitarian moneylenders of the North, they too have made foreign soil part of their soil, part of Christian Europe.” ~ CWNY
Now back to Dr. Lee:
[T]he teaching of the Bible presupposes the necessity of man’s development into nations and races…
Nor does Paul avoid referring to traits of racial character. For he does not hesitate to agree with a certain prophet of Crete that “the Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.” Paul himself adds that “this witness is true.” And from his various other inspired epistles, it would appear that the Corinthians were factious and passionate; the Galatians foolish; and the Thessalonians lazy, etc.
It is also of interest to note that the epistles of Paul and John are not addressed to all Christians everywhere indiscriminately, but to separate national or regional churches or groups of Congregations – each with its own style of life, and each with problems meriting the special attention of these Apostles…
[O]ur Lord also stressed the great importance of the diversity of the human race and the importance of nationality. To love one’s neighbour like oneself, not only implies one’s sincere love of one’s neighbour – but no less also one’s sincere love of oneself… And again, it is very significant that He would have His Apostles go teach “all nations” – as nations, and not just as human beings.
Let me pause here to say how humbling it is to know that on the day of Pentecost, Shemites who had acquired Japhetic and Hamitic languages heard the gospel and understood it. This was a miraculous preview of millennia to come. Dr. Lee is correct that, far from reversing or overturning the judgment at Babel, Pentecost sanctified it. It is also very humbling to read our Lord’s words that “many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 8:11). These are the adopted heirs from the far reaches of the West (our people), and perhaps in ages to come, the Asian peoples. “But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Dr. Lee states that the book of Revelation “implies the continued existence of national distinctions forever.” Even the white stone given to each of God’s elect, with “a new name written on the stone which no man knows except he who receives it” implies “the continued existence of personality (of which nationality and race are also aspects) even after death.”
As these national distinctions will remain with us (even among Christians) down to the end of the World – they are still with us today. No amount of liberalistic attempts to ignore them or integrationistic attempts to destroy them will meet with success…
Yet the forces of Satan will indeed try to bring about a one-world race. Significantly, this is one of the goals of Communism, and long looked like it might characterize Earth’s latter days in the new Babylon yet to be (re)built – when someone like Nimrod the Hamite might rule again. Perhaps the present and increasing Afro-Asian domination of the United Nations and its tendency toward the idea of World Government, might try to orchestrate this. But such plans would not succeed, for they run counter to God’s will and His plan for all the nations.
From the time that Abraham was declared the father of “many nations” (plural) until the new heavens and new earth (plural) are revealed, where kings and nations (plural) walk in the light of the New Jerusalem and bring their glory and honor into it, the heartbeat of Creation is Kinism. It is sinful to rebel against God’s purposes for mankind.
At that time and thenceforth for ever, the covenant of grace will have unfolded completely. It shall blossom in all its national and international glory – with all its manifold variety within its essential unity.
…[E]verything He created within His universe reflects this variety. Including the variety within mankind – particularly the variety of human personalities, races and nationalities which would have unfolded even without sin…
So next time, before the “Christian” integrationist starts to pray: “May Your will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven!” – he should first carefully consider precisely what he is praying for. If he does this, he will either have to change his views on the race question – or else cease praying for racial integration altogether. For if he then continues as before – he could no longer be called ignorant. But only hypocritical and dishonest.
You should also listen to Dr. Lee’s sermon, Race, People, and Nationality. Me rikey.
“Pentecost sanctified the legitimacy of separate nationality rather than saying this is something we should outgrow… In fact, even in the new earth to come, after the Second Coming of Christ, we are told that the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of the heavenly Jerusalem, and the kings of the earth shall bring the glory and the honor – the cultural treasures – of the nations into it… But nowhere in Scripture are any indications to be found that such peoples should ever be amalgamated into one huge nation.” ~ Dr. Francis Nigel Lee
“Even the natural differences within species, like racial differences…can and must be done away with historically.” ~ Karl Marx, Karl Marx’s Collected Works V:103, as cited in S.F. Bloom’s The World of Nations: A Study of the National Implications in the Work of Karl Marx, Columbia University Press, New York, 1941, pp. 11 & 15-19
“Full-scale Communist construction constitutes a new stage in the development of national relations in the U.S.S.R., in which the nations will draw still closer together until complete unity is achieved… However, the obliteration of national distinctions and especially of language distinctions is a considerably longer process than the obliteration of class distinctions.” ~ Nikita Khrushchev, The Road to Communism: Documents of the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Oct. 17-31 1961, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1961, pp. 559f
I read from a Christian-imbecile on Facebook: “The races benefit from intermarriage. God receives glory from Christians marrying other races because the veil has been torn from top to bottom.”
A friend has wisely said that Alienism is really Oikophobia: fear and hatred of one’s own people and culture.
The human brain is hard-wired to not recognize (as easily) those of other races.
Here’s another excellent article from Kinism.net on degrees of love. You will see strong similarities to Bishop Lancelot Andrewes’ catechism in Bishop William Nicholson’s A Plain and Full Exposition of the Catechism of the Church of England, 1655. We learn that godly love is impartial yet effected through degrees of proximity.
The spouse in the Canticles [Cant. 2.4.] prays in this form; Ordinate in me charitatem. It is her petition that her charity be well ordered, and well ordered it will never be, till it become Dilectio, that we know what to choose, and what to hate, and why to choose, and why to hate. Now the method and order of love in brief is this: Ex. 28.12,
1. That we love God first and most…
2. The next step is, that we love our neighbour, i.e. every man, be it a friend, or be it an enemy. If a brother, there is in him proximitas originis, a nearness of blood; if an enemy, proximitas natures, or societatis, a nearness either in nature in general, or some bond of civil society. Now in this love of our neighbour, heed would be taken of two things:
1. That our love be not erroneous, that we take not our neighbours’ sin for our neighbour, and love their sins because we love their persons…
2. That we look to the degrees of proximity, and accordingly extend our love; for our neighbour is to have the priority of our love before another, as they stand farther off, or are nearer unto us. And the order is this:
1. The nearest conjunction among Christians is that of the Spirit of grace, of religion, and these are to have the first place in our love…
2. Among these, if there be no disparity, then those first who are nearest unto us, either in friendship, blood, or some other way.
3. After, as they stand nearer or farther off in relation,
[Being:]
1. The husband or wife. Parents.
2. The children, and those of the family.
3. Our kindred.
4. Our friends or acquaintance, near neighbours.
5. Our countrymen.
6. Societies of men before any particular. But this is not perpetual, and may be broken by many accidents, and intervenient occasions.
3. As thyself. Our own selves are set for the rule to love our neighbour. “No man hates his own flesh, but loves and cherishes it,” [Eph.5.29.] and so he must deal by his neighbour. But it is to be observed, that the adverb sicut, “as,” is not a note of parity, but similitude, and shews not the quantity, but the quality of our love. For no man is bound to love another equally, or so much as himself, but with that truth of love that he loves himself: the love then of man to man ought to be true and not false; real, and not feigned nor adulterate…
Read the sermon that Bob Jones preached in 1960 (after sixty years of preaching) that was his defense of segregation and denouncement of interracial marriage. Some of it is silly and much of it is repetitive, but when he is on point he serves as a fine witness to what God desires for mankind. He understood Acts 17:26 as few preachers understand it today. Ten years after this sermon was preached, the IRS threatened to revoke the university’s tax-exempt status for its position on race, and finally did several years later. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where a very dangerous precedent was set – that the IRS, without the approval of Congress, could revoke the tax-exempt status of any organization that sets rules contrary to established public policy. Only William Rehnquist dissented. This is one reason among many why incorporated churches are a joke today, and why preachers are doing the bidding of the pagan State. The precedent of the BJU decision will be immediately cited as soon as any church attempts to stand against the mania of faggot “marriage” that is sweeping the country. Once these churches are threatened with the loss of income, they will discover strange new revelations in Scripture that rubber-stamp whatever the State wants to do. We already know they are hypocrites because we see how they caved on race a few decades ago.
“Either the faculty at Bob Jones University is to allow social practices it believes the Bible teaches to be sinful and against the will of God, or Bob Jones University must face the official lash of the government of the United States. The lesson of this public policy, now established in our latest judge-made law, is clear: All religions in America are entitled to official neutrality and equal treatment, except those fundamentalist Christian faiths that preach and practice separation of the races. All Christian interpretations of Scripture are entitled to official respect – except interpretations that do not conform with the integrationist ideology and edicts of the national government. I hope Bob Jones University has the courage to tell the federal government to go to the devil.” ~ Pat Buchanan
See the letter that Bob Jones III wrote to one young critic. He is correct that “to make a racial issue” out of the marriage of Moses to Zipporah “is to argue a point beyond all reason.”
Unfortunately, Bob Jones University did a complete about-face on their love for races, but it was only 11 years ago that their ban on interracial dating was lifted. They were among the last to hold out against the worship of the Beast. But we Kinists remain.
Coinciding with the loss of true unity to the false unity of amalgamation has been the loss of economics to fiat money and usury, the loss of nationhood to a Satanic “brotherhood of man,” the loss of constitutions to the proposition that “all men are created equal,” the loss of politics to bribery, the loss of sound doctrine to incorporation by the pagan state, the loss of kinship to taxpayers and militarists, and the loss of sex to “gender.”
David Opperman was asked whether losing sight of tribal identity and forgetting one’s ancestors necessarily leads to a decline in faith. He was asked if evangelism truly matters to the Kinist in light of our belief that nations are held together by common heredity. He was asked if the Kinist esteems blood higher than God’s law.
His answer (and you know it’s good if we post it here):
You took issue with this paragraph:
“It is certainly true that Babel was a punishment for sin, but it was also an act of mercy from God in order to restrain the evil that typically arises in cosmopolitan societies who have lost sight of their tribal identity. Raceless or tribeless societies become decadent due to anonymity and loss of patriarchal authority, which is inevitable in these regimes. When people forget their ancestors they will not regard their children and future descendants!”
You asked, “What? I thought theonomy-believing Christians, kinist or not, affirmed the corruption of man and society as being due to forgetting God’s law and esteeming man’s own law above it (humanism).”
This is indeed where kinists and anti-kinists diverge. I think that all kinists would agree with your statement that “the corruption of man and society [are] due to forgetting God’s law and esteeming man’s own law above it (humanism).” We have no disagreement there. I think that one of the fundamental differences that the two camps take in approaching the issue is that kinists affirm that ethno-nationalism is built into the law itself, whereas anti-kinists see the issue as tangential at best to the law.
Specifically, kinists see kinism and ethno-nationalism rooted in the Fifth Commandment, and violations of kinism as rooted in violations of the Fifth Commandment. Therefore, from a kinist standpoint it stands to reason that the subversion of ethnic identity is symptomatic of generalized infidelity to God’s precepts and disrespect for God’s law. I think that in context the point that I was trying to make with the paragraph you cited was that God ordained separate nationality so that the nations would seek after Him. When the people are one as in Genesis 11:6 they will be unrestrained in evil since traditional patriarchal authority inherent in a strong sense of ethnicity is undercut by humanistic “oneness.”
The statement that “When people forget their ancestors they will not regard their children and future descendants!” was intended to be a paraphrase of Edmund Burke’s famous and true dictum, “People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors” (Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, Paragraph 56).
The importance of viewing ethnic identity as God’s ordinance and intrinsic to the law is why kinists see tribe, identity, and ancestors as a source of keeping corruption in check. While ethnic identity is not the source that restrains corruption, it is a means that God uses to this end. The source of restraint of corruption is of course the internal ministry of the Holy Spirit as well as the common grace that God has given that restrains man’s baser instincts. God accomplishes this through the use of means. One example is in 1 Corinthians 7:14 where God states that he uses believing spouses to sanctify their unbelieving spouses. Kinists believe that Acts 17:26-27 is stating essentially the same thing. This doesn’t mean that evil is corralled by means of ethnicity, marriage, or family apart from any adherence to God’s law, but that God’s law is kept and transmitted to generations by these means by the grace of God.
A kinist has no desire to replace the importance and necessity of God’s law by noting the importance of something like ethnic identity. What we are aiming to do is demonstrate how ethnic identity finds its place in the law of God and is based upon fidelity to the Fifth Commandment. Again, ethnic identity doesn’t take priority above the law. Ethnicity is integral to the law and is a means by which the law is transmitted.
You also stated, “It also feels as though kinism is a response to some idea that Christianity, in its mandate to ‘go into all the world’ and redeem it through Christ, seeks to ‘amalgamate’ the world into one people/order – sort of like a Christian version of the humanist’s goal of creating a one world order.”
I think that this is accurate if I understand you correctly. Kinists are opposed to conforming to the world’s idea of unity. Humanists believe that intermarriage, equal civil rights, and full integration are positive goods that foster lasting and righteous unity between people. Kinists disagree. We think that all of the above will forge a unity that is neither lasting nor righteous.
You then stated, “I would agree with you that within that Scriptural command there are certain realities that ought to be kept distinct and that I believe, as such, would not contradict that command: the retaining of different languages and the need for separating nations by both boundaries and governments, for example.”
This is basically where kinists are coming from. I would clarify that the boundaries that kinists support aren’t arbitrary geo-political boundaries but are rather boundaries defined by ethnicity. We believe that this is what the Apostle Paul is referring to in Acts 17:6-27. The word for nations here refers specifically to ethnic identity.
Your next question was “You maintain that nations are held together by common heredity and that this is the ideal to strive for, yes? If that’s the case, what role can evangelism possibly play?”
I do maintain that nations are held together by common heredity. This was true in the Table of Nations which identifies nations taxonomically by their heredity (“after their families”) and is implicit in the word ethnos. Kinists affirm that this is true after conversion as well and is implicit in the directive given in the Great Commission in Matt. 28:19-20. Christ commands His Apostles to disciple the nations in the plural, and they remain plural after the Great Commission has been fulfilled. There is no indication that the definition of a nation has changed from hereditary to non-hereditary after conversion and discipleship. Evangelism is best demonstrated by the work of the Apostle Paul whose work in the book of Acts indicates that he established a community of Christian converts and then turned over the work of the ministry to the natives.
“Heredity is not something that can be changed, so are only those nations who have the ‘right’ heredity the redeemed ones? From this is implied the idea that God’s law is only applicable to the saved nations, rather than to His whole world…?..”
I agree that heredity cannot be changed. I believe that it doesn’t have to change in order for conversion to be efficacious. I don’t believe that only those nations with the “right” heredity are redeemed. Redemption occurs without heredity being a factor. God’s law is applicable everywhere, and should be universally recognized. This universal recognition doesn’t mean that ethnicity is rendered irrelevant since ethno-nationalism will still be characteristic of fidelity to God’s law. In a Christian world, separate nationality would exist and the second table of the Commandments would be applied universally, but the notion of universal civil equality would dissipate.
There would be no reason for me to believe that just because I’m a Christian that I could become a permanent resident of Japan, permanently own large amounts of property there, to vote in any elections that might take place, or hold any positions in civil government.
This is what kinists typically mean when we deny universal civil rights. We do believe in applying the second table universally regardless of ethnicity. Everyone has a right not to be stolen from, murdered, lied to, etc. Everyone does not have an intrinsic right to immigrate anywhere they want to, especially not with the intention of becoming permanent residents (the word “stranger” in the Bible can often mean peaceful sojourner). There is no intrinsic right to vote in elections or to hold office. I think that I pointed out in the article that God can use and does use exceptions to this rule. Joseph was an example of a righteous regent in Egypt, and Cyrus ruled Israel righteously by allowing them to return to their homeland and restore their political and religious identity by rebuilding the Temple. I’m sure that as the Gospel spreads throughout the world other such exceptions will occur. The caveat is that these are exceptions and that there is no right established by the existence of these exceptions. The concept of universal civil rights regardless of ethnicity, gender, language, etc. is a post-modern innovation that was developed apart from Christian morality.
From an eschatological standpoint God promises the stranger who keeps His law and covenant an everlasting inheritance with God’s people. The stranger is anticipated as being concerned for his future posterity since he might think that the Lord had utterly separated him from God’s people or the nation of Israel (Is. 56:3). The presumption is that because the stranger is a non-Israelite, he will not ultimately enjoy the benefits of being an Israelite. The son of the stranger along with the eunuch will be given an everlasting name and inheritance.
This is more fully fleshed out in the New Testament. We are told that God redeems out of every nation, language and people (Rev. 5:9, 7:9). We are told that the Church is comprised of multiple nations of them which are saved (Rev. 21:24). The Tree of Life in Heaven is also said to be for the plural nations in Rev. 22:2. What will this be like? I believe that the unity that God desires will finally be realized in the eschaton. The nations will be unified in their worship of God. My guess is that we will thoroughly enjoy each other’s company. I don’t think that this means that familiarity as we know and enjoy it won’t exist in Heaven. I think that it will. Our parents, relatives, spouses, and children will still retain their relationship to us. When fellowshipping with other Christians, we will enjoy their company, but I think that we will still enjoy our own home, family and people the way we are intended here as well.
More imbecile “Christians” who are perverting the gospel by working against God’s purpose for them.
What in the name of all that is holy?
Are you ready for Rushdoony’s take on adoption? You can hear it at 29:31 in this sermon.
When the family is again restored to its biblical place and biblical law again prevails then the levirate again will probably quietly take its place in that framework of law. Finally, a word concerning adoption which is related to this. Adoption as a word appears in Scripture, in the New Testament, in a theological context. That is, St. Paul speaks of our adoption in Christ as sons of God. The word reflected a family fact. But adoption in the Bible differed radically from the modern practice of adoption. There was no legal adoption in biblical times until the child reached maturity and proved his character. So that the legal adoption came only with the mature, seasoned person who had proven his faith and character. We have a reference, for example, in Genesis to such an adoption when Abraham, believing that he would have no heir, adopted Eliezer of Damascus (Gen. 15:2-3) to be his heir. In other words, a tried and true servant, a man of mature faith and character. Abraham chose [Eliezer] out of his household, out of his slaves and servants, to be his heir prior to the birth of Isaac. Thus faith and character are basic to heirship, and maturity was required to provide evidence of these facts before adoption became a legal reality. Thus the law of the levirate unfolds to us not only an important aspect of biblical law but the significance of the family in biblical society and of property in its relationship to the family.
How many “Christians” still believe this? It totally refutes the basis of 21st century evangelical kingdom-building, which is the taking of little black and Chinese babies into white homes in the hope that Christianity will spread to those races. But you can’t flout God’s law or the patterns that our fathers gave us to emulate and expect good to come of it. Sometimes God works miracles in spite of our sins, but it doesn’t mean that we ought to continue in sin so that grace may abound.
At 25:24 in this sermon, Rushdoony makes some reticent comments on interracial marriage, and we partly agree and partly disagree with his conclusion. From 36:35 to the end of this sermon, he goes into more detail. The question is asked: Is Scripture opposed to a racially mixed marriage if both persons are of the same faith? He replies:
The answer is, there is not a law against it, but there is basically a principle that militates against such marriages, so that you might say they are just barely legal, but in principle Scripture is opposed to them. Because the whole point of marriage is that the wife be a helpmeet to her husband, and the term helpmeet means in effect a mirror, an image, one who reflects him spiritually; that is, in terms of faith, in terms of a common background, in terms of a common purpose. Now, marriage between persons of very different races generally doesn’t fulfill that requirement, you see. So that it can be technically a marriage, but it isn’t one in which the wife can be a helpmeet. So that while it can legally qualify, theologically you could say there are factors which normally, in almost 99 cases out of 100, would militate against it…
If the same question were asked of us, we would not use so many qualifiers. On the other hand, those (mostly theonomic presbyterians) who have taken it upon themselves to clear Rushdoony of the “taint” of Kinism need to be honest enough to represent Rushdoony’s actual views. But this they cannot allow! Do they dare to agree with Rushdoony that 99% of interracial marriages are unscriptural? Do they even acknowledge so much as a principle in Scripture that militates against such marriages? Obviously not. They preach that it is “a positive good” to be “celebrated,” in the words of John Piper. As for us, we fail to comprehend the difference between an explicit law and an implicit principle in terms of sinfulness. There is no explicit law in Scripture against cannibalism, but we infer that this is a sin on the principle that the human body is sacred, and not merely animal tissue. Miscegenation is another unthinkable practice that Scripture does not need to cover in great detail, except to say that idolatry follows it like envy follows spite.
Rush is asked whether Rahab and Ruth are examples of interracial marriages.
In those cases of Rahab and Ruth, there wasn’t, of course, the racial difference because they were similarly Semitic peoples, or closely related. The linguistic differences were not even great; they could understand these languages because they were related tongues, so that it would not be an objection. Now, of course, Scripture raises an objection legally against a marriage to a Moabite. It is not permitted until there are so many generations of faith. However, exceptions were made, we know, from time to time in Scripture, in terms of the faith of a person, and Scripture clearly makes an exception to its own law in the case of Ruth…
We deny that this is as clear as Rush makes it out to be. Only by presuming that the regions from which these women came also identifies them genetically can any clarity on the issue be claimed. But this is not a safe presumption, as we’ve explained elsewhere. And on the face of it, it requires one to argue that Scripture contradicts “its own law in the case of Ruth”; that forbidden marriages became permissible if there were “so many generations of faith.” This is false. Moabites were forbidden from entering the congregation forever, as it says in Nehemiah. Even if it was ten generations, this still excludes Ruth.
There are some evidences with respect to mixed marriages. We have, for example, quite a bit of evidence in American history of what was known as the halfbreed, the person who was a product of a marriage of a white settler with an Indian woman. There are some interesting evidences there. Such a person usually had a superior physical ability and strength because he combined the white man’s resistance to diseases, which the Indian did not have, with the ability to endure, which the Indian had… The halfbreed usually combined both of these aspects very powerfully, and it made him a person to be reckoned with and feared. But he was also an outsider, in a sense, to both cultures. If you remember the stories you read of Indian life and lore, how often the halfbreed – and this appears, of course, in Mark Twain (Injun Joe) – was a rather nasty character too. Because he didn’t belong, he didn’t fit in to either culture, and as a result was distrusted by both, and ended up, in a sense, at war with both. This was the tragic fact. His inheritance made him an outsider to both… [He was of] a pathetic lot, in that [he was] neither one nor the other. There are sometimes some genetic advantages, there are sometime genetic disadvantages, but there are generally markedly social disadvantages which tend to warp the child’s entire life, and these social factors are extremely strong. So that in countries where you do have this kind of group, they do represent a rather bitter and unhappy group, a rebellious group…
In the Orient, there is a great deal of prejudice against such marriages, and in a fair percentage of the marriages of American servicemen, say with Japanese girls, these Japanese girls do come from the lowest strata… And very few such marriages were contracted. And this is the usual thing. When there are marriages between races, very often it is not the best of either, and this is another factor that commonly militates against the success of such marriages, in that it is the lower levels which tend to unite in most cases…
Having denounced 99% of all interracial marriages, Rushdoony goes on to say that the perpetrators live in Section 8, and their children are bitter, unhappy, and rebellious. What a ringing endorsement. But Rushdoony was no “KKKinist,” as John Lofton likes to say! Yeah, right. Dealing with Lofton brings to mind the words of Confucius: “Upon seeing the shadow of a pigeon, one must resist the urge to look up.”
Rush tried to keep open the fabled desert island scenario for racial intermarriage, but that’s not a realistic world of habitation. In the real world, we have mothers and fathers, and not a single one of them wants to see children marry anyone of a different race. That’s the hard, cold fact, and you deny it at your own peril.
There is an element of dishonor to father and mother and of a break with the family, so there are very serious objections to it…
For example, this beautiful white woman is all smiles as she publicly craps on the Fifth Commandment. CNN calls it “Defining America,” but of course they mean Redefining America.
Seven years later and three half-Asian/half-Caucasian children deep, the discussion of race rarely comes up in our home. But only because we worked so hard to make sure the inconsistencies we were both taught in our parents’ homes about what kinds of people were worthy to love would never be a part of our home or life together.
It’s like these faggots talking about “natural progression.” Like atheists and feminists, they have to borrow the terms of the godly to make sense of their lives.
Back to Rushdoony:
Now, one of the interesting facts…with respect to intermarriage…is this. Historically, whenever you have two peoples close together and one in a position of power and the other in a position of either slavery or inferiority, it takes only a very short time for the two races to merge, no matter how great the hatred between them. Thus, when the Normans took England there was nothing more hateful to the Anglo-Saxon peoples of England than a Norman. And yet, because they were of conquerable abilities, in spite of that intense hatred, they did merge ultimately.
Same race. It’s not wise to transpose the history of Europeans on the history of the world.
But when you find two peoples of very different intellectual and cultural levels close together, they can be together generation after generation, and the amount of merging is very slight. So there is no disappearing of the one as against the other. This is why the Negro did not disappear in the South. Had the slaves been, say, of another racial group, it would not have taken more than a hundred years of slavery for the two groups to have merged. But you had a couple of hundred years of slavery in the South, and the Negroes did not disappear. So this is the remarkable fact.
Had the slaves been “of another racial group,” the same thing would have happened, because unlike Spaniards and Portuguese, our British ancestors were what preachers now call “racists.” And because they were “racists,” the white race continues to survive in America. So God bless them. Whites have only merged successfully with fellow whites. Does anyone want to argue for Mexico as a shining example of the success of miscegenation?
As a result, when you hear stories told about how the Negro women were exploited and so on, these stories tend to be exaggerations. As a matter of fact, the truth was usually the other way. It was very difficult to…rear children in the South, because one way of promotion was to capture the interest of a white boy or a white man. Now, this goes counter to the Marxist thesis. But when you study the history of the West, you find that one of the best things that ever happened, incidentally, to the morality of the upper classes was modern inventions which abolished, progressively, the need for servants in a home. Because one of the major problems that existed was the seduction of the boys and the men in a household by servant girls. Now, according to the Marxists, it was the other way around. The poor working girl was exploited. But for the working girls, it was usually a ticket for support for herself and her child, and it meant a dowry to help her get married to someone else. So there was a tremendous exploitation and a continual corruption of the upper classes by the presence of a large body of servants… And modern technology has eliminated what was once the continual cause of corruption of the upper classes and the upper-middle classes.
At 22:28 in this sermon, Rushdoony says that when a man is treated as an abstraction, he ceases to be a man.
And this is why modern sociology is so demonic, and why modern historiography is so demonic…
At the beginning of [the book of one brilliant scholar,] as he analyzes the South and the history of the South, [he writes] that the Negro is simply a white man, a Southerner with a different skin. And he says, “I will not consider anything about his racial background, or his intelligence, or his culture, or his environment. I will consider him as a man, pure and simple.” Well now, take away your history, your racial background, your family upbringing, your faith, your character, your intelligence. What have you got? Not you. Just an empty abstraction. A meaningless concept of man. And this is, of course, the liberal fallacy. It takes away everything that makes us what we are and then says, somehow, this is the real man. And then it says, you see, all real people are just the same. Hence, they are all equal. And, of course, this is a monstrous absurdity.
The same liberalism has infected the Church. Judeochristians have stripped from men everything that makes them what they are, and have abstracted them to the point of absurdity.
Near 38:15 in the same sermon:
The so-called primitive peoples of the world are people who have gone downhill, deliberately. For example, we find among the peoples of Africa evidences of civilization in their background. But…when they talk about the great African civilizations, they’re talking about the Arab civilizations in which the Negroes were slaves… As soon as these civilizations disappeared, the various tribes and peoples went downhill immediately. In other words, they deliberately took a downward turn. They didn’t attempt to reestablish or to maintain the civilization they overthrew. They went downhill, and have gone progressively further downhill…
Robert E. Lee said the same thing about Negroes, and advised his son to do no business with them because of this fact.
Our prayers tonight are with Elizabeth Wright, a courageous and brilliant black writer who would be an inspiration to millions of her people, if the world were not rife with perversions. She is now in hospice care for cancer. Unfortunately, hospice is usually the place where they send people after the doctors can do no more. Godspeed, Elizabeth.
Our prayers also go out to the family of the Rev. Pete Peters, who passed away at too young an age.
And to Ernst Zundel’s attorney, Doug Christie, who was recently diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer.
This is post is really among the best ever published by Spirit Water Blood.
As Michael Hoffman (Judaism Discovered) says of his truth mission – surrounded by the enemy, like Cyrano, you will not let him escape.
As JudeoMasonry hammers post modern Western civilization into Talmudic rule, law and jurisprudence, they reveal one of the most important requirements of the Talmud for goyim slave races.
This is the concept of original sin imputed to White nations from which the anti-Christs will save humanity.
Not even our faith in the ISMS of the anti-Christs will be counted to us for righteousness.
We are guilty of the original sin of being White. And we are rodef – the enemy.
“You wouldn’t try to make a house pet out of a rattlesnake, and you shouldn’t try to make a friend out of a negro.”
In memory of Brittney Fox Watts, killed on July 15, 2011, in a Midtown Atlanta parking deck by a negroid Diversity “security guard” who was being paid to protect her.
We are all South Africans now.
Dabney a racist?
When the Hampden-Sydney congregation became too large to meet at Venable Hall, an architect was hired to design a church building. The gentleman produced a design that could be built ONLY if the local Negroes, free and slave, were excluded from the worship services. It was something Dabney couldn’t truck, because he believed the Negroes in the area needed to hear the Gospel. So, he designed the church (and supervised its construction) so that the Negroes could attend worship services at the same time as Whites.
Some racist he was.
Who did the art in the picture that has a swamp monster grabbing the woman?
Thanks.
“He correctly brings genetics into the equation….”
A lie. Rushdoony says NOTHING about “genetics.”
John Lofton
JLof@aolo.com
Mr. Lofton,
Have you read Rushdoony?
——————
If you and I have our histories abstracted from us, and our HEREDITY as well, along with all our cultural conditioning and responses, we are no longer men, no longer human beings, but an abstract and theoretical concept of man. No real history of us can then be written. Stampp’s Negroes are thus neither black men nor white men: they are an abstraction, but an abstraction to illustrate the devil in Stampp’s humanistic morality play.”
R. J. Rushdoony
20th Century Reformed Theologian
“The Biblical Philosophy of History” – pg. 88-89
And Again,
“a prominent Presbyterian minister… said “that all good Christians should stop having babies and they should go out and adopt the children of some of these welfare people who are having babies”. In other words, let the best STOCK in the country die out and let us subsidize these incompetents, the degenerates of our culture, to have more babies, and penalize the Christians by putting them into their homes. And if that isn’t insanity in the name of Christ, I’ve never heard it.”
R. J. Rushdoony
_____________
I think it is admirable your willingness to fall on your sword Mr. Lofton. However, we have clearly seen on a repeated basis that you are clueless about what Rushdoony said.
As the Dail prepares to expel the anti-pope’s Nucio from Ireland, a parliamentarian has moved to demand the resignation of the entire novus ordo episcopate over the great sex and embezzlement scandal.
Now is this the RIGHT STUFF or what?
As you contemplate these events my dear Kinists why not listen to The Irish Tenors sing that great Irish Hymn of the 8th Century.
Be Thou My Vision is posted by Sarnokh on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdRs9osxAg&feature=related
Anyone who listens to that hymn can see the great watchfires of Slane Hill overlooking Tara where St Padraic called upon the power of the Holy Spirit for victory over the Druid magecraft and sorcery before the High King Loegaire.
If ever a nation needed a victory over magecraft and the sorcery of secret societies it is America.
Another excellent version is also posted on YouTube featuring the ethereal voice of Eden Bridge and Celtic harp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_qLGFNwEsY&feature=related.
I commend it to you
It seems that no matter how diligently I copy the url on the vids I watch on YouTube, when I write it down so I can click on to again, it comes up disabled.
So I try again. This time I joogle
Be Thou My Vision Irish Tenors Sarnokh youtube and what comes up is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdRs9osxAkg
and
Be Thou My Vision Eden’s Bridge You Tube and what comes up is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqL6FNwEsY
When these links are clicked from the joogle search list the right vids do come up.
No Rushdoony quote posted showing him mentioning “genetics,” as I said. Stop lying about him, putting words in his mouth he never said.
John Lofton
JLof@aol.com
Mr. Lofton, with all due respect, I must ask you some questions. Why do you visit this website? I mean really…WHY do you visit this website?
Please don’t tell me that you do so in order to “correct errors” or that you hold out some hope that you’ll sway the readers of SWB to your side. Tell me, have YOU ever been moved to change your own opinion on anything because of something a stranger wrote in a comment on a stranger’s blog? Do you really think you’re going to provide some grand epiphany to someone who is as safe behind his keyboard as you are behind yours?
You know the answer to my questions are all “no,” and yet you keep popping up like some dreary horror movie villain. I know you style yourself as an independent thinker, and I know you’ve made a cottage industry out of seeing how many arguments you can start. But really, now. Why DO you keep showing up here? It’s very sad to watch you stumble down SWB’s Main Street, completely unarmed, reeking of self-importance and carrying your self-published copy of “Why I Have the Right to Be the Defender of Rushdoony’s Legacy,” only to once again be pummeled and thrown out of town. Why do you do this, Mr. Lofton? You must be getting something out of the experience.
Try as you might, and bloody as you might end up, you are never going to turn disagreeableness into a virtue. Never. Trust me. I know.
Wheeler MacPherson
Recovering Self-important prick
You’re beyond ridiculous, Lofton, but we keep you around for laughs.
Genetics is another word for patterns of inheritance or heredity. We know that crops, animals, and human beings inherit traits from ancestors because of tiny things called genes. I know you hate to talk about this because you’re one of the neo-Gnostics who believes that culture is entirely spiritual. But as much as it pains you, the fact remains that God created the world you despise and all of its physical orders.
Genes are, in fact, His instrument to prevent there from being a monolithic Christian culture. In the quote above which you dispute, Rushdoony backpedals from his initial statement that culture is solely religious, and he brings into the equation “particular talents and diversities,” unequal “aptitudes,” and IQ tests that are “artificially constructed…so that they will eliminate sexual differences…and racial differences.” Alienists like yourself refuse to accept that God has ordained differences and divisions because you have blinded yourself to the truth. Rushdoony was not blind, and he was talking about you when he said “they don’t want to believe that there are these differences, you see, therefore they try to eliminate them.” See, for example, your habit of placing the word race in quotation marks, as though it doesn’t really exist.
Cultural differences are inherited through what Rush calls “ethnic background.”
I’ll leave it to the readers to determine who is “lying” to himself. But thanks again for playing.
“Mr. Lofton, with all due respect, I must ask you some questions. Why do you visit this website? I mean really…WHY do you visit this website?”
Answer: Don’t like to see anybody lying about Rushdoony — my theological mentor, personal friend, one for whom I wrote a column for 11 years.
John Lofton
JLof@aol.com
You didn’t answer my questions, Mr. Lofton. And you know very well that the Admin staff at SWB have not lied about what Mr. Rushdoony wrote and said. You can play your prickly little semantic games all you want, but the truth will always stand up to scrutiny.
Since you won’t do it, I’ll answer my questions for you: the reason you visit and comment at this site is because something in your family life fuels the need to prove that you’re not what our people’s ancient enemies call a “racist.”
Spare me the psychobabble crap. I gave you my answer. It is true. As for your alleged “recovery” from being (your words)a “Self-important prick,” I think your “recovery” has a long way to go.
John Lofton
JLof@aol.com
Touche’, Mr. Lofton! You really nailed me with that one. I yield to you, sir. And may you be comforted by the hordes of people rushing over to your side, chanting in unison with you, “There is no race except the human race!” Rushdoony would be proud.
I am not a Kinist, but I have to admit that the Kinists have won the exegetical debate hands down. With that said, just *how* are they lying about Rushdoony? I have noticed, Mr Lofton, that you rarely interact with all of the Rushdoony quotes?
For-the-record: Don’t care how many folks rushing to my side. In fact, don’t care if ANYBODY rushes to my side. I’m not running for anything. As for “all of the Rushdoony quotes,” none of them have Rush saying, flatly, unqualifiedly, that marriage between a Christian “black/white” couple is a sin, against God’s Law. There is no such quote from him. And his performing at least one “black/white” Christian marriage (according to his son Mark) shows he did not think what he did was a sin, against God’s Law.
John Lofton
JLof@aol.com
Mr. Lofton:
You say that Rushdoony said nothing about genetics. But, as Mr. McAtee pointed out, he stressed the importance of “heredity” along with “cultural conditioning.”
Heredity and genetics are inseparable. When you affirm one, you affirm the other. Genes are the means through which heredity operates.
And you don’t have to take just my word for that. Here’s what Webster’s New World Dictionary says:
Heredity: 1 a) the transmission of characteristics from parent to offspring by means of genes in the chromosomes b)the tendency of offspring to resemble parents through such transmission 2 all the characteristics inherited genetically by an individual
He called 99% of such marriages sinful, J-Lo! We can quibble about the remaining 1% (and we certainly do), but anyone with common sense will realize that if an act has a 1 in 100 chance of succeeding, it is to be avoided at all costs.
We’ll believe that he officiated at one of these marriages as soon as the people he married step forward, or Mark provides proof. This shouldn’t be too hard.
And again, everyone can see that you’re changing the subject, as you always do when you’re cornered. You chimed in here by accusing us of being liars because we wrote that Rushdoony affirmed that culture has a genetic component. We didn’t lie about anything, as everyone can see. Now you’re moving on to say that Rushdoony denied that interracial marriage is a sin. I really wish you could pay attention and focus, John.
My statement stands. Rush did not use word “genetics.” Best to attribute to people the actual words they said.
John Lofton
JLof@aol.com
Baroque Norseman, the artist is Alex Pardee, and some more of his stuff can be found at eyesuckink.com.
Every time I see John Lofton post on this site I end up wanting to punch myself in the face.
Oh, my word, what does Mr. Lofton think the word “genetics” means? Has he advanced to that elderly state to which my grandmother attained, when she began to refer to “yogurt” as “yoga” and “generics” as “genetics”? Or “Blue Cross Blue Shield” as “Blue Cross Blue Cheese”?!
“Rush did not use word “genetics.” ”
No one said he used that word you stupid jackass. Unlike you Rushdoony wasn’t a complete moron. The fact that you ignore what Rush actually said is proof that you are a complete fraud and a failure. You were rightly excommunicated from the OPC and you’ve never repented because your god is your own reflection in the mirror. You are a complete joke!
That’s funny, CB. We’ve speculated that Lofton is in the early stages of Alzheimer’s. I hope that’s not the case, but I don’t know how else to explain his bizarre, repetitive statements.
Actually, from a quote in this very post, Rushdoony uses the word genetics when he says of hybrid vigor:
“There are sometimes some genetic advantages, there are sometime genetic disadvantages, but there are generally markedly social disadvantages which tend to warp the child’s entire life…”
But to Lofton, if Rush did not use the actual word genetics in the actual quote in question, he could not possibly have been referring to the work of genes.
Only skin color, eye color, and hair color are allowed to be the work of genes. Not intelligence, talent, civilizational aptitude, nor any other thing under the heavens. All people are equal! All people are equal! All people are equal! And if they’re not, it’s because they haven’t REALLY become Christians yet.
We know the whole song and dance.
“Every time I see John Lofton post on this site I end up wanting to punch myself in the face.”
Every time I see Lofton post anywhere I want to punch him in the face.
Lofton claims, “For-the-record: Don’t care how many folks rushing to my side. In fact, don’t care if ANYBODY rushes to my side. I’m not running for anything.”
When in reality he is an attention-starved Narcissus! Here’s what he posted on the Full Quiver Society Group:
“Hope you folks will visit my site Archive.TheAmericanView.com; use search engine; much useful stuff there; also become my Friend and view my FB Wall at least daily’ thx.”
Hey! Thanks for re-posting my notice…..
John Lofton
JLof@aol.com
Pretty easy JLo since you post it everywhere. You are nothing if not a shameless self-promoter. Looks like you’re nailed on your accusations of lies by the admin. Apparently Rush DID care about genetics!
Is Lofton really serious? Every time I see his comments here and elsewhere, I can’t help but wonder whether someone is just “trolling”, so to speak.
All too serious, I’m afraid.
Never said Rushdoony didn’t care about genetics. Never said he never used the word “genetics.” Said, originally (see above),that no Rushdoony quote posted showing him mentioning “genetics.” My statement stands.
John Lofton
JLof@aol.com
John — your mistake is known as the “word-concept confusion.” This confusion takes two forms. One is, thinking that just because the same word is used in two places, it references the same concept. The other is, thinking that just because a different word is used in two places, it cannot be in reference to the same concept.
Well, I’m with JJ. It’s about time to start punching myself in the face. Those of you who are new to Loftonism will soon join me.
Lofton, you originally said, “No Rushdoony quote posted showing him mentioning “genetics,” as I said.”
Now you’re saying, “Never said Rushdoony didn’t care about genetics.”
This is of course a lie as the two quotes clearly indicate. You are incredibly dishonest as well as entirely dumb for thinking we wouldn’t catch this. You obviously didn’t read the entire post or else you wouldn’t have been nailed the way that you have been now. Keep trying to revise what you’ve said. Just digging yourself into a deeper hole John.
Is it fair to shoehorn Rushdoony into a set of beliefs that did not exist when he was alive? Kinism, such that it is, is brand new and has yet to be systematically developed.
Moreover, if Rushdoony held such convictions, they certainly didn’t rub off on his associates. John Lofton was closer to him than any of us. So was Steve Schlissel. So was Gary North. And race issues never seemed to intrude on their relationship.
Y’all will note that Lofton still didn’t answer my simple question honestly. My question was, “Why do you come to this site?” I think it’s a valid question, since he spends all his time here telling everyone how unbiblical they are, etc.
His boilerplate response was, “Don’t like to see anybody lying about Rushdoony.” He would have us to believe that he sits in his neocon cave and suddenly feels a disturbance in the Force, and realizes that somewhere, someone is lying about Rushdoony on SWB. He doesn’t come to read or discuss…he comes because he is impelled to by his duty as the great defender. So that’s why he logs on and points his browser to this site. It has nothing to do with trying to be contentious or trying to stroke his own ego or drive traffic to his site. No, we have it in his own words. Mr. Lofton comes to the site because he doesn’t like anyone “lying” about Rushdoony.
Let the auto-punching commence.
Monitor, the word is new but the ethic is ancient. Rushdoony came from a long line of what are now called “racists.”
“Admin” is correct. Exalting one’s “race,” one’s “ethno-nationalism” IS ancient. Unbelieving Jews did it in the OT, bragging about being biological children of Abraham. If one is a Christian, however, and simply MUST boast, boast of the Christ.
John Lofton
“White,” I guess, but it doesn’t matter
JLof@aol.com
Once again, John-Boy, you’re purposely confusing the issue, which has been explained to you hundreds of times. You have long since crossed over into the sinful territory of bearing false witness.
The unbelieving “Jews” boasted of their Abrahamic lineage as proof for their salvation. This doesn’t apply to Kinists. We affirm, with all other Christians, that we are saved by grace, not race.
We agree with Rushdoony and all other Christians who escaped post-1950 indoctrination that family, clan, tribe, and race are important. They matter, for too many reasons to count. They obviously don’t matter to you, but you ought to be honest enough (if your faith means anything) to admit that, on this subject, you have more in common with Franz Boas, Magnus Hirschfeld, Gunnar Myrdal, and Karl Marx than the saints in Christ.
Many Protestant writers have called for a “new reformation” as a response to modernist corruption. And I think Kinism could or should be a major, useful part of that needed reformation; IMO, the rejection of anti-racist dogma would nicely correspond to the rejection of celibacy-dogma (and the whole escapist monastic ideal) that was a part of the 16th century Reformation.
After all, both the over-exaltation of celibacy and the scolding of earthly kin-loyalty stem from the same semi-Gnostic root of seeing “fleshly relations” as inherently spiritually corrupting, unworthy material attachments.
Saints in Christ boast of CHRIST, not their “race” or “ethno-nationalism” or anything else.
John Lofton
“White,” I guess, but it doesn’t matter
JLof@aol.com
What a loser. Lofton is nailed on his lie about what was posted here and yet he is too dumb to cut his losses and run home to his neocon cave (H.T. to Wheeler!).
I agree with you in part Monitor in that asking if Rushdoony was a kinist is like asking if John Wycliffe was a protestant. I don’t think that the admin or anyone else is suggesting that Rush was aware of kinism or agreed with every tenant of what we believe. I do see from the myriad of Rushdoony quotes here that kinists and Rush have an overwhelming amount of agreement. Lofton never interacts with the Rushdoony quotes provided and Schlissel isn’t really a great representative either. Actually quite a few of Rush’s disciples have gone astray, Lofton chief among them. It is also interesting that Gary North knew about Rush’s views and called him a “racist” because of it.
Of course they do, John, and so do we. All Kinists believe that if the white race continues to reject Christ, we ought to lose everything. And if He prevents this from happening, it is entirely gracious. How is this boasting in the flesh? You know very well that this is not the issue, but you persist in your false witness because you know you’re cornered. You know that you’re wrong in this matter, and you won’t admit it because you can’t afford to admit it. There are too many people who would criticize you for it, and you would lose the fame you have carefully cultivated. I pity you.
The real issue here is not boasting in race or ethnonationalism as though they are necessary for salvation, but considering them to be important for the scale of human life. Like Rushdoony, we believe it’s important to thank God for the gifts that He has bestowed on us, and race is one of these gifts. So is family. Are you proud of your family? I wouldn’t consider you to be much of a father if you aren’t, nor much of a Christian.
Come back to reality, John. Say no to Marxism.
“Are you proud of your family? I wouldn’t consider you to be much of a father if you aren’t, nor much of a Christian.”
What, in this sentence, does “proud” mean? And when you use the word “family” do you mean blood/biological family? And do you believe all fathers must be “proud” of their families whether family members are Christian or not? Your answers will reveal if you are exalting Christ first or blood/biology/”race” first……
John Lofton
“White,” I guess, but it doesn’t matter
JLof@aol.com
Obviously, I mean pride in the virtuous sense, not vanity. The same sense of duty that Christ had for his mother while hanging on the cross and that Paul had for his people. Everyone reading this knows what a proud father is. Everyone knows what a family is. Why are you so obstinate?
Yes, a father ought to be proud of his family whether Christian or not, always praying for their salvation and setting a good example. Do you think that the Fifth Commandment or the laws of Ephesians 5-6 only apply to Christians?
And what makes me think that you’ll answer my questions?
I love how Lofton puts family in scare quotes. He’s so steeped in Marxism that family is a difficult concept for him to wrap his mind around.
It shows how a man who heeds Jewish fables (Titus 1:14) loses all common sense. It’s very sad.
We can say of Lofton what Dickens wrote of Ebenezer Scrooge: “His offenses carry their own punishments.”
“Everyone knows what a family is,” eh? A truly ridiculous statement since never has the question of what a family is been more in doubt than today. More on your bad, not Biblical, priorities soon. But, your reply, “Admin,” was instructive on the blood/biological relation vs. the family of God issue.
John Lofton
“White,” I guess, but it doesn’t matter
JLof@aol.com
Noting my own qualifications about kinism, let’s look at what John Lofton (who is neither a neocon nor a marxist — don’t be silly!) writes:
“What, in this sentence, does “proud” mean? And when you use the word “family” do you mean blood/biological family?”
You have unbelieving relatives, right? Do you still feel loyalty to them? Do you get together with them for holidays and family events?
Tribes and ethnicities are like extended families. Races are an extended family writ large. Ultimately we are all sons of Adam, yet God have split us up into different peoples.
“Saints in Christ boast of CHRIST, not their ‘race’ or ‘ethno-nationalism’ or anything else.”
As for boasting, you make the common mistake that belief in race implies belief in righteousness by race. While certain people carrying the kinist banner hold the position you attack, that view is not standard. It is the Identity cult, not Christianity.
Let’s be clear: Righteousness is only in Christ. Jesus died for the world, in the sense that the Gospel is offered to all races and nations. Blacks and Asians have the duty to believe in Christ as Whites.
That said, Gospel co-exists with Law as a model of justice. This Law is summarized in the Ten Commandments, which includes special duties to honor Mother and Father. If our parents are not Christians, that loyalty changes but is still presents. This loyalty extends to one’s forefathers and ancestors. By necessary consequence, this means duties to kith and kin.
Granted, if family honor leads one to sin, one must obey God rather than man. Yet there is no ordinary paradox between loyalty as a believer and loyalty to one’s own.
Exalting one’s race is one thing. Despising the good gifts and providences that God has showered on one’s tribe is something else again. We are talking about denying the second proposition, not affirming the first. And despising those gifts is what most preachers do continually, in alignment with the teaching of the main stream media and academia.
I guess for you, Lofton, it must be just one of those happy and inexplicable coincidences that there has come about in the last 40 years such perfect alignment between the marxist and jewish media message and all those preachers like yourself that have finally discovered the long-hidden quintessence of Christianity!
Let’s see “Lofton”…
According to Strong’s:
Hebrew
family : mishpachah
1) clan, family
a) clan
1) family
2) tribe
3) people, nation
b) guild
c) species, kind
d) aristocrats
Greek
family : patria
1) lineage running back to some progenitor, ancestry
2) a nation or tribe
a) a group of families, all those who in a given people lay claim to a common origin
b) the Israelites which distributed into twelve tribes, descended from the twelve sons of Jacob, these were divided into families which were divided into houses
3) family, in a wider sense, nation, people
In both cases the words are also translated as kindred. Imagine that. You can also find use of the Hebrew word in reference to kinds as found in Genesis 8:19. The Greek word is also translated as lineage as in Luke 2:4.
You do love your mother, don’t you, Lofton? What about your children? Don’t tell me you despise your own children!
“A truly ridiculous statement since never has the question of what a family is been more in doubt than today.”
I don’t care about the post-modern confusion of the issue. I shouldn’t have to quibble with a supposed Christian (not sure since you’re an unrepentant excommunicate) about the fact that a family is hereditary. As Dawn pointed out, there is no definition of family that excludes heredity.
I don’t think that anyone believes that Lofton is fully neocon or Marxist Monitor. I do see shades of these ideas in Lofton’s thinking, especially in his insistence that kinists are “racists” when this is purely a Marxist construct.
Mr. Lofton,
You seem to be ashamed of your own White skin and reject it. “Well, I guess I’m ‘white’.” What kind of confusion is this?
Sir, Eric Holder, Barack Obama, and Sonya Sotomayor have no doubt about who you are, even if you do. They also know who they are, and will stand for their own kind. And against yours.
I’m not sure why you find this difficult to understand, or sinful. It’s sure not something I would brag about. Like I said, even affirmative action appointees understand it.
Really the only one who thinks it doesn’t matter is you.
Won’t you wake up?
“It shows how a man who heeds Jewish fables (Titus 1:14) loses all common sense.”
Those “Jewish fables” that apostle Paul originally referred to were probably proto-Kabbalistic theories (originally hatched in Babylon) that went on to influence Gnosticism:
http://inquiringminds.cc/yamaguchy_mirror/www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/webster/secret_societies/secret01.htm
“The prevalence of sorcery amongst the Jews during the first century of the Christian era is shown by other passages in the Acts of the Apostles; in Paphos the “false prophet,” a Jew, whose surname was Bar-Jesus, otherwise known as “Elymas the sorcerer,” opposed the teaching of St. Paul and brought on himself the imprecation: “O full of all subtlety and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?”
Perversion is the keynote of all the debased forms of Gnosticism. According to Eliphas Lévi, certain of the Gnostics introduced into their rites that profanation of Christian mysteries which was to form the basis of black magic in the Middle Ages.(101) The glorification of evil, which plays so important a part in the modern revolutionary movement, constituted the creed of the Ophites, who worshipped the Serpent () because he had revolted against Jehovah, to whom they referred under the Cabalistic term of the “demiurgus,” (102) and still more of the Cainites, so-called from their cult of Cain, whom, with Dathan and Abiram, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and finally Judas Iscariot, they regarded as noble victims of the demiurgus.(103) Animated by hatred of all social and moral order, the Cainites “called upon all men to destroy the works of God and to commit every kind of infamy.”(104)”
Jim Jones of course was a perfect modern example of the sort of Gnostic cult leader (in superficially Communist clothes) that apostles warned us about – a suicidal egomaniac that hated this world’s natural order and sought to supplant it with an unnatural totalitarian order of his own, and decided to destroy himself and his followers when that failed.
Citing Jones himself:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=520865&postcount=33
“Very weird, but that doesn’t make me believe that there’s any loving God! Dooh – there’s a loooong jump from my power to heal to believe that there is something loving up there, ’cause if there’d been something loving up there, they’d left us alone and never made us take the trip in the first place! (Cheering, applause.)”
In other words – only a sadistic demiurge could have dropped human souls to this wickedly unequal material world.
Even the jew knows he’s NOT a “White” man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s
Thank you “The Monitor” for noting that it is silly to call me a neocon or a marxist — though this lie is more serious than silly; it is bearing false witness. But, alas, so many “KKKinists” are, among other things, silly. They ridicule, call names, could not care less about what is true.
John Lofton
“White,” I guess, but it doesn’t matter
JLof@aol.com
Nice try, John, but you know very well that we’ve been round this mulberry bush countless times with you. It’s amazing that you pretend otherwise. You know that we don’t think you’re a political Marxist, but rather a cultural Marxist. As even the quotes from Marx above show, he didn’t like racial differences any more than you.
“it is bearing false witness. But, alas, so many “KKKinists” are, among other things, silly. They ridicule, call names, could not care less about what is true.”
I agree admin. Lofton is a thorough cultural Marxist. There isn’t any difference between Lofton’s views on race and Karl Marx’s. I also think it’s ironic that Lofton complains of bearing false witness when he constantly compares kinists to Nazis without any qualification or justification. Lofton is a joke when it comes to seeking out truth since he had the truth given to him about miscegenation and all he could do was conclude that the Prophet Nehemiah (and Ezra) “could have been wrong.” Lofton elevates himself above the inspired application of the Law that we see in the prophet. What a fraud of “Berean” Lofton claims to be!
John Lofton, Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute On The Constitution
Recovering Republican
Arrogant Ass
Smarter and Better than you–just ask me.
Working hard at being a caricature of myself.
Everyone loves me almost as much as I do.
Plus I made this awesome video of me talking about Hans Frank that I have to post everywhere about every three weeks. It’s epic!
A “man,” (I think), but it doesn’t matter (I guess)!
SF, I know that you were one of the men who was very patient with Lofton and spent a great deal of time trying to help him understand the Kinist viewpoint, and he did exactly what we’ve seen here: He dodged questions and used ad hominem, then called us names. So it really is like being stuck in the Twilight Zone to see him accuse us of calling him names and bearing false witness.
As I’ve often said, anyone is free to disagree with Kinism or dislike Kinists, but no one is going to deny, with a clear conscience, that Kinists have taken great pains to answer every objection, and debate the subject with anyone who is willing.
Another lie. NEVER said I “didn’t like racial differences.” Have said repeatedly that whatever “race” is it is irrelevant to me, makes no difference to me and God cares whether you are His child or not and not what your “race” is.
John Lofton
“White,” I guess, but it doesn’t matter
JLof@aol.com
One wonders if “Lofton” ever came by way of ordinary generation or if he fell out of a tree. Is that blood running through his veins? He does have veins doesn’t he? We are sure that “Lofton” is human, correct? One certainly wonders…
“Another lie. NEVER said I “didn’t like racial differences.” Have said repeatedly that whatever “race” is it is irrelevant to me, makes no difference to me”
This is essentially saying the same thing John. I realize that I wasn’t directly quoting you, but your statement just now shows that kinists have you pegged.
” God cares whether you are His child or not and not what your “race” is.”
You keep trying to assert that kinists think that race determines salvation. We don’t believe this. We believe that like gender, race is important in a Christian society. It is no more irrelevant than gender.
Right, imagine if Lofton were to say, “I never said I don’t like sexual differences. I said that whatever ‘sex’ is, it is irrelevant to me. It makes no difference to me, and God doesn’t care about your ‘sex.’” We would accuse him of splitting hairs, because to be indifferent to any of God’s gifts is to despise them. Moreover, this is a man who has bitterly reviled us for trying to preserve the races of mankind. He has called us all kinds of names, like Nazi and “KKKinist” and racist, which are meant to lump us together with those who hate one or more races and want to destroy them. This is a fine example of his sinful false witness. His motives are clear.
“There isn’t any difference between Lofton’s views on race and Karl Marx’s.”
Perhaps there is – Lofton might be rejecting race as a hyper-individualist rather than as a hyper-collectivist. In that case would be agreeing with Ayn Rand rather than Marx.
“We believe that like gender, race is important in a Christian society.”
A little nitpick: I believe one could make a good Biblical case to the effect that sex difference is more fundamental to God’s providential plan than race differences are. For God separated genders back when all things were still “good”, in pre-Fall times. Separation of races came only AFTER the fall, probably as a countermeasure to human wickedness.
Thus one could really argue that confusion of sexual identities is worse sin than confusion of races. Thus homosexuality (for example) is categorically more unnatural and sinful than race-mixing.
I agree, Petr, with the caveat that God blesses distinctions even in eternity, which means that racial separation is not ENTIRELY due to sin, but rather according to God’s plan for human existence.
And if the first part of what you say is true, I’ll happily call Lofton a Randian instead. But he really is a collectivist in the sense that he believes there is only one race: the Christians of the world.
Petr – You said, “Separation of races came only AFTER the fall, probably as a countermeasure to human wickedness.”, but what of the races still being separated in the hereafter? It would seem as though this was God’s plan from the beginning even as seen in the creation mandate to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The same was told to Noah and then we are told of the separation that took place in Genesis 10.
” what of the races still being separated in the hereafter?”
Wow. Separate drinking fountains in Heaven? Who knew? Hope I’m not glorifying God next to someone not of my “race.”
Is there Scripture that says there are “races” in “the hereafter?” Post it here.
John Lofton
“White,” I guess, but it doesn’t matter
JLof@aol.com
If God doesn’t care about races, then why did He create them?
“but what of the races still being separated in the hereafter?”
Who knows how races shall be transformed in the Kingdom of Heaven? After all, even the institution of marriage will be, if not abolished, at least greatly changed there (Matthew 22).
Even though we should not Gnostically despise things like marriage or kith and kin, true Christians should not grow TOO attached to them either. I recall reading from one of Spurgeon’s sermons a moving depiction of how a saved mother denounces in afterlife her offspring that are departing to damnation.
No, we don’t know exactly what the afterlife will be like, but we do know that it won’t be strictly a spiritual existence in heaven. Revelation 21 refers to a new heaven AND a new earth. Our bodies are restored to us in the resurrection because we are human beings; we were never meant to be ghosts.
In fact, I think this is a crucial element of eschatology that divides the Kinists from the Alienists.
Dawn is referring to the same chapter, where we’re told that “the glory and honor of the nations” (plural), defined as races or tribes, will be brought into the New Jerusalem, and “the kings [plural] of the earth will bring their splendor into it.”
In the last chapter of the Bible, we’re told that the leaves of the Tree of Life “are for the healing of the nations” (plural).
John-Boy can mock this as separate drinking fountains, but as Francis Nigel Lee says above, there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that all Christians will be amalgamated in eternity. Just the opposite, and as Dawn says, it reflects His plan from the beginning. This doesn’t detract from the unity of Christians, of course. Christians can be unified NOW without being amalgamated.
By the way, John, you promised yesterday: “More on your bad, not Biblical, priorities soon.”
Since then, you’ve said very little besides asking questions of your own.
I’m sure this was an oversight on your part, and you’ll explain yourself tonight. I’m sure you’ll want to do this right away so that no one mistakes it for classic Loftonian evasiveness.
Petr, nitpick all you want. I’ve learned more from your nitpicks than I have in hours of reading commentaries
I agree that Lofton is probably more Randian than Marxist. I also agree with you that a case could be made that gender is also more important than race, but both are vastly important. I do agree with Dawn and Admin that the fact that race is still distinct in Heaven indicates that God did providentially plan for race from eternity. I also think that racial confusion and gender confusion tend to go hand in hand.
“Is there Scripture that says there are “races” in “the hereafter?” Post it here.”
Rev. 21:24 and Rev. 22:2. Now keep in mind John as you thumb through your KJV Bible:
1.) The word nation in the Bible is translated from the Greek word ethnos which means ethnicity.
2.) The English word nation at the time of the KJV translation had racial/hereditary undertones. It did not mean a mere geo-political entity.
3.) We shouldn’t be surprised by the absence of the word race from the Bible since it comes to us from Latin derivation. Indeed nation in the English language derives from the Latin word for race. Ethnos was the Greek word meaning essentially the same thing.
I write the above three points because I already know that your sole rebuttal will be that the words (in the KJV translation) don’t explicitly mention the word race.
Another lie. Rand claimed to be an “atheist.” I do not. And why do you use “cultural Marxist” / politically correct word “gender?”
John Lofton
“White,” I guess, but it doesn’t matter
JLof@aol.com
We see such a promise even in what was spoken to Abraham: Genesis 12:3 “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” and again: Genesis 17:4 “As for me, behold, my covenant [is] with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. 5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.”
We see that the families (kindred, kinds) and nations are plural even as we see in the book of Revelation. We literally see distinct families and nations (races) from cover to cover.
What has previously been stated is to be understood as following along the lines of the concept of the One and the Many. There is One Body of Christ made up of Many Nations (Races). We will not be an amalgamated one as though we were all equal and serving in the exact same fashion, but rather we will be a diverse peoples having unity in Christ Jesus serving in our separate functions even as He is preparing us unto them even as we are now and yet then wholly prepared unto them due to the process of glorification.
Why waste so much time on John Lost-in-Space? Argue against serious men; ignore fools. Nothing is gained by engaging someone who (1) has nothing to offer and (2) is interested only in publicity.
John, why do you use the cultural Marxist / politically correct word “racist”?
That’s the third time, in this thread alone, that you’ve accused us of lying. Are we ever merely mistaken?
Lofton, no one said that you were an atheist. Your views on race though are indistinguishable from Ayn Rand (Rosenbaum).
” And why do you use “cultural Marxist” / politically correct word “gender?””
lol, I’ll refrain from using gender if cease using the term “racist” which is far more culturally Marxist. You are a living breathing double standard.
I noticed that you’ve totally ignored the scripture given to you. Not surprising for a guy that dresses up like a Berean only on Halloween.
Lofton’s #1 tactic is to lie and then accuse others of lying. Couldn’t fool anyone but he still tries.
Gender (kind, sort) is a politically correct word now? It seems to stem from the Latin word ‘genus’ (race, stock, kind).
Origin:
1300–50; Middle English < Middle French gendre, genre < Latin gener- (stem of genus ) kind, sort
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gender
This too is quite interesting:
genus
(pl. genera ), 1551 as a term of logic (biological sense dates from 1608), from L. genus (gen. generis ) "race, stock, kind," cognate with Gk. genos "race, kind," and gonos "birth, offspring, stock," from PIE base *gen-/*gon-/*gn- "produce, beget, be born" (cf. Skt. janati "begets, bears," janah "race," jatah "born;" Avestan zizanenti "they bear;" Gk. gignesthai "to become, happen;" L. gignere "to beget," gnasci "to be born," genius "procreative divinity, inborn tutelary spirit, innate quality," ingenium "inborn character," germen "shoot, bud, embryo, germ;" Lith. gentis "kinsmen;" Goth. kuni "race;" O.E. cennan "beget, create;" O.H.G. kind "child;" O.Ir. ro-genar "I was born;" Welsh geni "to be born"). Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genus
You’re going to confuse him with so many words, Dawn.
Mr. Lofton, another white girl was raped by blacks.
http://thereporteronline.com/articles/2011/07/26/news/doc4e2f36f37339a743111985.txt?viewmode=fullstory
Maybe you should spend your time telling blacks things that Kinists already know, like “rape is wrong” and “murder is a sin”. Judging by crime statistics it seems blacks don’t know these things.
Anyway, if love of your own kind is a sin, surely rape is a little bit worse? Who is telling blacks that they have no right to rape White girls? Certainly not Eric Holder. Maybe you could step in and explain to them why this is wrong, instead of passively supporting the mantra that unless blacks can gratify their sexual urges on Whites, sin is everywhere.
Appreciate your thoughts on this matter.
Mint, “human” (I guess. If it matters. Maybe).
Well done SWB. Another great post. Great clarification on some of Rushdoony’s sermons.
You need the TOCC or some other Table of Contents plugin for your site. Your pages are so long they are hard to navigate.
There is also a plugin called: Organize Series that might work as well for breaking up your missives across multiple pages.
Thanks for saying http://www.pocketcollege.com is “the second best website on the Internet of planet Earth, behind the Dabney Archive.”
If people will actually support me in making it better the next few iterations will be really fantastic.
One of the things I hate about the Internet is that it shows that Christians often don’t know how to argue as brothers. Now, we know that John Lofton is neither a Marxist nor a Randian. This sort of rancor, on either side, can fall into the evil of unbiblical name-calling.
That said, I wish JL would scroll up and respond to my points in my earlier post. Specifically, I raised the issue of loyalty to unbelieving relatives and the fifth commandment.
Further, does JL understand the difference between loyalty to kith and kin and an heretic belief in salvation by generation?
Hey guys, if John Lofton is the best that the Alienist movement has to offer, I wouldn’t spend too much energy on him. If his motor skills match his debating skills, I wouldn’t expect him to be able to pour piss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel.
I mean, it is humourous to see his facile and childish responses to every well-laid out argument, but like watching any three-year-old throw a tantrum, the initial humour subsides very quickly.
I personally think that the kinist movement will largely benefit from such a comical adversary. Just my two cents.
Good point, Dave. His tantrums are certainly entertaining, but after a while it can be exhausting.
Monitor, I don’t see anything wrong with pointing out that Alienists like Lofton agree with both Marxists and Randians on race. It’s a fact.
But to answer your question, yes, Lofton does understand. He’s not as stupid as he comes across. He has personal reasons in his family for opposing the truth. There’s no need to divulge the details, but it’s easy to guess. This always seems to be the case with our opponents. Aside from minor differences in exegesis, there’s no way to deny the basic truth of what Kinists are saying. The opposition most often comes from those who are too heavily invested, if you know what I mean.
“Two cents?” You vastly over-value your advice.
John Lofton
“White,” I guess, but it doesn’t matter
JLof@aol.com
Hey look, it’s a picture of John when he was a young crumb-cruncher.
You say, in part, “The Monitor”: “You have unbelieving relatives, right? Do you still feel loyalty to them? Do you get together with them for holidays and family events? ….If our parents are not Christians, that loyalty changes but is still presents. This loyalty extends to one’s forefathers and ancestors. By necessary consequence, this means duties to kith and kin. Granted, if family honor leads one to sin, one must obey God rather than man. Yet there is no ordinary paradox between loyalty as a believer and loyalty to one’s own.”
Before I reply, tell me, please, what you mean by word “loyalty” here. I see command to honor parents. But, do not know what you mean by “loyalty” in what you write.
Also,please tell me what you think the word “especially” means in the following Scripture:
Gal 6:10: As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.
(KJV)
Seems to me God says Christian connection more important than “race/ethno-nationalism” connection. You agree/disagree? Thank you.
John Lofton
“White,” I guess — flesh-colored, actually —, but it doesn’t matter
JLof@aol.com
John Lofton: “You vastly over-value your advice.”
You LIE. I never gave anybody any advice. In fact, the word advice never appears ONCE in my entire comment. NOT ONCE! For you to say that what I wrote is advice is a BALD FACED LIE.
Monitor, I agree with Admin. None of us have said that Lofton is a full-fledged Marxist or Randian. His unqualified use of the word “racism” shows that he is dependent upon this particular Marxist construct. Petr is probably correct that Lofton rejects the biblical concept of race in favor of Randian individualism as opposed to Marxist collectivism.
“Before I reply, tell me, please”
Just so you know Monitor this is classic Lofton-speak indicating that he has absolutely no intention of replying to your question. Fair warning.
” what you mean by word “loyalty” here.”
Look it up for yourself Lofton. Loyalty is a pretty simple concept.
“Also,please tell me what you think the word “especially” means in the following Scripture:
Gal 6:10: As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.
(KJV)
Seems to me God says Christian connection more important than “race/ethno-nationalism” connection. You agree/disagree? Thank you.”
This discussion has already happened on FB. The especially in Gal. 6:10 in no way conflicts with the especially in 1 Tim. 5:8. He’ll ignore this as he always does. If Lofton were consistent, he would assert that he himself has a duty to personally provide for every single Christian as much as those within his own family. But Lofton isn’t consistent. He is an incarnation of a double standard. Lofton’s own measure of all things is himself.
Nice touché, Dave. That just about captures the level of this debate.
Mr. Lofton, I note that you didn’t respond to my (or anyone else’s) comments. I have no doubt that you merely overlooked them. The only other alternative is that you are engaging in trollish behavior, that is, raise controversial opinions, then run, ignoring everyone else. There’s no way you’d do that, is there?
Like everyone else here I would agree loyalty to the Holy One trumps race. I would also agree that this is not a divine decree to bless intermarriage.
Further, I would ask you to explain why the Apostle Paul said that if he could, he would wish he were “accursed from Christ for the sake of my brethren”. He was talking about Jews. Does this make Paul a horrible nazi? Why do you think he wasn’t actively trying to get Jews to extinguish themselves by intermarrying? Did he actually do this, and it was covered up racist Christians?
As it was the Christ-hating Trotsky who enlightened the whole world about racism, the standard that we Christians must judge everything by or we are in a horrible sin, when do you think the next hater of our Lord will turn the Church to another great truth?
Also, could you explain why the Holy Spirit found it desirable to give a command to the early Church that would essentially keep the Jews as a distinct race, despite believing as one with converted Gentiles?
Thanks!
LOL – Dave Hodges just owned John Lofton.
“I have no doubt that you merely overlooked them.”
Mint, in time you’ll find out that it is a typical Loftonian tactic to ignore other people’s questions. With regards to your observation about the Apostle Paul Lofton will likely respond with something like, “Apostle Paul no KKKinist….no racist”
God’s Word is crystal clear showing that a Christian’s relation to another Christian is a more important relation, to God, than a Christian’s relation to a blood member of a family who is not a Christian.
John Lofton
NOT A KKKinist…
JLof@aol.com
“A friend has wisely said that Alienism is really Oikophobia: fear and hatred of one’s own people and culture.”
Thanks for introducing this useful new term to me. Can’t we see, again and again, how the hatred of liberals towards their own culture is much deeper and more sincere than their supposed love towards other cultures, which they often deal with offensively shallow, posing affectation?
This is an old phenomenon. Already the 18th century Enlightenment “philosophés”, those pioneers of secularism, lionized pagan China (about which they knew quite little about, being largely reliant on what scholarly Jesuit missionaries had told them about it!) in order to the denigrate their own Christian home-culture.
Alexis de Tocqueville wrote thus about them:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1014184&highlight=alexis#post1014184
“Finding nothing in their neighborhood conformable to this ideal of theirs, they went to the heart of Asia in search of a model.
I do not exaggerate when I affirm that every one of them wrote in some place or other an emphatic eulogium on China. One is sure to find at least that in their books; and as China is very imperfectly known even in our day, their statements on its subject are generally pure nonsense. They wanted all the nations of the world to set up exact copies of that barbarous and imbecile government, which a handful of Europeans master whenever they please. China was for them what England, and afterward America, became for all Frenchmen. They were filled with emotion and delight at the contemplation of a government wielded by an absolute but unprejudiced sovereign, who honored the useful arts by plowing once a year with his own hands; of a nation whose only religion was philosophy, whose only aristocracy were men of letters, whose public offices were awarded to the victors at literary tournaments.”
There is a sense in which that is true John, but let’s not forget that the Apostle said that he would be willing to be accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of his physical race even though they were unbelievers at the time (Rom. 9:3). Would you be willing to do the same? Why not?
Also Paul commands that Christians provide for their own people, especially those of their own immediate families (1 Tim. 5:8). No qualification is given that says that this isn’t obligatory in the event that our own people aren’t believers.
That’s an excellent quote, Petr.
So it is 740 AD, Boniface comes and chops down Thor’s oak. You are a German woodsman for whom that is enough: you convert to Christ. Now in addition to attending Boniface’s services you start to pray for your brothers, your sisters, your tribesmen, your chief. You start to explain things to them (in between the work of cutting down trees, carving them, harvesting crops, repairing fences).
But, says our new Apostle John, your relation to some Egyptian Christian in Alexandria that you have heard exists is much more important than any of that.
No, Tim, my point was that God says that a Christian’s relation to other Christians outside the family is more important than a Christian’s relation to a family member who is not a Christian. You are a constant reminder, Tim, that a mind IS a terrible thing to waste.
John Lofton
Not A KKKinist…
JLof@aol.com
And your point is dead wrong, John. You really must believe that the Fifth Commandment only applies to Christians. Instead of writing that you’re not a “KKKinist,” you ought to prove to us that you’re even a Christian. Despising the natural order is not a good start.
Well the cat’s out of the bag. Lofton doesn’t believe that the Fifth Commandment, and by extension 1 Tim. 5:8 applies to non-Christian parents. Does Lofton offer any evidence of this at all? Scripture that limits the scope of the Fifth Commandment to only Christians? Nope. Why am I not surprised!
Mr. Lofton, You still didn’t say anything. You still haven’t replied, you just show up, throw a poorly-aimed dart, and vanish.
In addition to Paul, doesn’t Moses himself around Exodus 32 ask God to blot him out, if He is going to blot out the rest of the Jews? Since Moses was in good standing with God, but the Jews as a whole were not, why in the world did he ask this? Was he a KKKinist? Didn’t Moses know that loving your own kind is the worst sin ever?
Mr Lofton, I also note that you described yourself as “flesh colored”. Most non-Whites would consider this downright Hitlerian, as it denies them the godhood our society tells them they so richly deserve.
Crayola used to have a peach (White skinned) color crayon labled “Skin” around the 50s I’m told. Thank Trotsky we got rid of it, the whole world was probably about to melt due to an overload of crayon-induced white privilege.
Forgive me for rambling, the point I am coming to is even you, at your stage of awesome self-hatred, would still be called a horrible racist by the Marxist yardstick of today. Why not just forget the whole thing, take a deep breath, and admit that when Whites choose to marry other Whites, it’s preferable to Blacks marrying Whites?
Mint, Christian Anarchist, former Republican. NOT a DemoKKKrat.
You can be certain that, in his next comment, John will far more likely change the subject or repeat one of his favorite cliches than respond to any question that has been asked of him.
John’s waste is a terrible thing to mind.
Notice no one denying, from Scripture, my statement “that a Christian’s relation to other Christians outside the family is more important than a Christian’s relation to a family member who is not a Christian.”
John Lofton
Christian
JLof@aol.com
” Why not just forget the whole thing, take a deep breath, and admit that when Whites choose to marry other Whites, it’s preferable to Blacks marrying Whites?”
Because God says no such thing.
John Lofton
Christian
JLof@aol.com
John: I denied it in my example. I believe it is in terms of a scriptural world-view, even if a specific verse doesn’t spell it out.
There is no verse in which Paul says, in effect, “no you must stop being a human.”
Basically I said, “Scenario A is true, though John will contradict this with scenario B.” Then John comes back, “You are feeble-minded. What I actually uphold is scenario B.”
Lofto(n),
I pointed out that Paul said that he was willing to be accursed for those of his own race. Last time I checked Rom. 9:3 is still in the Bible, although I’m sure that you’ve ripped that page out long ago.
SF
Not an eXXXcomunicate like Lofton
“Notice no one denying, from Scripture, my statement “that a Christian’s relation to other Christians outside the family is more important than a Christian’s relation to a family member who is not a Christian.””
Easy asnwer: this is true in one sense, but not true in another sense. (Sort of like God is “one” in one sense of the word, but not one in the Unitarian sense of the word.)
Other (true) Christians of other races liing in other parts of the world may well be more important or closely connected to me in SPIRIT than my kinsmen in flesh, but not necessarily in material matters like everyday politics and economics.
Lofton approaches the Bible the same way that a fundamentalist Baptist does. A Baptist will say that there is no exact, word for word Bible verse commanding that infants be baptized. Those who espouse infant baptism point out that this hermeneutic is obviously flawed and take a much more mature approach to scriptural interpretation. The same applies with Lofton. He really is an antinomian who rejects anything that is predicated upon the general equity of any law. For JLo, you need to have an exact verse that specifically mentions race in it to prove your point. Lofton’s been given a myriad of scripture supporting the kinist position such as Gen. 2:23-24, Num. 36, Deut. 17:15, Ezra 9-10, Nehemiah 13, Acts 17:26-27, Rom. 9:3, 1 Tim. 5:8, Rev. 21:24, and 22:2 as well as many others. All of these verses and passages are rejected because of the absence of a Latin-derived word in a Hebrew and Greek Bible. If Lofton were consistent, he would reject infant baptism because their is no exact verse that specifically says, “Thou shalt baptize infants.”
SF
not an eXXXcomunicate like Lofton
Where is the scripture that says Christians must become equally faceless, raceless, and bloodless in order to have fellowship?
I once attended a church where a black African preacher proclaimed his love for his race and his tribe. Was I offended? Not in the least. I respect men who possess what the Apostle Paul called “natural affections.” Sadly, in this age of liberalism, not all men have them.
JL wrote ~ Notice no one denying, from Scripture, my statement “that a Christian’s relation to other Christians outside the family is more important than a Christian’s relation to a family member who is not a Christian.”
If this were unequivocally true, none of the wandering Saints who converted their own tribes in Europe would have gone back home to preach.
Even the way you constructed that example shows that you would have to accept the following:
“A Christian of one’s own family is far more important to a believer than a Christian outside his family, let alone someone outside his family who was not Christian at all”. You chose your example because it pits a weak example from the Kinist side against a supposedly stronger one from the modern “Christian” position. It actually only highlights the overall weakness of the current Church’s position on such.
“God’s Word is crystal clear showing that a Christian’s relation to another Christian is a more important relation, to God, than a Christian’s relation to a blood member of a family who is not a Christian.”
No scripture given to back this up, John Lofton.
“Because God says no such thing.”
Why did God command Jews to not marry Gentiles? If this was only for religious reasons, why were Levites forbidden from marrying converts?
Why did Abraham seek a wife for Isaac from his own people, and not the surrounding nations? Didn’t he know that was a Nazi act?
Why did James continue to keep the law of Moses after he believed in the Lord? This keeps Christian Jews and Gentiles separate, why is this, Mr. Lofton?
Where did God say Whites who do not approve of White on Black unions are sinners?
Where did God command us to intermarry?
Where did God command us to allow foreigners to rule over us?
Where did God say His Truth would be revealed through the political machinations of atheists like Trotsky and Lenin?
If you are so keen on abolishing the races, why not abolish the genders? Paul himself said “there is no male or female in Christ Jesus”, so why not deny sex differences from now on?
Why not support anti-Speciesism? You support anti-Racism (read: hatred of Whites), an actual social construct invented by Jewish leftists in the 1920s, so why not support another atheist, the Gentile Richard Dawkins, in this newest foray into insanity?
Mint, “human” (not that it matters. I could just as easily be a lobster or parachute. Let’s abolish identity!)
I wonder what John Lofton thinks of Rushdoony referring to Jared Taylor of amren.com in a positive manner in the piece? What does John do with that? Deny the recording? Rushdoony defends Jared Taylor, for Jared Taylor’s writing on Race Realism. That was great.
I wonder what John Lofton thinks of Rushdoony referring to Jared Taylor of amren.com in a positive manner in the piece? What does John do with that? Deny the recording? Rushdoony defends Jared Taylor, for Jared Taylor’s writing on Race Realism. That was great.
“If you are so keen on abolishing the races, why not abolish the genders?”
A more realistic question: if he rejects race dogmatically, why would he support the concept of nation-states either? Lofton, on what basis would or could you oppose a Babelist one-world government?
There are many dogmatic libertarians who would like to do away with all state borders.
And Lofton, hopefully you realize that no matter how much you yourself might deny it, the mainstreamers in the outside world (you know, the PC pissants) definitely see Rushdoony as a nasty ray-cist:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2010/7/12/94224/9568
“We cannot say whether David Barton or Stephen McDowell are racist, but McDowell’s citation of R.J. Rushdoony is certainly telling, given Rushdoony’s unabashed views. On pages 509-5120 of Institutes of Biblical Law we find the following,
“All men are NOT created equal before God; the facts of heaven and hell, election and reprobation make clear that they are not equal. Moreover, an employer has property rights to prefer whom he will in terms of “color” creed, race or national origin.”
Correct, Petr. One of the major ways in which Rushdoony qualified as a “racist” was for rejecting “equal opportunity employment” laws. He believed that white Christians had the right to hire only white Christians, or rent property to them, etc. Most neo-Christians today would be horrified to be associated with the “racism” of R.J. Rushdoony or Lester Maddox, who believed that property actually belongs to the people who own it. Horrifying racism!
But since Lofton wrote a column for Rushdoony for 11 years, this proves that Rushdoony was no “KKKinist”!
“Most neo-Christians today would be horrified to be associated with the “racism” of R.J. Rushdoony or Lester Maddox, who believed that property actually belongs to the people who own it.”
As I have formerly said, if one can eisegetically twist the New Testament to support the abolition of race, on the other hand it would be even easier to make the NT support the abolition of private property.
Ten Commandments might have forbidden coveting other people’s stuff, but now the new covenant of grace has arrived and abolished such unenlightened attitudes. Good spiritual Christians should not care about their earthly belongings – certainly not any more than for the purity of their bloodlines!
And indeed, heretical Gnostic-Pantheistic sects arose in both the early church and the Reformation era that promoted various forms of anarchism or communism. John Calvin commented on such people in his “Institutes”:
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/classics/calvin/institutes10-20.html
“5. Those who are desirous to introduce anarchy[679] object that, though anciently kings and judges presided over a rude people, yet that, in the present day, that servile mode of governing does not at all accord with the perfection which Christ brought with his gospel.
Herein they betray not only their ignorance, but their devilish pride, arrogating to themselves a perfection of which not even a hundredth part is seen in them.
679. French, “Ceux qui voudroyent que les hommes vesquissent pesle mesle comme rats en paille;”–Those who would have men to live pell-mell like rats among straw.”
In this chapter Calvin also commented on the two favorite Babelist prooftexts, noting that it was precisely the Gnostically inclined despisers of material world and its natural order that liked to misuse such passages to support their anarchism:
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/classics/calvin/institutes10-20.html
“In this sense the following passages are to be understood: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female” (Gal. 3:28). Again, “There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all and in all” (Col. 3:11). It is thus intimated, that it matters not what your condition is among men, nor under what laws you live, since in them the kingdom of Christ does not at all consist.
2. Still the distinction does not go so far as to justify us in supposing that the whole scheme of civil government is matter of pollution, with which Christian men have nothing to do. Fanatics, indeed, delighting in unbridled license, insist and vociferate that, after we are dead by Christ to the elements of this world, and being translated into the kingdom of God sit among the celestials, it is unworthy of us, and far beneath our dignity, to be occupied with those profane and impure cares which relate to matters alien from a Christian man.”
Racial politics would of course be a “profane and impure care” for any good Gnostic.
Lofton, how does it make you feel when John Calvin calls you a fanatic?
“If you are so keen on abolishing the races, why not abolish the genders?”
No joke, actually – this is actually what strict logic drew already the earliest Gnostic heretics to proclaim, that in order to truly triumph over flesh, the very concept of different sexes would have to be abolished. (Or at least the female sex, which these spiritual misogynists associated with the birth of new wicked flesh…)
The last saying from the forged Gnostic “Gospel of Thomas” spells it out:
http://www.goodnewsinc.net/othbooks/thomas.html
“(114) Simon Peter said to them: Let Mary go forth from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Behold, I shall lead her, that I may make her male, in order that she also may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
E. Michael Jones cleverly pointed out the similarity of Gnostic thought to the “deconstructionist” pap that decadent modern universities indulge in:
http://www.culturewars.com/2002/potter.html
“Harry’s friend Hermione “is particularly interested in Transformation,” which is to say, “you know, turning something into something else.” Transformation is, of course, “supposed to be very difficult.” But that’s why we send our children to places like Hogwarts where they begin by believing that they can change “matches into needles and that sort of thing” and end up believing that maleness and femaleness are cultural constructs that they have transcended through gnosis.”
In that Jones article, it’s also very interesting that the narcissism inherent to all Gnostics reaches its apex in the sodomite, who is at war with nature like no one else.
“The homosexual is the consumer culture’s version of the ideal citizen because he takes all of the strains of narcissism to their logical antiessentialist conclusion. The homosexual qua homosexual can form no family and, as a result, no real community; in a culture which promotes sexual liberation as a form of control by breaking down family and community, homosexuality is the most exaggerated form of sexual individualism. The homosexual ‘lifestyle,’ which is based on unnatural sexual acts, is proof that there is no nature and, therefore, no reality. By promoting homosexuality as a viable alternative lifestyle, the consumer culture is saying that fantasy can triumph over reality, which is the essence of the narcissistic personality disorder.”
No, writing a column for Rushdoony for 11 years, and spending many hours with him personally and on the phone, just means I know him a lot better than any of you folks. And he was no KKKinist. His denunciation of the kind of natural privilege asserted by KKKinism is categorical. Oh, I know, many of you say BUT WE EXALT CHRIST FIRST! Yes, I know you SAY this. I do not believe you. In any event, here is some of what Rush said in his categorical denunciations of natural privilege:
“In European society, primogeniture became a legal premise: first birth meant inheritance. In the Bible, moral qualification takes priority over a biological priority….
* * *
“Succession could not be denied to a godly child (Deut. 21:15–17), nor could an ungodly child be allowed the protection of the family (Deut. 21:18–21). The ungodly, according to the law, had to be “cut off,” a term used repeatedly in the law to cover excommunication, disinheritance, and capital punishment. Succession thus is godly succession…..
“Succession in much of history has had a reactionary characteristic, in that it has been governed by blood rather than by faith. Blood succession has invited revolution, in that the removal of a stupid and entrenched power has been regarded as impossible without violence. The Biblical stress on godly succession means that a Caleb can regard Achsah and Othniel as his best heirs and strengthen their hand….
* * *
“An inheritance is precisely that, a blessing, and for a parent to confer a blessing or the central blessing on an unbelieving child, or a rebellious and contemptuous child, is to bless evil….”
* * *
“As we have seen, God works against the presumptions of natural privilege….The firstborn in Scripture are often not the firstborn by blood but the firstborn by grace. In brief, natural privilege is negated as an unfailing rule. To deny that natural privilege is inescapably assured of rank and place but is subject to the priority of grace is a serious negation of the human order….
“The rejection of Esau was a denial of natural privilege. Israel had come to believe in its own natural privilege by virtue of God’s covenant, and Paul is declaring this belief to be wrong…..The fallen world, however, is emphatic on the validity of natural privilege, both before God and before men. To the extent that we allow natural privilege any ground except under God and His grace, to that extent we undermine God’s sovereignty and law….
“Whether in the sphere of personal conduct, state law, or man’s relationship to God, natural privilege asserts the autonomy of man from God. Man is seen as free to assert his own standards, and God must accept man on his own self-evaluation.
Natural privilege means, however, cultural death. The more deeply entrenched it becomes, the more deadly its consequences…..
“Christianity is a rejection of the world of Adam and an affirmation of the world of Christ. As such, it is a denial of natural privilege in favor of sovereign grace. The world of Adam is the world of death.”
John Lofton
Christian
JLof@aol.com
You’re digging a deeper hole for yourself, John.
1. You say that we’re liars about putting Christ first in our lives. But what reason do we have to lie about this? Do you think it would make us richer or more popular if we said that we put Christ second?
2. What exactly is the “natural privilege asserted by KKKinism”?
I know I’ve barely given a thought to primogeniture in my life. I know which of my children are the most trustworthy and faithful, and moral considerations are more important to me than their age. I pray God’s blessings on all of them. I know of extreme examples where children are disinherited, but most parents want to split assets equally, for the good of all their children. Outside the most extreme examples, I think most parents understand the ways in which their children succeed and fail, but they are primarily concerned with the duty they have to all their children, because they are THEIR children.
Does your last will and testament contain morality clauses, so that prodigal children are cut off? Is this how you avoid “reactionary” succession based on blood?
I really don’t know what you’re trying to say, or how Kinism is found guilty of “natural privilege.” Kinists are interested in two things (as if you haven’t been told a thousand times): Bonds of faith in Christ and bonds of blood with our kin. It’s simply an extrapolation of what takes place at the level of the family, about which you have a great deal of confusion.
“An inheritance is precisely that, a blessing, and for a parent to confer a blessing or the central blessing on an unbelieving child, or a rebellious and contemptuous child, is to bless evil.”
I understand this to mean that if there are unequal portions of inheritance, and the greater portion is bestowed on a rebellious or contemptuous child, even if it is because he is the oldest, it is wrong. Not only do I agree, I don’t know anyone who would disagree. Again, how does this convict Kinism? Sorry, I mean KKKinism.
We see in Genesis that God blessed Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, none of whom was the firstborn. The lesson is not lost on any of us. From the stones in the road He can raise up sons to Abraham. We don’t trust in the flesh to save us.
“Israel had come to believe in its own natural privilege by virtue of God’s covenant, and Paul is declaring this belief to be wrong.”
In terms of the covenant, this is true. Therefore, Israel had no right to lord it over other nations to come who would be baptized into the faith. But the Apostle did not mean to say that Israel therefore had no right to exist.
Likewise:
“Christianity is a rejection of the world of Adam and an affirmation of the world of Christ… The world of Adam is the world of death.”
It is a rejection of the world in a covenantal sense, not a rejection of the world! You really are a Gnostic, aren’t you?
Kinists maintain that the white race ought to survive, and we’re doing what we can to help it survive, and to fight against a well-funded conspiracy of very powerful people who would like nothing more than to see it utterly destroyed. But this does not mean that we believe that white people ought to survive at the expense of anyone else. We don’t hate non-whites. We don’t ignore the second table of the Law in their regard or, like the Jews, pray a Kol Nidre to absolve our oaths to protect the integrity of our fellow man.
We love our race for the same reason that we love our families. Your problem is that you don’t believe the white race exists as anything more than a social construct, and therefore you are indifferent as to whether it survives or perishes. But the enemies of the white race (who, not coincidentally, are enemies of Christ) are not at all indifferent, and you have made common cause with them.
But really, John, is this the best you can do? Primogeniture? Natural privilege? What other straw men can you pull from your bag of tricks? This is your best response to everything that has been written in this post?
Pitiful.
“No, writing a column for Rushdoony for 11 years, and spending many hours with him personally and on the phone, just means I know him a lot better than any of you folks.”
You are to Rushdoony what Judas Iscariot was to Jesus Christ. Knowing Rushdoony is your sole claim to fame.
Next JLo provides a few quotes from Rush that he says refute kinism.
“Succession could not be denied to a godly child (Deut. 21:15–17), nor could an ungodly child be allowed the protection of the family (Deut. 21:18–21). The ungodly, according to the law, had to be “cut off,” a term used repeatedly in the law to cover excommunication, disinheritance, and capital punishment. Succession thus is godly succession…..
“Succession in much of history has had a reactionary characteristic, in that it has been governed by blood rather than by faith. Blood succession has invited revolution, in that the removal of a stupid and entrenched power has been regarded as impossible without violence. The Biblical stress on godly succession means that a Caleb can regard Achsah and Othniel as his best heirs and strengthen their hand….”
It is stupid to think that this refutes kinism at all. No kinist denies that ungodly sons can be disinherited. This doesn’t change the fact that Deut. 21 establishes the rights of the firstborn son, which is essentially all primogeniture is referring to. You completey miss the fact that Rushdoony uses an example in Caleb naming his daughter and son-in-law/nephew as his heirs. This means that Caleb still considered biological family to be essential for being heirs! If an ungodly firstborn son is disinherited, then he is replaced by other worthy members of his own immediate family. This isn’t even remotely close to your position that race doesn’t matter. You really are stupid.
“Oh, I know, many of you say BUT WE EXALT CHRIST FIRST! Yes, I know you SAY this. I do not believe you.”
And you say that driving to a PCA “church” in a different state because the local PCA church told you to reconcile with the OPC who rightly excommunicated you is an example of Christian repentance. You are a habitual liar.
SF
Not an eXXXcomunicate like Lofton!
“The general rule of inheritance was limited primogeniture, i.e., the oldest son, who had the duty of providing for the entire family in case of need, or of governing the clan, receiving a double portion. If there were two sons, the estate was divided into three portions, the younger son receiving one third. The parents had a duty to provide an inheritance, as far as their means afforded (II Cor. 12:14). The father could not alienate a godly first-born son because of personal feelings, such as a dislike for the son’s mother and a preference for a second wife (Deut. 21:15-17). Neither could he favor an ungodly son, an incorrigible delinquent, who deserved to die (Deut. 21:18-21). Where there was no son, the inheritance went to the daughter or daughters (Num. 27:1-11). If by reason of disobedience or unbelief, a man in effect had no son, then the daughter became the heir and son as it were. If there were neither sons nor daughters, the next of kin inherited (Num. 27:9-11). The son of a concubine could inherit, unless sent away or given a settlement (Gen. 21:10; 25:1-6). A maid could be her mistress’ heir (Prov. 30:23), and a slave could also inherit (Gen. 15:1-4), since he was in a real sense a family member. Foreign bondmen could also be inherited (Lev. 25:46). The inheritance of one tribe could not be transferred to another, i.e., the land of one area could not be alienated (Num. 36:1-12). A prince could give his property to his sons as their inheritance, but not to a servant, lest this become a means of rewarding them to the detriment of his family (Eze. 46:16,17). If some land were given by a prince to a servant, it reverted at the year of liberty to the prince’s sons. The prince could not confiscate the people’s inheritance or land, i.e., the state could not seize property or confiscate it (Ezek. 46:18).” ~ R.J. Rushdoony ~ Ibid., Vol.1., pp. 176-177
It all sounds so reasonable in context.
So the inheritance of one tribe cannot be transferred to another. Lofton, do tribes still exist? Are they entitled to their own property? Or are Christians our only tribe?
Try to keep up, and stay focused, pls.
Thanks Dawn for providing an excellent and thorough position from Rushdoony regarding primogeniture. This is essentially the kinist position. Lofton clearly doesn’t understand Rushdoony.
But SF, you’re forgetting the hours they spent talking on the phone.
“In that Jones article, it’s also very interesting that the narcissism inherent to all Gnostics reaches its apex in the sodomite, who is at war with nature like no one else.”
Yes, I think that was one of Jones’s best pieces. Homosexuals indeed ARE, in a certain sense, the ideal citizens of consumer society. Spend spend spend, saving is for breeder squares!
Here is a good article about perhaps the most influential sodomite of the 20th century:
The anti-Christian economics of John Maynard Keynes
http://www.tkc.com/resources/resources-pages/keynes.html
“The economist Joseph Schumpeter was insightful in connecting Keynes’ “childless” and “essentially…short-run” philosophy of life. A person committed to homosexuality is without descendants, there is little to focus his attention on the future, on “the long run.” It is appropriate that Keynes is popularly remembered for his quip “in the long run we are all dead.” As his biographer, Robert Skidelsky noted, Keynes’ had a “lifelong bias against long-run thinking” and “He was not prepared to risk too much of the present for the sake of a better future….” It is no wonder that he spoke derisively of “the hoarding instinct as the foundation…for the family and for the future”; for him thrift, family and concern for the future were inextricably linked.
According to Keynes (in an essay sardonically entitled “Possibilities For Our Grandchildren”) an individual’s concern for the future is a “disgusting morbidity,” and a “semi-criminal, semi-pathological” propensity that should be treated as a mental disease. Is this the stuff that cold, hard, objective economic theories are made of? Hardly. These are the words of a man rebelling against what a concern for the future represents.
…
Our public debt represents our lust to consume today without thought for tomorrow. We have, in large measure, spent our children’s inheritance (as my least favourite bumper sticker reads). We have, to put it very bluntly, practiced homosexual economics, but we have not, as Mr. Keynes expected, spent ourselves into prosperity.”
Slowly but surely the “KKKinist”/”racist” position being smoked out. “Admin” says:
ADMIN: Kinists maintain that the white race ought to survive, and we’re doing what we can to help it survive —
COMMENT: “Kinists maintain…?” Are you the Kinist Pope? Do you really speak for ALL “KKKinists” like the Lorax speaks for all the trees? And I can see your bumper sticker now: “Have You Hugged A White Person Today?”
ADMIN: and to fight against a well-funded conspiracy of very powerful people who would like nothing more than to see it utterly destroyed.
COMMENT: Sounds scary…too scary….too fearful. Fear is not a fruit of the Christian Spirit. Among those in the lake of fire are the fearful. Relax. God is in charge. If He wants “the white race” to survive “the white race” will survive.
ADMIN: But this does not mean that we believe that white people ought to survive at the expense of anyone else.
COMMENT: Ohhhhhhhh. So, you desire that “the white race” survive but not “at the expense of anyone else,” eh? Sounds kinda wimpy. Why isn’t “the white race” worth fighting for even if that fight means folks of another “race” die? Are you a pacifist or just a coward?
ADMIN: We love our race for the same reason that we love our families.
COMMENT: I see no Scriptural command to “love” one’s “race.” And what might it mean to “love” the unbelieving members of our families? If you mean only that we are to keep God’s Law re: unbelieving members of our families — not murdering them, stealing from them, coveting what they have, etc — then yes, we must “love” them. If you mean something else by “love,” what is it?
ADMIN: Your problem is that you don’t believe the white race exists as anything more than a social construct, and therefore you are indifferent as to whether it survives or perishes.
COMMENT: True, whatever the “white race” is, I don’t really care. I don’t think about or judge people in terms of their “race.” What matters most, as Scripture says, is whether a person is saved or not saved. THAT’S where the action is, between God’s people and those who deny Christ’s divinity, the children of the devil (John 8:44ff). What’s important to me is that CHRISTIANS survive, regardless of their “race.” And, of course, Christians WILL survive…and conquer, by God’s grace alone.
ADMIN: But the enemies of the white race (who, not coincidentally, are enemies of Christ) are not at all indifferent, and you have made common cause with them.
COMMENT: I do not think enough about “the white race” to be for or against “the white race.” Thus, I make no common cause with friends or enemies of “the white race.”
“True, whatever the “white race” is, I don’t really care.”
You are at odds with Rushdoony and Scott then, who had no trouble understanding what the white race is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4FO1GlQKLA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOjOC-P7K_I
Lofton you are such a jackass.
““Kinists maintain…?” Are you the Kinist Pope?”
Do you speak for all cultural Marxists. Maybe stop looking at your own obese reflection in the mirror.
” Sounds scary…too scary….too fearful. Fear is not a fruit of the Christian Spirit.”
No one denies that God is in charge, but we are still called to be active. Admin never mentioned being afraid.
” I see no Scriptural command to “love” one’s “race.” ”
How about the emulation of St. Paul (Rom. 9:3)? Was he wrong? And we are commanded to provide for our own people (1 Tim.5:8).
SF
Not an eXXXcomunicate like Lofton
For-the-record: I am a member in good standing of a PCA church in Virginia — although “excommunication” does not, necessarily, mean anything. Synods/councils can err. Calvin/Luther both “excommunicated.” Rushdoony left OPC because he, too, was about to be “excommunicated” for teaching a Bible study on the Lord’s Day.
John Lofton
Christian
JLof@aol.com
” Sounds scary…too scary….too fearful.”
Again, kinists fully acknowledge the sovereignty of God and understand that he will preserve the white race in the end because our nations will be present in Heaven (Rev. 21:24, 22:2). This is stupid logic though because this is essentially saying that because God is in charge and ultimately justice will triumph, therefore we shouldn’t be concerned with injustice.
“So, you desire that “the white race” survive but not “at the expense of anyone else,” eh? Sounds kinda wimpy. Why isn’t “the white race” worth fighting for even if that fight means folks of another “race” die? Are you a pacifist or just a coward?”
Pretty idiotic logic here as well. Of course we would kill someone who threatened our family and people as a righteous defensive action. What admin obviously means is that we still believe that objective justice as outlined in the Second Table ought to be maintained. Would you prefer that admin would have said that we defend the white race at the expense of others? I want to spread the influence of the Christian faith as well, but I don’t go around killing unbelievers simply because their unbelievers. This is particularly duplicitous of you since you condemn those who kill those guilty of the crime of abortion. So tell me Lofton, are you are a pacifist or just a coward? One thing is for sure, you are hypocrite.
SF
Genuine Christian
Not an eXXXcomunicate like Lofton
Brothers, I respectfully ask that you give me a moment here.
The internet, like all of God’s provisions, can be a blessing or a curse, depending on the motives with which we use it. While most of us have benefited from the ready and massive amount of information to be found on the web, we have also likely witnessed, experienced, and even dabbled in the toadstools of folly growing on the damp floor of the internet.
Some of you, like myself, have perhaps experienced the odd sensation of sitting down behind the keyboard and getting a visit from Mr. Hyde (to use a friend’s apt phrase). We find ourselves in a cyber-shouting match with someone we’ll never meet in this life, and we type things we’d never say face-to-face. Often, we regret hitting that “send” button. And why do we regret such faceless pugnacity? Because we remember that we are to do everything to the glory of God, and we must confess that our internet exchanges are sometimes more about scoring points for ourselves than for this noble purpose.
Brothers, Mr. Lofton has had ample opportunity to prove himself either a worthy opponent or at least worthy of the time spent fencing with him. Over and over again, he has shown himself merely interested in his own aggrandizement and publicity. When confronted with obvious errors in his statements and reasoning, he accuses the confronter of lying and then plays the lead role in yet another production of “Whack-A-Mole.” For example, when confronted with the fact of his excommunication, he dodges by proclaiming himself to be a member in good standing of the PCA…quite missing the point that Anthony Bradley can make the same claim – hardly a ringing endorsement of that denomination! His answers and assertions would be amusing if he were a professing atheist or Wiccan or Kwaanza Kommando. But Mr. Lofton is a professing Christian, which gives his deliberate contentiousness a deeper, more ominous cast.
The head admin at this site is a friend of mine, and I treasure that relationship.His patience greatly outstrips my own, and through the years he has proven himself more than willing to patiently answer the same tired (and often asinine) questions and accusations repeatedly. I know this is because he desires to give inquirers the benefit of the doubt and to honor Christ in so doing. But I gently suggest that it’s time for all of us to simply ignore Mr. Lofton. I do not believe he can be reasoned with at this time; I believe he is, as William F. Buckley once described him, “extra-rational.” Mr. Lofton seems to have taken our Lord’s words in Luke 6:26 and twisted them to assume that when NO one can speak well of a man, that man is a true prophet.
There are genuinely curious and confused people out there who need to understand the important concepts of family/race/nation from a biblical perspective. Let us not waste more time on a man who wants a fight and a flashbulb.We are all mindful of the dual warning of Proverbs 25:4-5, and it’s clear that SWB has utilized both prongs of the saying in dealing with Mr. Lofton. I would commend to all of us, myself included, the careful re-reading of some other gems from the book of Proverbs:
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,but a wise man listens to advice. (12:15)
If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.(29:9)
Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him. (26:12)
A fool’s lips walk into a fight, and his mouth invites a beating.(18:6)
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.(18:2)
Excellent advice, Wheeler.
God does not “preserve” ANYBODY on the basis of their “race!”
John Lofton
Christian
JLof@aol.com
“I believe he is, as William F.
Buckley once described him, ‘extra-rational.’”
Oh, my. I guess that settles it —denounced by Bill Buckley. Still, I appreciate this post. It’s the first laugh I’ve had reading this site.
John Lofton
Christian
JLof@aol.com
In other words, “Do not feed the trolls.”
Sorry… couldn’t resist.
Exactly so, Scarborough Fayre.
In eternity, the One true God will preserve nations as nations in the saints who are shown to us in heaven. And these were precisely the people who were most concerned about injustice and godless tyranny upon earth.
In the latter times of the world, these are the people who as representatives of their nation opposed the Revolution Against Nature and God inaugurated in France 1789 – now culminating globally as the New World Order (Communism) in all of its ISMs.
This was foretold by St Louis de Montfort 1673 – 1716 A.D. who reposes in the Vendee, France.
“…in these latter times…the enemies of God, idolaters, schismatics, Mahometans, Jews and souls hardened in impiety who shall rise in terrible revolt against God to seduce all those who shall oppose them and to make them fall by promises and threats…”
I think this about covers the alliances of the ISMs in the Revolution.
The Revolution was first opposed in the Vendee where liberty, fraternity and egalite began its ethnic cleansing of the good farmers loyal to Church and King, their families and their land. And especially were they loyal to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ High King of France and to Holy Mary the Queen Mother of France.
This was where the Revolution and the Counter Revolution first engaged.
And it concerns the American South closely because the French Settlers in the lands that became the Louisianna Purchase were predominantly from the Vendee and Poitou – called in America ‘Akkadians’.
You can view the imagery of that first great battle of the Counter Revolution in the Vendee – in stained glass, monument and painting on
http://www.storialibera.it/epoca_contemporanea/rivoluzione_francese/Vendea/mostra_online_utopia_against_people_the_vendee.htm.
That link should be
http://www.storialibera.it/epoca_contemporanea/rivoluzione_francese/vandea/mostra_online_utopia_against_people_the_vendee.htm
It has been said on discussion forums on the web, that male liberals and PC types no longer think like men. Their rational and the way they approach and interpret a doctrine or topic is very much like the way most females do.
Their thought processes have crossed over the dividing line between men and women. Much the same way a man becomes a sodomite.
He diliberately, willfully crosses a line that is not to be crossed by a man.
Mr. Lofton posts and argues like a woman.
Replying to such a one, only gives them an excuse to start anonother arguement.
I think it’s true that he is one of the common emasculated types who is guided by emotion. But women can be guided by emotion and still be logical. To one like Lofton who knows inside that he is wrong but must maintain his war against the created order, logic is an enemy and emotion is a refuge.
Logic does not tell us what is true but only what is logical. Statements can be “logical” and false.
John Lofton
Christian
JLof@aol.com
On another note, a pastor friend of ours just received his Obama Stimulus Package in the mail. It contains two watermelon seeds, cornbread mix, a prayer rug, and 10 coupons to KFC. The directions are in Spanish.
I agree with Wheeler’s advice that it would be best to ignore Lofton. I will say that although synods can err, Lofton refuses to give any indication that they did in his case. Calvin and Luther’s excommunication was of an obviously different nature, and Rush wouldn’t have been excommunicated for any personal failure like Lofton was. The fact that Lofton sees excommunication as meaningless speaks volumes to his lack of Christian character.
I did not say ex-communication is meaningless. I said it does not, necessarily, mean anything. And only a fool would comment on a case about which he knows no details.
John Lofton
Member in good standing
of a PCA church in Virginia
JLof@aol.com
“And only a fool would comment on a case about which he knows no details.”
You mean the details posted by the OPC on the internet? How about the fact that you drive to Virginia because the local PCA told you to apologize? You mean those kinds of details?
SF
Genuine Christian
Not an eXXXcomunicate like Lofton!
No, I mean details re: BOTH SIDES of a case. As God tells us in His Word, Proverbs 18:13:
“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” And it is false to say “the local PCA told you to apologize?” Never happened.
John Lofton
Member in good standing
of a PCA church in Virginia
JLof@aol.com
“details re: BOTH SIDES of a case.”
You didn’t present your side of the case at the trial? Besides, I’ve asked you about this several times in the past and every time you refuse to divulge such precious exonerating information. You haven’t done so, except to insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Sorry but that isn’t going to cut it. If you have a reason as to why the OPC was wrong than by all means share it. I guarantee that you won’t.
“And it is false to say “the local PCA told you to apologize?” Never happened.”
They may not have said those exact words, but they told you to resolve your conflict with the OPC, and this involved apologizing to the family you wronged.
I should also add for those of you who aren’t familiar with facebook that Lofton is entirely hypocritical on the nature of church discipline. On a group called Theonomy Applied Lofton hammered the RPCGA for allowing Ken Gentry to minister in their denomination after being temporarily suspended from the ministry by the PCA after an incident involving exposing himself to a woman. What Lofton failed to mention is that Gentry was only temporarily suspended by the PCA, and had served out that entire sentence when ordained by the RPCGA and unlike Lofton, was never excommunicated.
I’m inclined to believe that Gentry should have been handled differently since ministers are to be above reproach, but this behavior highlights Lofton’s own double standards. It is also false for Lofton to equate himself with Luther and Calvin since the bull of excommunication against them was over theological issues. Lofton was excommunicated because he is a personal moral failure.
Those who would like to know what “Scarborough Fayre” calls simply “an incident” involving Ken Gentry can go here:
http://thegentryfiles.blogspot.com/
Also, Gentry was barred forever by the PCA from returning to the pulpit. I am a member in good standing at a PCA church in Virginia. My church fight in the OPC had NOTHING to do with any “moral” issues but rather with a verbal run-in I had with another church member. And the PCA church where I am a member in good standing never told me to resolve my conflict with the OPC.
In any event, this whole topic is nothing more than a pathetic, transparent attempt to change the subject from what I write about here, to smear me.
John Lofton
Member in good standing PCA church in Virginia
JLof@aol.com
Fascinating conversation.
In my traditional parish, there is a row (on the porch actually) for people who can not approach the sacraments because they are doing their penance. It is colloquially called the ‘Bevan row’. They can hear the Mass of the Catechumens but the door is shut for the Mass of the Faithful. So these folk are temporarily excommunicated until they amend and finish their penance. They get to go to confession, they get to hear the Mass of the Catechumens and they are usually all around for the bar-be-que afterwards.
Of course, you can’t prevent the Grandmothers going back there and sitting with them – especially the teens – and praying and giving them little gifts of encouragement to get on with whatever it is they have to repair.
If Lofton falls into this category, maybe he should be assigned a Grandmother. Just a thought.
This is different to people who are excommunicated by the order of the bishop – like French priests who at the time of the Revolution took the oath of loyalty to liberty, fraternity, egalite. You couldn’t go to those masses or receive any sacrament from them – even on point of death. Very serious penances and public retrations required here.
Some of these folk can only be restored by deathbed confession. Sadly many of these latter are priests, deacons, etc who were foresworn of the ‘Oath Against Modernism’ – Sacrorum Antistitum imposed by Pope St Pius X in perpetuity – a sanction upon those infiltrating the Church for the purpose of re-engineering the faith and liturgy according to the liberal diktat of the Revolution inaugurated 1789.
Fr Ratzinger, the disciple of Karl of Rahner, would have taken the Oath Against Modernism when he was ordained and he went on to become the great liberal change-agent for the Revolution in the Church that he is. Now as anti-pope, he has certainly nailed his colours to the mast.
The Oath Against Modernism was lifted by the Vatican Council II. Naturally. The liberal architects and laborers of that Council were at that time manifestly foresworn so they might as well ditch the Oath – which they did.
On a lighter note, the Obama Stimulus Package probably contains watermelon seeds and corn that is Round-up Ready Monsanto GMOs. I’m surprised there isn’t an advisory to get a swine flu vax.
I do NOT fall into that category, Lynda. I am communion-taking member in good-standing at a PCA church in Virginia.
John Lofton
Not A Roman Catholic
JLof@aol.com
“Those who would like to know what “Scarborough Fayre” calls simply “an incident” involving Ken Gentry…Also, Gentry was barred forever by the PCA from returning to the pulpit. I am a member in good standing at a PCA church in Virginia.”
I never exonerated Gentry. In fact I specifically said, “I’m inclined to believe that Gentry should have been handled differently since ministers are to be above reproach.” My point was that you never personally spoke with Gentry or the RPCGA elders to get their side of the story. Why should I be required to treat you any differently?
“My church fight in the OPC had NOTHING to do with any “moral” issues but rather with a verbal run-in I had with another church member.”
You were excommunicated for the sin of contentiousness. You are aptly described in Rom. 2:8. This is a personal moral failure on your part.
“And the PCA church where I am a member in good standing never told me to resolve my conflict with the OPC.”
I never said that they did. The reason that you drove to a PCA church in Virginia instead of one more local to you in Maryland is because the one that you had been attending more frequently told you to apologize to the family with whom you had the verbal run-in. Besides, the fact that a PCA church is unscrupulous in who they let in doesn’t surprise me. The PCA let Affirmative Action PC Prince Anfernee Bradley in as a “member in good standing.” You are not in good company. The PCA is soft on the issue of public schools and issues apologies for slavery every couple of weeks. I’m not the least bit impressed by your “membership” in the PCA. Your PCA congregation may not have told you to repent of your contentiousness and reconcile with the family that you wronged, but they should have.
“In any event, this whole topic is nothing more than a pathetic, transparent attempt to change the subject from what I write about here, to smear me.”
I laughed pretty hard when I read this. Keep in mind JLo that you are a guest here. You do not set the agenda. Your entire time here has been spent making baseless accusations against kinists and in studiously avoiding answering straightforward questions. Clearly the Rushdoony quotes given here indicate without a shadow of a doubt that he was a forerunner to kinism. End of story, rumors about a supposed “marriage” that he performed notwithstanding. What you have accomplished is to show everyone that you were righteously excommunicated and that you are need of repentance. I’ll pray for you John that you are delivered from the Devil’s grasp and that God will take your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. God can work miracles so there is still hope for you yet (Ezek. 36:26, 2 Tim. 2:25)!
SF
Not an eXXXcomunicate like Lofton!
“Scarborough Fayre” says: My point was that you never personally spoke with Gentry or the RPCGA elders to get their side of the story. Why should I be required to treat you any differently?
COMMENT: Your statement is false. I spoke to Gentry at one point for about 45 minutes during which he lied to me repeatedly.
FAYRE: You were excommunicated for the sin of contentiousness. You are aptly described in Rom. 2:8. This is a personal moral failure on your part.
COMMENT: Your assertion presupposes the OPC GA did not err. You do not know this. You simply assume they did not and you know what they say about assuming. And like many things you comment on, you do not understand ex-communication. IT IS NOT SOMETHING PERMANENT. My being a member in good standing at a PCA church in Virginia means I am a member of the body of Christ.
FAYRE: The reason that you drove to a PCA church in Virginia instead of one more local to you in Maryland is because the one that you had been attending more frequently told you to apologize to the family with whom you had the verbal run-in.
COMMENT: Another false statement. I was told no such thing by anyone in the church I attended before becoming a member in good-standing at the Va PCA church.
FAYRE: Besides, the fact that a PCA church is unscrupulous in who they let in doesn’t surprise me. The PCA let Affirmative Action PC Prince Anfernee Bradley in as a “member in good standing.” You are not in good company. The PCA is soft on the issue of public schools and issues apologies for slavery every couple of weeks. I’m not the least bit impressed by your “membership” in the PCA.
COMMENT: Your denunciation of the PCA church where I am a member in good-standing — a church whose congregation and elders you know NOTHING about — demonstrates your foolish rhetorical recklessness. And I have no interest at all in impressing you.
FAYRE: Your PCA congregation may not have told you to repent of your contentiousness and reconcile with the family that you wronged, but they should have.
COMMENT: Again, you reveal your aggressive ignorance. The man I argued with totally reconciled with me. My Session did not. So, your statement is yet one more false statement. And that Rushdoony married at least one “black/white” Christian couple is not, as you say, a “rumor.” It is what his son Mark says.
FAYRE: What you have accomplished is to show everyone that you were righteously excommunicated and that you are need of repentance. I’ll pray for you John….”
COMMENT: Nothing has been written here that shows I was “righteously excommunicated.” To determine this would require a seriousness of purpose that you have in no way demonstrated. To determine whether the OPC GA erred or not would require scores of hours of investigation re: a case that went through 3 levels of church courts for more than a year. But, you SHOULD pray. You should confess to God your sin of repeatedly bearing false witness in your posts re: my OPC case, for bringing charges against PCA elders you do not know, elders who unanimously made me a member in good-standing.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing, PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
John,
There is a forthcoming tell-all site about you as well:
http://theloftonfiles.wordpress.com/
It’ll be NOTHING like the Gentry file, I assure you.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing, PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
I would love to know who this black/white couple that Rushdoony married is, and whether they are still married. And also, whether their children are rioting in London.
To our knowledge, Gentry hasn’t performed hopscotch maneuvers to avoid the obvious implications of his public record. But you still proclaim yourself as an angel of light even as you throw your alleged mentor under the bus for pressing the Christian antithesis with the current MLK status quo. It would be like Gentry saying that Bahnsen wasn’t a postmillennialist.
I assure you that TheLoftonFiles will be FAR more effective than Gentry’s page.
” Your statement is false. I spoke to Gentry at one point for about 45 minutes during which he lied to me repeatedly.”
Then why omit this in the original FB conversation?
“Your assertion presupposes the OPC GA did not err. You do not know this. You simply assume they did not and you know what they say about assuming.”
I never said that they couldn’t have erred, but that I don’t believe that they did based upon the proponderance of evidence.
“And like many things you comment on, you do not understand ex-communication. IT IS NOT SOMETHING PERMANENT. My being a member in good standing at a PCA church in Virginia means I am a member of the body of Christ.”
I never said that excommunication was permanent. And you claim that I misrepresent you!
“Your denunciation of the PCA church where I am a member in good-standing — a church whose congregation and elders you know NOTHING about — demonstrates your foolish rhetorical recklessness. And I have no interest at all in impressing you.”
What I am saying is that the PCA church is an ecclesiastical corpse. Like most denominations, there are usually pockets of vitality. Nevertheless my points about the PCA church in general stands.
” Another false statement. I was told no such thing by anyone in the church I attended before becoming a member in good-standing at the Va PCA church.”
So why weren’t you received into communion into the church you attended in Maryland before being received into communion in the PCA in Virginia?
“Again, you reveal your aggressive ignorance. The man I argued with totally reconciled with me. My Session did not.”
If this is true, are you no longer considered suspended by the OPC? The reason I ask is because I’ve brought this up with you several times before and you’ve never mentioned this.
“And that Rushdoony married at least one “black/white” Christian couple is not, as you say, a “rumor.” It is what his son Mark says.”
Like Chad, I’d love to hear the details of this. Until then I’m not impressed.
Ordinarily, when a court gives a verdict, judgment is no longer “suspended pending further investigation.” When a man is convicted of murder, you no longer refer to him as an “alleged murderer,” but simply, murderer. It’s the same when a church court does so, and all avenues of appeal have been exhausted.
Of course a court can err, but at that point the burden of presenting evidence and proof rests on the convicted, not the public. Those whom the convict can persuade may say, “though convicted, I don’t think he is guilty.” But the convict is no position to wag his finger at those whose speech reflects the court’s verdict because they haven’t repeated the investigation on their own.
This is one of the things courts are for!
The idea that half a dozen men (or whatever) in Springfield, Virginia, can nullify a verdict ratified by a GA representing 30,000 people, from all regions of the country, is quite ludicrous. And doubly so, in that that congregation is part of a denomination pretending to have “fraternal relations” with the latter. It is antinomianism.
John, I have it on good authority that your unresolved OPC discipline was a hindrance to joining the PCA down the street from you in Laurel, Maryland, which you were attending and hoped to join.
You have, repeatedly, made false statements, “Scarborough Fayre,” and have no credibility.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing, PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
When a person is ex-communicated that person is said by those doing the ex-communicating that the person ex-communicated is ex-communicated from the body of Christ and not just a local church or denomination. When a person, after ex-communication, is made a communion-taking, member-in-good standing by another church, in another denomination, that person is RESTORED to the body of Christ and not just to a local church or denomination.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing, PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
John, no one that takes the doctrine of the church seriously could hold to the view you describe. Church discipline would always and easily be subverted, and would simply cease to exist.
Another important point: No denomination must, necessarily, accept the discipline of another denomination. Not at all. Thus, a PCA church is free to ignore any discipline imposed by the OPC, and vice-versa. The Reformed churches, obviously, did not recognize the Roman Catholic ex-communication of Luther and Calvin. And Dr. Rushdoony fully supported me in my OPC fight.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing, PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
“Lofton” was present during this Easy Chair session and heard Otto Scott and Rushdoony discussing minority prejudices and white, male Christians including mention of Jared Taylor and his book “Paved With Good Intentions”:
http://chalcedon.edu/research/audio/faith-vs-guilt-culture/ (50:07)
“You have, repeatedly, made false statements, “Scarborough Fayre,” and have no credibility.”
All you’ve done is accused me of lying without giving any specific information of how I’m lying. You’ll have to do better than insist that this never happened.
“When a person is ex-communicated that person is said by those doing the ex-communicating that the person ex-communicated is ex-communicated from the body of Christ and not just a local church or denomination.”
I agree 100% with Tim Harris on this. It is stupid of you John to think that a few elders in Virginia can overturn the ruling of the OPCGA while the PCA pretends to have fraternal relations with the OPC. I also agree with Tim that once someone is convicted and found guilty in either an ecclesiastical or civil court then they are presumed guilty until they can furnish evidence that they are in fact innocent. I am under no obligation to simply believe your unsubstantiated assertion that you are innocent. Besides, your behavior here confirms for me that the OPC has you pegged dead on.
SF
Not an eXXXcomunicate like Lofton!
“No denomination must, necessarily, accept the discipline of another denomination. Not at all. Thus, a PCA church is free to ignore any discipline imposed by the OPC, and vice-versa.”
This is false and indeed a recipe for antinomianism. If a church denomination excommunicates someone, then any other church congregation who is considering that person for membership has the burden of demonstrating that this person is fit for communion against the excommunication of another denomination. Otherwise you could simply join any professing congregation whether they are even aware of your discipline or not and declare that you are no longer under discipline. This is patently absurd but unsurprising. Lofton recognizes no authority other than himself.
“The Reformed churches, obviously, did not recognize the Roman Catholic ex-communication of Luther and Calvin.”
Irrelevant since this occurred during a schism concerning the doctrines of the church that were being weighed at the time. A Lutheran wouldn’t be personally “excommunicated” by any Reformed churches simply because they don’t commune Lutherans.
“And Dr. Rushdoony fully supported me in my OPC fight.”
Any evidence for this? Perhaps Rush wrote a letter to the OPC on your behalf. In any event this too is irrelevant. You contend that the entire OPC GA was wrong, and name drop Rush (as you always do) expecting us to be impressed. Of course it is entirely possible that Rush didn’t understand the nature of the situation or was simply wrong himself. Either way Rush’s personal opinion doesn’t overturn the verdict of an ecclesiastical court. Once again Lofton you demonstrate your unsurpassed love of yourself.
SF
Not an eXXXcomunicate like Lofton!
http://chalcedon.edu/research/audio/john-lofton-views-on-talk-shows/
John Lofton appeared on the Jerry Springer show?! (He wonders why no Pastors would make an appearance?!): 1:20
What about John 7:24, Lofton?!!? : 11:03
Lofton is a racist?! : 11:50
Christians are cowards because they won’t speak up on freak shows?! More importantly for me is why are Christians even present during the taping of said freak shows?! 13:30
Lofton, Donahue and Nudists : 18:30
Lofton vs. Naked Black Gay : 20:53
Yes, Lofton really does have a thing for waitresses : 24:56
Jesus and the Apostles were Jewish : 34:41
And, by the way, Otto Scott doesn’t give a damn : 49:15
But wait…John 7:24 IS mentioned after all : 56:17
Show me, “Scarborough Fayre,” from anybody’s book of church order, where one denomination MUST accept the discipline imposed by ANOTHER denomination. Put up or shut up on this issue.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing, PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
Jesus and the Apostles were Israelite. Our Lord’s tribe was Judah and he was called a Nazarene.
In the Church, this does not confirm those of Israelite descent (the Desposyni) as superior or entitled. Still less does it confirm those of Jewish or Idumean ethnicity who converted from their Judaic / Pharisaic sect and its Tradition of the Elders.
But ethnos does manifest order within the Church according to nations. And this is reflected in the rites from Apostolic times.
This is part of the Incarnational aspect of the faith. Within the Roman Catholic Church there are several rites which recognize this. The Roman rite is European. The Ethiopian Church is among the oldest in the world and today the majority is the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/links.html. These are Black African congregations both in Africa and in diaspora.
The Syriac rite in India is part of the Antiochan Christian East – from the times of St Thomas the Apostle.
The Christian faith is incarnational, John Lofton. Please do get hold of this.
Of course no boco is going to say that there is NEVER an exception, lest they box in their options. But,
1. Any church that takes discipline (and in consequence, the marks of the church) seriously is not going to do what your old boy network in Springfield did.
2. Especially, with respect to a church of fraternal relation.
3. Imagine if the OPC and PCA had a joint communion service. Whose verdict would trump the other in your case or others like it?
4. I, as an OPC man, am required to regard you as excommunicated.
5. Anyone that believes the OPC is a true church and has no reason to believe she erred in your case, is obligated to regard you as an excommunicate.
6. That churches behave like this in America, and indeed, that it is even possible for this kind of situation to arise, is a mark of deep shame on the church of Christ in our land and time. One does not have to be a Roman Catholic to realize that such a situation is simply intolerable — one church saying “X is excommunicated,” another saying “X is not excommunicated,” while continuing to be members of the same evangelical association.
7. The idea that a SESSION would deign to trump a GENERAL ASSEMBLY is even more outrageous. These men are beyond the pale.
“Show me, “Scarborough Fayre,” from anybody’s book of church order, where one denomination MUST accept the discipline imposed by ANOTHER denomination. Put up or shut up on this issue.”
Actually the burden of proof is upon you Lofton to show where any church order would maintain that it did NOT have to recognize excommunication by another denomination. Why would any church assume that it had the right to unilaterally overturn another church’s excommunication without working through the underlying issue? This is especially true of the PCA since they claim to have fraternal relations with the OPC. Your arguement is stupid and would lead to the subversion of all church discipline. If someone is excommunicated they could simply “solve” the problem by joining or forming a new denomination. So can you provide any examples from a church order that suggests that a denomination has the right to simply ignore the discipline of another denomination? Put up or shut up on this issue!
SF
Not an eXXXcomunicate like Lofton!
To argue (falsely) that all denominations MUST accept the discipline of ALL other denominations is wrong, idiotic and absurd. What would require this? Scripture? If so, cite the Scripture. Books of church order? Denominational constitutions? Cite those that say this. To argue (falsely) that ALL denominations must accept the discipline of ALL other denominations is to presuppose that ALL church court rulings are infallibly correct. Such rulings are NOT infallibly correct which is why the WCF says synods, councils may err. I repeat: No denomination must, NECESSARILY, accept the discipline of another denomination. And no one here has yet cited any authority that says they MUST do this.
Rhetorical questions re: this matter are not proof of anything. If you assert that ALL denominations MUST accept the discipline of ALL other denominations then show me Scripture that says this or a book of church order that says this our a denominational constitution that says this. But, you will not. Because there is no Scripture that says this or book of church order that says this or denominational constitution that says this.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing, PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
And the burden of proof is never on ANYBODY to prove a negative — NEVER.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing, PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
NAPARC Agreements:
Page 317: http://www.pcaac.org/BCO%202010%20Reprint%20All.pdf
NAPARC Churches:
http://www.naparc.org/member-churches/
“To argue (falsely) that all denominations MUST accept the discipline of ALL other denominations is wrong, idiotic and absurd.”
You do realize that 2/3rds of the Christian world claims there is no salvation outside their church? The RCs, EO, Ethiopian and other Eastern-Rite churches all claim to have the truth. They also do not, by and large, take communion with each other as they consider this a grave breach of Apostolic ethics.
Forgive me for not having the exact reference, doesn’t one of the apostles, or was it Paul, command Christians to separate themselves from those who “do not walk according to the tradition which we handed down”? So your claim is incorrect.
Of course any number of churches can do “as they please”, this doesn’t make it right. There are successful churches in the “Bible Belt” with openly homosexual pastors. Is this wrong?
“And the burden of proof is never on ANYBODY to prove a negative — NEVER.”
You have confused two separate logical concepts in an attempt to dodge a question.
Many times in mathematics it suffices to prove a theorem by showing a thing is false for x cases or all cases, depending on what you are trying to prove. Also very prevalent in statistics is the finding of a correct answer by first showing what absolutely cannot happen and subtracting that from the collection of all possibilities.
Mint, a White sinner who has obtained forgiveness
“To argue (falsely) that all denominations MUST accept the discipline of ALL other denominations is wrong, idiotic and absurd.”
My argument has consistently been that all church congregations are bound to recognize legitimate excommunications unless they are able to prove that there was an injustice or mistake made by another church court. To wantonly disregard the verdict of a legitimate ecclesiastical court is nothing less than antinomianism.
“What would require this? Scripture? If so, cite the Scripture. Books of church order? Denominational constitutions?”
You do realize that “denominations” aren’t a scriptural concept right? You should consult 2 Th. 3:6 on the issue of excommunication. Simply declaring that the OPC GA and every other subsidiary court made a mistake isn’t good enough.
“To argue (falsely) that ALL denominations must accept the discipline of ALL other denominations is to presuppose that ALL church court rulings are infallibly correct.”
Not at all. No human court is infallible. It does not follow in the least that they therefore can have no authority. What you are arguing is that in essence, no merely human church court has the authority to excommunicate in a way that compels any obedience since you could simply find a church congregation who would disregard that authority.
“If you assert that ALL denominations MUST accept the discipline of ALL other denominations then show me Scripture”
Denominations aren’t mentioned in scripture, so your assertion that you can merely find another denomination to accept you and consider this being reconciled to the body of Christ is absurd. Show me any scripture that recognizes the authority of “denominations.”
“And the burden of proof is never on ANYBODY to prove a negative — NEVER.”
So you believe that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but that even after being convicted should still be presumed innocent because the court in question isn’t infallible? You are dumb Lofton. If other people were as dumb as you were, then justice and discipline would be completely subverted. My position stands that you recognize no authority other than yourself. By disregarding your excommunication without providing any evidence as to why the OPC was wrong, you are resisting the ordinance of God. I don’t know of anyone else who is so self-consumed by their own perceived self-importance.
SF
Genuine Christian
Not an unrepentant eXXXcommunicate like Lofton!
Looks like you were seriously nailed on this issue by what Dawn posted from the PCA’s own Book of Church Order. If you were allowed communion by the PCA elders in Springfield, Virginia then it is simply because they made a mistake and haven’t followed the protocols prescribed in their own church’s order.
“Transfer with Irregularities”
a. That upon request for transfer of membership by a person under discipline, the sending session/consistory or presbytery/classis inform the receiving body of the nature and extent of the disciplinary procedure before implementing the requested transfer, thus enabling
informal consultation between the pastors and elders of both churches.
b. That such a person not be received officially until the judicatory/
assembly of the receiving church has taken into serious account the discipline of and the information supplied by the sending church.
c. That such a person not be received officially until the judicatory/
assembly of the receiving church is satisfied that proper restitution
has been made and/or reconciliation has been seriously attempted.
d. That a “fugitive from discipline” (that’s you Lofton!) who no longer is a member of a church or who is no longer on the roll of a presbytery shall not be
received until the former judicatory/assembly has been contacted to
determine if proper restitution has been made and/or reconciliation has been seriously attempted.”
NAPARC Agreements say NOTHING about how, allegedly, ALL denominations must necessarily accept the discipline of ALL other denominations. And “Mint” provides no Scripture, nothing else, that proves that ALL denominations must necessarily accept the discipline of ALL other denominations.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing, PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
“Scarborough Fayre” writes, in part: “My argument has consistently been that all church congregations are bound to recognize legitimate excommunications unless they are able to prove that there was an injustice or mistake made by another church court. To wantonly disregard the verdict of a legitimate ecclesiastical court is nothing less than antinomianism.”
COMMENT: Check mate!!! EXACTLY! BEFORE recognizing another denomination’s discipline, and applying it, there MUST be a finding that the discipline of another denomination was NOT an “injustice.” Amen! Which is why what I have argued here is true — that no denomination MUST, AUTOMATICALLY, NECESSARILY, accept another denomination’s discipline! And your qualification in your most recent post is NOT what you have consistently argued!
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing, PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
“c. That such a person not be received officially until the judicatory/
assembly of the receiving church is satisfied that proper restitution has been made and/or reconciliation has been seriously attempted.”
PCA church where I am member in good standing did precisely this which is why the elders unanimously made me a communion-taking, member in good standing.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing, PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
Lofton,
I never said that other denominations automatically have to accept other denominatins rulings on discipline. What I have consistently maintained is that when a legitimate church body arrives at the conclusion that excommunication is necessary, simply going to another church doesn’t constitute restitution to the body of Christ. If the PCA performed an inquiry into your case and determined that you were unjustly excommunicated, then they would be required to prove their point and take this up with the OPC. A half-dozen elders don’t have the authority to do this unilaterally.
You cite part c of the relevant section which says that the PCA (receiving church) must make certain that proper reconciliation has taken place. Earlier in this very thread you proudly stated that you weren’t asked by the PCA church in Springfield, Virginia to reconcile your differences in the PCA. So by your own prior admission, this particular circumstance described in part c hasn’t been fulfilled. Your elders made a mistake in allowing you in without requiring reconciliation as part c indicates.
Part d is what is particular relevant to your case Lofton. It states, “That a “fugitive from discipline” (that’s you Lofton!) who no longer is a member of a church or who is no longer on the roll of a presbytery shall not be received until the former judicatory/assembly has been contacted to determine if proper restitution has been made and/or reconciliation has been seriously attempted.”
The PCA would have been required in this provision to contact your former judicatory/assembly (in your case the OPC). Earlier in this discussion you stated proudly that they didn’t do this! The reason for this is to ascertain that you had made proper reconciliation with that body (again the OPC). You yourself have stated that you have no intention of doing this. It is dumb for the PCA to pretend to have fraternal relations with the OPC and wantonly disregard their judgement. Especially when this was a real barrier to your becoming a member at the PCA church in Laurel, Maryland. The elders at the local session in Springfield, Virginia don’t have the authority given them by their own Book of Church Order to make such a judgement. Sorry JLo, but you made a serious mistake when you told us to look through the Book of Church Order. More proof that you have no authority but yourself. You need to repent of your arrogance and contentiousness and truly be reconciled to God and his church.
SF
Genuine Christian
Not an eXXXcommunicate like Lofton!
Lofton, I thought the verse I was quoting was well known. Here it is, 2nd Thess. 3:6
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us”
“And “Mint” provides no Scripture, nothing else, that proves that ALL denominations must necessarily accept the discipline of ALL other denominations.”
This is technically impossible, because not only did denominations not exist in the days of the Apostles, they are widely considered to be unscriptural. This is one of the reasons why the churches I mentioned all claim to have exclusive rights to the truth, because anyone not in communion with them is, from their point of view, walking against the Apostolic tradition.
I hope this clears it up but I have a nagging feeling you will ignore everything I have written, like you do all the time.
Mint, unashamed to be human, male, or White
“Scarborough Fayre” says:”If the PCA performed an inquiry into your case and determined that you were unjustly excommunicated, then they would be required to prove their point and take this up with the OPC.”
Sez who? Cite your source for this assertion. Your statement is FALSE. There is no PCA document that requires this. Stop making things up.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing, PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
“Scarborough Fayre” says: “I never said that other denominations automatically have to accept other denominatins rulings on discipline.” That statement is false. Here’s what “Scarborough Fayre” has posted here re: my flat statement that no denomination is required to automatically, necessarily, accept the discipline of another nomination:
“Scarborough Fayre”:”I also agree with Tim that once someone is convicted and found guilty in either an ecclesiastical or civil court then they are presumed guilty until they can furnish evidence that they are in fact innocent.”
COMMENT: NOT true. Because synods/councils may err, there should be no “presumption” re: ANYTHING re: another denomination’s church court ruling. To “presume” guilt is to “presume” a church court behaved justly, infallibly. Only a fool would “presume” guilt PRIOR to investigating if a church court DID err.
“Scarborough Fayre”, re: my position: “This is false and indeed a recipe for antinomianism.”
COMMENT: To say my position is false is to say that one denomination must automatically, necessarily, accept the discipline of another denomination.
“Scarborough Fayre”: “Your arguement (sic) is stupid and would lead to the subversion of all church discipline.”
COMMENT: To reject my argument is to affirm what I say is not true.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing, PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
PCA church found charges against me WITHOUT MERIT, “Mint.” That’s why elders unanimously accepted me as member in good standing. Thus, your Scripture cited irrelevant to my situation. You would be wise to shut up concerning a case about which you know nothing, know no details and have not personally investigated.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing, PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
Tim Harris:
“Anyone that believes the OPC is a true church and has no reason to believe she erred in your case….”
By your logic, am I “obligated to regard” John Kinnaird, Darryl Hart, or Terry Gray as orthodox?
On the real issue, I’m not convinced Rushdoony was a “kinist,” unless you define the term VERY broadly. Here’s what I wrote on a forum:
“Rushdoony seems to be one of those people who crossed the line on race in the 1960s and 1970s, then backed down by the 1990s. I posted an example of this evolution to SWB.
“Also, Rushdoony had his own views on ethnicity that differed from kinism. He was into patriarchy of a most literal fashion. In other words, the male head of the family is priest-king of his tribe. He has power over everything those beneath him do — and even observes the sacraments.
“After RJR left the the Orthodox Presbyterians, he started holding services at home as tribal priest. He supposedly issued a tribal excommunication of his son-in-law, Gary North, and his family, when they split over “fertility cultism,” whatever that means. Then late in life he is said to have backed down and joined an obscure Anglican group.”
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1032120
“Lofton” – Did the PCA contact the OPC at all during their inquiry into the matter?
Tim Harris:
“Anyone that believes the OPC is a true church and has no reason to believe she erred in your case….”
True churches are NOT infallible churches; can err in their councils. Anyone who takes the ruling of a church court at “face value” without investigating in detail that ruling does not care about justice.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing, PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
““Lofton” – Did the PCA contact the OPC at all during their inquiry into the matter?”
Yes, of course.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing, PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
“Then late in life he is said to have backed down and joined an obscure Anglican group.”
Why are you posting gossip here, “Monitor?”
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing, PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
Notice that Tim used the word AND so that the first “Anyone that believes the OPC is a true church” must be taken together with the second “AND has no reason to believe she erred in your case…”. We haven’t, thus far, been given any reason to believe that the OPC, which is a true church, has erred. Context, people.
“Lofton” – Good. Now, did the PCA “determine if proper restitution has been made and/or reconciliation has been seriously attempted.”
As for this: “Sez who? Cite your source for this assertion. Your statement is FALSE. There is no PCA document that requires this. Stop making things up.”: I have already provided a link for you directly from the PCA Book of Order.
Guys I would like to tap your wisdom. I came across this and there’s a part of me that would like to do it…
http://attemptedtofarm.com/
But I’m not at all certain what the Bible has to say on this. I freely admit that my drive comes from a desire to harm and harry my enemy and to deny at least one of my enemies this free money from my tax money.
Having said that, being a wise man I consulted my conscience (my wife) and she is deeply uncomfortable.
What are your thoughts?
Saint Paul’s Anglican Church in Los Altos lists Rushdoony as a founding member back in 1970. The OPC records him as withdrawing from them on Oct. 1, 1970 and being transferred to the Anglican Churches of America in 1974.
Maybe that’s not “late in life” (he was 58), but it happened. In fact, during the era when Rushdoony played off his image as a Presbyterian hardliner, he was actually an Anglican priest.
“PCA church found charges against me WITHOUT MERIT, “Mint.” That’s why elders unanimously accepted me as member in good standing. Thus, your Scripture cited irrelevant to my situation. You would be wise to shut up concerning a case about which you know nothing, know no details and have not personally investigated.”
John, my comment was to church attitudes in general and not your “particular” case, which I didn’t know existed, because I only joined in on this part of the discussion about 10-15 comments ago.
Your status as a member in whatever church is not something I care about, not to be rude. My comments are solely directed against your opinion regarding church discipline as a whole.
In Christ,
Mint
“Sez who? Cite your source for this assertion. Your statement is FALSE. There is no PCA document that requires this. Stop making things up.”
I already posted that Lofton. It never ceases to amaze me that one of your primary tactics is to simply deny what is right in front of your face and hope that we’ll forget it is there. For your reference: “That a “fugitive from discipline” (that’s you Lofton!) who no longer is a member of a church or who is no longer on the roll of a presbytery shall not be received until the former judicatory/assembly has been contacted to
determine if proper restitution has been made and/or reconciliation has been seriously attempted.” (from the PCA book of Church Order). This is saying essentially the same thing as what I said, to wit, “If the PCA performed an inquiry into your case and determined that you were unjustly excommunicated, then they would be required to prove their point and take this up with the OPC.”
“Only a fool would “presume” guilt PRIOR to investigating if a church court DID err.”
So do you find the PCA to be a group of fools when they write, “That a “fugitive from discipline” who no longer is a member of a church or who is no longer on the roll of a presbytery shall not be received until the former judicatory/assembly has been contacted to determine if proper restitution has been made and/or reconciliation has been seriously attempted.” ???
“To say my position is false is to say that one denomination must automatically, necessarily, accept the discipline of another denomination…To reject my argument is to affirm what I say is not true.”
Courts don’t have to be infallible to render binding judgments. By your logic, a convicted murderer couldn’t be punished for his crime since the court(s) that condemned him aren’t divinely inspired. This is ludicrous!
“PCA church found charges against me WITHOUT MERIT, “Mint.” That’s why elders unanimously accepted me as member in good.”
On the contrary, you were not able to become a communicant member of the PCA church in Laurel, Maryland because of your discipline issue in the OPC. This PCA church followed the Book of Church Order, so you church shopped until you found a church that was willing to take you in.
“Did the PCA contact the OPC at all during their inquiry into the matter?”
Yes, of course.”
Again, not the PCA proper, only a session in Springfield, Virginia. The PCA in Laurel, Maryland wouldn’t let Lofton in as a communicant member. Besides, if the PCA church proper did contact the OPC then there should be some record of this. Any record of the PCA’s findings exonerating Lofton? Any record of the OPC’s response? Lofton could easily produce this if these existed and silence all debate. He won’t because he cannot.
SF
Not an eXXXcommunicate like Lofton!
While following the discussion ignited by Lofton’s comment “Whatever the ‘white race’ is, I really don’t care” – events have overtaken this indifference in a major way.
I refer to the events of the Wisconsin State Fair.
As a result of those events millions of whites formerly cowed by the term ‘racist’ and totally cowed by the term ‘anti-semite’ who previous to August 2011 would have taken refuge in this indifference of “whatever the ‘white race’ is”; these people (like in the millions) have had a very rude awakening.
They saw on the internet and YouTube the events of the Wisconsin State Fair. They saw the white crowd pushed out of the fairground by the fairground Security. They saw security force them into the parking lots and adjacent streets and into the Black mob screaming for their blood. They saw the riot police stand down.
You think the people who were there and followed these events are in any doubt about what the white race is?
The problem is they have forsaken the noble and Christian traditions of their fathers that would enable them to capture and express their newfound awareness. They are like sheep without a shepherd.
As they struggle with the Jew ‘blessings of multicultural diversity’ de-programming, they lack traditions like this to guide them:
“Dedication of headstone of Rorke’s Drift Survivor” posted on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=N&v=S-TIyuCbxK0
The anthem they are singing in Welsh is
Gwlad Gwlad – Nation, Nation.
Oh. I think the Whites of America are going to get this very fast.
Perhaps we should cut John some slack on the excommunication charge. From his thoughtful, restrained, and balanced commentary on this site, it’s quite obvious that he is no longer possessed by the sin of contentiousness.
lol I hear you Luther. Obviously the idea that Lofton is sinfully contentious is entirely without merit
“Saint Paul’s Anglican Church in Los Altos lists Rushdoony as a founding member back in 1970. The OPC records him as withdrawing from them on Oct. 1, 1970 and being transferred to the Anglican Churches of America in 1974.”
Lofton’s nailed again! He accuses the Monitor of spreading rumors when clearly Lofton has no idea what he is talking about. In Lofton’s mind he’s a bona fide Rush expert since he wrote a column for him for 11 years.
“Saint Paul’s Anglican Church in Los Altos lists Rushdoony as a founding member
back in 1970. The OPC records him as withdrawing from them on Oct. 1, 1970 and
being transferred to the Anglican Churches of America in 1974.”
And these direct quotes are from where? What is the source?
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing, PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
“Scarborough Fayre”: “Sez who? Cite your source for this assertion. Your statement is FALSE. There is no PCA document that requires this. Stop making things up.”
I already posted that Lofton.
COMMENT: FALSE! You posted no PCA document that says ALL denominations must automatically accept the discipline of ALL other denominations. Stop making things up when the falseness of what you say is right before our eyes here.
“Scarborough Fayre”:“Courts don’t have to be infallible to render binding judgments.”
COMMENT: Wrong! Church court judgments are binding ONLY IF THEY ARE JUST. If not, they are not binding.
“Scarborough Fayre”:“you were not able to become a communicant member of the PCA church in Laurel, Maryland because of your discipline issue in the OPC. This PCA church followed the Book of Church Order, so you church shopped until you found a church that was willing to take you in.”
COMMENT: False. I left Laurel PCA church because elders refused to investigate to see if OPC judgment was in error. Va. PCA church investigated; found no merit to the judgment.
“Scarborough Fayre”: “Any record of the PCA’s findings exonerating Lofton?”
COMMENT: Stupid, embarrassingly ignorant statement. One joins AN INDIVIDUAL church, and NOT an entire denomination. I am a communion-taking, member-in-good-standing of an individual PCA church in Virginia.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing, PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
I sure wish we could “like” comments on this thread… there have been some great ones! Thank you Luther and S-F!
The Recovering Republican has succeeded in turning what could have been a productive discussion about an interesting post into a complete train wreck. On the plus side, he has certainly gratified his apparent compulsive need for attention, so there’s that. I wonder how long this can continue and how much band width can disappear into such a massive vortex of ego and childishness?
“Whatever the ‘white race’ is, I really don’t care”
As I told you several threads ago, Obama, Holder, Kagan, and every non-White with a god complex and an axe to grind sure knows who Whites are.
Since this site is about saving Whites, both from multiculturalism (read: genocide) and paganism (read: damnation), and you don’t care about Whites, I think you should leave, since all you are doing is starting fights. You plainly didn’t come here in peace whether you agree or not.
I don’t care much about giant pandas, but one thing I will never do is hang out on an endangered species board and troll people concerned about panda extinction.
” FALSE! You posted no PCA document that says ALL denominations must automatically accept the discipline of ALL other denominations. Stop making things up when the falseness of what you say is right before our eyes here.”
My position has never been that another church body must “automatically” accept the discipline of “all” other denominations. Find me ONE quote where I have said this! You gratuitously bear false witness. I guess that’s just what excommunicates do huh John. What I have said is that a church simply can’t throw out a verdict of excommunication without some formal process of determining that the verdict rendered was unjust. The PCA does not give individual sessions the right to overturn the discipline of church bodies that they are in communion with. You are the one who is making things up. What the Book of Church Order actually says is, “That a “fugitive from discipline” who no longer is a member of a church or who is no longer on the roll of a presbytery shall not be received until the former judicatory/assembly has been contacted to determine if proper restitution has been made and/or reconciliation has been seriously attempted.” No mention of individual sessions throwing out guilty verdicts and church discipline.
“Wrong! Church court judgments are binding ONLY IF THEY ARE JUST. If not, they are not binding.”
I never even implied that church courts are binding regardless of justice. More gratuitous bearing of false witness on your part JLo. What I have said consistently is that an individual church session doesn’t have the right to unilaterally overturn the decision of an entire church body with whom they are in fraternal relations with without going through a formal process. This has been my position from the beginning. The PCA itself demands that at the very least the discliplining body (in this case the OPC) by contacted to see if restitution/reconciliation took place. You proudly state that you made no efforts to patch things up with the OPC. The PCA session in Springfield, Virgina has violated its own order. Can’t say that I’m surprised. Church discipline isn’t exactly the strong suit of our age and you still managed to get yourself booted!
“I left Laurel PCA church because elders refused to investigate to see if OPC judgment was in error. Va. PCA church investigated; found no merit to the judgment.”
This is what I’ve been saying all along. The PCA church in Laurel, Maryland had a basic understanding of their own denominations policies. The one in Springfield, Maryland apparently doesn’t. Like I said, you shopped around long enough until you found what you were looking for.
“Stupid, embarrassingly ignorant statement. One joins AN INDIVIDUAL church, and NOT an entire denomination. I am a communion-taking, member-in-good-standing of an individual PCA church in Virginia.”
What’s embarrassing is your own inconsistency. Earlier you stated that you aren’t excommunicated because one can only be excommunicated from the body of Christ, not an individual church or denomination. Now you suggest that one only joins a particular local congregation. So you conveniently circumvent all hierarchical authority beyond a half-dozen elders who you seem to think can ignore their own church’s policies as well as their sister church’s (OPC) GA without any formal documentation. Like I said before, if there was any documentation to suggest that the elders of the single PCA session in Springfield, Virginia contacted the OPC to investigate then you could produce them. You didn’t just as I predicted. I’ve got you pegged Lofton, and so does the OPC! The only thing that you are consistent on is the love you have for yourself!
SF
Not an eXXXcommunicate like Lofton!
“And these direct quotes are from where? What is the source?”
From the church website of St. Paul’s Anglican Church of Los Altos, “The founding members were the Rt. Rev. C. Truman Davis, Dr. Rousas John Rushdoony, and Rev. Norman R. Milbank. Our rector and presiding Bishop is the Right Reverend Ronald C. Johnson.” http://www.stpaulsanglicanchurch.org/statement_of_faith.php
How dare St. Paul’s Anglican Church spread such vicious rumors about RJR Lofton? Don’t they know that you wrote a column for him for 11 years and are thus an absolute authority on his every thought and action? Nailed! Looks like (as usual) you have no idea what you’re talking about!
SF
Not an eXXXcommunicate like Lofton!
“Since this site is about saving Whites….”
Really? ANY “Whites,” saved or unsaved? And “saving” “Whites” from…..WHAT? WHO? And who/what is your “Messiah” who will “save” these “Whites?” And why is “Whites” capitalized? And if some “Whites” are already “saved,” are Christians, do they need a second salvation?
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing, PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
“Scarborough Fayre” says: “My position has never been that another church body must “automatically” accept the discipline of “all” other denominations.”
COMMENT: No, that was MY POSITION — that no denomination must automatically accept the discipline of another denomination. And you DENIED my position, DISPUTED it. Stop lying. And my argument from the beginning has been about ALL denominations, not just OPC/PCA. And you’ve posted NOTHING that says PCA churches must automatically accept discipline of OPC or ANY other denominations — which is my assertion.
And you lie again when you say, “You proudly state that you made no efforts to patch things up with the OPC. ” I have made no such statement. Stop lying.
You say: “What I have said is that a church simply can’t throw out a verdict of excommunication without some formal process of determining that the verdict rendered was unjust.”
COMMENT: I have said NOTHING about throwing out/overturning ANYTHING. My only argument from the start was that NO DENOMINATION must automatically accept discipline of another denomination! Period. That’s all I have argued and you have produced nothing that says one denomination must, MUST, automatically, uninvestigated, accept discipline of another denomination!
You say: “So you conveniently circumvent all hierarchical authority beyond a half-dozen elders who you seem to think can ignore their own church’s policies as well as their sister church’s (OPC) GA without any formal documentation.”
COMMENT: There is NO PCA POLICY that required this particular PCA church to automatically accept discipline of another denomination — NONE. As for me not giving you documentation, do your own homework, which you should have done PRIOR to sounding off on this matter. Had you done this, you would have not made so many false statements.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing,
PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
“Monitor” has said here: “In fact, during the era when Rushdoony played off his image as a Presbyterian hardliner, he was actually an Anglican priest.”
But this statement is FALSE. And it could have been determined it was false by one phone call to the Saint Paul’s Anglican Church in Los Altos — IF you cared whether what is said here is true which, obviously, you do NOT. Ron Johnson, Rector at that church, tells me that Rushdoony was NEVER an “Anglican priest.” He says Rushdoony helped the church get started; he also helped them start their Christian school.
You should be ashamed to allow such false statements, such crap, to appear on your site. You are DEFINITELY giving “white” people a bad name!
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing,
PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
“Really? ANY “Whites,” saved or unsaved? And “saving” “Whites” from…..WHAT? WHO? And who/what is your “Messiah” who will “save” these “Whites?” And why is “Whites” capitalized? And if some “Whites” are already “saved,” are Christians, do they need a second salvation?”
I think that your Alzheimer’s is kicking in Lofton. Perhaps you spend too much time scaring the neighbor kids with your wizard’s hats and princess wand. My point has consistently been that the no PCA church has the right to disregard the legitimate verdict that was rendered by the OPC. You’ve stated that the OPC can’t render a legitimate verdict since they aren’t infallible.
“And you lie again when you say, “You proudly state that you made no efforts to patch things up with the OPC. ” I have made no such statement. Stop lying.”
Earlier you stated that you never patched things up with the OPC session in Burtonsville, Maryland and that you shouldn’t have to since they aren’t infallible.
” My only argument from the start was that NO DENOMINATION must automatically accept discipline of another denomination! Period. That’s all I have argued and you have produced nothing that says one denomination must, MUST, automatically, uninvestigated, accept discipline of another denomination!”
I’ve never said anything about “automatically, investigated, etc.” You’re making this up. What I have consistently said is that the PCA church in Virginia doesn’t have the right delegated to it to make you a communicant member without going through formal documentation. No records exist of any contact with the OPC and no investigation of any kind can be produced from your end.
“There is NO PCA POLICY that required this particular PCA church to automatically accept discipline of another denomination”
Actually the PCA does recognize the discipline of the OPC. This has been posted several times. You’re simply a liar. You also should realize that denominations aren’t exactly scriptural. Where is there scriptural authority for “denominations.” Please supply a Bible verse that uses this exact word.
“Really? ANY “Whites,” saved or unsaved? And “saving” “Whites” from…..WHAT? WHO? And who/what is your “Messiah” who will “save” these “Whites?” And why is “Whites” capitalized? And if some “Whites” are already “saved,” are Christians, do they need a second salvation?”
It’s hilarious that you ask these questions after making such stupid accusations. Haven’t done your homework? Kinism is no different than what Paul wrote in Romans 9:3.
SF
Genuine Christian
Not an eXXXcommunicate like Lofton!
“Scarborough Fayre: “You’ve stated that the OPC can’t render a legitimate verdict since they aren’t infallible.”
COMMENT: More lying; said no such thing. Said only what WCF says tht synods/councils can err, are not infallible. THAT’S a fact!
“Scarborough Fayre:” Earlier you stated that you never patched things up with the OPC session in Burtonsville, Maryland and that you shouldn’t have to since they aren’t infallible.”
COMMENT: More lying; said no such thing and notice you posted no such quote from me.
“”Scarborough Fayre:” No records exist of any contact with the OPC and no investigation of any kind can be produced from your end.
COMMENT: More lying. Such records DO exist. But because YOU haven’t found them you say they do not exist.
“”Scarborough Fayre:”Actually the PCA does recognize the discipline of the OPC.”
COMMENT: Never said they did not. My point was PCA does not AUTOMATICALLY, WITHOUT INVESTIGATION, NECESSARILY, have to accept OPC discipline. Why do omit my qualifying words and do this repeatedly. Answer: Because you are a liar.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing,
PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
Really? ANY “Whites,” saved or unsaved?
If you remember my message, I was quite clear that I am interested in saving Whites both from genocide and unbelief in the Son of Man. I don’t know how I can make it any more clear than this.
” And “saving” “Whites” from…..WHAT?”
Read my post and try again.
“And who/what is your “Messiah” who will “save” these “Whites?””
This savior is the Anointed One, Jesus, a Jew of the stock of Judah who was actually God Himself poured into mankind as part of a divine plan to “buy man back” into a relationship with our Creator. I believe this salvation extends to Whites also, not just non-Whites. I furthermore believe that this salvation is based on putting into action the faith in this Jesus, which includes good works to all but nowhere requires non-Whites to scrutinize and validate all aspects of our lives.
” And why is “Whites” capitalized?”
For the same reason I capitalize “Jew” or “Black”. Why is your name capitalized? Why do you put “quotes” around random “words”?
” And if some “Whites” are already “saved,” are Christians, do they need a second salvation?”
If you are a Christian, it is still possible, for example, to die in a burning building. So it is possible to save such a person even if they are already saved, if you take my meaning.
“do they need a second salvation?”"
According to the Apostles this is impossible.
I don’t think of myself as a theologian John, but in a spirit of Christian brotherhood I would be happy to answer any more of your scriptural queries.
Mint
“More lying; said no such thing. Said only what WCF says tht synods/councils can err, are not infallible. THAT’S a fact!”
Round and round we go. You said, “Thus, a PCA church is free to ignore any discipline imposed by the OPC, and vice-versa.” My issue has always been with your position that your PCA session was free to ignore the OPC verdict.
“More lying; said no such thing and notice you posted no such quote from me.”
Earlier you said, “the PCA church where I am a member in good standing never told me to resolve my conflict with the OPC.” That is a direct quote from yourself. This means that your PCA session violated the protocol mentioned in its own Book of Church Order which states, “That a “fugitive from discipline” (that’s you again Lofton!) who no longer is a member of a church or who is no longer on the roll of a presbytery shall not be received until the former judicatory/assembly has been contacted to determine if proper restitution has been made and/or reconciliation has been seriously attempted.” If the PCA session that you are currently attending didn’t tell you to at least attempt reconciliation with the OPC then they are ignorant of or in violation of the PCA’s policies.
“More lying. Such records DO exist. But because YOU haven’t found them you say they do not exist.”
I’ve asked you repeatedly for such documentation. Since you are the one who was found guilty by the OPC and can produce no exonerating evidence then I have no reason to believe that it was in fact the OPC that erred in your case.
“Never said they did not. My point was PCA does not AUTOMATICALLY, WITHOUT INVESTIGATION, NECESSARILY, have to accept OPC discipline. Why do omit my qualifying words and do this repeatedly. Answer: Because you are a liar.”
I have never argued with any of the words that you’ve placed in all caps (one of your favorite debate tactics. Angry much?) My point has always been that once you exhausted all appeals in the OPC you lost the presumption of innocence. This is the same for any civil trial. If someone is convicted of a crime and this conviction is upheld all the way to the Supreme Court, then there is no basis for suggesting that the person is merely “alleged” to have committed their crime. You fled church discipline into another jurisdiction and found a church that didn’t enforce its own ecclesiasitical Book of Church Order. You are the one who has been repeatedly dishonest on this issue John. What a shameful sight you are to behold.
SF
Not an eXXXcommunicate like Lofton!
JL: People ordained by Anglican churches are generally referred to as “priests.” This has always been the case.
The OPC published a roster of every minister up to 1986. Rushdoony is recorded as having “transferred” to that obscure Anglican group.
Cite: “Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1936-1986,” Committee for the Historian of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1986. P. 349.
The fact remains that regardless of how you now try to excuse what you posted, “The Monitor,” the information you posted to show, supposedly, that Rushdoony was some kind of deceiver was WRONG, FALSE, NOT ACCURATE. You should be ashamed for doing this. One phone call to that church would have prevented your attempted smear of Rushdoony, who was NEVER ordained as an Anglican priest. You continue to bear false witness.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing,
PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
My position, “Scarborough Fayre,” has always been/is now that my PCA session is, indeed, “free to ignore the OPC verdict” in that my PCA session was not required, by Scripture or anything else, to AUTOMATICALLY, WITHOUT ANY INVESTIGATION, accept any OPC ruling. And you have posted nothing that says any PCA church must, AUTOMATICALLY, WITHOUT ANY INVESTIGATION, support any OPC discipline ruling. You continually ignore my qualifying words which is dishonest and reveals your bias.
As for you asking me for documentation, if you were honest — which you are NOT — you would have sought such documentation and thoroughly investigated my case yourself BEFORE shooting your mouth off about my case. You did not do this because you are not honest. Any thorough, honest investigation would, of course, have included talking to me PRIOR to you saying anything here about my case — which you did NOT do.
And your assertion — “My point has always been that once you exhausted all appeals in the OPC you lost the presumption of innocence” — proves your dishonesty. What you say does not follow at all since, as the WCF says, SYNODS/COUNCILS MAY ERR. That means OPC judgment could be WRONG!
Another stupid statement by you: “If someone is convicted of a crime and this conviction is upheld all the way to the Supreme Court, then there is no basis for suggesting that the person is merely “alleged” to have committed their crime.” So to you Supreme Court rulings must be inerrant/infallible which is NOT a Christian view. SCRIPTURE is our standard and NOT Supreme Court/church court rulings!
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing,
PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
“My position, “Scarborough Fayre,” has always been/is now that my PCA session is, indeed, “free to ignore the OPC verdict” in that my PCA session was not required, by Scripture or anything else, to AUTOMATICALLY, WITHOUT ANY INVESTIGATION, accept any OPC ruling. And you have posted nothing that says any PCA church must, AUTOMATICALLY, WITHOUT ANY INVESTIGATION, support any OPC discipline ruling. You continually ignore my qualifying words which is dishonest and reveals your bias.”
I haven’t ignored anything that you’ve said Lofton. I’ve repeatedly addressed the words that you constantly put in all caps. Like I’ve said scores of other times, I’ve never said that an ecclesiastical court must automatically accept the ruling of another ecclesiastical court without any investigation. This is not the same thing as saying that a court can “ignore” (your word) the ruling of another court. It doesn’t surprise me though that you argue that rulings can be ignored, since it is tremendously convenient for your situation.
“As for you asking me for documentation, if you were honest — which you are NOT — you would have sought such documentation and thoroughly investigated my case yourself BEFORE shooting your mouth off about my case. You did not do this because you are not honest. Any thorough, honest investigation would, of course, have included talking to me PRIOR to you saying anything here about my case — which you did NOT do.”
Actually I’ve asked you about this several times before in different forums under different names. Regardless of this the burden of proof is on you to show that the OPC erred. Once you’ve been disciplined we are under no obligation to presume your innocence. By your logic if I ever meet someone convicted of murder who has exhausted all appeals, I am still personally obligated to personally investigate his case in order to ascertain if his conviction was legitimate. After all, no civil court is infallible right? This logic is both stupid and evil.
“So to you Supreme Court rulings must be inerrant/infallible which is NOT a Christian view. SCRIPTURE is our standard and NOT Supreme Court/church court rulings!”
Wrong. Any person who read my comment who is literate with any grasp on the English language will clearly see that I’m arguing that any court does NOT have to be infallible to render a valid verdict. I never even remotely argued that the Supreme Court is “the standard.” I was simply using this as an example of a civil court analogous to the OPC GA in your case.
SF
Not an eXXXcommunicate like Lofton!
This passage has traditionally been understood to condemn the presumptuous disregard of a higher court by a lower one.
From Deuteronomy 17:
“If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case within your towns that is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord your God will choose. And you shall come to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision. Then you shall do according to what they declare to you from that place that the Lord will choose. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you. According to the instructions that they give you, and according to the decision which they pronounce to you, you shall do. You shall not turn aside from the verdict that they declare to you, either to the right hand or to the left.”
“Scarborough Fayre” says; “I’ve never said that an ecclesiastical court must automatically accept the ruling of another ecclesiastical court without any investigation. This is not the same thing as saying that a court can “ignore” (your word) the ruling of another court.”
COMMENT: Wonderful! Then you are in agreement with my original position that no denomination must AUTOMATICALLY, UNINVESTIGATED, accept the discipline of another denomination! And, of course, IN CONTEXT, my “ignore” word meant ignore another denomination’s discipline UNTIL IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE OTHER DENOMINATION’S RULING WAS JUST, IN ORDER. That’s all the word “ignore” meant, IN CONTEXT.
“Scarborough Fayre”: Re: my point that if you were honest and wanted the facts of my case you would have contacted me PRIVATELY (that means NOT writing in public), you say: “Actually I’ve asked you about this several times before in different forums under different names.” Different forums ARE NOT IN PRIVATE!
You also say: “Regardless of this the burden of proof is on you to show that the OPC erred. Once you’ve been disciplined we are under no obligation to presume your innocence.”
COMMENT: If you were honest, which you are NOT, you would “presume” NOTHING about a case. You would FIRST investigate in detail the facts of the case and THEN decide if the denomination erred. As God tells us in His Word: “Prov 18:13: He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” That is EXACTLY what you have done.
And you WERE citing the Supreme Court as a final arbiter! But it is NOT any more than an OPC court is. The “validity” of a verdict is to be judged by only ONE standard — Scripture! Your analogy was/is not Christian.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing,
PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
Before ANY church court ruling is believed to be just,”Lazarus,” it must FIRST be investigated to see if, according to Scripture, the ruling was just, in order. One should “presumptuously presume” NOTHING prior to such an investigation.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing,
PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
The same passage goes on to say:
“The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall purge the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear and fear and not act presumptuously again.”
The verdict of the Levitical high court is presumed to be binding. To disregard the judgment is branded “presumption” by Scripture. In other words, once a matter is settled judicially, the burden of proof is laid squarely at the feet of the one who disputes the outcome. But of course, that is the whole point of having a court to begin with.
We are to obey God rather than men, if the two conflict, “Lazarus.” And no matter is “settled judicially” unless and until the matter is settled according to God’s Word.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing,
PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
JL: Yes, Rushdoony was an Anglican priest while passing himself off as a Presbyterian theologian.
Is the OPC bearing false witness by reporting that he was ordained by that tiny Anglican sect? Was Gary North doing it when he mentioned the fact in one of his books?
NON-LOFTON CONTENT FOLLOWS:
The apologist TurretinFan jumped into the miscegenation debate. He seems naive about the issue. I don’t know what else to think when I see this paragraph:
“So, any anti-miscegenation advocacy that springs from a hatred or antipathy for members of another race, nation, tribe, or the like is clearly immoral because of its source. You may love your own nation, ethnicity, or skin color, but you cannot use that love as an excuse for hate.”
In other words, Fan has no clue about the subject. He knows the antiracist propaganda and gets on his soap box about “hate.” If he wants us to take him seriously, he needs to try harder at his analysis.
Here’s the whole thing:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/08/responding-to-anti-miscegenation.html
Post here “The Monitor” what you say the OPC/North say about Rushdoony being ordained an Anglican priest.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing,
PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
” Wonderful! Then you are in agreement with my original position that no denomination must AUTOMATICALLY, UNINVESTIGATED, accept the discipline of another denomination! And, of course, IN CONTEXT, my “ignore” word meant ignore another denomination’s discipline UNTIL IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE OTHER DENOMINATION’S RULING WAS JUST, IN ORDER. That’s all the word “ignore” meant, IN CONTEXT.”
I’ve consistently opposed your view that the PCA church doesn’t have to recognize the OPC’s verdict. It does have to recognize this as part of the NAPARC agreement. The burden of proof would be on any PCA session to show that the OPC erred, not vice versa.
“You would FIRST investigate in detail the facts of the case and THEN decide if the denomination erred. As God tells us in His Word: “Prov 18:13: He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” That is EXACTLY what you have done.”
I’ll I’ve stated here is that you were excommunicated. This is true. If you believe that this is unjust, then the burden of proof is upon you to show that the verdict wasn’t just. Lazarus’ passage from Deut. 17 applies here. Lazarus is absolutely correct when he says, “In other words, once a matter is settled judicially, the burden of proof is laid squarely at the feet of the one who disputes the outcome. But of course, that is the whole point of having a court to begin with.”
“And you WERE citing the Supreme Court as a final arbiter! But it is NOT any more than an OPC court is. The “validity” of a verdict is to be judged by only ONE standard — Scripture! Your analogy was/is not Christian.”
I was providing the Supreme Court as a final arbiter in judicial matters, not matters of Christian faith and practice. Your logic is again stupid since a convicted murderer could say that no one has the right to punish him since the Bible not the court is the final arbiter in his case. Of course the Bible itself doesn’t speak a word about his case or your case for that matter. Show me a Bible verse that says that John Lofton of Maryland is innocent in his dispute with the OPC and I’ll believe it.
SF
Not an eXXXcommunicate like Lofton!
John Lofton:
1.) As I said before, the OPC records RJR as withdrawing from them on Oct. 1, 1970 and being transferred to the Anglican Churches of America in 1974.
(Cite: “Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1936-1986,” Committee for the Historian of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1986. P. 349.)
Was the OPC “posting gossip” and “bearing false witness” by reporting that RJR jumped to the Anglican group?
2.) Gary North, in “Baptized Patriarchalism,” mentions RJR’s ordination three times. On p. 25, for example, he says that “since 1974 he has been a priest in a tiny two-congregation Episcopal denomination.” Was this also “posting gossip” and “bearing false witness?”
3.) Whatever one thinks of Rushdoony, the record is clear. He joined an obscure Anglican denomination in 1970 and was ordained by them in 1974. There’s no controversy here.
“Scarborough Fayre”: “I’ve consistently opposed your view that the PCA church doesn’t have to recognize the OPC’s verdict. It does have to recognize this as part of the NAPARC agreement. The burden of proof would be on any PCA session to show that the OPC erred, not vice versa.”
COMMENT: Is English your first language? I never said that “the PCA church doesn’t have to recognize the OPC’s verdict.” I said no PCA church had to AUTOMATICALLY, WITH NO INVESTIGATION, accept another denomination’s DISCIPLINE!
“Scarborough Fayre”: I’ll I’ve stated here is that you were excommunicated. This is true. If you believe that this is unjust, then the burden of proof is upon you to show that the verdict wasn’t just.”
COMMENT: And if you were honest — which you are NOT — the burden was on YOU to thoroughly investigation the OPC’s actions BEFORE commenting on it in public and acting as if it was just and in order. You did not do this. And you did not do this because you are not honest.
“Scarborough Fayre”: “I was providing the Supreme Court as a final arbiter in judicial matters, not matters of Christian faith and practice.”
COMMENT: Wrong! God’s Word trumps the Supreme Court in “judicial matters” whether this is recognized or not. Laws, court rulings, are not valid unless in accord with God’s Law. Your Supreme Court worship here sounds like a Liberal Democrat, not a Christian. You cannot separate “judicial rulings” from God’s Law.
““Scarborough Fayre”: “Your logic is again stupid since a convicted murderer could say that no one has the right to punish him since the Bible not the court is the final arbiter in his case.”
COMMENT: And the “murderer” would be right if he was wrongly accused, if his case was wrongly decided! Exactly! There would, indeed, be no “right” to punish him because he would be NOT a murderer! The Bible, God’s Word is the final arbiter in ALL cases whether men like you recognize this or not.
““Scarborough Fayre”: “Show me a Bible verse that says that John Lofton of Maryland is innocent in his dispute with the OPC and I’ll believe it.”
COMMENT: To say that a Bible verse must mention me by name to apply to me is idiotic beyond belief! For example, the commandment prohibiting murder — though it mentions neither my name nor yours — means I AM FORBIDDEN TO MURDER YOU AND VICE VERSA! No, English cannot be your first language….no way….
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing,
PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
The Rector at the church in question says your information is false, “The Monitor.” Have you spoken with him or anyone at that church? Of course not. And you have smeared Rushdoony by alluding to “the era when Rushdoony played off his image as a Presbyterian hardliner, he was actually an Anglican priest.” This is clearly saying Rushdoony was a deceiving, double-minded man who was pretending to be something he was not. You should be ashamed for such false witness against a Godly man. False witness to you, obviously is, “no controversy. To God, it is a big deal.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing,
PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
“Is English your first language?”
I’m as fluent in English as you are in gibberish.
” I never said that “the PCA church doesn’t have to recognize the OPC’s verdict.””
You said the PCA is free to “ignore” the OPC’s verdict. You’re playing a semantic game and you are losing badly.
“And the “murderer” would be right if he was wrongly accused, if his case was wrongly decided!”
I agree, the caveat is that after his conviction he is no longer an alleged murderer, but a convicted murderer. The burden of proof then shifts to him to prove his innocence and the court’s error.
“And if you were honest — which you are NOT — the burden was on YOU to thoroughly investigation the OPC’s actions BEFORE commenting on it in public and acting as if it was just and in order.”
Wrong. The burden of proof is upon you to show why an authority ordained of God was wrong in its verdict. Once a valid court has rendered a guilty verdict, the burden of proof is upon the convicted to demonstrate their innocence. This is precisely the meaning of the passage in Deut. 17 that Lazarus cited.
“God’s Word trumps the Supreme Court in “judicial matters” whether this is recognized or not.”
I never said that the Supreme Court or any other court “trumps” God’s Word. What I said was that the Supreme Court is a final arbiter in judicial matters. No court has the right to contradict Scripture. Hence a ruling like Loving v. Virginia or Roe v. Wade are clearly invalid. However contentiousness if unrepented is indeed a contentious sin, so the OPC’s ruling doesn’t contradict scripture. If they had excommunicated you for not buying Goodyear tires that would be another story. There is no Bible verse saying that you were innocent, so you can’t take recourse in what the Bible doesn’t say. What the Bible does say though is that legitimate courts are to be obeyed. You have provided no evidence that a God-ordained authority erred.
“Laws, court rulings, are not valid unless in accord with God’s Law.”
I agree, now how was the OPC GA not in accordance with God’s Law? If you can’t answer this then this show’s that you are nothing more than a troll who’s less concerned with justice then in grooming his own image.
“Your Supreme Court worship here sounds like a Liberal Democrat, not a Christian.”
I’m not worshipping any court and this is bearing false witness. I’m recognizing God-ordained authority unless I see a specific reason not to. You have insisted that I’m to assume that they were wrong and you were right even after you’ve exhausted all appeals. This is ridiculous.
“You cannot separate “judicial rulings” from God’s Law.”
No one’s doing this. Is there a specific verse that says you were innocent? Don’t think so!
“There would, indeed, be no “right” to punish him because he would be NOT a murderer!”
I agree that it isn’t just to punish those who are falsely accused. This has never been the issue and is a clear example of a straw man. The issue is that the convicted murder can not presumptously ignore a court ruling (Deut. 17:12-13) but must demonstrate his innocence. If you take your warped theory to its logical conclusion, then no murderer could ever be executed since every murderer that is convicted is convicted in a court that isn’t divinely inspired and thus would require an endless series of appeals and investigations until someone was finally willing to throw the case out. This is what you’ve done in practice in order to circumvent church discipline.
“”To say that a Bible verse must mention me by name to apply to me is idiotic beyond belief! For example, the commandment prohibiting murder — though it mentions neither my name nor yours — means I AM FORBIDDEN TO MURDER YOU AND VICE VERSA!”
I’m guessing reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit huh JLo. I was simply pointing out how ridiculous your assertion about God’s law was. You stated that Church rulings that are contrary to God’s Law are invalid. I pointed out that there is nothing in Scripture that exonerates you personally, and that the OPC clearly excommunicated you for something that is clearly a sin. Therefore simply appealing to the Bible as though every fact must be stated therein is stupid. Of course the Bible doesn’t have to mention you or me or anyone by name. That is the point that I’m making. You claim that the OPC ruling contradicted God’s Law. How? What specific law did they violate?
SF
Not an eXXXcommunicate like Lofton!
“Have you spoken with him or anyone at that church?”
I don’t need to, John. This is a matter of public record. Rushdoony was a Anglican churchman from 1970 onward and was ordained as a priest in 1974. You asked for citations and I showed them.
I’ll ask again:
Was the OPC “posting gossip” and “bearing false witness” by reporting that RJR jumped to the Anglican group? Was Gary North?
“So, any anti-miscegenation advocacy that springs from a hatred or antipathy for members of another race, nation, tribe, or the like is clearly immoral because of its source. You may love your own nation, ethnicity, or skin color, but you cannot use that love as an excuse for hate.”
So this guy basically redefines anything he doesn’t like as “hate”. A pretty common leftist ploy, too bad so many Christians are using it to prop up a vestige of Trotskyism.
It’s OK to love your own race, if you are White, as long as that love cannot be distinguished from total indifference. Any attempt to safeguard your race is “hate”, because somewhere, a Black will not approve. And what could possibly be worse than that?
From my own personal experience, I have found that Blacks in White church groups are quick to remind everyone that color doesn’t matter. Pretty much like in any Black/White group, everything must defer to the Black view, nothing can go through unapproved of by Blacks. Whites may not have anything that Blacks can’t participate in, because that’s “racism”, a sin so awful it mysteriously isn’t described in the Bible.
Oh well, let’s just ignore all those passages and examples where ethnic groups stick to themselves, because who needs divine Scripture, or thousands of years of history and experience when you have plagarizing, non-believing, whoremongering tools like MLK Jr to show us the way forward? He plainly wasn’t Christian; therefore he is the supreme interpreter of Christianity. Brilliant!
On a related note, I can’t wait to hear Richard Dawkins’ take on man being created in God’s own image.
I don’t understand why this forum continues to tolerate John Lofton. He posts here to reenforce his own self-righteousness. By stirring up contention and strife he feels he has vindicated his adulterous, Babylonian convictions. He has done nothing of the sort, yet no arguments that contradict his views penentrate his consumate egotism.
Quit giving the devil his due. Continued debate with this race-mixing reprobate only fuels his self-righteousness. He contributes nothing, and interrupts useful and productive dialog. He’s a nagger in the woodpile and nothing more.
You are a liar, “The Monitor,” and have posted nothing, no primary document, that says Rushdoony “ordained” as an “Anglican priest.” And, of course, you totally ignore your smearing him as a double-minded deceiver pretending he was one thing when he was another. You are despicable.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing,
PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
“Scarborough Fayre”: “”You said the PCA is free to “ignore” the OPC’s verdict. “
COMMENT: Still lying. Still taking out of context. Said PCA under no obligation to recognize OPC discipline AUTOMATICALLY, WITH NO INVESTIGATION! And you have posted nothing that shows any PCA church must AUTOMATICALLY, WITHOUT INVESTIGATING, honor discipline of OPC or ANY other denomination. Any person for whom English is their first language can see in my writing here that I have NEVER said, UNQUALIFIEDLY, that a local PCA church can simply “ignore” what OPC does.
“Scarborough Fayre”:”I agree, the caveat is that after his conviction he is no longer an alleged murderer, but a convicted murderer. The burden of proof then shifts to him to prove his innocence and the court’s error.
COMMENT: Wrong! And once again you reveal your court-worship. REAL Christians do not say someone is “guilty” just because a court, church or non-church, says so. That’s ridiculous. And non-church courts do NOT make law. Their rulings do not bind ANYBODY. They are, as they say, simply “opinions.” You are embarrassingly ignorant on this topic but your view is, alas, typical.
““Scarborough Fayre”:””The burden of proof is upon you to show why an authority ordained of God was wrong in its verdict. Once a valid court has rendered a guilty verdict, the burden of proof is upon the convicted to demonstrate their innocence.”
COMMENT: And you know the specific OPC court, and Session court/Presbytery court — in my case, all were “valid” — how? “Valid” by what standard? Be specific. Answer: You do NOT know that and do not care. You have made no detailed, thorough investigation of my case — NONE, which would have — if you were honest, which you are NOT. You simply read the prosecution view of what happened, swallowed it whole. NOT a Christian way of judging. You would have made a good torturer in the Star Chamber proceedings which, like you, assumed guilt without facts.
““Scarborough Fayre”:””What I said was that the Supreme Court is a final arbiter in judicial matters. No court has the right to contradict Scripture.”
COMMENT: Wrong! Congress also deals with “judicial matters” and can pass laws overriding the Supreme Court or simply deny the high court jurisdiction in certain areas or abolish the Supreme Court. You are an ignoramus (Latin for REALLY stupid) on this topic, as well as my case.
““Scarborough Fayre”:””However contentiousness if unrepented is indeed a contentious sin, so the OPC’s ruling doesn’t contradict scripture.”
COMMENT: Yes, IF – IF not repented of. And you have no idea if I actually repented or not. You simply swallow whole the OPC verdict, as if that court was infallible/inerrant. And burden was on YOU to conduct thorough investigation BEFORE you slavishly, in a knee-jerk fashion, presume the OPC ruling just/in order and write about it in public. You did NOT do this because you are a dishonest man — not even a REAL man, actually, because a real Christian man would thoroughly investigate BOTH SIDES of a conflict before reaching a conclusion. For shame you did not do this BEFORE writing about my case in public — FOR SHAME!
“““Scarborough Fayre”:””was the OPC GA not in accordance with God’s Law?”
COMMENT: If you were an honest man, which you are NOT, that question should have been answered by YOU through a thorough investigation BEFORE writing here about the case. And you would have had to thoroughly investigate Presbytery/Session rulings before case went to the GA. You did none of this because you are a dishonest man. Without me saying ANYTHING about my case, you, as a supposed Christian, have burden to find out if Session/Presbytery/GA courts erred. You did not do this.
““Scarborough Fayre”:” I’m not worshipping any court and this is bearing false witness. I’m recognizing God-ordained authority unless I see a specific reason not to. You have insisted that I’m to assume that they were wrong and you were right even after you’ve exhausted all appeals. This is ridiculous.
COMMENT: Lying again. I know this because your fingers are typing. So, by your own admission, you simple ASSUME “God-ordained authority unless I see a specific reason not to.” VERY stupid/not Christian way of viewing court rulings. Why not FIRST determine if a ruling just/Godly/in order and THEN write about it in public? Why ASSUME court ruling just/Godly/in order when we know courts can and do err, make mistakes. Please let me hear your argument AGAINST what I suggest. Be specific.
““Scarborough Fayre”:” If you take your warped theory to its logical conclusion, then no murderer could ever be executed since every murderer that is convicted is convicted in a court that isn’t divinely inspired and thus would require an endless series of appeals and investigations until someone was finally willing to throw the case out.”
COMMENT: Irrelevant, BAD, analogy. Q re: such murder conviction — and our discussion here – is YOUR WRITING ABOUT THIS MURDER CONVICTION! Christian approach would be to NEVER assume someone ACTUALLY a murderer simply because a court said so. Your thinking is court-worship, NOT Christian!
All throughout this discussion you have ASSUMED Session/Presbytery/GA OPC courts ruled justly, according to God’s Word WHEN YOU DO NOT KNOW IF THIS IS TRUE. And burden was on YOU to find out if those court rulings just BEFORE commenting on them in public! You could not care less if justice was done in my case and, again, burden was on YOU to find out if it was, to investigate ON YOUR OWN, not whine about how you asked me things in different forums which, of course, were in public.
“““Scarborough Fayre”:” You stated that Church rulings that are contrary to God’s Law are invalid. I pointed out that there is nothing in Scripture that exonerates you personally, and that the OPC clearly excommunicated you for something that is clearly a sin.”
COMMENT: And what you do not know, because you conducted no thorough investigation of Session/Presbytery/GA court trials, IS WHETHER EX-COMMUNICATION WAS JUST/IN ORDER. And burden was on YOU to do these investigations BEFORE writing about my case in public. Your whole approach here of assuming my guilt is very foolish, is folly.
Very true, Bill. Hence the Confucius quote above: “Upon seeing the shadow of a pigeon, one must resist the urge to look up.”
To The Monitor, from August 14, 2011 at 11:49 pm
[Tim said, "Anyone that believes the OPC is a true church and has no reason to believe she erred in your case…."] “By your logic, am I ‘obligated to regard’ John Kinnaird, Darryl Hart, or Terry Gray as orthodox?”
Monitor, I would say that does not follow logically. Failing to convict is not tantamount to affirming orthodoxy. The church does not affirm someone’s orthodoxy, except in the process leading to ordination. A verdict could fail for a variety of reasons, such as the complaint being out of order, not focussed or relevant, etc.
Basically, all you can say of a member of an orthodox Reformed church is that he professes the faith in a form that a local Session found credible, and has not been disciplined. In charity, we should regard all such persons as presumptive Christians, even though we cannot peer into their souls. We should model the holy catholic church to the maximum extent possible given the scrambled-egg age we live in.
John Lofton, I’ll ask again:
Was the OPC “posting gossip” and “bearing false witness” by reporting that RJR jumped to the Anglican group? Was Gary North?
C’mon, Bill. Cut me some slack. I’m “White,” or is it “white?”
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing,
PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
Scarborough Fayre:
Why am I supposed to care about Lofton’s excommunication one way or another? It may reflect on OPC church issues, yet it has nothing to do with the topics that SWB typically covers.
Obviously Lofton is an ornery guy. But I don’t know that being ornery deserves excommunication. The one thing I can say in his favor is that he didn’t go hide under the umbrella of Doug Wilson and the CREC. Nor did he wind up in the Reformed Episcopalians or the Anglican Churches of America. At least the PCA has “Presbyterian” in the name, albeit not in practice.
Why do you continue to ignore, “The Monitor,” your portraying Rushdoony as some kind of double-minded deceiver? And whatever other folks said about Rushdoony, the issue is YOU repeating what they said without knowing if it was true. THAT is what gossip IS.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing,
PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
Spare a thought, gentle readers, for the woes of the excommunicated antipope Benedict XVI.
A manifest, public and outrageous heretic the anti-pope is, of course, excommunicate by being on public record foresworn of Sacrorum Antistitum (Oath Against Modernism) instituted by Pope Saint Pius X.
It does not matter if he wears the ruby slippers and the pope suit and lives in the Vatican – he can not be the pope by any stretch of the imagination.
Despite every trick in the book ( and then some off the book), August 17, 2011 Benedict was forced by the Oregon High Court to release files for the judge’s discovery of evidence in the case John V Doe. (Yes, another child raped by a novus ordo ‘presbyter’).
Benedict’s current appointment to Saint Mary Major – William Levada – (now William ‘cardinal’ Levada) that dark cadavor – ran up a sex crime tab of over a billion in Oregon so the Roman Catholic faithful are following this case with great interest.
We want His Honor of the Oregon US Federal Court to throw the book at Benedict and Levada if there is a conviction on the same crimes that got the Nuncio bounced out of Ireland last month by order of the Taosiach.
Despite this mere setback, the anti-pope was apparently not yet ready to retire to a monastery to pray, repent and seek spiritual direction for the renunciation of his Apostasy and recovery of the holy faith.
Rather, Benedict took himself off to the World Youth Day (August 20) with all its attendant immorality.
The good citizens of Spain and the Catholics have been in the streets of Madrid for at least a week demonstrating against the imposition of this gross fest upon Spain. They don’t want either this novus ordo rock festival or the anti-pope over there wrecking the youth.
The prayers of the faithful must have prevailed because on the eve of the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, a unseasonal storm came to the aid of the Catholic faithful in Spain and silenced Benedict and his modernist blasphemies.
Sudden wind blew the anti-pope off his cathedra and his vestments up around his ears – pelting him with rain, drenching his notes for the homily – filled with the usual sins of liberalism, modernism and ecumeniac lies.
When efforts commenced to get Benedict back to the podium, wild lightening shorted out the sound system – sending the youth running.
Deo Gratias.
I fear it will be on to Assissi in Oct for the ecumenical Peace abomination. They will probably put the Buddha on the high altar (again) – it’s already desacrated anyway. And there will be rabbinical prayers and blessings for all. Maybe even voodoo charms and taludic amulets.
What could go wrong?
Good Protestants, I draw your attention to the fact that we are living through the times of which the prophet Daniel spoke:
[By the power of the little horn] “strength was given him against the continual sacrafice [the pure offering of my Name Is 12:2 great among the Gentiles Mal 1:11], because of sins: and truth shall be cast down on the ground.” Daniel 8:12
The Blessed Virgin Mother of our Lord stated unequivocably at La Salette that “Rome would lose the faith and become the seat of the Anti-Christ…The Church will be in eclipse.”
The anti-papacy inaugurated in Rome 1958 – ? is the seat of Anti-Christ when he comes.
” I have NEVER said, UNQUALIFIEDLY, that a local PCA church can simply “ignore” what OPC does.”
Since I haven’t rejected your qualifications your objection is a straw man.
“Wrong! Congress also deals with “judicial matters” and can pass laws overriding the Supreme Court or simply deny the high court jurisdiction in certain areas or abolish the Supreme Court. You are an ignoramus (Latin for REALLY stupid) on this topic, as well as my case.”
My analogy had to do with conducting criminal trials. Normally Congress doesn’t conduct criminal trials. It’s funny John, I looked up ignoramus in the dictionary and saw a picture of you with your wizard’s hat and favorite princess wand.
“And you know the specific OPC court, and Session court/Presbytery court — in my case, all were “valid” — how? “Valid” by what standard?”
Do you not believe that the OPC is a Christian church? Infallibility is not a precondition to validity.
“You simply read the prosecution view of what happened, swallowed it whole. NOT a Christian way of judging.”
Not true. You haven’t given one shred of credible evidence to suggest that you were innocent. Once you are convicted it is presumptuous to expect people to consider you innocent (Deut. 17:12-13). Keep in mind that this isn’t referring to courts that were divinely inspired/infallible.
“Yes, IF – IF not repented of. And you have no idea if I actually repented or not. You simply swallow whole the OPC verdict, as if that court was infallible/inerrant.”
Where does your idea that courts must be infallible to render a verdict and actually carry out a sentence come from? Certainly not the Bible.
” Why not FIRST determine if a ruling just/Godly/in order and THEN write about it in public? Why ASSUME court ruling just/Godly/in order when we know courts can and do err, make mistakes. Please let me hear your argument AGAINST what I suggest.”
I haven’t assumed anything. There is no evidence to suggest that you were innocent. You have stubbornly refused to provide any because such evidence doesn’t exist.
“Christian approach would be to NEVER assume someone ACTUALLY a murderer simply because a court said so. Your thinking is court-worship, NOT Christian!”
I wrote in response to your opinion that specific court decisions must be in accord with scripture. Obviously this is true in the sense that no court has the right to overturn any scriptural precept, but it is dumb to imagine that the Bible weighs in on every specific case. For example, I believe that the judicial system failed in the case of O.J. Simpson and that he actually was guilty of murder, but I didn’t look in the Bible to find a specific verse that said that he was guilty. The facts of the case are obvious that he committed the murders in question in his case. Hardly court worship. In your case the exonerating evidence simply isn’t there.
“And burden was on YOU to find out if those court rulings just BEFORE commenting on them in public!”
I did investigate this matter Lofton. I’ve found nothing to indicate that the OPC erred. And I’m not obligated to contact you in private about a matter that is already public. We’re already past the “tell it to the church” stage.
“And what you do not know, because you conducted no thorough investigation of Session/Presbytery/GA court trials, IS WHETHER EX-COMMUNICATION WAS JUST/IN ORDER.”
Again, on the basis of Deut. 17:12-13 (how is my interpretation of this verse wrong?)it would be presumptuous to assume the court erred without evidence. Since you have been convicted, then it is upon you to show that the court indeed erred. I believe that the court could possibly have erred, but I see no reason to believe that it did in your case. You certainly have done nothing in this forum to suggest that you are not still guilty of the sin of contentiousness. I know that you would never allow someone off the hook if the shoe were on the other foot. Unlike you, I don’t believe in double standards. The good news for you John is that there is still hope in that if you confess your sin God is faithful and just to forgive your sin for the sake of Christ Jesus (1 John 1:8-10).
SF
Not an eXXXcommunicate like Lofton!
John Lofton:
“…the issue is YOU repeating what they said without knowing if it was true.”
1. Do you remember my original point was to argue against the claim of Rushdoony as a kinist? I actually agree with you here, so to speak.
(Other people claimed as kinist heroes don’t fit, either. John C. Calhoun, the guy at the top left of this page, was a Unitarian!)
2. You’re the one denying that RJR was ever an Anglican priest. Deal with the written record and don’t shoot the messenger.
I’ve shown you sources that Rushdoony was an Anglican starting in 1970. You keep not answering the question about what THEY said. Was the OPC “posting gossip” and “bearing false witness” by reporting that RJR jumped to the Anglican group? Was Gary North?
Lynda:
Good grief! Your medievalist romanticism is amazingly absurd. If Benedict is a false teacher, so was Pius X. If you bet on the Roman Catholic Church, you’re stuck with what you get. You aren’t allowed to exercise private judgment and decide which Magisterium you wish to follow.
Scarborough Fayre:I did investigate this matter Lofton. I’ve found nothing to indicate that the OPC erred. And I’m not obligated to contact you in private about a matter that is already public. We’re already past the “tell it to the church” stage.
COMMENT: You are a liar and the truth is not in you. You did not THOROUGHLY investigate the matter. A THOROUGH investigation means investigating what happened at the Session level, the Presbytery level, the GA level? Did you THOROUGHLY investigate what happened at all three of the levels? NO, of course not. Your idea of an investigation is to simply look at what the GA ruled and swallow it whole! Pathetic. No more on this matter. You have demonstrated, with a vengeance, that you are not an honest person. An honest person would have looked at, thoroughly and in detail, ALL sides of my case, through three levels of courts, reviewing documents, talking to witnesses. You did NOT do this because you are a dishonest person, for which you will answer to God for your every idle word.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing,
PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
You continue, “The Monitor,” to ignore the fact that you smeared a decent, honorable, God-fearing man, Rushdoony, by portraying him as a deceiver by pretending to be something he was not. You should repent of the sin of bearing false witness against him. He was NOT a deceiver.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing,
PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
“A THOROUGH investigation means investigating what happened at the Session level, the Presbytery level, the GA level? Did you THOROUGHLY investigate what happened at all three of the levels? NO, of course not.”
Sure I did, and I have determined that you were in the wrong, but you don’t care about what anyone else thinks because you are your own standard.
” No more on this matter.”
You are forgetting where you are posting Lofton. As long as you continue to spew your filth I will respond to it.
“for which you will answer to God for your every idle word.”
There is far more idleness in your words Lofton than there are in mine. I am so glad that I will not be in your place on the Day of Judgment.
“You should repent of the sin of bearing false witness against him.”
Lofton, what has Monitor said that is untrue? Did you even try to consult his sources? Was Gary North wrong? How about the OPC? It is quite possible that the rector that you contacted simply didn’t know about these facts. Monitor hasn’t slandered anyone. The least you could do is consult the sources he provided.
SF
Not an eXXXcommunicate like Lofton!
Post here, “Scarborough Fayre,” who you dealt with at my Session and at my Presbytery to thoroughly investigate my case.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing,
PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
And I notice that you “Scarborough Fayre,”, like “The Monitor,” ignore my taking “The Monitor” to task for lying, for saying Rushdoony was some kind of double-minded deceiver, for saying Rush “played off his image as a Presbyterian hardliner, [when] he was actually an Anglican priest. ” For shame that such a lie would accuse Rush of being a deceiver.
John Lofton
Member, In Good-Standing,
PCA Church In Va.
JLof@aol.com
Is anybody still reading this?
One thing I hate about American church people is their double standard between criticizing politicians vs. criticizing the clergy.
a) JL: Look, you worked in the newspaper business. There’s no way you shouted “Gossip!” and “False Witness!” at every article published without named sources. Your old bosses would have laughed you out a job.
And I cited sources. Calling me a liar is itself false witness. I cited sources including a public record. Even if they are both false, I’m still not a liar.
As every journalist knows, TRUTH IS A DEFENSE. It isn’t libel, gossip, false witness or whatever if the allegation is true. What is true is, by definition, not false.
b.) Are you willing to admit that RJR joined an Anglican splinter group in the 1970s?
That RJR’s reputation is almost entirely among Presbyterians is obvious. Outside NAPARC, he’s ignored, if he’s noticed at all. If you want a pedantic historical point, note that Rushdoony was still writing for P&R, the OPC’s unofficial publishing house, even after he joined the Anglicans. While I haven’t read everything he wrote, I don’t remember any disclaimers.
So, yes, he played off his image as a Presbyterian hardliner, when he was actually an Anglican priest. How many Anglicans, except ex-Presbyterian and ex-CRs, even know RJR existed?
c.) Was the OPC “posting gossip” and “bearing false witness” by reporting that RJR jumped to the Anglican group? Was Gary North?
” No more on this matter.”
But here’s more: Post here, “Scarborough Fayre,” who you dealt with at my Session and at my Presbytery to thoroughly investigate my case.
If trolling were a triathalon, Lofton would be the ironman. Admin, you must have the patience of Job.
Caradoc, I confess to being endlessly amused by Lofton. I know others don’t share my twisted sense of humor, but there it is.
RJR couldn’t possibly be your mentor, JLo. I see, read & have heard no resemblance in any thread where his worldview has been brought up.
I have seen, read & heard plenty of pages, quotes, quips & lectures in thier entirety whereby like minded views of his that these other fellows have mined & refered to in proper context.
-tkbk-
Rabbit Trail:
xanga has some major anti-white “racist” posts going on now claiming there is no such thing as reverse racism, it is not making me real happy. Anyhow I wanted to get your opinion on something PLEASE.
If you Google Russel Means “welcome to the reservation” he is an American Indian activist who led the 71-day armed takeover at South Dakota’s Pine Ridge Indian Reservation back in 1973. He is getting interviewed by Alex Jones and he is preaching and teaching about the Constitution and how absolutely brilliant it was and how stupid we are by allowing ourselves to become slaves. China owns us, nothing is LOCALIZED. He say’s that is pure insanity. And so he says America has become the new reservation and he asks with a bit of a smart ass grin “how does it feel”
My question which I would highly appreciate a reply is:
Is there a possibility we are reaping what our ancestors did to the American Indians??? Is that possible??? Or is the time frame far too long??? Is there a time frame in the bible that teaches a specific length of time in which sowing and reaping (karma) takes place???
Or am I just crazy for thinking this is possible???
You’re just crazy.
You are not crazy.
I don’t think there is a time frame. I think the fact that our country is being stolen from us, placed into the hands of China, Mexico, at the behest of our leaders, may be a sort of divine payback for our treatment of Indians.
Then again, you could argue against this, since Europe is facing the same problem of Whites being ethnically cleansed from our own countries, yet does not have a history of land-theft from the people that are now stealing from it.
Reverse Racism: An Orwellian term. Racism either exists, or it doesn’t. If it exists, then singling out White people for whatever imagined evil or “payback” is pure racism. If racism does not exist, no one has any claim on Whites to sate their megalomania.
Lots of non-Whites and ignorant Whites take the “xanga” position of “there is no such thing as evil against Whites”, which is negro-logic at its finest. This kind of hateful absurdity needs no refuting except to the most religious of Leftists.
I remember Gary Norths opinion one that. Just wondering if yours was similar or different.
Thank you for that! That was the answer I was looking for. Personally I don’t live the type of lifestyle that really honor’s our race. My lifestyle is pretty wild to say the least. But I seriously think you guy’s are doing a fine work here and I want to encourage you to press on and continue which I know you will!
My parent’s are SUPER Christian. Unfortunately they go to a waked out charismatic church that I am trying to get them away from. Fortunately I have my Mom reading Rushdoony and at this point I am going to persuade her even more. If she get’s enough Rushdoony in her hopefully she will ditch that place for either a real church or no church at all. I would rather see her tithe to Chaldeon then any churches in her area. Thanks again!
Mint,
If ‘reverse-racism’ be Orwellian, surely ‘racism’ itself is, if the term be substantive at all. It’s not even up for debate, as we all know it to be a political pejorative, designed to neuter opposition before the fact.
And giving credence to another enemy concoction, the notion of ‘land theft’ of the poor, poor indians, is, with respect, nuts. We’ve got to be smarter than that.
If one wishes to opine some ‘divine payback,’ how about divine payback for not completeing the job of conquering the continent in the first place, which is 1:1 with one of the two primary recurrent themes of the Old Testament? The opposite is just common enemy whackjobbery.
Re: the reference to Rushdoony as “RJR”
I shall henceforth refer to him as “Nabisco.” Please update your links.
Mint and Chet — you are both crazy.
I don’t think the God’s judgment on the Indians today, exemplified in their drunkenness and covetousness, is a judgment on them for their ancestors’ massacring of white men and other Indians. Not at all. It will no longer be said, “the fathers eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”
Ezek. 18:2-4.
By the way Chet, if your lifestyle is pretty wild and a disgrace to your race, then repent, and cease the effeminate smiley faces, or be killed. Worthless double-minded scum.
What then did the whites do against the Indians? This is just more white guilt that we shouldn’t fall for. Do read Rushdoony’s “Politics of Guilt and Pity” and listen to his lecture called the “Atonement” found here : http://chalcedon.edu/research/audio/the-atonement/
Truth be told, we are under the judgment of God because we have turned our backs on Him. We have not kept the faith of our forefathers. All those who hate God love death. This is why we must call our people to repentance, not false guilt over sins we have not committed that can not be atoned for.
CL: There is simply no denying the historical fact that Whites invaded the continent and displaced the natives. On evolutionary terms this played out like any other scenario of two groups consuming the same resources being placed in the same limited arena. One gets crowded out.
I love my race; I am not willing to say this gives us the ability to do everything we want. Without one standard for right and wrong, the Mexicans encroaching on our own territory could be considered blameless.
This has nothing to do with “White Guilt”, a psych job cooked up by leftists, and everything to do with treating other people how you want them to treat you. Consider the theft of Hawaii. Is this how we want non-Whites to treat us?
Dawn Morse’s explanation of why we are facing a hard time right now is probably the correct one.
As a concept, the term ‘racism’, is meaningless except in the positive and universal sense of preferring and supporting one’s own race and people. As everyone does, I might add – unless they have been interfered with by judeobolshevik social engineers.
There is no race or ethnicity on the face of the earth that has not sought to defend its land against aggression or to expand its territory in times of strength and population increase.
Arabs, Nubians (Aficans), Jews have all been historic invaders of North West Europe. All have committed plenty of atrocities there. Mongolian peoples have been historic invaders of the Caucasus and Central Europe as well as the Americas.
But only the White or Caucasian race and its nations can be ‘racist’ as defined by the Jews.
The term ‘racism’ was coined by the Jew Lev Bronstein (Leon Trotsky)in his book The History of the Russian Revolution.
In this book, he uses this nonsense of ‘racism’ to slander the ‘Slavophils’ as evil, backward and reactionary forces who opposed the enlightened revolutionary policies of the Internationale.
Rather than embrace the new order and support the Bolsheviks, the evil and racist ‘Slavophils’ loved their traditional way of life and defended their people, their Christian culture and their church. They invoked the Lord Jesus Christ as the King and Saviour of the Russias against the Jews. And in war, they invoked our Lady of Khazan in her icon as the banner of the Russias against the Khazarian Khaganate.
All this was the very heart of evil, racist darkness according to the Jews.
Trotsky fulminated against the backward, reactionary, racist White Russians who had committed the heinous and racist sin of opposing Jewish ambitions to seize power in Russia through subversion and revolution.
And under Czarist rule, they did successfully squash Jewish ambitions along these lines and confine the Jews to the Pale of the Settlement.
For these crimes, Trotsky guilted the White Russians with the unforgivable sin of racism. This was his codeword to designate those who would be ethnically cleansed by the Reds for the crime of resisting the Judaic imperium – at that time was called Bolshevism.
In terms of imaginary sins the Jews impute to the goyim – racism only trumps environmental sins against Gaia and sexism; the sin of homophobia, however, trumps racism. The sin of ‘anti-semitism’ trumps homophobia. But the unforgiveable sin of ‘holocaust denial’ trumps them all.
This is a ‘gnat straining’ exercise of the Talmudic mind. And it is always a lot of fun to watch the Liberals and the anti-Christs disputing their victimhood status in terms of these ‘sins’. My personal favourite is the pride parade that is not permitted to marshal in front of the holocaust museum.
If you want to make a rabbis cough up their collective furball, just try and get a permit for the faggots to organize their pride parade in front of the holy of holies – before which all lesser victim entitlements must bow.
Beatus vir – the white man of faith in Christ the King. The Jews intend to crown him with all the sins dreamed up by the Pharisaic mind.
Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord.
“CL: There is simply no denying the historical fact that Whites invaded the continent and displaced the natives.”
Au contraire: there is much evidence Caucasians were here before the “native Americans,” in both archeological and anthropological fields; it’s just politically incorrect for the research scientists to admit it too loudly. The oldest skull found on this continent is Caucasian.
This whole website is garbage. It’s ridiculous.
I know, right? And not just a little bit of the website–the *whole* site.
There really should be a law.
Some questions:
*Regarding Rushdoony’s viewpoint on adoption, does he and Kinists in general think it is perferable that such children be aborted?
*Are Kinists eugenicists?
*If they take the Bible so seriously, why do they not celebrate Passover, Rosh Hashana, and the rest of the feasts?
*If European Jews are really just Europeans with little to no Israelite ancestry (as RJR claimed), why does Tay-Sachs disease only target such a particular group? Why do White Nationalists insist Jews are not white?
The Monitor:
“So, yes, he played off his image as a Presbyterian hardliner, when he was actually an Anglican priest.”
Gary North argued in his anti-familist broadside that Rushdoony had actually become a practical Anabaptist:
http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/gnbp.pdf
p. 26
“He wrote in the early 1980’s: “Thus, the traditional marks of the true church are good but limited.”4° This was a halfwayhouse position. It did not survive his march into Anabaptism. In 1991, he delivered a lecture, “Reconstructing the Church,” to the Third International Conference on Christian Reconstruction, held in England. He briefly summarized the traditional Protestant and Reformed three-fold definition of the church: orthodox preaching, administering the sacraments, and disciplining. He called this definition “reductionism.”41 Its limitation, he said, is that it focuses on the institutional church, not the members and their responsibilities (i.e., zow-ks). He then quoted William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army – a worldwide parachurch organization that closely resembles a church but does not offer the sacraments. Rushdoony favorably cited Booth’s description of the late-nineteenth-century church in England as a “mummy factory.”42 His contempt showed.”
More from Gary North about Rushdoony’s late-life ecclesiastical position:
http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/pdf/westministers_confession.pdf
“Westminster’s Confession” (1991), p. 80
“7. His shift in opinion from Presbyterianism to independency can be seen in his essay, “The Puritan Doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers,” Journal of Christian Reconstruction, VI (Summer 1979), which is really a defense of the anti-Puritan Great Awakening and revivalism. In 1964, Rushdoony was still in the OPC, and he was hostile to the Great Awakening: “The decline and defeat of the Great Awakening is sometimes seen as the end of the commonwealth idea. In actuality, the defeat of the Great Awakening … was a triumph of the holy commonwealth idea:’ Rushdoony then attacks Jonathan Edwards as an experientialist, a Platonist, and a follower of John Locke. R. J. Rushdoony, This Independent Republic: Studies in the Nature and Meaning of American History (Fairfax, Virginia: Thoburn Press, [1964] 1978), p. 105. He attacks revivalism as undenominational and anti-denominational. “It was not greatly concerned with saving the church, in many instances, but rather with reviving America. Its cry was ‘Save America’” (p. 107).
He reverses this whole argument in the 1979 essay. “With the Great Awakening, there was a growing break with civil religion” (p. 25). He attacks Nathan Hatch’s Sacred Cause of Liberty for arguing as he had in This Independent Republic that the Great Awakening was the first major move in America toward a civil millennarianism and civil religion (pp. 21-24). The Great Awakening was positive, he says. Why? Because lay people challenged Church hierarchy in the name of the priesthood of all believers. “No longer was it the duty of the laity merely to listen silently and obey: they were now an aggressive priesthood” (p. 23). Compare this analysis with Charles Hodge’s heavily documented account of the anti-ecclesiastical, disrupting impulse of the Great Awakening: Constitutional History ofthe Presbyterian Church, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1851), II, chaps. 3-5. Rushdoony then praises the rapid growth of Baptists and Methodists after 1800, “both of whom in those days placed great stress on the priestly role of the laity” (p. 25). He praises Baptist founder Isaac Backus as against the Puritan clergy, who “were still fearful of the people’s priesthood” (p. 19). By 1979, Rushdoony had become an noncommuning independent.”
We should just thank God that Baptists–the idiot savants of Christendom–have in America established unequivocally the legitimacy of congregational, non-hierarchical church governance. This judeo-society attacks all organizations, so congregational governance functions as a gigantic escape valve.
And so what? There are old, ‘independent’ Presbyterian churches. Heck, nobody gets the oxymoron anyway. Don’t sweat it.
http://www.gracevalley.org/articles/Priesthood.html
““The purpose of the church should not be to bring men into subjection to the church, but rather to train them into a royal priesthood capable of bringing the world into subjection to Christ the King… . The church has by and large paid lip service to the priesthood of all believers, because its hierarchy has distrusted the implications of the doctrine, and because it has seen the church as an end in itself, not as an instrument.”16″
16. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Phillipsburg, NJ: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1977), 764.
Responding to Tenerife October 3, 2011 at 11:10 pm Some questions:
*Regarding Rushdoony’s viewpoint on adoption, does he and Kinists in general think it is perferable that such children be aborted?
*Are Kinists eugenicists?
*If they take the Bible so seriously, why do they not celebrate Passover, Rosh Hashana, and the rest of the feasts?
*If European Jews are really just Europeans with little to no Israelite ancestry (as RJR claimed), why does Tay-Sachs disease only target such a particular group? Why do White Nationalists insist Jews are not white?
_______________________________________
1) Of course not. Kinists advise against mixing & do not promote murder.
2) Natural means being used in keeping distnctions preserved is in keeping with God given design.
3) Not being bound to repetitious celebratories of Jewish religion or any religion.
4) Jews insist they are not White.
-tkbk-
Here is that Baptist-friendly 1979 lecture of Rushdoony’s online:
http://kevincraig.info/priesthood.htm
The Puritan Doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers
“Thus, Luther wrote, of the priesthood of all believers, in The Babylonian Captivity of the Church:
As many of us as have been baptized are all priests without distinction. . . . For thus it is written in I Peter ii, “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, and a priestly kingdom.” Therefore we are all priests, as many of us as are Christians. But the priests, as we call them, are ministers chosen from among us, who do all that they do in our name. And the priesthood is nothing but a ministry, as we learn from I Corinthians iv, “Let a man so account of us as the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.”[2]
Luther indeed has a central role in the formulation of this doctrine, but, in the practical realm, Lutherans are about as docile in relation to their clergy as Catholics are. Calvin also set forth this same doctrine clearly and strongly, but with about the same results. Some Reformed churches are almost as “priest-ridden” as their Catholic neighbors.”
Petr: Rushdoony became a sort of tribal priest holding liturgy at home. He had no church, but he had an ordination — and it was Anglican.
BTW, those who see RJR as a Kinist need to explain this unfortunate statement:
“The Talmud, in dealing with land laws, insisted on God’s ownership of the earth. Because of God’s total lordship and sovereignty, the land, even in the hands of heathens, is under God’s jurisdiction. The heathen thus are accountable, according to the Talmud, to God for the care of the earth under law, and for the payment of the tithe. It is fashionable for many “Christians” to express their contempt for the Talmud; despite its many vagaries, at this point, and elsewhere, the Talmud gave better practical recognition to the sovereignty of God than did Luther, Calvin, and many others. Luther, having denied the law of God, pushed his hostility to the point of denying everything associated with it, including the Jews and the Talmud.”
http://bit.ly/ofjau2
“BTW, those who see RJR as a Kinist need to explain this unfortunate statement:”
That stuff could be interpreted as an overdose of theonomy.
Rushdoony seems to have appreciated the “supremacist” attitude of Talmud – that the whole earth belongs to God, and therefore to the chosen people – and his only problem was that Talmud made the rightful rulers of the earth Jews and not Christians.
It is the vocation of the Israel of God to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.
(Exodus 19:6) This is a hierarchal order.
The Church is the Israel of God and the seed of Abraham by descent (the European nations of the Christendom are descended from Jacob) and by faith. And to the Church is the mission that in Abraham will all the nations of the earth be blessed.
Yes, it will be immediately pointed out the failures and signal failures here – but the Great Commission was given to the Church and to no other.
Of the Judaic progject to nullify God’s Law, reject the Messiah and to enslave all nations, the Lord Jesus Christ states frankly that they are not Abraham’s children (here by faith – as some Jews did have Israelite descent); and they have nullified the Word of God by means of the Tradition of the Elders (later codified in the Talmud). Matt 15:9.
The earth is the Lord’s (YHVH) and the fullness thereof, the world and they that dwell therein. Ps 24:1
The Talmud affirms this only to reject it.
It takes Michael Hoffman over 1,000 scholarly pages to definitively lay this out in Judaism Discovered.
Behold God is my Salvation (Yeshuah), I will trust and not be afraid; for the Lord (YHVH) is my strength and my song; He is also become my Salvation (Yeshuah).
Ex 15:2; Ps 118:4; Isiah 12:2
The Talmud rejects this completely that Jesus or Yeshuah is the God of their Salvation revealed to Israel by the prophets.
For by Him (the Lord Jesus Christ, the Divine Logos) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions or principalities or pwoers: all things were created by Him and for Him.” Col 1:16 and John 1:3
And He is the Head of his Body the Church -the Israel of God founded upon Himself, the chief cornerstone with the Rock set upon Himself and the square of apostles and prophets in alignment.
The Church proclaims the Kingship of Christ over all nations – including the nation of the Jews (also of Chaldean descent through Esau and many nations) – historically the enemies of Israel dwelling in Idumea.
“God is in all things by His power as everything is subject to Him, by His Presence because He sees everything, by His essence because He is the cause of the existence of all things.” St Thomas of Aquin, Summa Ia, Q8, a3.
Quas Primas clearly defines the social reign of Christ the King. “It would be a serious error to say that Christ has no authority on social matters, since, by virtue of the absolute authority He received from His Father over all creatures, all things are subject to his power.”
Nations that despise His creation, his moral law, His Evangel, His Church and the Apostolic government of His Church can expect to be removed – because this is the age of the Kingdom when the reigning Christ places all his enemies under his feet.
The only hope for America is to embrace the social reign of our Lord Jesus Christ as King who desires to reign over all nations by means of Sacred Heart.
The Jews will, of course, oppose this all the way on the basis of their Talmud.
Judgement begins with the House of God.
The fact that the Chair of Peter is at present overthrown in Rome and the Church scattered is a mere glitch on this timeline.
John Lofton has had an obsession for over half a century: debating, shouting people down, browbeating people into seeing things his way. He idolizes two mentors: John Calvin and Rushdoony. Lofton is on his computer most of the day, and his Facebook posts show this addiction.