Just FYI: the hard Bible men at Reconstructionist Radio have a website outage, as visitors are outgrowing capacity. They should be up and running again in a week (first week of August, around Friday or so.)
Good to see the tribe grow and grow!
Just FYI: the hard Bible men at Reconstructionist Radio have a website outage, as visitors are outgrowing capacity. They should be up and running again in a week (first week of August, around Friday or so.)
Good to see the tribe grow and grow!
In the Facebook group The Level-Headed Christian Reconstructionist, Bojidar Marinov points out the blindingly obvious (July 26, 8:37am) below:
I was asked earlier today whether I believed, according to the WCF 25:2, that “there is no salvation outside the visible church.” The person asking the question seemed to be sincere, so I suppose some people who have vested interests in the existing institutional system – which has proven its inadequacy and is obviously under God’s curse – are still busy purposefully misreading and slandering my ecclesiology.
Let’s say it in bold, maximum headline style:
The faster this damned, effete, gelded, kingdom-shrinking…
(and thus, in direct opposition to Christ’s command. And churches that back a different gospel than that preached by Christ, are by definition demonic churches. Regardless of their pretty clothes, fine buildings, or (rapidly fading) Establishment patronage.)
…institutional systems is cut off and left to die (as per John 15:1-6), the better it will be.
(Sure, purge the pulpits… but be sure to cut off, defund, and abolish the evil, kingdom-hating, Christ-despising seminaries as well. They have no place in the Bible: neither Christ nor the apostles have any place for them… and obviously they have no place for the powerful, commanding, and authoritative law-word of Christ, the apostles, or the Bible itself.
Although, I do admit that they are occasionally useful as sock-puppets for today’s secularist power-elite. And they do make a good imitation, powerless, insipid, paper-mache version of Christianity, always careful to echo their secularist betters and never daring to cross the lines that the enemies of Christ has laid down.
But that’s just one more reason to dump those seminaries, today.)
My reply is this:
First, the WCF doesn’t say that “there is no salvation outside the visible church.” The real text is that “out of [the visible church] there is no ORDINARY POSSIBILITY of salvation.” This is an important distinction, and anyone who doesn’t understand this distinction, doesn’t understand the Reformation, period, and it doesn’t matter whether he has been to a seminary, or is even a teacher in a seminary. “No salvation outside the visible church” is a Papist doctrine, and it presupposes salvation dependent on the will of men and their institutions.. “No ordinary possibility for salvation outside the visible church” is the Reformed doctrine, and it presupposes God’s sovereignty to act outside any human will or institution. Again, anyone who doesn’t understand the difference is not Reformed, period.
As a general rule of thumb, it is reasonable and suitable to join a God-fearing, Biblical church. But if all of them in your area are worthless, avoid the lot. Aim high, insist on the best… and there’s nothing prohibiting any God-fearing, spirit-filled Christian man from starting his own church, so long as he is filled with the Holy Spirit, adheres to the Bible — the entire Word of God, even the parts you don’t like — and follows the directions of the Bible regarding teachers, prophets, deacons, etc.
[Addendum: from Chapter 46: Church from Christian Economics: Teacher’s Edition
There are criteria for church office. These are found mainly in Paul’s first letter to Timothy. They are as follows:
The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil (I Timothy 3:1–7).
Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, knot greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with ma clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus (I Timothy 3:8–13).
These are primarily ethical criteria. Money is relevant insofar as a leader should be charitable. Giving money away, not accumulating it, is the standard. This distinguishes a church leader from a business leader. Elders are entitled to salaries, but they must first qualify ethically for this double honor, as Paul calls it (I Timothy 5:17–18).
These standards do not govern businesses. Therefore, economic theory has little to contribute to a proper understanding of the church.
Did I say anything at all regarding seminaries, denominations, etc?
Why no, I didn’t.
(Although I do recommend learning the Greek and Hebrew of the original writings – easily done by computer nowadays – and understanding John Calvin’s commentary on Deuteronomy – It’s even better than the Institutes!)
Second, and more important, the WCF does NOT define the visible church as an institution. That same point defines the visible church as the sum of all individual believers throughout the world THAT PROFESS THE TRUE RELIGION. Thus, the institution does not define the visible church; the individual profession does.
Amen, and amen.
To put it in more concrete terms, once you publicly profess Christ, you ARE the Church, even if you are not a member of an institutional body. Continuing to point #3 in the chapter, that visible church is given all the institutional tools it needs to use, but none of them are definitional for the visible church. They are only tools. The visible church, contrary to papists and anabaptists, is the sum of professing believers, not an institutional body, universal or local.
This is true!
Thus, yes, I do believe with the WCF that outside the visible church there is no ordinary possibility for salvation, but that only means that unless you make a public profession of faith, you are not saved. Anyone who tells you that this means that you need to be a member of an institutional body is not Reformed, he is in reality a papist. Any teacher who tells you this is a false teacher, and should be denied the pulpit in your church and even excommunicated.
Liars will fail, lies will fade, but the truth of God will stand forever.
Some impressive excerpts from Lee but not Lincoln? A belated response to Steve Wilkins
To be sure, since I have not gone the additional mile to demand “statues of Lincoln come down forthwith,” let me get this out of the way now, as an aside, and be clear:
We should also remove every monument and statute of Abraham Lincoln throughout the nation.
Hypocrisy aside—which criteria would lead to the removal of every statue of every politician—I want them removed because I am in general morally opposed to any taxpayer funding for public monuments. These should be funded and owned privately, and built on private property. Simple.
The man does not like politicians much.. or wasting tax money glorifying them.
Smart man, McDurmon.
Also quite Biblical: God is famous for His hostility to idolatry…
If most of the Southern apologists I have seen were half as well read as they pretended, they would know that the first, most ardent, most consistent, and most thorough writers on all the topics of Northern hypocrisy and alleged tough questions of American racism and slavery have been the liberal scholars themselves, and often black ones.
Yes, the North ran many of the slaving ships that delivered slaves to the South. You know who has put the most effort into exposing that sad history? The liberals in the northern universities themselves. For one, in 2003, Brown University launched a whole panel of scholars for an official report on the school’s deep entanglement with the slave trade, and much more.
These liberals seem to know at least a first step in repentance. Why don’t we?
I pray that McDurmon succeeds, in his drive to get the South – especially the hardcore Reconstructionists, Dominionists, and Theocrats – to repent of the wickedness of their ancestors.
Genuine repentance is the key to forgiveness, restoration, and elevation.
To gain power and authority, repent and serve the Lord and your fellow men. To be a Master in the Christian universe, you must be a Servant first.
Christ, the Holy and Mighty King who washed the feet of sinful, corrupt and loathsome men, sets the standard. And we must do as He did.
Refuse to repent? The open graves where the corpse of White Western Europe now rots have plenty of room for other failed White Christian cultures.
(Black American men who are tempted to gloat should shut their mouths: the gravedigger is already sizing your people up, a should be obvious by now…)
But worse yet, even if we didn’t say it, even if we neglected every mention of it, that would still never, not in a million years, exonerate the South or her complicit leaders. The argument would still at best amount to a tu quoque fallacy—that is, the most childish of retorts: “you did it, too!”
Yes, much of the North did hold slaves, sold them off selfishly and called it “emancipation,” passed black codes before Jim Crow was ever around, and was as hotly racist as the South ever was for a long time. And much more. Yes, it’s all true. So what? That makes it right?
Does that make it right that Lee fought in court to keep slaves he inherited, who should have been freed by act of will, as slaves instead? Does that make it right that the South tried to maintain an official form of slavery that everyone—even Dabney in his off-camera moments—conceded was fraught with rape, rapine, and the merciless tearing apart of tens of thousands of slave families? Does that make it right that South Carolina led secession with slavery as the first and foremost cause (and all the states followed with slavery as an official cause)? Does that render acceptable the black codes in the South, KKK terrorism, Jim Crow, lynchings, the convict lease system, and “nigger” through 1965 and well beyond? Forget the Civil War. How about targeting blacks for “convict” labor in 1920? Or, 1940? How about the extreme reactions to civil rights for blacks in which Southern whites systematically erected “Confederate” monuments in the 1960s, or later—clearly in reaction to black equality?
Is all of this—is any of this—right because Lincoln and Sherman were racists, too?
The wickedness of your enemy does not justify your wickedness. That is not how Biblical Law works.
(And keep in mind exactly when all these Glorious Monuments went up, as McDurmon pointed out: in the 1960. A dying oppressive system, making a last gasp for immortality with dead marble men.)
No amount of “you too” can absolve a single point of this, and no one who fought for the stated goal of preserving a single point of it deserves a monument anywhere, certainly not state-funded. And every one that exists is an affront to the Gospel, God’s law, and the belief that all men are created equal—they should be removed. If that means toppling one more Lee off his marble perch, I’ll climb into the cab of the crane myself and wreak havoc, Bible in hand. Just call me.
(I’ll arrange for the bronze and marble to be scrapped and sold off, with the proceeds going to fund solid Christian, free-market education in the inner cities—no extra charge.)
I ain’t got the cash, but I wish I could be there to at least contribute the sweat to get this done! Well, at least I can pray: and God hears earnest prayers which follow His will, regardless of the sinfulness of the prayer…
In an interesting take, Washington Post columnist Radley Balko suggest that maybe we should keep all those Confederate monuments. After all, who wants to forget the depths of depravity so much of our nation once tried to defend? They just need a little more special treatment:
I was recently in Moscow to give a talk, and I think the answer might be to look at how that city and a couple of others have dealt with the legacy of Lenin, Stalin and the Soviet Union. In Moscow’s Gorky Park, right next to the state art museum, there’s a stretch of green space called Fallen Monument Park. It’s populated with monuments to Stalinism and Leninism erected during the Soviet era. It’s pretty striking.
Each monument includes a plaque explaining when it was erected, how it was funded and that it has been preserved and installed in the park not to celebrate Stalin or Lenin or their ideas but because of its historical significance.
One statute of Stalin stands — minus its nose — in front of a harrowing sculpture depicting dozens of human heads stacked behind barbed wire. It’s a monument to the victims of totalitarianism. It isn’t difficult to imagine a similar park where a statute of Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis or Nathan Bedford Forrest might stand in front of a monument to victims of lynching.
The bottom line remains from my original post: the South was wrong, and you cannot rewrite that. The full facts will never exonerate those who fought to preserve that old system, despite the attempts of many to rewrite a type of Lost Cause mythology ever since.
Don’t get upset when someone more consistent and more thorough than you points that out. And don’t blame northern revisionists for allegedly not saying it: they’re way further ahead of the curve than you are, even on your most cherished subject.
When the wicked North – and they ARE wicked — are behaving in a more godly fashion than you are, it’s time to stop and think.
Again, I am glad that McDurmon is pounding the podium here: it must be pounded, the wickedness must be broken, and there must be actual repentance among Whites — or at least White Reconstructionists.
After this is done, then the door opens to a whole range of cultural and political victories.
But first things first.
A paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences illustrates the deep problem among Darwin-inebrieted psychologists: they don’t see their own fallacies. In this paper, nine secular psychologists, including Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, whom we saw promoting deadly sins (2/12/17) and scratching their heads trying to evolve generosity by natural selection (7/27/11), are confused about why ordinary people (unlike the elitists they are), don’t favor the redistribution of wealth. They decided to survey the lab rats (i.e., the public) and find out why. So in “Support for redistribution is shaped by compassion, envy, and self-interest, but not a taste for fairness,” they explain the factors they judge to be most significant for affecting public attitudes for or against redistribution of wealth (a politically-correct term for communism). A subtext of the paper is that people should favor redistribution because it is more fair. That’s all we need in 2017: more communism.
So what’s the logical fallacy here? To find out, have these well-paid scientists go live in a communist country, like Cuba or Venezuela, and see if they could protect their own money from redistribution, or have the freedom to speak their minds in print.
[After noting the life of a scientist in the gulag.] t’s nice for Nature to give voice to “Science lessons from the Gulag” today, but back then, most scientific institutions lionized Stalin as a great leader, and were vocal critics of the free countries that allowed them to voice their opinions.
Too much visionary, superior abstractions.
Not enough interest in real-life applications of their beautiful theories.
Let’s see the logical fallacy here. In two other papers about evolution in education, students are treated like lab rats who need some nudging (6/11/17). A paper in a journal called Evolution: Education and Outreach (odd name for a “science” journal, is it not?), a team considers “A multifactorial analysis of acceptance of evolution.” Lack of acceptance of evolution is a serious problem, in their view. Maybe with a little scientific manipulation, elitists can find ways to overcome the reluctance of the lab rats to run the maze properly:
Naturally, the inferior rats pay to build and run their own rat mazes. And they love to do so, with FREE EDUCATION and the welfare state as the cheese.
But, with the destruction of the rats (via abortion), their sterilization (via attitude), and the immigration of new rats who — being more resistant to the Masters — are reproducing quite nicely (while providing precious little taxes), the Game of Masters and Mazes is drawing to an end.
In another paper in Evolution: Education and Outreach, Bertha Vasquez publishes “A state-by-state comparison of middle school science standards on evolution in the United States.” Surely she would favor what Charles Darwin advised, wouldn’t she? “A fair result can only come,” he said in The Origin of Species, “from fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of every question” (Academic Freedom Day). Anyone who thinks she should hasn’t smelled the mind-numbing power of Darwin DOPE. Like Stalinist-Leninists, the Darwin Party faithful only support academic freedom until they gain power. After that, all must follow the Party Line (5/21/17).
The Masters are the Masters… until the money runs out.
The money is running out now, as the enemies of God refuse to count the cost: after all, Jesus said we should do that, and Darwinists have no interest in obeying God.
Better to chase delusions, of stones into bread… as Satan promised.
(“Don’t they know that Satan is a liar?
“Sure… but so long as it feels good, they don’t care.”)
You should have an interest in obeying Jesus… assuming that you want to prosper, without cheating or lying or scamming or reaching for a gun (with or without a badge and a uniform).
We’ve reported frequently in recent years about the lack of ethics in institutional science: fraud, conflict of interest, and the reproducibility crisis have been big news. Yet it should be obvious that without ethics, one cannot have science. If peer review is to catch fraud, what if the reviewers are dishonest? Who watches the watchers? The need for real, reliable ethics is self-evident. Darwinians know this deep down; when discussing three-parent babies through genetic engineering, for instance, New Scientist preached a sermonette, “Nice science, but don’t forget about the ethics.” These are staunch Darwinians, mind you. On the one hand, the editors speak of “the state of scientific knowledge and society’s ethical priorities” as if the latter are malleable. But on the other hand, they conclude that certain policies “would be both unwise and unethical,” as if their opinions are based on absolutes that can be established with certainty.
The desire to eat your cake and still have it is widespread in the very best circles.
What is going to happen is, “No cake.”
Who is the fittest of them all?
One more non-Darwinian paper commands attention: In PNAS, it’s titled, “On the promotion of human flourishing.” Without any appeals to game theory, evolution or selection, Tyler J. VanderWeele, a Harvard social scientist, analyzes the evidence-based factors that produce robust societies of individuals able to pursue happiness. Here’s his approach:
Many empirical studies throughout the social and biomedical sciences focus only on very narrow outcomes such as income, or a single specific disease state, or a measure of positive affect. Human well-being or flourishing, however, consists in a much broader range of states and outcomes, certainly including mental and physical health, but also encompassing happiness and life satisfaction, meaning and purpose, character and virtue, and close social relationships. The empirical literature from longitudinal, experimental, and quasiexperimental studies is reviewed in attempt to identify major determinants of human flourishing, broadly conceived. Measures of human flourishing are proposed. Discussion is given to the implications of a broader conception of human flourishing, and of the research reviewed, for policy, and for future research in the biomedical and social sciences.
What a radical idea: people can be happy without high incomes! Virtue and character can matter more than money. Meaning and purpose in life can promote human fulfillment. So taking a broader approach for his empirical study, what does he find as the greatest factors contributing to human flourishing?
If it is the case that the family, work, education, and religious community are important determinants of various aspects of human flourishing, as indeed they seem to be, then this has profound implications for societal organization and resource allocation. If we desire societal good, broadly construed as human flourishing, and crudely represented by the measures described above, then the structures, policies, laws, and incentives, financial or otherwise, that contribute to family, work, education, and religious community will likely be important ways in which society itself can better flourish.
Quiz question: who in society are the most pro-family, pro-work people in favor of character and virtue? Darwinists? Ha! There isn’t a perversion known that they don’t justify (see our book review of How Darwinism Corrodes Morality). It’s the churches who build constructive, virtuous families—specifically the religious groups who aren’t taught that blowing up buses and buildings will earn sex favors in the afterlife. It’s the churches who believe in a holy God who demands holy behavior. It’s the organizations like Family Research Council and the American Family Association that promote traditional marriage, church attendance, and community involvement in altruistic good deeds. It’s parents who train up a child in the way he or she should go, and to avoid temptations to self-gratification for higher purposes and goals. VanderWeele admits, “there is now fairly good evidence that participation in religious community is longitudinally associated with the various domains of flourishing,” including better health, lower rates of depression and suicide, more happiness and life satisfaction, more virtuous living and prosocial behavior.
So if Darwinians believe fitness drives evolution, let them consider which humans are the most fit. If they are really in favor of human flourishing (a synonym for fitness), let them abandon the worldview that corrodes morality and embrace the one that promotes it. Let them become ex-Darwinists! Let them bow before their Maker and say, like Paul when he was caught on the wrong path, “Who are you, Lord?” followed by, “Lord, what will you have me to do?” (Acts 9).
The entire point of Darwinism is to find an excuse to avoid bowing to God.
Much better to bow to the State, the Race, the Party, the People, the Leader, since they are all human/human constructs, and thus they can be controlled by men (or even embodied by men, in the case of the Leader).
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me loved eath. — Proverbs 8:36
Certainly, this culture loves death. Fortunately, there is no reason why God’s people need die with these evil fools.
William Thomson, a.k.a. Lord Kelvin, the eminent physicist of Glasgow who dominated physical science in Victorian Britain, was a strong Christian. He gave Darwin a hard time — not with quotes from the Bible, but rather from laws of physics. Much of Lord Kelvin’s work on thermodynamics, communications and energy theory survives (e.g., the Kelvin Scale). Although some of his theories were discarded or revised, one of his speculative ideas about atoms has been ‘resurrected’ by cutting-edge physicists at the University of Durham in the UK.
James Clerk Maxwell
Without controversy, Maxwell’s Equations continue to bear fruit in many fields of electromagnetics and electrical engineering. James Clerk Maxwell was another strong Bible-believing Christian all of his life, even through the Darwinian revolution. One of his insights about statistical thermodynamics has generated controversy to the present day. Called ‘Maxwell’s Demon’ (not his term), this idea proposes a way to overcome the law of entropy. Some entity, whether a conscious being (the ‘demon’) or some automaton, could selectively separate hot and cold molecules into separate compartments, he reasoned, thus overcoming the second law of thermodynamics. Proof that this was not idle speculation rendered obsolete by quantum mechanics can be seen by a recent paper in PNAS titled, “Observing a quantum Maxwell demon at work.” So important is the concept, the researchers state, “Maxwell’s demon plays a central role in thermodynamics of quantum information, yet a full experimental characterization is still missing in the quantum regime.”
Sir Isaac Newton
The most famous scientist in history, Sir Isaac Newton, whose Principia launched the scientific revolution, is not a has-been after Einstein. In fact, his name keeps coming up in discussions of one of the biggest controversies of cosmology: Does dark matter exist? Now that repeated tests have failed to identify any substance, theoretical or actual, that could account for the motions of spiral galaxies and galaxy clusters, some physicists are looking to “Modified Newtonian Dynamics” (MOND) for help. One such example giving serious consideration to MOND can be found at Live Science, which mentions Newton eight times in a piece, “Is Dark Matter Real?”. The details of these debates need not concern us here; suffice it to say that there are discussions of ‘modifying’ Newtonian dynamics, not rejecting them, as some teachers seem prone to do with Newton’s theories in the age of Einstein. Students of science may not know that Isaac Newton wrote more about the Bible than he did about science.
It’s worth remembering often that not all scientists are atheists, Darwinists, and materialists. In fact, many of the greatest scientists of all time, including founders of major fields of science, were at least theists if not Bible believers and creationists (see our list of biographies). Many still are today. The Darwinians are like the Marxist-Stalinist-Leninists who took over Russia, kicked out (or killed or imprisoned) everyone who opposed them, and presented themselves as the “saviors” of Russia. Don’t fall for the big lie. The insights of Newton, Kelvin and Maxwell sprang from minds devoted to God and His word, and one mark of a great scientific mind is the ability to produce ideas with staying power. But doesn’t Darwinism have staying power? Yes—by force (6/08/17). If Darwinism had to stand up to free debate, it would collapse like Lysenko’s fake science supported by Lenin, Stalin and Mao.
Read our biographies and decide who had the best ideas with lasting impact. Much of cutting edge-science continues to build on their foundations. Conversely, much of the worst science comes from materialists (6/05/17, 5/19/17). You can’t get much good science out of evolved monkey brains mutating by chance (7/11/17).
The blogger is too kind: the reason why Darwin was victorious was that the solid majority of clerics backed it (in Britain, and then in the Western World) even as most of the scientists of the era challenged it. Couple the church’s support with the pleasing narcissism of the Master Race and the free hand atheism gives to the power-worshipers (generally intellectuals), and you get the moral disaster of today, promptly followed by the death of (Western) Europe.
Take these Christians in England, for example, who feel so marginalized in their own country.
Perhaps they don’t care to notice, but in God’s universe, you reap what you sow. From having the Queen as the head of their church (instead of Christ), to their continuous justification of whatever the people in power want – or a selective silence – they have bent over backwards to support the Power Elite… and not Christ.
(The proper example probably is the secession over the divorce of Henry VIII… or perhaps the implicit atheism of William of Occam… but my fave is having Darwin – a member of a God-despising clerical family, by the way – being buried in Church land. “Who cares about sacrilege? Social positioning is far more important!”)
The Darwinians well understood their marks.
And there the English Christians stand, aliens in their own country (…which they gave away long ago, in return for welfare benefits and Elite approval…), stunned at being betrayed.
I believe that they are merely being paid back for how contemptuously they choose to treat God and His Law. After all, someone is voting Conservative... and, from land/money/life-stealing empires to legalized abortions to the suicidal pleasures of sodomy, we certainly know the history of Conservative politics, now don’t we.
Or, put in another way,
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. — Matthew 5:13
Tell me when they repent, and I will tell you when they can get their country back again – or, more likely, some shrunken and pathetic remnant of it.
I won’t be holding my breath for even a shred of repentance, by the way. More bleating and whining and bawling is what’s on the menu.
Far wiser for Christian missionaries to wait until the bankruptcy of the local nation-state, and then move in – focusing on Arabs, Indians, and other people who have children, and so, will naturally inherit the land.
North spells out in The Repudiation of the Welfare State that when the government goes bankrupt, it loses legitimacy, and a new order rises up in it’s place.
This has been true throughout history, with the bankruptcy of Spain in many times in the past, the current death throes of Venezuela, the earlier collapses of Wiemar Germany and the Soviet Union, and the bankruptcy of the British Empire and Ancient Regime France.
So it will be in the coming decades, when the pointedly anti-Christian welfare states of Europe and North America go bust, destroying the lives, plans, and financial security of millions.
This will definitely include the end of the badly managed government-run medical system. Our Darwinian-Secularistic culture, supposedly atheistic, sees the State as both Saviour and Healer (as well as Lawgiver, and thus the functional Lord and God of all), and so demands that the government controls and provides all health care… which must be free/very low cost, as a sign of its Divinity and Right to Rule.
All that is going to go up in smoke.
The fall of the idols is coming.
Will the Church step up to the plate, and exalt Christ and His Law up to its proper place in society?
I pray that the Church moves to expand the Kingdom of God, as she is commanded to do!
The following are a few excerpts from North’s The Pressing Need For Revival
God calls His people back to Him in two ways: revival or judgment. In the days of Josiah and Hezekiah, it was revival. In the days of Zedekiah, it was judgment. But He always calls His people back.
I am confident that it will be judgement in our era: and the solid majority of those called back will be in the Third World, not the First. Regardless of the level of punishment God inflicts on the West, repentance will not happen in Western Europe… and will be hard, slow, and painful in America.
Ergo, America will be diminished, especially over the next 50 years… and Europe’s people and culture will be replaced, as a new African people (Arab and Black) moved in to the depopulated zones.
I have hope for Americans, Black and White: I believe that a sufficient amount of pain over several decades will turn things around. There is no hope for Western Europe, though.
Below is the reason for my skepticism of revival as an instrument (at this time) in bringing people from the road to hell, to the road to heaven:
The problem with revival in our era–indeed, going back to the 1730’s–is that revival has been viewed by its practitioners and advocates as a narrow experience of the soul, rather than the foundation of a total reconstruction of the social order. Revival has been understood as personal rather than covenantal. It has been seen as a way of lifting men’s spirits rather than tearing down Satan’s earthly strongholds. It has seen the conflict between Satan and God as a war for the souls of men rather than the war for all creation. It has ignored the dominion covenant (Gen. 1:27-28). It has sought to subdue men’s souls to God without calling men to subdue the earth to the glory of God. It has called the gardeners out of their gardens rather than equipping them for better service in their gardens.
All revivals, at least in America and Europe, fail. The stick is far more effective in these nations than carrots are, so the stick – actually, lead pipes, so far as both the economy and population is concerned – is what we will get.
In the old days, God sent fire from heaven and invading armies to destroy His enemies. Now, debt and abortion, perversion and delusion, do most of the heavy lifting.
(Yeah, yeah, I know about the Muslim immigration crisis: a crisis that simply would not have occurred, if millions upon millions of White European children were born instead of killed by their parents.
We reap what we sow.)
The question we must ask ourselves is this: Is there any neutrality? If our answer is no, there can be no neutral territory between God and Satan, that men must serve God or mammon, then we logically must come to a crucial conclusion: redemption is comprehensive. When God calls men to repent–to turn around–He means for them to turn around from sin in every area of life.
This is surprisingly difficult.
It is not that sinners are sinners only in a few narrow areas of their lives. Men are not going to hell because they are off God’s path in one or two key areas. It is not that they drink too much booze, or listen to too much rock music, or attend too many R-rated movies (rated R because of sex, of course, not violence), or sleep late on Sunday morning and then watch pro football games, rather than get up earlier to go to church Sunday morning, and then watch pro football games in the afternoon, the way Christians do. They are going to hell because they are not covenanted with God, who calls them to restructure the whole of their lives.
And so finally, we get to the point of this post.
If it was just a matter of a token sacrifice, offering a Sinner’s Prayer, or doing some other ritual to satisfy God – and then, after buying Him off, going out to do what you please, then all could be ‘saved’… while still holding on to their sin and corruption.
But that is not what salvation means. God demands an end to evil in all of our lives, and all of our thoughts, right into the core of our heart and our bones. Token sacrifices, magic words, rituals and ceremony… this does not cut it with a Lord who wants to see Holiness, Justice, Mercy, and Righteousness pervade and shape and dominate our entire being.
Calvinists have always had the greatest trouble with the fifth point of Calvinism, sometimes called “limited atonement,” and sometimes called “particular redemption.” The critics are correct; both phrases are misleading. There is nothing limited about Christ’s atonement. He redeems everything that man touches. He preserves the life of sinners as well as saints. Paul writes: “. . . we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those who believe” (l Tim. 4:10b).
We should therefore speak of special atonement or special redemption, and contrast it with general atonement or general redemption. Christ died that all men might have physical life and blessings. This is common grace. But He also died specially for those whom He has chosen to be His people. This is special grace. But special grace must be understood in terms of total redemption. He bought back the whole world. He took the whole world out from under the comprehensive curse of God. Now He assigns to His people the dominion task of progressively buying back this world, in time and on earth, day by day, righteous act by righteous act, successful venture after successful venture, discovery after discovery, until the whole world is delivered up by Christ to His Father. “And when all things shall be subdued by him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (I Cor. 15:28).
Jesus Christ is in effect a senior military commander who operates under the chief civil magistrate. He has been assigned the task of dominion, as the Second Adam, to achieve what the first Adam could not achieve in sin. He has the task of subduing everything to God the Father. He must first subdue us, His people, and then place us in charge of our respective territories. From top to bottom, from Christ to new recruits (converts), there is a chain of command, a court of appeals, and a program of conquest. He has assembled an army. This army must complete its assignment before it is disbanded, and we all become civilians again.
That is going to be a long walk.
We had better get moving.
The revivalism of the 1950’s did not survive the international social and cultural changes of the late 1960’s. This is why the old fundamentalism is dying of self-inflicted wounds. Having preached social irrelevance as a way of life, it has at last achieved its goal.
Here, North speaks of the social and cultural irrelevance of the Western Christian Church in the 1970s.
If the Church was irrelevant then – and it was, obviously – then what word should be used for it today?
We need a revival. We do not need more revivalism. We need a comprehensive call to lost men to join an army that has been assigned the task of comprehensive dominion by means of Christ’s comprehensive redemption. We need a trained corps of field grade officers who understand the nature of the war. We need battle plans, a strategy of victory, tactics of confrontation, a team of recruiters, and specialists in every battle zone who know the terrain and have accurate maps. We need a comprehensive world-and-life view which is explicitly Christian. No more baptized humanism. No more neutrality. No more compulsory State-certified anything. And with respect to the humanist camp, no more Mr. Nice Guy.
This will actually happen… but with difficulty.
Quite a lot of things need to be done first, from the ditching of today’s kingdom-destroying pastorate, to the rise of meat-eating Christians, truly sick and tired of milk and mewing, and a infantile ‘faith’ refusing to obey God, refusing to grow up, refusing to take responsibility, refusing to work and sacrifice for victory, and so incapable of changing the world.