1 Corinthians 15:24-26 KJV
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. [25] For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. [26] The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

@JesusFreaksBibleGeeks

Happy No Quarter November y'all. Get yourselves over to Doug Wilson's blog for the great posts they're doing. https://youtu.be/o5j0AclzORA

Boomers have no idea how dysfunctional and lost people under 40 are in this country. Instead of helping their own children and grandchildren, they would rather waste their resources on another vacation, or propping up a token third world child than help the kid down the street.
Churches that want to send people on missions? Look in your own back yard.

Romanist sacramentology: Ex opere operato (from the work working). The efficacy of the sacraments inheres in the acts themselves.

Baptist/Donatist sacramentology: Ex opere operantis (from the worker working). The efficacy of the sacraments inheres in the person performing/receiving the sacraments.

Reformed sacramentology: Ex opere Spiritus (from the Sprit working). The efficacy of the sacraments inheres in the Holy Spirit's covenantal application of the graces signified and sealed therein.

What is the efficacy of the sacraments?

Under the Roman view, they convey salvific grace, but of course, the quantity delivered via the sacraments is not itself sufficient to save.

Under the Baptistic view, they convey only sanctifying grace akin to that which reading one's Bible or praying conveys.

Under the Reformed view, they convey the salvific grace of the Covenant, but the realization of the grace conveyed is not directly linked to the time of administration. Furthermore, the grace of the Covenant is conditioned upon faithfulness to the Covenant.

GM 👑

This is your election season reminder that Christ is King, His word is law, and anyone who refuses to obey Him rules illegitimately, no matter what letter follows their name.

For the past two years, America has been governed by the most incompetent and unpopular administration in living memory. That the midterms were not an absolute wipeout tells us either...

a) Election fraud is occurring on such an industrial scale that voting is completely ineffective, or

b) Demographics have shifted heavily enough that white Christian conservatives will simply get outvoted in any competitive race.

Either proposition proves the "democratic process" is no longer an effective vehicle through which the right can pursue change.

The solutions Christians have historically found for regaining political power have been:

1) Conversion of leaders who already hold power (e.g. Constantine, Clovis),

2) Forcibly wrest power from godless leaders, even militarily (e.g. the Covenanters and the Long Parliment),

3) Negotiate with somewhat disinterested secular rulers to create an area where they can break off and consolidate power (e.g. Nehemiah, America, Frederick the Wise).

Question of the day for y'all: Given the distinct roles of the church and the state, both of which under God's sovereign authority, should Christians hold positions in civil government?

Some context: I talked with a man who calls himself an anabaptist and said that no Christian should hold official positions in government or enlist in the military because as a member of Christ's church he does not hold the power of the sword given to the government. Very interesting position, and I would like to hear y'alls views on it.

Absolutely Christians can and should. We need look no farther than the Old Testament with godly kings. When the righteous rule, the people flourish (Prov. 29:2).

One *can* argue that church officer should not *simultaneously* be a government officer, and that can be supported by a distinction of offices.

Best reading on this is the Westminster Confession chapter on the civil magistrate and Calvin's Institutes' chapter on the same. Anabaptists are a ridiculously ahistorical gay sect.

I make no bones about it: I'm a theonomist, a hardcore reconstructionist. Rushdoony and Bahnsen are my bois. So I'm much farther right than most people who push Christian Nationalism.

But anyone who publicly criticizes Christian Nationalism can be immediately written off as either a liberal or an idiot. Either they want something more liberal or they don't realize that supporting even somewhat mistaken frens against our leftist enemies is a must.

How are you going to give thanks this season?

Happy Thanksgiving to our American brothers in Christ. May you give thanks for the many gifts God has blessed you, big or small. Take this time to remember your loved ones, and pray for our enemies who hate us. Remember the Pilgrims who settled on American soil and established a fervant Christian colony for the glory of God.

Most of all, give thanks for God loving us, wretched sinners deserving of damnation, so much that he gave his only begotten Son to die on a tree gruesomely for our salvation. Bless his name always and never stop fighting for what is right and beautiful for his glory alone.

Amen.

I can't help but notice that normie theologians who go against "kinism" never attacked black lives matter as a racist heretical group. None of them condemn zionism qua zionism as an evil racist ideology. They certainly have zero problems with Asian student unions, Korean churches, etc.

They only think "kinism" is a heresy when White people do it. And they'll only mutilate Scripture to keep Whites from doing what everyone else is doing. Imagine that, a doctrine that's only a heresy when *you* believe it.

Propositions on Race & Ethnicity:

1) One has a duty to love and sacrifice for his ethnos, his genetic relations, above others. The more closely related to him, the greater his responsibility.

2) "Nations" are primarily conceived of in Scripture not as political groups but as groups who share a common ethnic heritage. One should love and take pride in his fatherland.

3) Interracial marriage is not necessarily a sin as demonstrated by rare instances such as Moses marrying an Ethiopian woman or Boaz marrying Ruth the Moabite. While acceptable in select circumstances...

4) The good and normative creational pattern is for people to marry within their own ethnos. This helps to create strong, high-trust societies as seen by Abraham seeking a woman from his homeland for Isaac to marry.

5) National and genetic distinctions were created by God and should be respected. Any attempt to remove them is wrong, though of course we can love and have fellowship with other Christians no matter their nation or race.

Whatever label you may prefer to apply to this position, this is the correct and biblical position.

The two biggest takeaways from the Thomas Achord debacle are:

1) Unless you have F.U. money/resources, do not post personal details which could lead to a doxxing.

2) When the left (or "conservatives" attacking from the left) come for you, do not apologize; do not back down.

Not only is it a sign of weakness which will provoke further attack, worse still, you've betrayed your own principles and any allies who have gone to bat for you.