Chalcedon Foundation Privately Donated Funds to Joe Taylor to Help His Legal Defense Against Doug Phillips

*     *     *

Chalcedon Foundation discloses they privately contributed to Joe Taylor’s legal defense against Doug Phillips, and discussion on Reconstructionism and “Biblical Patriarchy”

*     *     *

Further developments have unfolded on the Doug Phillips story and I will try to briefly recap them since the content has been buried in blog comments.  Links are provided if you care to dig deeper.

On an earlier article here, Doug Phillips: Repentance and Restoration – Is it Possible?, a commenter using the name “Chalcedon Foundation” contributed a link to the comment discussion.  It is important to understand what the  Chalcedon Foundation is.  Here is a small blurb from Wikipedia — and although this is probably not how the Chalcedon Foundation describes itself, it does give a glimpse of how they are perceived in the broader public arena:

The Chalcedon Foundation provides educational material in the form of books, newsletter reports and various electronic media, toward advancing the theological teachings of Rushdoony’s Christian Reconstructionism movement. It is notable for its role in the influence of Christianity on politics in the U.S. and has been described as “a think tank of the Religious Right. Rushdoony’s son, Mark now heads the foundation.

The Chalcedon Foundation has been listed as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for, among other reasons, supporting the death penalty for homosexuals.

Here is the comment by “Chalcedon Foundation” posted on the aforementioned article:

A very different approach to the fundamental issue:

*     *     *

I responded by commenting that the link led to a Reconstructionist site.  This apparently opened up a whole can of worms and discussion ensued about Reconstructionism.  I then posted this:

*     *     *

I just took a quick look at the link provided by Chalcedon and was surprised at what I read. There is a lot of good info in that article. Time prevents me from reading the whole thing, but there is a good understanding of ecclesiastical abuse. That particular article may be fine, however, I would urge caution when reading at this site (shouldn’t we always be careful, though?). Reconstructionism (you’ll see footnotes from Rushdoony, a Reconstructionist), is the core of the Homeschool Movement and the driving force of many of the practices: keeping daughters at home, out of the work force, away from college, marrying young, having lots of babies, etc.

*     *     *

If you look on my sidebar Categories listings for Reconstructionist-Dominion Movement, I have articles identifying R.J.  Rushdoony as the father of the Homeschool Movement.  The title was not original with me.  However, it seems that both “Chalcedon Foundation” and commenter T.W. Eston have issues with me attributing to Rushdoony the excesses and abuses within the Homeschool Movement.  Read T.W. Eston’s most recent comment:

*     *     *

I have high regard for Julie Anne, but I believe she is misinformed on this point. As I have noted in my article, R.J. Rushdoony is one of the founding fathers of the modern home school movement. It would not then be unreasonable for those who condemn home schooling to disdain Rushdoony. But oddly enough there are many home schoolers (Julie Anne being one of them) who believe in home schooling but who at the same time disdain one of its most significant pioneers. Such is the sad state of confusion so many live in today.

*     *     *

Fair enough.  T. W. Eston has a good point.  While researching Rushdoony months ago, it is true that I did not find specific documentation connecting him directly to the types of abuses we see currently within the Homeschool Movement. So it seems that Rushdoony began the movement, but as certain men jumped on board,  they shaped it with their own ideas and agendas, some abusive.  T.W. Eston refers to these men as “hyper-patriarchs” in his comment and then later lists specific individuals:

*     *     *

Julie Anne, it would seem to me that’s what you, and many other commenters here, have done in unjustly attributing to Rushdoony those things in the modern home schooling movement that you (and I too) object to. Place the blame squarely where it belongs: Phillips, Sproul, Swanson, McDonald, Botkin, and others of their ilk, not with a man who did not promulgate those things that you have unjustly accused him of.

*     *     *

That makes sense.  Commenter, Chalcedon Foundation, and for that matter, T.W. Eston, both seem to highly respect Rushdoony.  That’s fine. I don’t. I do not like the trajectory he set forth with his Reconstructionist views and how the foundational system of Reconstructionism has fueled these current  movements.

*     *     *

Chalcedon Foundation Paid $5,000 to Joe Taylor to Help with Legal Expenses

*     *     *

Another interesting development along the way is the disclosure that the Chalcedon Foundation paid $5,000 to Joe Taylor to help cover legal fees when Doug Phillips was suing him over the allosaur debacle.  You can read the entire discourse in the comments at Jen’s Gems, Open Letter To Chalcedon Foundation Regarding Its Defense of Doug Phillips.

Martin Selbrede, the Vice President at Chalcedon Foundation, shared the story of how Joe Taylor was personal friends with both him and Rushdoony.

*     *     *

As Vice President of Chalcedon at the time, I took this issue to President Mark Rushdoony and we decided it was morally incumbent upon us to offer Joe Taylor what help we could against the legal onslaught he was facing. On the condition that Joe never reveal the source of the money to anyone, Chalcedon sent him an “officially anonymous” check for $5,000 (which we really didn’t have to give) to help Joe defend himself against the legal assault Doug Phillips had initiated. This proverbial “gift in secret” remained so until the moment this paragraph was posted here on this site.

*     *     *

Later, Joe Taylor chimed in with a comment to confirm this contribution:

*     *     *

Joe Taylor Says:
November 20, 2013 at 9:31 am

Martin Selbrede is correct. I can now acknowledge that Chalcedon did send me a check for $5,000 to help in my defense against Doug Phillip’s legal assault on me beginning in 2002.

*     *     *

However, Joe adds much more in his comment.  He discusses the pattern of Phillips using the intellectual property of others for his own personal gain:

*     *     *

In the early 80s, Robert Green and I began discussing the need to help men recover their God-given responsibility to lead and train their families. Robert subsequently published his excellent magazine “Quit You Like Men” for which Doug Phillips was a writer. I believe that they usually got negative reactions to Doug’s articles. Nevertheless, Doug went on to make a lot of money on the premise of “patriarchy” although, misued in his hands.

Nor was Doug the first to see the need for a magazine and organization that would help the early homeschool movement network and be a source for home education resources. In 1986, I flew to Georgia to lay the groundwork for just such ideas with Steve Schiffman, for whom I also designed “The American Vision” logo consisting of three Pilgrim kids (the models were kids I was helping raise). I have often wondered if my “Norman Rockwell” style and the name “The American Vision” was any influence on Doug’s choice of the name for his organization and it’s [sic] “Rockwell” style.

Starting in 2002, and repeatedly through 2008 I tried to warn not only Chalcedon, but ICR, AiG, and others in the home school, Creation, and American Heritage movements about Doug and his partners. The legal problems ruined [sic] my health and business, the most active Creation fossil excavation, restoration and research team in all of Creation circles. Doug bragged that his group of little homeschool kids took paleontology away from the secular world. In fact he destroyed it. What a wonderful work we could have all done together with Doug’s brilliant mind, business ability and his contacts with wealthy Christians. By now, instead of Creation field [sic} paleontology being severely crippled, it could have blossomed and been responsible for the start of several new fossil evidence museums, films and publications not to mention the training of numerous laborers in the feild.

*     *     *

Chalcedon Foundation to Release Symposium on Spiritual Abuse, Patriarchy, and Feminism Possibly in 2014

I took special interest in another topic in the conversation there between Martin Selbrede and T.W. Eston:  spiritual abuse, and restarting publication of Chalcedon’s  Journal of Christian Reconstruction.  Selbrede writes:

I thought that a Symposium on Spiritual Abuse would be an excellent first issue to put out in 2014, pulling contributions from key sources, all directed toward developing a constructive solution to a growing problem. That could then be followed by a Symposium on Patriarchy and Feminism. These two consecutive volumes would constitute a worthy way to restart the Journal. (Emphasis added.)

Um, the key leaders in the Homeschool Movement who subscribe to Reconstructionist views are the ringleaders of abuse within the movement.  Hello!?!

T.W. Eston responds by endorsing the concept and offers his own title to the symposium idea, apparently to take on those who’ve gone overboard from “true” Reconstructionism and misused the term to cover their own abusive approaches to theology and hierarchical control.

I would say that the long standing hiatus of the Journal of Christian Reconstruction is a likely factor, perhaps even a significant one, in giving free reign to the Hyper-Patriarchs, especially given that all of the most abusive of them have claimed at one point or another to have been influenced by Christian Reconstructionism. They’ve had little to nothing in the way of a scholarly rebuke and, as I see it, the only genuinely authoritative rebuke could come from the same organization through which Christian Reconstructionism and Biblical Patriarchy is recognized to have originated from. (Emphasis added.)

I think you will find many who will be eager to subscribe should it come back out of retirement. Allow me to suggest a third edition: Symposium on Patriarchy and [vs.] Hyper-Patriarchy. The subject matter is extensive enough that I believe that it really merits its own edition.

. . . . . because we’re all nice and cozy with the idea of scholarly Reconstructionists educating us about spiritual abuse, aren’t we, now?  The “only genuinely authoritative rebuke?”  What does that mean?  Who is that authority?  Why are they in that place of authority?  Oh yea, these are guys who are brilliant scholars and intellectuals who have a direct line with God?

*     *     *

428 comments on “Chalcedon Foundation Privately Donated Funds to Joe Taylor to Help His Legal Defense Against Doug Phillips

  1. Martin,

    I responded to your use of 1 Tim 1:8 according to the sense of the verse itself, in context. If you want to apply a truncated fragment of the complete passage to make a point not addressed by the verse itself, that’s your business, but I’ll not be issuing any retractions.

    And by the way, do you really subscribe to the notion of a physically geocentric solar system and/or universe as seems to be indicated in the article to which A. Amos Love links above? If so, yikes!! I can see how some would speculate that the Earth is at the center of God’s purpose for His creation, but the sun revolving around the Earth and/or the universe having it’s center at the Earth? What about the Milky Way Galaxy? Does it, including its core, revolve around the Earth?

    Do please tell us that the article at misrepresents your views. And please, link us to any renunciation of such views you may have published before the matter was raised here.


  2. Patrice,
    “The thing that most amazes me is the slyness and subterfuge. In politics, it is obviously used on the stump to get people to vote and then do what one wants when elected. So why here? It’s just propaganda and gets people when they are ignorant but doesn’t really work “for the Kingdom”, not a bit. So I can’t help but suspect they have a hidden agenda by which they hope to gain power here and soon-ish.”

    I think Rushdoony and Chalcedon have always been up front about their goals.

    I think the problem is that many Christians have unwittingly supported them without understanding the political aspirations. As Martin has stated, their goal is that Christians will voluntarily embrace this. How does that happen? Well, as Gary North once said, “We once were shepherds without sheep. No longer.” They have found ways to gain influence. One of those ways has been through the Christian Homeschool Movement. The more young people they can indoctrinate to accept their Biblical law, there will eventually be more voters to usher in their representatives.
    If they are successful, we, or our descendants, will someday know what it was like to live in the time of the Puritans.


  3. Cindy K, I read your 2004 article with interest. And I know I own the book by Ken Blue (possibly also the one by Steven Martin). Will order any that I don’t have (particularly the first one you mentioned).

    Chalcedon’s symposiums are rarely in-person events (I believe that only happened in 1983 and 1984). They represent the written contributions of a group of authors focused on a general symposium topic. So, travel isn’t necessary, but we value the contributions of Christians in their areas of experience or expertise.

    If you look at the Journal historically, many non-reconstructionists have contributed to it. If an author falls within the scope of orthodox Christianity, we see no reason not to consider a submitted manuscript from him or her. This is our stated editorial policy and we have faithfully followed it. In fact, contributions from secular sources, reprinted with permission, have appeared in our Journal.

    This brings up the interesting issue of Donatism, which had an impact on the early church. In the Donatist perspective, you basically didn’t know that your baptism or your marriage was valid until the minister who had performed them had died. If at any time he had fallen from the faith and drifted into apostasy, the Donatists held that all the baptisms and marriages he performed were retroactively nullified. You would be immediately guilty of fornication due to the retroactive annulment of your marriage. The church resolved the Donatist crisis by asserting that baptism and marriage were valid regardless of the (impossible-to-know) moral state of the one officiating at either event.

    We should consider the early church’s resolution of the Donatist issue when it comes to questions about publishing something in 2004 and then learning three years later that the author is now compromised. Is that periodical retroactively tainted because an author has deflected into aberrations or heresies or dissipating sins after the publication comes out? The modern answer is Yes, but the early church answered this question more wisely. We should consider the implications of their views and their importance in today’s arena, where theology tends to turn into a contact sport due to the influence of social expectations.


  4. Let me piece this together, as you seem a bit subtle.

    Can you explain for everyone why you chose 2004 to note here and what the significance is of “three years”?

    And who published what in 2004? (They published that same author in 2010.)


  5. Romans 7:6
    Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
    6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

    Hebrews 8:13
    New International Version (NIV)
    13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

    Galatians 3:23-25
    New International Version (NIV)
    Children of God

    23 Before the coming of this faith,[a] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

    Ephesians 2:11-16
    English Standard Version (ESV)
    One in Christ

    11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

    Romans 7:4-6
    New International Version (NIV)
    4 So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For when we were in the realm of the flesh,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

    Galatians 3:10-13
    New International Version (NIV)
    10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”[a] 11 Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”[b] 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”[c] 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.”[d]

    I could go on and on with these, but the point is, we do not have to live by Old Testament Law anymore, now that we’ve got Jesus, and have been saved by grace through faith in Him. Anyone who believes in this twisted view that we are to control/subdue the world and force everyone to submit to Old Testament Laws are cursed.


  6. Cindy K, I actually chose random dates as an example. But there are surely examples of this issue if you publish periodicals for 48 years. Our editorial policy is to not remove such items because it is unethical and disingenuous to do so. I’ve already dealt with the matter of disclaimers earlier, if not in this specific thread, than on another thread under this website.

    Julie Anne, perhaps we could also ask where Jesus is in the questions being posed to me. The questions don’t lend themselves to answers like “Jesus is Lord” or posting beautiful song lyrics. The questions have wandered far afield, even into astrophysics at this point (so when I answer Gary, will someone say I’m not focused on Jesus enough? And ironically post that assertion on a website that decries legalism?).

    If someone were to ask me questions about the Lord Jesus, I would answer accordingly. Based on nearly all the questions I’ve been asked, it seems nobody is interested in that topic. I’ve answered twenty unrelated questions and tried to be responsive, with the questioners steering the discussion and me reacting to them.

    In my thinking and teaching and prayer life, however, the Lord Jesus is always central.

    If I’ve misunderstood your question, forgive me, and let me know what you intended by it. I would like to answer you directly, and with all courtesy, if you could clarify what you meant.


  7. BeenThereDoneThat (1:02pm) Moyers is a gentleman and sometimes isn’t as confrontive/combative as needed when dealing with sly contrarians. For eg, when he asked why not replace the Constitution for Biblical Law, Rushdoony responded, “The Constitution gives us procedural law, not a substantive morality, so anyone can use the Constitution for good or ill; but it has to be the people as they change and govern themselves, the constitution cannot save this country.” Which is not an answer and Moyers didn’t press.

    As one listens to the interview, one comes to understand that Rushdoony wants to grow a theocracy but it is never stated that it would require throwing out the Constitution and replacing democracy with a formal class system. Rushdoony only mentions libertarianism, which is another can of worms, with nearly as many forms as members.

    So you write, “many Christians have unwittingly supported them without understanding the political aspirations.” Exactly, and precisely because these men haven’t been upfront and clear. They have not been about education but inculcation. They are presenting a paradigm shift but haven’t openly addressed what they actually mean by it. They seem to prefer to work within the hidden regions of fear, by implication. It is a devious approach and in my experience used by those with ulterior motives.


  8. Martin (Nov 27, 1:53pm), I found the sayings/verses about Jesus to be cleansing and comforting in the face of a theology that would establish a human class system and a framework of punishment. I am a Christian and you are proposing that I should live under the shadow of OT law. Jesus is the answer to such a dystopic vision because he exposed the law’s essence as loving God above all and neighbor as self.

    And then Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to live within us, so that we may travel together, shoulder to shoulder across the world without fear and subterfuge. The principles of godliness are no longer contained in the law but come burgeoning from within via the HS; it’s the way that is healthiest for us, the way we long to be and run towards with joy.


  9. “Martin – – where is Jesus in all of this?”

    Julie Anne he is not in this at all. It was all of this Rushdoony, Dabney, kinism, Dominionism that first alerted me to problems in the both the homeschool movement and the churches we were involved with and even the one we stated with another couple. When I began to pull back the layers of what on the surface seemed to be everything good and godly I found layer after layer of rot. I spent months researching trying to figure it out. My husband and I spoke at length over the phone with both Voddie Baucham and Stacy and James McDonald. We sent several letters to Doug to no avail although Doug did respond in a blog post that has since been removed I believe.

    The truth of the matter is that the teaching/position that Martin is defending is devoid of Christ, devoid of the Holy Spirit and in gross error. Those following it are deceived. The fruit Kinism, Vision Forum “hyper patriarchy” as they now want to call it all points to the fact that the source is not of God.

    I feel sorry for Martin as I don’t think he can see or understand what he is defending. The kinists that have commented on this blog make more sense. They see the issues very clearly and what they believe follows Rushdoony’s teaching to the letter, a natural outpouring of the ideas Rushdoony espoused. I don’t agree with them but they do have a clear picture of what we are discussing here. Martin does not, he is trying to play both ends against the middle trying to change the views and vision of a dead man to match the romantic vision in his head and it is not working, it’s not possible.

    Martin, I will give you the benefit of the doubt I really think it is possible that you believe all you have written but I will tell you this. Both the kinists and those of us questioning you, though we be on different sides of the coin, are correct. We all seem to have a better understanding of Rushdoony than do you, I am sorry. Is it possible we are all correct and you are in error? Why do we all agree on what Rushdoony’s beliefs were but you do not?

    Also if the kinists are so wrong and Rushdoony did not support their views and indeed found them unbiblical please outline where his views are different then theirs. I am still waiting for something written by Rushdoony that would support what you are saying. The kinist views and those of Rushdoony’s seem to be one in the same. I agree with the kinists! I can’t believe I just wrote that but I do they are making perfect sense here and you are not.

    *Please note I do not agree with the kinist viewpoint at all just the fact that they and Rushdoony share views on racial issues. I am actually by virtue of blood and beliefs what they would call a Cultural Marxist. I have the blood of Europeans, Africans, and Native Americans in my veins and I celebrate and love it all and prefer a world with no distinction in regards to race and a melding of all cultures and colors. To me that is utopia, just FYI*


  10. I would actually agree with waitingforthetrumpet2’s final statement, with the change of one word (“this” to “the”), thus: “Anyone who believes in [the] twisted view that we are to control/subdue the world and force everyone to submit to Old Testament Laws are cursed.” The Kingdom of God is not top-down, outside-in (as this quote describes), He governs it from the bottom-up and inside-out (with the King ruling with in you, in your own hearts). I’ve made this point in so many different ways, it is frustrating to see distortions of it still running rampant.

    If I have time to address the Scriptures adduced above, I will try to do so. The confusion over Paul led to nearly contemporaneous theological articles in the early part of the 20th century by conservative Christian scholars, one titled “Was Paul an Antinomian?” and the other “Was Paul a Libertine?” I would submit that Paul was neither: if the context is justification, Paul condemns the Law as the sure path to bondage, but when the context is sanctification, he extolls it and magnifies it. I think one reason that Romans 3:31 states “Do we therefore make void the law of God through faith? Nay, God forbid. Rather, we establish the law,” it is because the Greatest Commandment speaks about loving God (and the second greatest “which is like unto it” speaks about loving your neighbor as yourself, per Leviticus 19:18). To love God with all your heart presupposes the new birth, presupposes men and women redeemed by Christ — and such love for Him lies at the heart of God’s law and reflects His character. As Jesus said of the two greatest commandments, “upon these two hang all the law and the prophets.”


  11. Taunya, I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt. I hope to post something in direct response to your question tonight (if possible). We will let Rushdoony speak in his own words, from 1964 and then from approximately 1969. Please be patient — this thread is quite a sprawling affair!


  12. Hi Patrice,

    Rushdoony wrote two books specifically about the American governmental system (This Independent Republic and The Nature of The American System) and he taught a four-part lecture series specifically on the United States Constitution that is available in audio. The books are available for free on-line, so we can easily discern what his views of the Constitution actually were. (His view also take up several talks in his 36-lecture audio series on American history … by the way, Rushdoony is one of the few historians who discusses the Fairfax County Resolves and their oft-overlooked bearing on the Constitution’s provisions.)

    Your conclusions about Rushdoony’s views surely conflict with the sustained analysis of the Constitution he conducted, which has been consistent from one end of his teaching tenure to the other.

    Apparently Important Disclaimer: R. J. Rushdoony is just a human being, not a prophet or apostle, etc. I am addressing this point about Rushdoony because of a prior post, not because I’m promoting canonical status for this particular scholar’s writings, which are neither infallible nor perfect nor definitive. I’ve said this clearly before, but perhaps it’ll help if I repeat it every ten posts or so.


  13. Did it ever dawn on you that his (Rushdoony’s) views were skewed? Everything he wrote was assuming Calvin, Augustine and Plato had a correct doctrine/view. Those views were a mixture of paganism and gnosticism with a twist of Christianity thrown in to justify their opinions. And the Reconstructionists/Theonomists are taking these “doctrines” to the extreme in an attempt to subjugate women, ethnicities, cultures and societies worldwide. It’s nothing more than Christlam…a perverted “Christian” version of Islam, where the goal is to produce a large population of babies that are homeschooled with the brainwashing of this theology, in order to force the entire population of the world to submit to their new one world government or face death. And those not conforming to Calvinism are declared heretics/infidels and face execution. That’s what this “movement” is all about. They want the Old Testament Law (minus ceremonial laws) re-instituted and the elect leaders of this movement to be the enforcers of the Law. The Law was done away with, once Jesus came, died, conquered death and gave us the Holy Spirit. He gave us a New Covenant….no longer do we abide by the old law, but the new law that says to love God and our neighbors as ourselves.


  14. Waitingforthetrumpet2:
    That’s an interesting analysis. Rushdoony’s views were skewed, as you said. I think it was primarily because he was totally calvinistic and postmillennial. I agree Plato’s political approach is similar to the reconstructionist one, though. Also, I agree these people want the leaders to be more than just Christian: they want them to be caucasian and Anglo-Saxon, it seems. And preferably Southern-bred. From one angle, we could say these people are what’s left of the Confederate culture.


  15. Yes, Jon. That’s what I’m “hearing” from some of the other people commenting here. I tell you, it is scaring me. I have PTSD from a lifetime of various forms of abuse and all this stuff is causing flashbacks and anxiety attacks in me today, especially after reading many of these comments from those who uphold those beliefs as “biblical”.


  16. Waiting for the Trumpet,

    Here’s where things also get weird. Rushdoony was just your standard Presby kind of guy when it came to patriarchy and loved strong, educated, articulate women. He was not against contraception, either, though I’d say that he’d think that rejecting parenthood was sinful. (That social Darwinism stuff came from Gary North, not Rushdoony, and he didn’t esteem women as baby machines.) He did warn against the element of homeschooling that wanted to be cloistered and xenophobic, and he saw Christian education as a means of preparing children to grow into adults that were skilled apologists who were to go out and engage the culture as opposed to hiding from it.

    This Xenophobic stuff came through other venues and people who enjoyed the “borrowed capital” of what Rushdoony started and advocated for through Christian education (which I believe included private Christian school for those who thought that was their best choice).


  17. Martin says, “when the context is sanctification, he [Paul] extolls it [the law] and magnifies it.”

    Damnable, enslaving heresy. With a tip of the hat, for the passage, to stevescottpew on the November 27 thread:

    If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh. (Colossians 2:20-23, ESV)

    waitingforthetrumpet2 says, “The Law was done away with, once Jesus came, died, conquered death and gave us the Holy Spirit. He gave us a New Covenant….no longer do we abide by the old law, but the new law that says to love God and our neighbors as ourselves.”

    Amen, amen, amen.


  18. Mr. Selbrede,

    In reference to your earlier comment, since you first made mention of my 2004 article then later referred to an unnamed article published in 2004, I thought that the statement may have made a veiled reference to me. In 2007, I published open letters to Chalcedon and my family stopped sending $ after 13 years, so those dates seemed especially significant to me. You clarified and stated that these were randomly selected dates, however.

    I am still trying to sift through your meaning for using the reference in the rest of the statement. Without looking it up, Chalcedon is like unto Augustine who argued that the Donatists should be forgiven of their theological errors if they later embraced orthodoxy?

    I wonder if this is a reference to Ortiz and whatever he may have communicated to me that is now considered inaccurate, though he was the identified spokesman for Chalcedon at the time? Chalcedon can take no responsibility for anything he said or did, though he was a representative in the past, and I’m possibly being to tough on the organization?

    Or since the context of the comment mentioned the Journal and articles published in it, perhaps this is a statement that the Journal publishes things for which it cannot be later held responsible, or that if and when a contributor falls out of what is reasonable, Chalcedon owes no duty to clarify their own position? You can’t draw conclusions about what the organization believes based on the material it publishes? What really is the purpose of these publications, as I always thought that the articles were central to Chalcedon’s core beliefs and how to apply them in the Christian life and in the world?

    Could you clarify who is the Donatist and who is Augustine in this analogy, and how your contributing authors either reflect or do not reflect the position of the organization?


  19. waitingforthetrumpet2, if you see this when you return:

    Thank you for your passages at 1:51. You understand. You will already be aware of this one:

    For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5:1, ESV)

    My testimony is that I tried the sanctification-by-law thing. Though I was a Christian, the harder I tried the worse I sinned. I haven’t tried to reduce my experience to any kind of systematic theology, but I can definitely testify that such sanctification as has occurred in my life has flowed from Love received and love given, not from fearful submission to laws, rules and regulations — and certainly not from submitting to supposed authority usurped from Jesus by “pastors” or other supposed “church” officers.


  20. Gary W and Waiting for the Trumpet —

    Here again is the conflict between differing Protestant theologies. Covenant Theology (CT) argues that the moral laws still apply, provided that you put the right one of the 500+ laws in the Old Testament (OT) into the right category. The ceremonial and civil laws are not supposed to apply, but there is a dispute among those who follow CT about where each of those laws belong. Phillips, for example, puts lots of laws into the moral category that are actually civil or ceremonial.

    If you follow Luther’s interpretation of how to esteem the Old Law, in terms of Covenant Theology, you’re not paying the proper homage to it that you owe to it as a Believer, part of both the ecclesia and the OT assembly as Abraham’s heir. In that system, if you follow only the law written on your heart (as Hebrews 10 describes), most Covenant Theologians will deem you antinomian (“against [God’s] law”) as they did with Luther, criticizing him accordingly.

    It took me several years to figure out that this was an issue in the Presbyterian Church. Luther followed God’s sovereignty much in the way that Calvin did, drawing from Augustine to establish this. Luther was an Augustinian monk. But how he appropriated the Old Testament Law (rejecting it as misapplication if it brought condemnation by arguing against justification) is rejected by the Presbyterians. Luther credits regenerate man who is a new creature in Christ with far too much autonomy in the Spirit for the Presbyterian. You have to keep going back to the Law, and you can’t show what many will deem disregard for it. My theology is and has always been strongly Lutheran, so this finally became a point of contention as I tried to figure out why on earth I didn’t fit in the system.


  21. Cindy K, sure, I can clarify. I’ll choose a different year to avoid the confusion I inadvertently caused. Say John X writes an excellent article and we publish it in 1998. Then, in 2009, he apostasizes and builds a huge ugly abusive cult. Folks then look him up and Lo, there is his article in Chalcedon’s on-line archives for 1998.

    It’s the Soviet Union that would purge things and destroy the historical record. Free people don’t. My point about the Donatist concept was that the idea of “retroactive invalidation” is not biblical (it turned married people into fornicators and baptized Christians into unbaptized ones). We cannot look into the future and ask, “Will this contributor later turn against the faith? Or propagate evil heresies?” Nobody can hold an institution accountable for the future actions of those who’ve written for it. Nor can an institution be held accountable for what the contributor might be hiding (or omitting to disclose) in respect to their views. We evaluate the essays on the merits of the essay (a novel idea, I agree, but it has its advantages) and the current known status of the author as an orthodox Christian. The concept of intrusive surveillance into the backgrounds of people writing articles doesn’t make a lot of sense (except, perhaps, in the political arena where hypersensitivity to ancient events prevails due to the perpetual hunt for dirt on candidates).

    I hope this clears up my prior post. Your assessments of what I’m saying here are generally quite fair, and so I appreciate the extra work you’ve put into trying to wrap your arms around these complex things.


  22. Gary W, you wrote:

    My testimony is that I tried the sanctification-by-law thing. Though I was a Christian, the harder I tried the worse I sinned. I haven’t tried to reduce my experience to any kind of systematic theology, but I can definitely testify that such sanctification as has occurred in my life has flowed from Love received and love given, not from fearful submission to laws, rules and regulations — and certainly not from submitting to supposed authority usurped from Jesus by “pastors” or other supposed “church” officers.

    The Presbyterian always believes that sanctification can only come through grace. And so far as you have your priorities right (as Martin explained — from the bottom up and inside out), you stay within the pale of orthodoxy.

    What I think is so cool about the grace of God is that for the lawyer like Calvin who understood God better and loved Him more through this breakdown of laws approach, this can work well. If it helps you love God more and helps you serve Him better, then it works. But we all have different personalities, and pretty much cannot stand the tedium of the legal realm to a great extent. I’m a creative, right brained, musician type that connects better with Holy God through the Lutheran perspective. Both are of grace. And how gracious of God to let us understand Him in different ways — who meets us where we are and lets us learn of Him as He conforms us into the Image of Jesus. He suffers long with us.

    Anyone can take either of these approaches and can turn them into legalism. Flesh takes over when we don’t follow the Spirit, and we can all fall into this so easily. I again go back to Walter Martin who said that Christians need to produce two kinds of fruit: The fruit of the life lived and the fruit of the doctrine taught. By your fruit ye shall know them. What kind of fruit has come from the roots of these matters? How many people have been affected? I think that the history of the past 30 years has borne the proof that though Rushdoony may have done some good things, he opened the door to much that has brought about some bad fruit. This can be said of all of us, to some extent, but most of us didn’t father a theology, nor did we influence many with ideas that degraded into aberrant ways of Christian living. Tares came up with the wheat.


  23. Cindy K, just a quick note to say that reconstructionists draw a distinction between the New Covenant promise that God would write His laws on the heart, versus the comment in Romans 2:15 regarding the Gentiles. In the New Covenant, it’s the actual law that is written. In the case of Gentiles, they “shew the work of the law written on their hearts.” The phrase “of the law” modifies the word “work” (“ergon” in the Greek original), so that it is the work, not the law, that is written on unsaved hearts (essentially, awareness by dint of creation in God’s image of God’s righteousness, which is why in the prior chapter of Romans they know that those who do certain things are worthy of death). The NIV translation is quite deficient in this respect (“the requirements of the law written on their heart”). The full quotation of the New Covenant predicts the end of gospel preaching (no man need teach his neighbor saying Know the Lord, for they shall all know Me, from the least to the greatest) as a corollary of this writing on the heart, which presupposes salvation through the blood of the Lamb.


  24. Here’s our first installment of Rushdoony’s writings relevant to the question of race: a letter to the editor in the October 1964 Presbyterian Guardian. This appeared in print a year before he founded the Chalcedon Foundation. He was to return to these points again in Chalcedon Position Paper No. 20. You can see the original here: ( While some here have questioned, “Where is Jesus Christ in all this,” note that Rushdoony twice realigns the discussion in terms of Jesus Christ, not race. Here is what he wrote:

    The Presbyterian Guardian this year shows signs of outdoing the UPUSA Presbyterian Life in its social gospel preaching. The racist articles of C. Herbert Oliver are examples of this. There are two kinds of racism. First, there is the exaltation of one race above others as inherently virtuous, divine, great, or the like. Second, there is the exaltation of humanity as a race and a demand that we identify ourselves with all men as one people. Oliver is of this second type. He asks us so to exalt humanity, and states, “The truly secure personality has identified with all creation and with God through Christ.”

    These two forms of racism are both to be rejected as well as their legal safeguards. The first form demands legalized segregation; the second form of racism demands legalized integration. Both deny Christian liberty and the right of free association. Moreover, the Christian cannot exalt or identify with either a race or with humanity but must insist rather on an antithesis and cleavage in terms of Jesus Christ between the redeemed humanity and the unregenerate humanity. There must be a separateness, with the gospel preached to the unregenerate.

    Oliver reads the Scriptures and the Reformation in terms of “an insistence on the value of the individual,” “the doctrine of the intrinsic worth of the individual,” and similar statements, and regards the French Revolution with approval. This is rather the Enlightenment faith and 19th Century religious liberalism, not the Reformation faith in the sovereignty of God and justification by faith. The test of the Reformed faith is theocentric, in terms of the sovereignty of God and the infallible Word. The test of modernistic faith is always drawn from humanitarian ethics, and the current test is race, not Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, The Presbyterian Guardian has of late been busy citing one or another of the humanitarian and liberal shibboleths as “tests” rather than the Word and the Confession. Was it for this that Machen fought?

    Palo Alto, Calif.


  25. Chalcedon Position Paper No. 14: THE NEW RACISM

    By R. J. Rushdoony (July 1980)

    Racism is a relatively new fact on the world scene. In earlier eras, not race but religions was the basis of discrimination. Although religious history has been marred by ugly violence against other religious groups, and the history of the Christian Church is no exception to this, there is a notable fact which is often forgotten. Missionary faiths, and supremely Christianity, normally seek to win other groups, not oppress them, and this missionary impulse has also provided, in many eras, a favorable cause for a friendly approach.

    In the modern era, as Christianity’s influence receded, and science began to govern together with humanism, biology came to predominate over theology. The differences between men were seen increasingly as biological and racial rather than religious. The earlier physical anthropologists made very precise and detailed physical studies of all peoples in order to establish the physical differences between races.

    The theory of evolution fueled this developing scientific racism and added still another important factor. Many theories began to hold to a multiple origin for the human race. Whereas in Scripture all men are descendents of Adam, in evolutionary thought, all men are possibly descendents of very different evolutionary sources. Common descent in Adam meant a common creation, nature, and responsibility under God. The idea of multiple origins proved divisive. The human race was no longer the human race! It was a collection of possibly human races, a very different doctrine.

    It is important to recognize that racism was in origin a scientific doctrine. Whenever a scientific doctrine is discarded, as witness the idea of the acquired inheritance of environmental influences, the old scientific doctrine, as it lingers on in popular thought, is blamed on religion or popular superstition! The origins of racism are in very highly respectable scientific theorists. The fact that men like Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1855-1927), a British admiral’s son and son-in-law of Richard Wagner, took this scientific literature to develop what became the foundation of Nazi thought does not eliminate its scientific origins.

    The defeat of the Nazis did not end racism. Instead, it has become respectable and widespread. We must remember that studies of Hitler’s Germany indicate that his support came from liberals, democrats, socialists, and the intellectual community. Scholars like Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn have ably exposed the myth of a conservative or rightist origin for Hitler’s support. The fact of Hitler’s antipathy to Christianity helped enlist support for him.

    The new racism is widespread and common to many peoples and to every continent. It has now become a part also of the religious vocabulary of many churchmen. Thus, in almost every seminary today, pompous professors rail against a missions program which would export “the white mentality” and European modes of thought. What is the white mentality, and what is the European mode of thought, as against the human, common to all men? If it is specifically white and European, it must be common to the pre-Christian European as a racial factor. The pre-Christian Saxons, for example, practiced human sacrifice, and more. Much more could be said about pre-Christian Europeans, but I have no desire to be flooded with angry letters (which I will discard without answer). No race born of Adam has a good history: this is the Biblical fact, and the historical fact.

    The Western mind, common to Europe and the Americas, is a product, not of race, but of culture, religious culture. Elements of it, none too good, go back to the barbarian peoples of Europe. Other aspects are from Greek philosophy, again none too good. (The Greeks described all non-Greeks as barbarians on cultural, not racist, grounds. They gave brilliant and inventive slaves a Greek name and status.) The Western mind and culture, in all its advances, is a product of Biblical religion. It is a religious, not a racial, product.

    A generation ago, a pope with humane intentions said, “Spiritually, we are all Semites.” Despite his human intentions, he was wrong. Arabs are Semites, and we are not Arabic in our faith and culture. He would have been equally wrong had he said Hebrews or Jews. The culture of the West is not the property of any race or people in its origin. It is Biblical. True, much sin is present in Western culture. True, such sin needs to be condemned. But the mind of the West bears the imprint of the Bible. It is not understandable on any other terms.

    Today, however, men speak of the white mentality, the Asiatic soul, and the African mind. Some educators are insistent on the need to recognize and give status in the schools to what they call “black English.”

    Implicit in all this is a racist view of man. Races are seen as the sources of varying kinds of logic and reason. To deny the validity of the concept of a white mind, an African mind, or an Asiatic mind is seen as reactionary, imperialistic, and evil.

    The mentality of a people, however, is not a product of race but of religion, and the culture of that religion. The key factor is always religion. There is a hidden but insane pride among those who oppose exporting the white mentality. Although such men would never dare say it explicitly, or even think it, what they are saying implicitly is that other races are not up to comprehending the white mentality. (One brilliant black student told me, with wry humor, that he could always count on a high grade for minimum work from a white liberal professor. The man would regard him as inferior, but would never have the courage to admit as much, and would accordingly give him a good grade!) All talk of different mentalities has a patronizing perspective; it also says that race, not sin, is the problem of other peoples and their cultures.

    Because of the new racism, we now have a growing body of religious literature, aimed at the seminary student, pastor, and missionary, which talks about contextualization. Supposedly, the only way to communicate the Gospel to other races is by giving priority to the context over Biblical faith and confessional statements. The impetus for contextualization has come from the Theological Education Fund, set up in 1957 by the Rockefeller Foundation. Contextualization calls also for an emphasis on the struggle for justice in terms of “liberation theology” (a form of Marxism) and existentialistic responses to the historical moment in the Third World. Contextualization places a heavy emphasis on human need rather than God’s infallible word. Its mission is thus contemporary and social, not theological and supernatural. Contextualists of all theological stripes shift their language from that of Scripture to the jargon spawned by the Theological Education Fund.

    Closely related to this in the area of Bible translations is the dynamic equivalence theory, now common to most Bible societies and translation groups. This doctrine, of which Eugene A. Nida is an exponent, “translates” the Bible into a culture and its ideas. This can mean giving an historical account a psychoanalytic or mythological meaning. Instead of reshaping the culture, the Bible is “translated” into the culture. (Such a doctrine makes the culture in effect the unerring word, not the Bible. The culture thus corrects or amends the Bible, not the Bible culture). As Jakob Van Bruggen, in “The Future of the Bible,” points out, “the dynamic equivalence translation theory owes its influence and effect to the blending of modern theological prejudices regarding the Bible with data borrowed from communication theory, cultural anthropology, and modern sociology rather than to insights from linguistics” (p. 151; publ. by Thomas Nelson, Inc. 1978.)

    The implications of this new racism are far-reaching. Instead of working to change a people, we have a static and racist view of a people and their culture. It is the Bible and the mission which must change, not the people! We must teach a “black English” if any at all, and a black, brown, or yellow Christianity, if any at all. It takes only a brief excursion into “liberation theology,” contextualization, and like doctrines to realize that it is not Christianity at all which is taught, but a counterfeit. Relevance is sought, not to the Lord and His word, but to fallen man and his racial heritage Such is not the Gospel: it is the new racism.

    The new racism passes, however, for vital, relevant Christianity. It is widely promoted by seminaries and missionary organizations. It encourages races, like individuals, to trumpet the existentialist (and hippie) slogan, “I want to be me!” The historical goal is racial realization! Providentially, the early missionaries to Europe, coming from North Africa, Asia Minor, and the Mediterranean world generally, had no such regard for the European mind. They regarded it as unregenerate and in need of being broken and redeemed. All the plagues and evils of “the European mind” are products of the fallen man and the relics of barbarian cultures, not of Christ and His word. All that is good in “the European mind” is a result of Christian culture, not of race.

    The words of Paul are a sharp rebuke to all who want men to glory in their blood, race, or history: “For who maketh thee to differ from one another? And what hast thou that didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?” (I Cor. 4:7).


  26. Several folks posting here have agreed that Rushdoony effectively follows Plato. I would love to see the sources for this assertion. I can tell you what I have in my library: every one of the seventeen pages discussing Plato in Rushdoony’s 1,301 page two-volume Systematic Theology condemns Plato and his political theories. Every one of the twenty-seven pages discussing Plato in Rushdoony’s 375 page book “The One and the Many” condemns Plato, his politics, and his metaphysics. And Rushdoony wrote an entire book, “Flight From Humanity: A Study of the Effect of Neoplatonism on Christianity” that leaves his other condemnations in the dust.

    Yet, Plato and Rushdoony are allegedly on the same page, were one to treat this blog as a reliable source on what Rushdoony’s position and its implications are.

    Are folks misrepresenting Rushdoony’s views out of ignorance, reliance on second-hand sources, or is it okay to misrepresent him because he deserves it (but maybe our belief that he deserves it is itself a product of misrepresentation, one erroneous perception building on another). Once the truth is so casually dismissed, it’s not easily recovered.


  27. Martin Selbrede on November 27, 2013 at 6:20 PM

    There is a third type of racism. For shorthand, I’ll call it “separate but equal.” It too, is unbiblical, not to mention historically naive and impossible to implement practically or justly. Under this view, each race is to be equally valued, and Jesus came to save each, but they are to be deliberatelu kept distinct both culturally and genetically. Chester, for example, purported to hold this view. In reality, of course, those who hold this view really don’t believe or practice the “equal” part of this approach, so on top of being unbiblical, it’s really usually being touted dishonestly, but I’m talking about the theory here, not the dishonest way in which it is coopted as a cover for the first kind of racism that Rushdoony identified.

    So, because I’ve heard kinists say exactly what Rushdoony said in your quote to support their “separate but equal” propaganda, just as a point of clarification:

    Do you think separate but equal is a biblical approach?

    If you must clarify, please answer yes or no first, so I’ll be able to follow your answer. If I know where you are going with your answer I think that will help me to understand the explanation better as I read it.

    And if you don’t understand the question or need clarification or feel that it’s a compound question,
    just ask me to rephrase it and I’ll do my best to avoid any misunderstandings. You do put a lot of time and careful thought into your answers, and I don’t want you to waste your time answering the wrong question, or ours thinking you were answering one thing when you were talking about something else. Hope that helps.


  28. It’s been a long day, so we’ll leave the Holocaust, Uni-Pixel Displays Inc,, geocentricity, etc., for tomorrow. I can understand why there’d be interest in the first of these, but raising the others strikes me as being more than merely off-topic.

    Maybe I’ll clear up one of the short ones (I’m tired, for my workday starts at 5 AM). Yes, I was the Chief Scientist of Uni-Pixel Displays between its founding and November 15, 2008. There were mass lay-offs that November for this public corporation because expected continuation investments were curtailed by the implosion of the financial sector and the drying up of capital. I was one of those laid off, and I divested myself shortly thereafter. After my departure, dozens of patents that I had worked on (usually as lead inventor) were sold to Rambus Corporation for several million dollars to help keep Uni-Pixel solvent and “extend its runway.” Uni-Pixel subsequently focused on some spinoff technologies, like fingerprint-resistant films and its Uni-Boss process. I understand that Uni-Pixel is currently dealing with dissatisfied investors. After leaving Uni-Pixel, I entered the software industry on April 15, 2009 and haven’t looked back. At my age, I think I’ve reached my quota for experience with start-up companies. I do miss the preparation of patents and opportunities to write and deliver technical papers on flat panel display technology (even flying to Japan on one occasion to do so). As the saying goes: good times.


  29. Free At Last, thank you for taking care in phrasing your question. It’s not that anyone needs to walk on eggshells around here, but the last thing we need is more misunderstandings to multiply.

    One of the few verses that Dr. Rushdoony shared with me personally is Isaiah 19:18-25. We were standing in the parking lot in Woodland Hills, CA, by his beat-up old VW diesel Rabbit in the very early 1980s, and he opened up his Bible and read the passage to me and explained its significance. I came later to realize that Paul was elaborating on Isaiah’s text in Romans 11:25-26. So let’s focus on what Isaiah describes and see if it can harmonize with the notion of “separate but equal” that you’ve tried to describe:

    18 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction.

    19 In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord.

    20 And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the Lord because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.

    21 And the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and perform it.

    22 And the Lord shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it: and they shall return even to the Lord, and he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them.

    23 In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians.

    24 In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land:

    25 Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.

    What do we notice here? The conversion of Israel’s worst enemies prior to Israel’s coming into possession of its salvation (Israel here is “the third part,” not the first part. Good thing Isaiah wrote this — some might think it sounded antisemitic!). Then we notice Egypt building altars in its own borders that God blesses and sanctions, and Assyria and Egypt living and working together in free, mutual concourse, with Israel embedded in the midst of them.

    This lays out something similar to Psalm 87, where God announces a series of Gentile nations “as knowers of Me,” and then asserts that “each and every man” is born in Zion. Zion, in other words, is trans-national. (If it is objected that “this man and that man” doesn’t mean “each and every man,” you would be mistaken: this idiom means exactly that and is translated this way in Esther 1:8). So Isaiah speaks of the confluence of nationalities no less than Isaiah 2, where all the nations are said to flow together (per the literal Hebrew).

    These passages speak of distinctions but also of confluence and harmony, all nations serving “with one shoulder” as Zephaniah 3:9 teaches (“with one shoulder” is even closer than “shoulder to shoulder”). Further, the Zephaniah verse teaches the same thing as Isa 19:18, that the Gentile nations will all speak Hebrew (a language once thought to be dead, or at least feigning death until recently).

    More Scripture can be brought to bear on this question (all in harmony with the above), and so we see both factors at work here: profound unity within national diversity, all coming to pass voluntarily without compulsion or coercion (as Isaiah 2:2-4 teaches). I think the lengthy Position Paper 14 of Rushdoony’s that I painstakingly keyed in higher up (I regret the occasional typo) provides a similar orientation toward the matter of race insofar as Rushdoony devalues it in comparison to the impact Jesus Christ’s Great Commission has on the peoples. There is nothing flattering to any race in Rushdoony’s article, and with respect to faith we all know that boasting is also excluded (it is a free gift we didn’t and couldn’t earn). This humble orientation is the prerequisite to have God lift you up.

    Let me know if I’ve answered your question, or we need to focus in a bit more. I don’t want to frustrate any seeking straight answers, but my views on such matters are developed from Scripture and are not isolated from or independent of God’s counsel.

    I will get back on the computer tomorrow as the holiday celebration permits.


  30. Martin Selbrede on November 27, 2013 at 8:14 PM

    I do have a few follow up questions just to clarify. However, I’m not going to ask them tonight. I discovered your response when I came back here to add that you needn’t answer before Thanksgiving. Spend it with your family, my questions can wait!


  31. Cindy K,

    Thank you for your comments at 6:08 & 5:51 PM. Before I largely rejected all theology as human accessions hung upon and obscuring the revelation of the nature of God, my leanings were strongly Calvinistic — according to which I perceived that everything depended on God’s sovereign grace, as to both justification and sanctification. Problem was, the sanctification just didn’t happen. It may be that I fell into some elements of CT in that I attempted to achieve sanctification by sheer willpower. Not sure how my radically left-brained mind reconciled that, but I was eventually brought around to a place where Love replaced grace in my thinking and in my living of the Faith. I was also brought around to a place where my relationship with the Father, through the Son, in the empowering Presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit, began to be actual — as opposed to just some legal status based on a declaration of justification enabled by the legal fiction of imputed righteousness. I now contend that the eternal kind of life we have includes the actual impartatation of righteousness, and not just it’s imputation. And, really, at the end of the day it is all and only about only Jesus.

    Well, I think all that may have been somehow responsive to your comments, or maybe I was only rambling. In either event, I apologize in advance that I will be ignoring you and all others now until at least the day after Thanksgiving, maybe longer. I’m even trying to resist the temptation to respond to the absurdity that Rushdoony’s paucity of writings about Plato somehow proves Rushdoony hadn’t embraced the error of Platonic dualism.


  32. Gary W,

    I’ve loved your comments. They’ve been validating and encouraging to me, and I’m sure to many others.

    I know that at least in theory that all Protestant faiths are supposed to be about grace through faith unto salvation. When you get over into some of this aberrant stuff, the legalistic versions of the good stuff and how people live them out through the flesh get mistaken for the genuine article. In theory, it’s all supposed to be through grace. Some of this stuff gives good theology a bad name, even if it’s not the one I most identify with, and I hate that. I’m sure that you do, too, or you wouldn’t be posting here.

    The foolish things confound the wise, and I love that. We come to faith in Jesus through the wooing of the Holy Spirit whose kindness draws us. We believe in our hearts and confess with our mouths our faith in Jesus, and He works with us on the rest of it, I think. As I heard old NT Wright say about his Easter sermon after a discussion with his cab driver who offered him this idea: Jesus rose from the dead, and the rest of it is just rock and roll. He thanked the cabby and said that he’d just written the sermon for him.

    I rejoice in the idea that we don’t have to commit intellectual suicide to believe and grow in Jesus as was sometimes encouraged for me when I “started reading too much,” even as a child. As Galileo put it: ” I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended for us to forgo their use.” But without the Holy Spirit, the intellect is empty and logic becomes cruel without love. Like Walter Martin put it, we need those two types of fruit, and that fruit comes from the life God pours into us.

    We’re called to love our enemies, to bless them, and to pray for them. We’re called to love one another and be patient with one another. And all of that is hard when we run into ideas that don’t make sense or that make heaven to unattainable. It shouldn’t be that hard.


  33. Martin thanks for posting the text from these papaers and Free At Last thank you for the separate but equal question. I will be pouring over all of this over the next day or so and may have a question or two more if you don’t mind Martin. I would also love to hear one of the kinists response to these papers. I think their response would be very telling indeed.


  34. Martin Selbrede wrote (Quoting Rushdoony):

    Second, there is the exaltation of humanity as a race and a demand that we identify ourselves with all men as one people. Oliver is of this second type. He asks us so to exalt humanity, and states, “The truly secure personality has identified with all creation and with God through Christ.”
    These two forms of racism are both to be rejected as well as their legal safeguards. The first form demands legalized segregation; the second form of racism demands legalized integration. Both deny Christian liberty and the right of free association.

    I’m going to venture that this “second type of racism” ala Oliver is not accurate, nor is it accessible to people who are not Calvinists. I would also argue that it does not “demand legalized integration.” It may have to Rushdoony, however.

    I see part of this idea hinging on how one esteems human agency versus God’s sovereignty. Non-Calvinists believe that mankind does play a role in the process of believing and confessing faith in Jesus unto salvation. Some Christians go even further to embrace the idea that mankind is basically good, merely because he (in the gender inclusive sense) is made in God’s Image. They reject the idea of total depravity and preserve some concept of human agency. Call that Arminian, antinomian, humanitarian or whatever you like. These beliefs do not disqualify you from being a Christian and are generally considered to be differences within Christiandom.

    For the Calvinist, mankind is totally depraved, lacking any kind of ability to even participate in his own process of faith, for it is God that instills this faith in him to awaken him. Mankind is far from basically good – he is completely bad. Anything within the scope of belief in life (outside of Christ) must reinforce and support this concept, or it becomes a claim that man is more sovereign than God. The problem I see pragmatically as many people live it out, in many cases, is a pervasive pessimism that would even deny even Believers the benefits of being created in God’s image as well as the benefits of regeneration. That is why there is a discomfort with “following the Spirit” in neglect of the law, for there is an element of hard line Calvinism that is so pessimistic that I believe that it actually argues against the new mind and spiritual discernment that is bestowed upon Christians when they are made new creations in Christ. Much of this pessimism carries right over into the life as a Believer in Christ. In some cases, I think that you could argue that this view necessitates the Law as well. I believe that this perspective has a significant bearing on this matter for Rushdoony’s esteem of Oliver’s “second type of racism.” (This is said, of course, as someone who has not read Oliver’s work.)

    There is a Catholic doctrine about the universal brotherhood of man and universal fatherhood of God which clashes harshly with Calvinism because it denies total depravity. If that is solely what Rushdoony was talking about in terms of Oliver’s belief, then I would agree with him. But I would argue on behalf of the Arminian and those esteemed as Christian but antinomian that there is an alternative that Rushdoony does not offer, a profound respect for mankind because all men (and women) are created in God’s image. Such is not an expression of racism through an exaltation of mankind but is an aspect of respect for God by the Christian, but it is outside of a Calvinist framework. Within that respect for mankind, there is gracious optimism and respect combined with a humble realization of “Woe is me, for I am undone,” and apart from Christ, there is no distinction between any of us. I argue that this is not idolatry but an aspect of the worship of God, and it fosters love for one’s neighbor. (Perhaps this is an example of where the pervasive pessimism of some Calvinists can be seen in pragmatic matters.)

    An extension of this, I believe, shows through in the second passage offered here. What I take away from it seems to defend culture over race, “not white but Western.” Could you not call this colonialism? I don’t hold to this view and spent a good deal of time studying missions from a very different perspective (albeit in an Arminian and antinomian denomination), and I assure you that they do not alter the Bible or what it means to be a Christian in their conveying of the Gospel. The model they use humbly approachs a culture and to meet their needs and where they are in life so as to graciously introduce Christ. (Dr. Joanne Butrin, one of my role models, qualifies this approach in her book, “From the Roots Up.” I mentioned some key ideas from her model in this recent post.) One manifests good character and compassion within the culture (without compromise of the truth or sin) to show them Jesus, and it seems that Rushdoony would esteem this approach as “the new racism.”

    I find Free at Last’s assessment of the third type of racism quite astute. I write about this on my blog in some length, but I was a Yankee who moved to LA in the 90s and quit a job at what I called the “rich white people’s hospital,” and I’ve even made a wrong turn one day and ended up in the midst of a KKK rally. When I inquired about the demographics at church there, a pastor told me that “those people have their own churches.” (And I never went back to that church.) I have also aspired to understand this Southern Cause business of those who wish to secede from the Union. What I would say in response to Mr. Selbrede’s response is that this again is a denominational issue, predicated by one’s eschatology. I think to fit this concept in as explained, you must share a postmillennial eschatology to find it satisfying. Many Christians do not. And I do not think that “separate but equal” is Biblical in terms of how things changed in the New Testament. We are all sinners saved by Grace, and the need for a physical Israel (and race distinctions) passed away with the Great Commission, when the Gentiles were offered adoption, and I would cite all Scripture references that speak about such. Isaiah isn’t the key Scripture here, but rather, Luke and Paul’s writings about the extending of the New Covenant to those outside of Israel who could previously only be “worshipers within the gates.”

    So in all of these examples, Rushdoony’s position is not racist because it is predicated upon his unique Theonomic take on Covenant Theology. In order to see him as such, one must accept his presuppositions about who Israel is, who the Christian is, how the Christian is beholden to the system of Old Israel, as well as his system of eschatology.

    For someone who is not a Calvinist, who does not hold a pervasively pessimistic view of mankind, and who rejects a particular set of views about eschatology, his position does come across as somewhat racist according to what is written here. And in some ways, I think it could be even more offensive to Christians who do reject these view because this does strike me very much as elitist.

    I will note that the audience that Rushdoony addresses in both passages embraces Covenant Theology, so perhaps what he would say would be very different if speaking to a group of people from different Christian traditions. We also don’t know the context of the “not white but Western” passage and what he was speaking to.

    Looking at it from a non-Calvinist, non-Theonomist perspective, I think that it actually makes Rushdoony look a bit worse worse in terms of racism. That said, I don’t think that he was a racist, particularly in the latter half of his life. I’m bouncing back to Walter Martin here, and the fruit of the doctrine preached. These things have to do with Covenant Theology as much as they do with Rushdoony and his unique interpretation of it in terms of Theonomy. What is the fruit of the doctrine he taught?


  35. This may be also helpful to differentiate Covenant Theology from Dispensationalism, New Covenant Theology, Lutheran Theology, and others, etc…

    Considering that Covenant Theology makes no distinction between the assembly in the Old Testament and the ecclesia in the New Testament, they also maintain that the Holy Spirit was always with those who followed God, and it was with them in the same way that it was in the New Testament. Other theologies reject the Covenant Theology interpretation about the idea that there was no new or different imparting of the Spirit because it doesn’t necessarily make sense. If Jesus promised that he would give the Comforter in his absence, what did He really impart then? If the Holy Spirit was already with the Believer and it was the same, it basically nullifies His statement and robs it of any meaning.

    For me, this is just too much identification with the Old Testament Believer. They are different experiences. The Word definitively talks about the Old Covenant and a New and better Covenant in Christ. (The New one fulfilled all of the previous ones.) That New Covenant nullifies the old ones for those that are in Christ in other traditions. But in Covenant Theology, the New Covenant Believer is also an heir of those old ones which are still in affect, though one’s relationship to them has changed.

    That may help explain why the Law is so significant and why identification with one’s kin is important. I suppose that if my personal identity was strongly tied to the legacy of my ancestry, this would also hold more significance for me. I think that this was very significant for Rushdoony which is why I mentioned it in my first comment here.


  36. Cindy K, before I post my long response on the Holocaust Denial issue, let me direct you to an article by Dr. Shu Suzuki, “Japan’s Other Disaster,” appearing in the Jan-Feb 2012 issue of Faith for All of Life. This article, written by a medical doctor in Japan who was (and still is) affected by the Japanese earthquake and subsequent nuclear disaster, points out that Japan has suffered an even worse disaster in the moral/ethical realm. In the course of the article, he shows how the Bible’s message has been contextualized and distorted, and provides specific examples that bear considerable authority. I think this might help you frame your discussion in a more comprehensive way.

    For Calvinists to demean non-Calvinists, or theonomists to do the same to antinomians (and this is really a graded spectrum, not merely two discrete poles), would be the height of pride and boastfulness. I don’t see how such an unChristlike attitude would win over non-Calvinists. I recall hearing 35 years ago (yes, more than a third of a century) that the greatest damage to the Kingdom of Christ was being inflicted by hot shots fresh out of seminary. Perhaps we should continue to be watchful over our own attitudes lest we step over these lines, especially since “knowledge will pass away” (I Cor. 13:8) but faith, hope and love will abide forever. This implies a proper place and attitude for propagating the Gospel and the precious truths of His Word to the world.


  37. Rushdoony, Holocaust Denial, and Anti-Semitism

    As background for this topic (and many of the preceding ones), we need to understand a key point made by Edward Bernays in his 1928 book, “Propaganda” (which was praised by Noam Chomsky for its abiding value). He writes, “In theory, every citizen makes up his own mind on public questions and matters of private conduct. In practice, if all men had to study for themselves the abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved in every question, they would find it impossible to come to a conclusion about anything. We have voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government sift the data and highlight the outstanding issues so that our field of choice shall be narrowed to practical proportions. From our leaders and the media they use to reach the public, we accept the evidence and the demarcation of issues bearing upon public questions; from some ethical teacher, be it a minister, a favorite essayist, or merely prevailing opinion, we accept a standardized code of social conduct to which we conform most of the time.” (Pg. 38-39 of the 2005 edition – I’ve corrected some typos that crept into the printed book.)

    So we should be mindful that when we disdain to “study for ourselves” the complex depths of a question, we are defaulting to a narrative controlled by others. While it may be comforting, even standard operating procedure, to rely on this process, Bernays makes it clear that the tradeoff is between (1) studying something in depth or (2) accepting the prevailing propaganda about that something. The goal of propaganda, says Bernays, is regimented thinking (which isn’t really true thinking, it’s merely the uncritical acceptance of memes – see my article “The Ultimate Meme” at Chalcedon’s website).

    To understand what Rushdoony’s purpose is in citing a specific source, we have to see what the context is and how the source is used. We also have to see what Rushdoony says about the source he used and whether he qualified his use of it (we’ll see that this factor is rarely acknowledged). We have to see if the source disavowed responsibility for its statements (there WAS hedging of responsibility for them). We have to see if Rushdoony addressed this topic at a later date to clarify his views when it became obvious that his purpose was misunderstood (he did in fact do this). And we should recognize that imposing our understanding of a matter forty years after a book appeared in print, using today’s data and resources and politically-correct mindset to judge the state of research in the late 1960s when the “offending paragraph” was written, is simply disingenuous: it is to be “wise after the fact.”

    The actual point Rushdoony was making in drawing attention to what was reported as the inflating of the number of victims of persecutions appears two pages after the offending paragraph: “The evils were all too real: even greater is the evil of bearing false witness concerning them, because that false witness will produce an even more vicious reality in the next upheaval. Men are now ‘reconciled’ to a world where millions are murdered, or are said to be murdered. What will be required in the way of action and propaganda next time? … In view of this massive insensitivity to murder, so that false witness is resorted to, the exaggeration of evil to make it seem evil, evil itself is growing in order to keep pace with the imagination of men, an evil imagination grounded in a false witness.”

    So, ironically, Rushdoony’s entire purpose in this discussion was to fight “massive insensitivity to murder” which creates a vicious circle that feeds on itself. And in context, this makes total sense. But because one of the examples he used has been deemed to be flawed, it is now Rushdoony who is the insensitive one: he is a “Holocaust Denier” and that’s the end of the matter for many.

    In his book “The Institutes of Biblical Law” (IBL hereafter), published in 1973 but in development for quite a few years before that, Rushdoony quotes only two sentences (pg. 586) from a work by Poncins (these two are the problematic sentences), but talks about a libel court case in England for nearly three full paragraphs thereafter (pg. 587-588) in which an inflated victim count was reduced from the alleged 17,000 down to 130 contested cases. Had Rushdoony used only this example (well-documented in the book “Auschwitz in England: A Record of a Libel Action”), there’d be no controversy. In fact, in contrast to the brief mention of the Holocaust, he spends more time talking about American complicity in covering up state-sponsored murders during WWII, particularly the Katyn Forest Massacre (pg 587), because false witness goes both ways: it can inflate figures or hide them. Much earlier in the book (page 291), Rushdoony condemns those whose agenda drives them to suppress or omit the crimes that Germany and Russia committed: “It is to be noted that the flagrant evil of the Nazis is omitted here, and the most flagrant evil of the Soviet Communists.” And don’t get him started on the Armenian massacre of 1915.

    Poncins (Vicomte Leon de Poncins) is the source for Rushdoony’s citation (but we’ll examine Rushdoony’s sharp criticism of Poncins later). And Poncins bases his views on the work of Paul Rassinier, who was a survivor of Buchenwald subjected to torture by the SS. The writings of Rassinier didn’t start to appear in English until 1969 at the earliest, so Poncins’s summary of Rassinier, available in 1967, became the window in English into that writer (now considered the father of Holocaust denial). Nobody knows why Poncins’s book gets Raul Hilberg’s first name wrong (it is twice given as Paul, not Raul): was it Poncins’s error, the translator’s error, or a typographic error? But it then became Rushdoony’s error, because he cites it as is.

    So Rassinier is a topic in himself, and he evidently was able to prevail on some points and was debunked on most of the others. To complicate matters, Poncins makes clear that he is not himself promoting Rassinier as correct (although we’ll see that such a verdict would coincide with Poncins’s agenda, an important point Rushdoony makes in this very chapter of IBL). Says Poncins (pg. 190 of “Judaism and the Vatican”), “With this we conclude our examination of Rassinier’s arguments. Not having made a personal study of this question, we are limited to an examination of this author’s conclusions, for which he must bear the full responsibility, but it would seem that the facts and documents which he adds to the dossier of war crimes merit full and impartial investigation.”

    Work on a “full and impartial investigation” of Rassinier’s arguments took place after Rushdoony made use of this source. The involvement of noted Holocaust Denier Harry Elmer Barnes in translating Rassinier into English wasn’t grasped by Rushdoony until later because the writing of IBL was so massive a project.

    How massive a project? Non-reconstructionist Michael J. McVicar gives us a glimpse into the book’s genesis: “In 1970, the year leading up to the publication of his most famous work, The Institutes of Biblical Law, Rushdoony recorded in his journal that he had completed a staggering fifty-four chapters of his magnum opus, the vast bulk of the nearly 800-page tome. He had begun the first chapters of the project in 1968. These records suggest that Rushdoony wrote the body of the Institutes in less than three years. It’s incredible that anyone could read and critically assess the content of the Institutes in such a time frame, let alone write it in such a compressed period.
    But Rushdoony didn’t content himself with such achievements. Aside from authoring fifty-four chapters on Biblical law, in 1970 Rushdoony also penned two monthly columns. Furthermore, he authored multiple book reviews, chapters, and articles for several other book projects and magazines. He also authored 2,435 individual pieces of mail and lectured and preached a combined 213 times. In the midst of this endless, tireless output Rushdoony also managed to read and annotate 226 books. All of this he dutifully recorded in his journal summary for 1970.”

    Rushdoony, having used several examples to illustrate the danger of numbing people to catastrophe by inflating the dimensions of evil, was unaware that one of the more controversial examples was a time-bomb ticking away in his book. Rassinier (as Poncins relayed it) provided statistics ranging between 896,292 and 1,200,000 Jewish victims of the Holocaust, premised on specific arguments and sources (some reportedly Jewish).

    So, is it true that Rushdoony simply quotes Poncins and moves on without further comment about Poncins? No, emphatically not. Rushdoony had not only read through Poncins’s “Judaism and the Vatican,” he had also read his “Freemasonry and the Vatican” and stated, in IBL (pg. 589, three pages after the “offending paragraph” citing two sentences from Poncins on those Holocaust numbers) this about the man:

    “Where men are evading their responsibility, they are liars. In denying their guilt and their responsibility, they must affirm the guilt and responsibility of their environment, human and otherwise. Thus, to return to Poncins, the thesis of his study is that the Church of Rome has been victimized by the Jews. The plight of the church is not the responsibility of the church: churchmen from the pope down are all whitewashed. For Poncins the guilt always lies elsewhere, with the Jews or with the Freemasons. Poncins, bitterly anti-Jewish, is ready to report the errors in the accounts of Nazi murders of Jews; he is not ready to be distressed that ANY were brutally murdered. Poncins is hostile to lies about the numbers of Jews killed, but is he not repeating the lie of Adam and Eve in blaming the evils of the church on everyone except the church? With Eve, Poncins says the serpent gave me, and I did eat; it was therefore not my fault. Poncins must blame someone other than churchmen who have great powers, because to do so would be to accept the guilt of the church, and of its members, including himself.”

    Well, we rarely read something like that – Rushdoony condemning the source he had just used. If you just encounter the two-sentence clip on page 586 (the “offending paragraph”), you probably never read what Rushdoony says two sentences later: “We will return to this matter again.” In other words, he wasn’t finished discussing Poncins (and he did in fact return to Poncins three pages later, as I’ve reproduced above from page 589). And what are we warned about Poncins? That he is “bitterly anti-Jewish” and has an agenda that serves his outlook. So we can’t say of Rushdoony that he’s in bed with Poncins. He outs Poncins for his views on the Jews and calls it as he sees it.

    Rushdoony again explains, in his own words, the point he was trying to get across in this section of IBL in the September 2000 issue of The Chalcedon Report (available online):
    “It is difficult to imagine that anyone can deny the reality of the mass slaughter that characterized the twentieth century, whether it be the Armenian millions murdered by the Turks, the Jewish millions murdered by the Nazis, or the untold millions murdered by the communists in China, Russia, and Cambodia. In my Institutes of Biblical Law, I noted that the scope of such mass murder had so numbed the modern conscience that the murder of a “mere” thousand, or ten thousand, no longer shocked, tempting some to inflate the scope of lesser atrocities, lest they not seem sufficiently horrific.
    “It was not my purpose to enter a debate over numbers, whether millions were killed, or tens of millions, an area which must be left to others with expertise in such matters. My point then and now is that in all such matters what the Ninth Commandment requires is the truth, not exaggeration, irrespective of the cause one seeks to serve. It is as wrong to exaggerate in order to shock as it is now clear happened in early reports of Serbian “genocide” as to deny the reality of what the Nazis did, and in the case of the Communists, what they are still doing. Historical revisionism condemns the future to play by the dangerous rules of exaggeration and denial. As I noted then, this will inevitably lead to even greater horrors as the bar of the capacity to shock is continually raised.”
    Rushdoony never wavered on what the intent and purpose of this section of his book was: he states the same concerns as he did thirty years before. But regrettably, his entire point is lost in the clamor over one of the examples he used. Of course, he could have held back the book for ten or twenty years as research and consensus had solidified against the primary thesis promoted by Rassinier (whose initial credibility arose from the fact that he himself was a victim of torture at Buchenwald). But Rushdoony (perhaps mistakenly) thought readers would take away his primary point, not focus on a two-sentence example he briefly cited (among several larger ones) that had become increasingly toxic down through the years.

    But if one considers McVicar’s description of the circumstances of IBL’s creation, Poncin’s passing the buck to Rassinier (for plausible deniability), Rushdoony’s condemnation of Poncins and his motivations (as “bitterly anti-Jewish” and designed to whitewash the conduct of the church), the time-frame in which the book was written, the then-not-entirely-settled state of the question (the Poncins book was brand new at the time), and then finally take into account what kind of examples Rushdoony was applying and for what purpose they appeared, the claims of his being a dyed-in-the-wool Holocaust Denier ring hollow. Once the truth on any matter was established squarely, he had no interest in denying it, and surely had no interest in defending Nazism or its modern forms (see his pointed quote about the “flagrant evils” of the Nazis reproduced above).


  38. Martin, if you would defend Jesus and His teachings and His examples and His Love as much as you defend Rushdoony’s “teachings” and his theologies and books and his insistence that we live by the Law, you would be much happier and so at peace. Christ fulfilled the Law. We no longer live in Old Testament times, nor are those Laws applicable for Gentiles (neither in that time period nor today).

    Today, we live abiding by the New Covenant given to us by Jesus Himself, to love God and our neighbors. We are saved by grace, through faith. Not by works, which is what obeying the Old Testament Laws are….works. Those Laws were given to Old Testament Israel to set them apart as God’s chosen people, apart from all other nations, to show the other nations who their God is, and so that Israel could be the people through whom the rest of mankind could learn of God.

    No one was ever saved by following those Laws. Obeying them did not place Jesus, God or the Holy Spirit into the hearts and lives of anyone. Israel was always a “stiff-necked” people who wanted to do things their own way. They wanted to earn their approval by God by doing something physical. When Moses delayed on Sinai, they grew impatient and built an idol (a golden calf). They wanted something physical, and they wanted to do something (works) to show they belonged to God. The Law was never given to save them. The blood that was shed during all those sacrifices (part of the Law), never saved any of them. It was only a “covering” to atone for their sins until the next time they were to offer another sacrifice. The blood sacrifices were a foreshadow of the Lamb who would be slain for humanity’s sins. The Law was also a measuring stick to show how much they needed a Savior who would eventually come from their seed. A Savior who, after being rejected (as foretold by Him) by Israel, extended the invitation of salvation to the Gentiles. The Gentiles did not replace Israel. Israel is still a part of God’s end times plan. Once the full measure of Gentiles who God foreknew would receive Him are saved, He will once again turn His attention to Israel to complete all that was prophesied.

    Bottom line, we are not Israel, and we are not living in the Old Testament times. Their Laws are not our laws. Reconstructionism is wrong. Covenant Theology, Theonomy/Theocracy/Theosophy are wrong. Patriarchy is wrong. Phillips, Rushdoony, Wilson, Calvin, Augustine, Plato, mysticism, gnosticism and paganism are all wrong. Context is key. History is key. Knowledge of cultural differences is key. Proof texts taken out of context is false. I’ve now had my say. I will say no more. I’ve already been traumatized in this thread.


  39. Martin (Nov 27 6:54pm) Regarding Rushdoony’s article. This will be long and I apologize. This will be the only time I do this.

    First of all, Hitler’s initial support into office came from the liberals, socialists, et al as well as the more conservative groups. These groups split away as he slowly revealed himself to be a liar who merely promised people his help in order to gain power. He was elected under the umbrella of the National Socialist Party and kept the name as a mockery of the people he betrayed. The institutional churches were complicit—read Bonhoeffer for that sorry tale. Hitler had thousands of pieces of art destroyed and artists ran for their lives; most were liberal, democrat, socialist, and/or intellectual. Eventually the only people left around Hitler were of the same ilk as those who stayed around Doug Phillips throughout these past years, or those who were so afraid of death that they lost their souls in acquiescence.

    Second, Rushdoony is correct that there is a strand in science that has promoted eugenics, racism and sexism, but it’s only a strand, and about the same proportion as in every other field, including the religions.

    Third, I disagree that “the Western mind and culture, in all its advances, is a product of Biblical religion.” It is a combination of many things including the character of their land/place, the habits/occupations of the people, genetics, and their majority religion was a major influence. Again Rushdoony writes: “The culture of the ‘West is not the property of any race or people in its origin. It is Biblical.” Christianity is not the same thing as “Biblical” because many awful ideas/actions were taken as well as some amazing ones, and a good deal of it was not at all Biblical. Also, as it happened, the Europeans were white.

    Fourth, the better of the “pompous professors” at seminary properly rail against teaching that Western culture (not “the white mentality”) is the only culture of which Christ approves. Jesus himself was from the Mid-East, a culture with its own different lands and customs. Rushdoony correctly makes clear that this has nothing to do with race, but he is wrong to instead equate it to religion. It is culture that makes the difference, and the religion is part/parcel of it, not the be-all. Rushdoony indulged in making his favorite field of study the center of the world. It is a common mistake.

    Then Rushdoony writes, “Today, however, men speak of the white mentality, the Asiatic soul, and the African mind. Some educators are insistent on the need to recognize and give status in the schools to what they call “black English.””

    First of all, educators talk about groups on different continents. It is “race” in the minds of a few of them; it is “culture” in the minds of most. Those who view it culturally do not say “white” mentality, they say “European”, Asiatic and African—not race-based words but continental words. And each group has its own characteristics that can be made into stereotypes by shallow thought.

    As to “black English”, it is a reality. It is a fascinating sub-speech inside the broader English language, and similar (although stronger due to greater insularity) to the differences of Southern English and Midwest English, or the differences of American English and British English. It is as good to celebrate differences as it is good to celebrate commonalities. One doesn’t sacrifice one for the other and all need to be taught a “common” English. To give credence to these distinctions is racist only when the person studying them is racist.

    Tribalism, which has caused trouble for humanity since its beginnings, needs to both embraced and rejected. It may be primitive, religious, or “racist”—we’ve used any old thing because we’ve always tended to denigrate that which is not most like us (we start out doing this in our teen years, with cliques, and many do not mature further), and quickly forget that those we do not see are also human and retain value equal to us. This we must continually reject.

    On the other hand, one group is inevitably different from another, and as with Black English, it is fascinating and worthy of celebration. These differences change over time, and some blend/meld while new differences appear. Good scholars understand this also when approaching the Bible, and study the character of the groups for whom the various books of the Bible were written. This doesn’t supersede the truths in the Bible, but gives them the proper context (including the way language is used), which will make the truths ring out more clearly and deeply than otherwise.

    It is all of a piece. Rushdoony starts from an incorrect assessment, and keeps tending towards his own excellence and primacy. Thus he ends in a completely different place than I can recommend as accurate.


  40. Oh good grief, Martin, Chomsky never praised Edward Bernays. He properly cited his work as starting the long slow decline of our society by propaganda but he thought it anathema.

    And I do wish you all would get off the Marxism=Satanism shtick. It comes undiluted from Joe McCarthy and he was not a wise man.



  41. Meaning no disrespect, but wouldn’t the fair way to know how much, and how often, I’ve defended “Jesus and His teachings and His examples and His Love” be by listening to all the lectures and sermons I’ve delivered since 1980, not by drawing hasty conclusions in a thread where I’m peppered by countless challenges specific to the teaching of a particular theologian? I suppose it’s anyone’s prerogative to erase 99.99% of a person’s labors to score a point, but this is one place on the web where the Golden Rule the Lord Jesus laid down should surely be pressed upon our consciences and our hearts, yes?

    As I do not hold to “replacement theology” in respect to Israel, I will assume your criticism is aimed elsewhere. I take a strict exegetical tack with respect to Romans 11:25-26, taking it absolutely literally, as witness the critique by replacement theologian R.C.H. Lenski, who wrote in the mid-20th century that “only an exegete” would take the passage literally. H.A.W. Meyer pointed out, correctly, that the Reformers “were induced to depart from the literal sense of the apostle, not by exegetical, but by dogmatic considerations” which he notes “are forced upon the text.” Warfield also got this text correctly, as did a good number of Puritan expositors who took it literally. Most who THINK they’re taking it literally do not. As Greek scholar Meyer pointed out in the late 19th century about this passage, “By a restrictive explaining away and modification of these utterances the prophetic character and spirit suffer a violence foreign to it, against which the simple and clear words do not cease to offer resistance.”

    And it seems no matter how often I clearly say that nobody is saved by keeping the law, I find those words continually stuffed into my mouth by others. I hope I’m the only one to whom this is happening here. Communication is probably difficult enough when dealing with a person’s actual stated position, let alone some alien position imposed by dint of forceful repetition upon them.

    I didn’t expect to see “theosophy” in the list. I assume the inclusion of Madame Blavatsky’s New Age syncretistic cult was intended to make some kind of rhetorical point, but I cannot discern what it could possibly have been. Perhaps this was intended as humorous or sarcastic? It’s hard to tell.

    I don’t think it was ever Julie Anne’s intention to let her graciously liberal posting policy result in anyone (least of all a veteran participant) become traumatized as a result of anything written by an intruder (which I technically am here — my presence was requested by an abuse victim for a purpose that has long since been lost sight of as the questions continued to evolve in different directions). Therefore, if Julie Anne could advise as to whether my presence here is more harmful than useful, I will bow out with apologies to all. I acknowledge and respect the fact that many here have suffered abuse under different scenarios, and if my words are perceived as a resumption of those abuses, whether rightly or wrongly, it would be heartless for me to continue to answer questions.


  42. Patrice, I was referring to Chomsky’s comment that “Bernays’s honest and practical manual provides much insight into some of the most powerful and influential institutions of contemporary industrial-state capitalist democracies.” As you can note in my citation of Bernays, I was arguing against the use of propaganda as a substitute for study. Indeed, Bernays defaults to the use of propaganda on what he urges as pragmatic grounds. So, Chomsky and I (at least on this issue, and actually on some others) are in agreement. Most people recognize the name of Chomsky, so I wanted to make clear that Bernays wasn’t insignificant, but was on Chomsky’s radar. I have quoted Chomsky many times, particularly in my studies on linguistics (and he’s reportedly one of the most quoted individuals in the world), but I regret that my parenthetical mention wasn’t properly qualified. I was interested in the insight regarding alternatives between responsible study and submitting to an artificially packaged reality.


  43. Patrice, regarding art that Hitler destroyed… I have over 200 audio CDs in my large collection by German composer Paul Hindemith, who was the object of Nazi oppression beginning in 1934. Wilhelm Furtwangler, virtual head of all German music activities and conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic, even resigned in protest over the treatment of Hindemith. He was one of many composers targeted by Hitler, and emigration to Switzerland (and finally the United States) ensued for Hindemith. He was probably the last person to ever chair an entire department at Yale who had no academic degrees whatsoever.

    I have no love of the Nazis. One of my great uncles was executed by the Nazis by having him be decapitated using a locomotive, while my grandfather felt the only alternative to Nazism was to be a Communist, which, upon detection, meant being sent to the Russian front, where he was captured and sent to the POW camp in Minsk where he buried the dead for several years while suffering from tuberculosis. After hostilities ceased, he had to walk the entire way home to Germany (!) having become a broken man who would hardly speak thereafter until his death.


  44. Ok. Yah, Bernays is not well known as an important but ugly figure. Like Cass Sunstein much later, he eventually believed propaganda necessary—a conclusion emerging from the idea of philosopher-kings “to rule them all and in the darkness [of obedience] bind them”. Which Chomsky nay-says, good man.


  45. Martin, I am deeply sorry about your great uncle and your grandfather. Terrible! I think I’d rather my head taken off by a locomotive than endure what your grandfather did. My grandfather was involved in the Dutch resistance and “adopted” a jewish girl for the duration of the war. Very very hungry they got, too. My dad bicycled messages between villages. But they all came out of it more-or-less intact.

    Anyway, the liberals, socialist, etc were initially deceived, as were the conservatives, but paid a high price for it. It is not accurate to say that Hitler (or Mussolini, for that matter) were liberals/socialists/leftists, which is a statement I often read on Christian sites/comments. Fascism has no right or left. It is a monster that swallows all.


  46. I have not read the post about how to put Rushdoony into perspective concerning the Holocaust, but I wanted to respond to the statement that I’m not approaching these matters comprehensively. Much of my purpose has involved the point that one cannot consider Rushdoony apart from Covenant Theology/Theonomy — considerations that preserve his integrity.

    Perhaps my earlier comment was missed:

    If your the proponent of an organization and aspire to answer questions to help people to understand that organization’s position, I’m still confused as to why those questions cannot be answered more directly. If we don’t agree on doctrine, that is fine, but in a way, I feel like you’re making continual unspoken appeals to a post-humous authority.


  47. Patrice, you might agree with what I wrote about linguistic innovation in the May-June 2010 issue of Faith for All of Life, which has a bearing on the final part of your discussion. We may have more in common in some of these areas than at first appears.

    Rushdoony, like many other Christian scholars, finds value in an observation made by Henry Van Til (no relation to Cornelius Van Til): “Culture is religion externalized.” If you adopt this view, then you have a ligament tying those two concepts together, and Rushdoony’s position is defensible. If you reject HVT’s position, then your criticism would be plausible, arguably even probable. So we find (not surprisingly) a hidden premise that will govern the resolution of this question. It’s for this reason that the OTHER Van Til (Cornelius) pointed out the inherent fruitlessness of arguing across presuppositional systems: the two sides simply talk past each other because they don’t share common ground on fundamentals. They really need to dig deeper for productive discourse to prevail. Not everyone has the patience to do so.


  48. CIndy K, perhaps I’ve chosen my wording poorly. I reviewed your earlier comment (#59787) and saw nothing in it that I would disagree with. And my assessment here is that you’ve continually gone out of your way to provide an understandable context for much of what Rushdoony was saying. You’ve also tried to help others see the big picture of which people like Rushdoony are but a small part. I think your contributions are quite edifying and insightful.

    But if I’m looking at a New Testament text and want to understand it better, I consult Meyer first, and a dozen other scholars first, before I would consult what Rushdoony may add to the discussion. In the Old Testament, I’ll seek out Hengstenberg or Keil & Delitzsch, and other specific OT scholars, before seeing if Rushdoony can supplement what centuries of sanctified Christian scholarship have already brought to bear on the text. And on theology in general, I will examine John Owen and Benjamin Warfield first before seeing what Rushdoony might have written. But I suspect nobody will ask me about Warfield or Hengstenberg or Meyer here, for most probably assume that all I ever consult is Rushdoony, which is blatantly, horribly inaccurate and would make for dreadfully imbalanced teaching (not to mention incomplete teaching).

    In any case, I reviewed my comment way up above wherein I commended something as providing you a more “comprehensive” outlook, and I see that I was referring to the question of contextualization in regard (specifically) to Bible translation. And this is why I thought Dr. Suzuki’s account of serious problems in Japanese Bible translation, which have dangerous consequences, would be something you’d want to integrate into your position. I believe that is the context for my comment which used the term “comprehensive.” But this was not intended to convey the notion that you weren’t trying to layout structured accounts for various viewpoints and their histories, most of which I regarded as highly accurate and fairly represented.


  49. Patrice, your grandfather was a man of moral courage. How different the world would be if his example was multiplied.

    Also, I agree that evil is a moral (not a metaphysical) phenomenon, one common to all political parties, philosophies, etc. This is a particularly important point because to get this wrong leads to faulty prescriptions/solutions and leads to self-serving blame-shifting (the demonization of “the other side”). As Jeremiah said, it is the heart of man that is desperately wicked: who can know it? What we need, then, is for the Lord Jesus to perform a heart transplant on us (out with the stone heart, in with the new heart of flesh).


  50. Mrs. Henderson wrote: “I would also love to hear one of the kinists response to these papers. I think their response would be very telling indeed.”

    I can’t speak for all Kinists, but I’ll give a few of my own thoughts:

    Regarding the first (RJR’s letter to the editor in the October 1964 Presbyterian Guardian), let’s contextualize this a bit: This was published just months after the passage of the very damaging Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law destroyed freedom of association and the lawful use of one’s own private property. I read C. Herbert Oliver’s article from the prior issue that prompted RJR’s letter, and was frankly shocked that it appeared in an OPC publication at that time. How soon Machen’s vision was lost. Oliver was a civil rights activist (not a compliment), and in that article he promoted the social gospel on a level that would have made Walter Rauschenbusch blush. Oliver is mixed race, which makes him no less a man than anyone else, but his advocacy for a universalized identity is characteristic of the identity problems of his sort. Mixed race people and bastards are frequently more susceptible to revolutionary ideas because they often lack normal social affinity. As evidenced by his article, Oliver was certainly no exception in this regard, even mentioning the French Revolution in a positive light, as RJR pointed out.

    With that context, RJR’s words have a fuller meaning. Overall, I agree with what he said, and would only point out this sentence as problematic: “Moreover, the Christian cannot exalt or identify with either a race or with humanity but must insist rather on an antithesis and cleavage in terms of Jesus Christ between the redeemed humanity and the unregenerate humanity.” Of course we identify as Christians, and share spiritual identity with all other Christians, no matter what their race, but what RJR presents here is a false dichotomy. I am a Southern white male Christian, born and raised in East Texas to particular set of parents. Why is it necessary that I restrict my identity to only one of those particular qualities? It’s not. Further, the corpus of RJR’s work militates against his own words here.

    Secondly, RJR tended to take a more libertarian approach to segregation than some. That is, he appears to advocate for the moral permissibly of de facto segregation, but considers de jure segregation as an affront to Christian liberty and freedom of association. There are a variety of Kinist positions on this issue, and de jure segregation is itself a circle, not a point. Dr. Morton Smith’s article on race and segregation in the very issue of “The Presbyterian Guardian” in which RJR’s letter appeared is quite excellent, erring only on a few points. T. Robert Ingram, an Episcopal rector whose work on Biblical law was mentioned favorably in RJR’s “Institutes” and who was published in Chalcedon’s “The Journal of Christian Reconstruction”, also edited the small pro-segregation compilation “Essays on Segregation”, having written a first-rate introduction and two of the essays.

    Obviously, all Kinists believe in the moral permissibility of de facto segregation (natural, self-segregation), so it’s only de jure segregation in which a variety of opinion is found. My own take is that segregation should have force of law only in those one and the many situations were an individual’s self-interest might naturally be at odds with those of the greater community. For example, I would like to see the return of enforceable covenants to neighborhoods such that the neighborhood would have veto power over the sale of home to anyone not meeting its standards. (I am not here considering immigration or employment policy under the category of segregation.)

    Regarding the second (Chalcedon Position Paper No. 14: THE NEW RACISM), this is much more problematic for Kinists. In fact, I’ve seen this position paper mentioned before in Kinist forums as one of those instances in which RJR was frustratingly inconsistent. Yes, there’s much good in this position paper, and yes, the corpus of RJR’s work militates against the regrettable parts of this paper, but there is no denying this article contains elements objectionable to Kinists.

    First, to briefly outline the Kinist position: We also believe in monogenesis as taught in the Bible. All races of men ultimately came from Adam, and are, therefore, ontologically equal. That is, all men are equal in their status as human beings. Under the New Covenant, the elect are found among all races. No one is saved by their race (nor have they ever been). All men are equally in need of Christ’s atoning sacrifice and all are equally incapable of meriting it. So far, Kinists are in complete agreement with RJR in this position paper. Where we chiefly differ is summarized in this sentence: “The Western mind and culture, in all its advances, is a product of Biblical religion. It is a religious, not a racial, product.” Once again, we see a false dichotomy in this statement. The Western mind and culture is a product both of race and religion (and other factors). It is not necessary that there be one and only one influence to the exclusion of all others.

    As Calvinists, we believe in the total depravity of man. This is “total” in the extensive sense, not the intensive sense. That is, ALL aspects of man were affected by the Fall, but we are not utterly depraved. Both the type and intensity of depravity varies from individual to individual. For example, I have no particular temptation towards drug abuse, while others do, and I have weaknesses in areas that others do not. Predilections towards sin have an inherited aspect, just as our natural skills and talents are also commonly inherited from our parents. My father was good at mathematics, and so am I.

    Race, Biblically defined, is simply common patrilineal descent (recognizing that mixed race peoples are a complication of this simple definition). A man’s identifiable racial characteristics are the sum total of all the attributes he inherits from his ancestors that he holds in common with his relatives, both near and distant. Race is just the family concept considered at a larger scale. It should not surprise us that races display certain natural talents in common, and also certain characteristic predilections towards sin in common. Every race is some unique expression of divine intention.

    Examining pagan cultures should help to draw this out. Does pagan Africa look like pagan Japan, or are they different? Did pre-Christian Europe look like the pre-Columbian America? The races are not alike. Henry Van Til’s oft quoted aphorism “culture is religion externalized”, is certainly useful, but it hardly tells the whole story. Applied rigidly, it’s terribly reductionist, and has led men like Bojidar Marinov to make absurd statements to the effect that Mongolian Christian culture would look identical to Bulgarian Christian culture. A more useful aphorism, common to Kinists, is that culture is the combined product of religion, race, and place. RJR recognized this too, though he did not say it in this brief position paper. In his lecture “The New Absolutism”, Rushdoony gives us the fuller picture:

    “Ah, yes, uh, true, 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 while a very dear friend of mine has aptitude 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. We tend today, just as 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.”

    That’s about as Kinist of a statement as you can get.


  51. A problem with Kinism is that there are few people today who are not the product of ancestral interbreeding at some point. Genetic studies show that most blacks in the U.S. have genetic markers showing Caucasian heritage. It is particularly true of blacks with an American slave heritage, due to masters impregnating slave women.

    In Asia, Europe, the Middle East, the migrations of peoples resulted in children of mixed heritage who then produced children in one or the other of the cultures. An example is the military expeditions of various leaders over centuries: Babylonian, Egyptian, Assyrian, Macedonian, Tatar, etc. And then there is Solomon! Over centuries, the result is that geneticists find genetic variations showing mixed heritage in almost everyone tested.

    There is a bit of fact that becomes a joke in some circles. The old Deep South rule that any black heritage (“one drop of Negro blood”) would make one black in the laws of the South. Problem is, genetically, everyone or nearly everyone has genes that originated in a black population. And if humans arose or were created in Africa, then all of us, by the old South rule, are African-somethings, and in this country, African-Americans.


  52. The fact that otherwise good men like Mr. Selbrede can’t see that he is advocating a position that was advocated by enemies of Christianity in order to overturn Christian social order is a sad testimony to the continuing weakness of the Church. From the quotes below we can see that Marxism has always desired to eliminate racial and ethnic distinctions in order to support a amalgamated NWO were all people share a common pagan faith, and a common pagan culture, as well as a common amalgamated ethnic heritage.

    If we take just a few moments to examine just a few of the words from the Cultural Marxists and their ideological forebears we can see where the battle lines are drawn and how Mr. Selbrede is fighting against the Historic Church and with the enemies of Christ.

    “Princes and nations will disappear without violence from the earth, the human race will become one family and the world the abode of reasonable men.”

    -Adam Weishaupt, quoted in Paul Johnson, Intellectuals (London: Orion Books Limited, 1993), p. 32.

    Capitalism developed the ever more inhuman polarization of the sexes. The cult of making distinctions, which serves only for oppression, is now being swept away by awareness of resemblance and identity.

    M. Walser
    Uber die neusten Stimmungen im Westen
    In: Kursbuch, Bd. 20, 1970, S. 19-41.

    ”What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?

    The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and hereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”

    ~ Frederick Engels in “The Principles of Communism”, 1847

    “The equality of races and nations is one of the most important elements of the moral strength and might of the Soviet state. Soviet anthropology develops the one correct concept, that all the races of mankind are biologically equal. The genuinely materialist conception of the origin of man and of races serves the struggle against racism, against all idealist, mystic conceptions of man, his past, present and future.”

    —Mikhail Nesturkh, Soviet anthropologist, 1959
    “The Origin of Man” (Moscow)Mikhail Nesturkh, Soviet anthropologist, 1959:

    This from Igor Shafareivich’s “Socialist Phenomenon”

    “But with almost perverse consistency, most of the projections of Marxism have been proven incorrect. A better percentage of correct predictions could probably have by making random guesses…. we limit ourselves to three (examples) in order to underscore the typical and in most cases fundamental nature of the errors: the truth proved to be not merely different but in fact the opposite to that which had been predicted.

    a.) The national question: ‘National differences and antagonistic interests among various peoples are already vanishing more and more and more thanks to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the corresponding conditions of life. The supremacy of the proletariat will accelerate the disappearances of differences.’

    However, the Biblical view of race, ethnicity, and national identity is far different than what is offered by the Cultural Marxists and those Christians who are trying to Baptize the elimination of ethnic markers by embracing the Marxist anthropology “that the genuinely materialist conception of the origin of man and of races is that all the races of mankind are biologically equal.” And of course, in the Marxist world and life view “biologically equal” means mere component parts that can be used interchangeably in the great machine culture that Marxists always turn society into. “Biologically equal,” for these people means that there is no God ordained differences between the families of men.

    In the quotes below we see a different vision than that given by the Alienists in our midst.

    “Now the predicates of the covenant are applied in Isa. 19 to the Gentiles of the future, — “Egypt my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance,” Egypt, the people of “Jehovah of hosts,” (Isa. 19:25) is therefore also expected to live up to the covenant obligations, implied for Jehovah’s people. And Assyria comes under similar obligations and privileges. These nations are representative of the great Gentile world, to which the covenant privileges will therefore be extended.”

    Martin J. Wyngaarden, The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011), p. 94.

    “More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, though each nationality remains distinct.”

    “This abiding distinction of the nationalities is also clearly implied by Isaiah. For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance.” 19:25.

    Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

    Wyngaarden, pp. 101-102.

    What the Alienist Christians are missing in their lurch towards amalgamation is that they are in bed with some strange bedfellows. Here is another person they with whom they are sleeping,

    “National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism.”

    Papa Joe Stalin

    Hostility towards the validity of national and ethnic identity tend to rise at various times when it is useful to those in power or as part of political strategy. Such was the straitjacket imposed on thought by Soviet socialism that nationality was understood as “a social construct” that could easily be de-constructed. As Solzhenitsyn observes in his frank way:

    “Before the camps, I regarded the existence of nationality as something that shouldn’t be noticed—nationality did not really exist, only humanity. But in the camps one learns: if you belong to a successful nation you are protected and you survive. If you are part of universal humanity—too bad for you.”

    Many of the Christian Alienists are living in Solzhenitsyn’s pre-camp reality. Like the pre-Gulag Solzhenitsyn the Alienist Christians, invoking Christianity as their proof, have embraced universal humanity. They do not yet realize that what they are invoking in their advocacy of the erosion of nations for the sake of Christ, in the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, “will sooner lead to the entropy of the soul… not the unification of humanity.”


  53. An Attorney,

    Good point at 4:54 AM. For $99 anybody can purchase a DNA analysis which, among other things, reveals their ancestry. Just go to I propose that League of the South should require that all members, current and prospective, should be required to obtain such an analysis. Then we could watch them sweat. Well, if Martin is actually a proponent of a geocentric solar system, it should be fascinating to see to what ridiculous lengths the LoS types would go to wriggle out of what I anticipate would be their widespread discomfiture. The ridiculous claim of statistical noise made by the white supremacist in Patrice’s 6:05 AM link, I suspect, is just the very tip of what could prove to be a very entertaining-to-watch squirm fest.


  54. Martin (29th9:49pm), I do not agree with Henry van Til, that “culture is religion externalized”; it is philosophy externalized (and a shabby mixed bag because generally unexamined). Even in US Christianity, the influence of unacknowledged philosophy usually carries greater sway than faith. Their philosophy covers government, national character, how money and economy functions best, the nature of work and relaxation, how to think/treat those unlike self, etc. Much of it derives from American suburban living, all the way down to the acceptable forms of housing/food/clothing/art/music. The bulk of it is has little relationship to Christianity, even though often believed to be directly related. When they try to bring the two together, as they tried following Schaeffer and then, some, vanTil/Rushdoony et al, they fail because they have little sense of their actual philosophy and simply plonk Christianese, Biblical-style, on top of it all. I would suppose we largely agree on this point.

    I think the inability of (many) US Christians to face their philosophical underpinnings is primarily due to the religious belief of separation from larger culture. They wash their hands of what they see “out there” and do not understand that the very air they breathe is also “out there”. Because they have been taught that “the world” is contamination (even though God made it all), they cannot afford to find anything of themselves in that which is “out there”. This causes huge problems in their understanding/application of ethics and morality.

    I think you do this too, because you try to bring all the world into the Bible, to force it into what is written in that book, which I see as an impossibility that ends up twisting both the Bible and the world far away from accuracy.

    So yes, we will never agree beyond a few intersections because we start in different places. I daresay that I am even more intractable than you on how I approach the world and God, thus this will remain true no matter how deep we dig. I lived through the earliest renditions of your belief-system (Case van Til; Rushdoony entered the scene after I left) and found it deeply damaging. It doesn’t get much deeper than that, really, in terms of understanding your position. I invite you to try on my position for a few years, so that you can gain equal experience of my perspective. You will find it immensely liberating, I promise. 🙂


  55. I have no interest in responding to Enoch or Chester who propose little that rings with reality. I would like to see Martin respond to them, though, to tell us how/where he disagrees/agrees with their bald statements.


  56. On November 26, 2013 @ 3:51 PM Enoch Powell reminds us that Rushdoony, claiming to describe the position of the United Nations, said, “There are two kinds of racism today. For the first, to belong to a particular race, white or black, Jewish or Arab, is all-important. Membership in a particular group is itself a mark of distinction and discrimination, and constitutes the dividing line. For the second form of racism, to belong to the human race is all-important. . . . Therefore, in no uncertain terms, the orthodox Christian must regard the universal racism of the U.N. as a menace, destructive of the Christian faith and detrimental to man.”

    Setting aside the question whether Rushdoony’s other writings put the lie to his claim to renounce ethnic racism, his assignment of the racist label to those who would assign value and give honor to all humans, simply because they are human, is simply breathtaking. By a not-so-subtle inference, those of us who oppose racism are claimed to have become the new racists!!

    However Martin Selbrede might wish to twist and rationalize away this Rushdooney statement, Enoch Powell, defender of the despicable kinist cause, easily enough recognizes its true import.


  57. Gary W

    Me too, sounds very familiar – @ NOVEMBER 27, 2013 @ 5:49 PM…
    “My testimony is that I tried the sanctification-by-law thing.
    Though I was a Christian, the harder I tried the worse I sinned.”

    1 Cor 15:56 …the strength of sin **is the law.** 😦
    Yup – God’s ways are NOT our ways… 😦

    In my experience – Trying to “keep the rules” or “the Law” is a big distraction from “Hearing His Voice” and *Following Jesus.* Because, now we have all the rules we need to live our Christian life. Why ask Jesus anything? And – When “trying to keep the rules” we’re focused on self – and NOT focused on Jesus. What am “ I “ doing? Don’t do this, or that, and wind up living under the “Law of sin and death.”

    But “WE,” His Kids, are NO longer under the law – but under grace. 😉

    Rom 6:14 – For sin shall not have dominion over you:
    for ye are NOT under the law, but under grace.

    Now – I NO longer desire to live under the law – Even my own laws, rules…
    Especially The Laws of “Todays Corrupt Religious System.” 😦
    And – Especially The Laws promoted by this Strange B.S. –
    Rushdooney-Loonyisim, Calvinism, Loveless Authoritative“Patriarchy”

    And “WE,” you and me, do NOT have to “Live under the law.” Because…
    1 – “WE,” you and me, His Body, is – Delivered from the law. Rom 7:6
    2 – “WE,” you and me, His Body, His Church, is – Dead to the law. Rom 7:4
    3 – “WE,” His Body, His Church, are – Not under the law. Rom 7:2
    4 – “WE,” His Body, His Church, are – Free from the law. Rom 8:2
    5 – “WE,” are – Redeemed from the curse of the law. Gal 3:13
    6 – “WE,” are – No longer under a schoolmaster. ( The law.) Gal. 3:25
    7 – The law is NOT made for a righteous man. “WE,” His Body. 1 Tim 1:9
    8 – By the deeds of the law there shall NO flesh be justified. Rom 3:19
    9 – The law is NOT of faith. Gal 3:12
    10 – The law worketh wrath. Rom 4:15
    …. Now, when a “pastor/leader/theologin” attempts to put The Law on me. The Law works wrath *In Me.* – I get pissed, and exhibit – Anger – Wrath – Agitation… 😉

    A simple rule of thumb for me to know where I’m living…
    1 – Living under the Law – Or – 2 – Living under Grace.

    1 – When I Focus on **self** – I’m living under the law.
    What is Amos doing? – Good or evil? Hmmm? That pesky tree again. 😉

    2 – When I Focus on **Jesus** – I’m living under grace.
    What is Jesus doing?- Loving, Forgiving, Showing mercy – Tree of “Life?”

    His Blood “cleanses me” from “ALL” my sin. Jesus forgives me.
    His mercies are “NEW” every morning. Jesus remembers my sin no more.
    That means I don’t have to remember my sin either. It’s gone. 😉
    Thank you Jesus… 🙂

    And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
    them also I must bring, and they shall **hear MY voice;**
    and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
    John 10:16

    One Fold – One Shepherd – One Voice.

    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}


  58. And here is Marx’s dream in Marx’s own words. It doesn’t sound a great deal different than what Mr. Selbrede is advocating here,

    “The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties is only:

    (1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of entire proletariat, INDEPENDENTLY OF NATIONALITY.”

    Marx & Engels. Communist Manifesto (1848), p. 7


  59. -Mickey Henry,

    Thank you very much for your honest and straight forward reply. First let me say that while I do not agree with the Kinist position I do respect your willingness to comment on these matters in a forthright manner. Your answer outlined very clearly where Kinists and Rushdoony agree, and the very few areas where you appear to disagree. From both Rushdoony’s writings and your response here it is clear to me that you agree on much more than you disagree and that much of what is Kinism today was formed by Rushdoony’s writings. I also respect the fact that unlike Doug Philips and his ilk you do not attempt to hide what you believe but instead speak about these things plainly and without apology. I would much prefer dealing with that than the lies and subterfuge of Philips who I believe actually shared the majority of your views and attempted to hide it for financial reasons.

    You bring up many interesting points in your reply concerning Rushdoony’s teachings and some inconsistencies. I would actually agree with the Kinist positon on this, which I believe is not Kinist at all but more mainstream, over Rushdoony’s position:

    “The Western mind and culture, in all its advances, is a product of Biblical religion. It is a religious, not a racial, product.” Once again, we see a false dichotomy in this statement. The Western mind and culture is a product both of race and religion (and other factors). It is not necessary that there be one and only one influence to the exclusion of all others.”

    Culture is indeed a mixture of race, religion and other factors, it is not at all a product of solely biblical religion. Where I would differ from the Kinist position is that I feel all cultures are in fact equal. Are they prone to sin in different areas, absolutely yes! I agree with Kinists on that as well BUT no one culture is more sinful than another. I love the differences and celebrate them and even laugh about them among my friends and family that are made up of just about every race on the face of the earth but in the end it’s all equal. As a mixed race person who is intimately involved with and related to a number of different races, I can’t help but observe, and appreciate the differences you speak of.

    So I agree with this:

    “Predilections towards sin have an inherited aspect, just as our natural skills and talents are also commonly inherited from our parents. My father was good at mathematics, and so am I.”

    But I would say that though the sins may be different, and if we are honest with ourselves we will see that they are, I do not see how any one is more depraved than another and therefore I see no reason to segregate based on race. Also I agree with An Attorney when he/she said this:

    “A problem with Kinism is that there are few people today who are not the product of ancestral interbreeding at some point. Genetic studies show that most blacks in the U.S. have genetic markers showing Caucasian heritage. It is particularly true of blacks with an American slave heritage, due to masters impregnating slave women.”

    This makes the Kinist position difficult to enforce. I wonder how you would go about segregation. Would you go completely on looks because I have some in my family who appear completely white and are not. In fact both my brother and my aunt as well as my husband look almost totally white, most think my daughter is either Middle-Eastern or Hispanic. I am 46 year old and when I was young there were certain restaurants in certain areas of our country where it was difficult to get served if you were black. You may be forced to wait 45 minutes for a table when whites who came in after you waited 15. I remember my family sending in my fair skinned light eyed blond haired aunt to request a table for our family, with us waiting in the car, in an effort to avoid a long wait. How would the Kinist keep someone like my aunt from moving into a segregated neighborhood? Would DNA tests be required for all and if so what would happen when one of you Kinists were found to have some African DNA? At what point would you say you are no longer of us? Ten percent? Twenty?

    Finally how do you classify sin? Is pedophilia for example more sinful than drug abuse? How do you determine which race/culture is more depraved?

    So in my opinion this statement of yours is very true:

    “Race, Biblically defined, is simply common patrilineal descent (recognizing that mixed race peoples are a complication of this simple definition). A man’s identifiable racial characteristics are the sum total of all the attributes he inherits from his ancestors that he holds in common with his relatives, both near and distant. Race is just the family concept considered at a larger scale. It should not surprise us that races display certain natural talents in common, and also certain characteristic predilections towards sin in common. Every race is some unique expression of divine intention.”

    It is also a wonderful and beautiful gift of God and when it mixes and merges beautiful things are often the result.

    Again Mr. Henry thank you for the honest and straightforward reply.


  60. It is disconcerting to note that I was the first in this thread to cite Isaiah 19:18-25 (in its entirety), which was cited and exposited to me by R. J. Rushdoony in person (as I explained and further did a cursory exposition of the text for the sake of saving space) and now the text reappears here in the (asserted) service of opposing Rushdoony’s views. Chalcedon is certainly prepared to go into an in-depth discussion of this text (which serves as the basis for Paul’s discussion in Romans 11, especially verses 25-26). And THAT is precisely where the discussion needs to go: if we’re citing texts, then we need to grapple with them, in what Bahnsen called “hand-to-hand exegetical combat.” We can then evaluate to what extent a given exposition is founded in Scripture: not merely assume all aspects of an exposition are inherently true merely because they might be feeding our confirmation bias.

    I’ve also pointed out the problematic use of labels (“cultural Marxist,” and now we should add “Alienist” to the list of unhelpful, thought-regimenting labels). A dialogue of substance will veer away from them; perhaps this dialogue will do so. It is apparent that intelligent men, who’ve done research in specific areas, and who can be formidable in debate, are engaging here — so if we hold one another to the highest standards of debate without deteriorating into informal logical fallacies, we might make constructive progress. At least, the conditions for constructive progress will not have been falsified, raising hope for more.

    If one wanted to know Chalcedon’s views on the New World Order, one could have attended one of the conferences we put on across the country in 2013 where I was lecturing (and in which just last Saturday I lectured south of Houston, Texas). I give two Powerpoint-based lectures, “Liberty from the Sword,” and “Liberty from New World Orders.” In the latter, I speak for nearly an hour on the impossibility (on scriptural grounds) of trying to amalgamate any NWO, showing how it has invariably failed when attempted (discussing the phenomenon of Balkanization, etc.) and much more. I believe several of these lectures have been recorded (the last weekend lectures were even videotaped), so THAT is where you can get, from the horse’s mouth, our views on attempts to build any New World Orders/One World Governments.

    You will not find our views accurately represented by dubious inferences involving what D. A. Carson (in his “Exegetical Fallacies, pg. 43) called “verbal parallelomania.” Carson defines this “abuse” as “the listing of verbal parallels in some body of literature as if those bare phenomena demonstrate conceptual links or even dependency.” The strength of these citations arises because a false disjunction leads the reader to the desired conclusion. What Carson calls “an improper appeal to the law of the excluded middle” is apparent in this paraphrased premise: if you don’t adopt our view, you support Marxism. So, there are two lapses in logic here, which coalesce to put Chalcedon in bed with the Marxists and the NWO guys.

    Aside from the issue of logical fallacy, I would think that others reading these attempts to link divergent views with Marxism will simply generate enough cognitive dissonance as to provoke them to discount the validity of the asserted linkage. An alert reader might reason something like this: “It says here that if I don’t adopt their views I’m a Marxist, but I know I’m not a Marxist, so what is being foisted upon me here?” Yes, there is a time when you can point out the consequences of a perspective, but you must make them rigorously good rather than content yourself with surface impressions that later fail the sniff test. It’s not, then, the quantity of citations, its the hard-argued relevance of the citations taking all factors into account (lest we fall into unintended non sequiturs). Facile assurances are no substitute for the very hard work of raising Christian scholarship to the highest possible levels.

    That said, I am VERY much encouraged by the tone (if not always the substance) of the discussion. Respect for one another is a corollary of respect for the truth.


  61. Amos,

    Once more, good morning! And once more I gratefully acknowledge your ability to get to the very heart of a matter with, ahem, “nothing more” than simple references to Scripture.

    Beyond that, thank you very much for pointing us to Martin S’s apparent advocacy of the notion that the Sun revolves around the Earth. I am withholding final judgment, but am also very much looking forward to learning what MS has to say on the topic. He expresses some perplexity as to why the issue is significant. It is significant because his credibility as a serious thinker is on the line.


  62. Martin says “Respect for one another is a corollary of respect for the truth.” With a tip of the hat to lydiasellerofpurple, so far as I’m concerned, Martin’s irenic tone isn’t going to purchase much in terms of persuasiveness. A lie coated with honey is still a lie.

    And, for what it’s worth, it seems to me that Martin is attempting to indulge in the sly but illegitimate tactic of burden shifting. Basically, he’s saying we can’t criticize this or that statement of Rushdooney because we haven’t gone to the effort of (fill in the blank). Well, Martin has come here to establish Rushdoon’s credibility. The proponent of a position has the burden of proof, and the burden is on Martin to establish the rightness of his cause. He cannot do this by simply pointing out the alleged failings of Rushdoon’s critics, as though it must be assumed that Rushdoony is right until proven wrong.


  63. Hmmm?

    “Respect for one another is a corollary of respect for the truth.”

    Nah – NOT even close – And I do NOT respect that statement… 😉

    Psalm 40:4
    Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust,
    and **respecteth NOT** the “proud,” NOR such as turn aside **to lies.**

    Pro 24:23
    These things also belong to the wise.
    It is NOT good to have “respect of persons” in judgment.

    Pro 28:21
    To have “respect of persons” is NOT good:

    Rom 2:11
    For there is NO *respect of persons* with God.

    James 2:8-9
    If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture,
    **Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:**
    But if ye have **respect to persons,** ye commit sin,
    and are convinced of the law as transgressors.


  64. Gary W

    Seems – Chief Scientist – Martin
    Is NOT interested in revealing if this is accurate or NOT.


    Wow – You can NOT make this stuff up…

    Chalcedon was –and may well still be –a hotbed of “geocentricity.” RJ Rushdoony, Chalcedon’s very founder, seems to have been a “geocentrist” and the man Rushdoony tapped as his successor, Martin Selbrede, has emerged as a one of the leading theoreticians working doggedly to smack down the impudent Copernicus and restore the Earth to its rightful place at the center of the Universe and all creation.”

    “Selbrede, to his credit, isn’t trying to hide his views – nor is he trying to make a show of them either. Here’s what appears to be a comment of Selbrede’s, quite eloquent, posted on a Catholic geocentrist’s blog, on a recent book on Geocentrism, by Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett, entitled “Galileo Was Wrong”

    Then this site quotes Martin – Who signs a comment left someplace else as…

    Martin G. Selbrede
    Chief Scientist, UniPixel Displays, Inc.
    Vice President, The Chalcedon Foundation

    And – Martin – Chief Scientist – Was a main speaker at…
    “First Catholic Conference on Geocentrism”

    Mr. Martin Selbrede: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism



  65. Amos, I don’t understand the way in which you handled my statement. “Respect of persons” (partiality in judgment) is not the same thing as “preferring others above yourself” as Paul commends. From the context, it is clear I meant the latter, as in treating one another with respect. For the record, I believe I was the first person to condemn “respect of persons” in this thread (look it up and see). Moreover, the kind of respect I was referring to is what Christ Himself modeled for us, and which forms the kernel of the message of John’s first epistle.

    It is harmful to take a word (in this case, “respect”), choose a different dictionary meaning for it than the original statement intended, and then attribute that altered meaning to the original user. Nonetheless, we should all be reminded of how much God hates “respect of persons.”

    Remember, when the Lord Jesus spoke of the importunate widow, He described the evil magistrate as a person “who neither feared God nor respected man.” Trust me, the second part of that phrase, “nor respected man” (Luke 18:2 and 18:4) is NOT a compliment Jesus is paying him. It meant he was callous and uncaring about others, as the plight of the widow proves.


  66. OK, I’ve been bored for quite awhile on this thread; now I’m AMUSED!!
    What’s that expression, “People don’t make this s*#t up!”?


  67. Chief Scientist Martin

    You write…
    “I don’t understand the way in which you handled my statement.”

    “Respect for one another is a corollary of respect for the truth.”

    corollary – dictionary…
    forming a proposition that follows from “one already proved.”

    NOPE – Respect for one another
    Has nothing at all to do with – respect for the truth.

    And Respect for Jesus who is the “Truth.” And His Word is “Truth.”
    And Jesus is the only “ONE” already proved.

    Psalm 40:4
    Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust,
    and **respecteth NOT** the “proud,” NOR such as turn aside **to lies.**

    Seems, when I read “The Word of God”

    I’m NOT to Respect “the Proud.”
    I’m NOT to Respect those who turn aside “to Lies.”

    Two catagories I have placed you in.
    Long before ALL your condesending, holier than thou, remarks.

    Martin G. Selbrede
    Chief Scientist, UniPixel Displays, Inc.
    Vice President, The Chalcedon Foundation

    If you like – I’d be more then happy to go back thru your comments
    And list them for you. 😉

    And – If I’m wrong …
    And you are NOT exibiting the traits of “the Proud?”
    And you have NOT turned aside “to Lies?”

    Please – Forgive me…

    And – If I’m Correct…

    You are “the Proud” – and – Have turned aside “to Lies.”

    Please – Repent, Humble yourself, make yourself of NO reputation
    And take on the form of a “Servant.” Phil 2:7-8.

    And turn your life over to “The Truth…

    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}


  68. Gary W, you said:

    With a tip of the hat to lydiasellerofpurple, so far as I’m concerned, Martin’s irenic tone isn’t going to purchase much in terms of persuasiveness. A lie coated with honey is still a lie.

    And, for what it’s worth, it seems to me that Martin is attempting to indulge in the sly but illegitimate tactic of burden shifting.

    Given the items in my inbox this afternoon from people reading along in this thread, I don’t think that anything billed as “irenic” (when it is not) is getting by anyone unmarked.

    I think that you crystallized things quite well with these previous comments:

    It seems like the flavor of what I’ve been picking up from the entire conversation is that in Theonomy and Reconstructionism, the Bible is *sufficient,* but that RJ Rushdoony is *necessary.* And that, in the absence of Rushdoony now, Chalcedon Foundation is necessary to interpret the necessary Rushdoony-ness of real versus knock-off Reconstructionism.


    Scripture becomes the fourth person of the trinity, and Chalcedon as the final arbiter of “systematic exposition of the whole counsel of God” becomes the Holy Spirit; and the rest of us are to bow down in grateful servitude to the epistemological and revelatory Authority of our betters, failing which we are sinning against Knowledge.


  69. Patrice nailed this well as something as an iconic statement about a few items in Rushdoony’s ideology, though the statement pertained to a particular subtopic:

    Rushdoony starts from an incorrect assessment, and keeps tending towards his own excellence and primacy. Thus he ends in a completely different place than I can recommend as accurate.

    I so appreciate the very thoughtful input here from Patrice, Free at Last, and Ms. Henderson for articulating so well some of these obvious problems concerning race and culture – though the word “problems” hardly seems adequate. I can’t imagine how unpleasant some of this might be for you all, but I know well of the weeping I have done over the matter. Heroes, all.


  70. Cindy K,

    Thank you for the acknowledgment at 11:46 I had best note that credit for “the Bible is ‘sufficient,’ but . . . RJ Rushdoony is ‘necessary’ ” goes to brad/futuristguy November 27, 2013 @ 9:47 AM.

    As to Martin’s credibility with regard to his views on Rushdoony, or anything else, it will from my point of view be NECESSARY, though not SUFFICIENT, that he adequately respond to the charge that he thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, rather than the other way around.


  71. Mr. Selbrede’s position in trying to recreate RJR in the image of the United Nations assures that Chalcedon will soon go into eclipse. Such a reality is a shame given all the work that RJR did in order to oppose the NWO. See his two lecture series on the United Nations.


  72. Brad, futurist guy,

    My apologies for not properly and accurately attributing this salient quote from you a second time. Thanks to Gary for pointing that out. 🙂


  73. Enoch

    hmmm? You write…
    “all the work that RJR did in order to oppose the NWO.”

    Wasn’t – Rushdoony ala loony – in opposition to the UN’s – NWO.

    But – Trying to create his own – New World Order…. In the name of God of course…

    advocating a **theocratic government?**

    “Old Testament law should be applied to modern society
    and advocates the reinstatement of the Mosaic law’s penal sanctions. Under”

    With either RJR, or his cabol, determing the “True Biblical Way?” For ALL?

    Looooorrrrddd – Heeeellllppp.


  74. Hopefully, as a result of this “off topic” discussion, I’ve perhaps given a few more people a little more informed consent about what comes along with some sectors of homeschooling, Christian Reconstruction, Covenant Theology (CT), and all the rest. And things aren’t any clearer in the broader world of CT today. For example, a professor at Southern Seminary (ruled by Al Mohler) teaches that you can’t be a Calvinist and a libertarian, so Rushdoony is right out on that count. But then, there is that contingent of Presbyterians who claim that Reformed Baptists have things all wrong, too.

    Getting back to my take on the germane topic of the thread before I go my way from it:

    Here’s what I take away about it all.

    Chalcedon gave money in private to a truly excellent man who got into what proved to be a profoundly life altering conflict with a quite rabid wolf, the son of a very politically powerful individual within the Christian Right – a man whom Rushdoony lead to Christ. At the height of the wolf’s popularity, I wrote to Chalcedon (as a long time contributor), urging them to reconsider their staunch, public support and defense of this wolf (from other examples having nothing to do with the legal battle between the man of excellence and the wolf). I was marginalized, ridiculed, accused of breaking the Ninth Commandment, and further correspondence was swiftly denied me. Six years later, in the wake of the demise of this wolf (after the death of his powerful father), Chalcedon comes forward to tell the truth about their support of this man of excellence from the beginning of the conflict as if they never had a relationship with that wolf? Their statement of public support of the wolf was once featured on their website is now notably absent.

    Sometime in recent years, Chalcedon published an article about spiritual abuse, especially because one of their supporters informed the author that some 130 books on the topic (which included at least one secular book about sex addiction that had nothing to do with the topic) were antinomian and humanistic (read unbiblical and inadequate, clear to those who ascribe to Chalcedon’s system). I’m then told in this thread (after inquiring about it twice) that this isn’t exactly the case – that those other Christian writings about spiritual abuse are not necessarily inadequate.

    Crystal clear.

    We’re then admonished to take the moral high ground as we “try to wrap our arms around complex things,” avoiding impure sources (who based on perspective do not share the presuppositions necessary to find the pure meaning, so those perspectives are without merit). If not, “theology tends to turn into a contact sport due to the influence of social expectations” (and in so doing, we sell out the Word and Truth). It seems like we “new racists” who avoid critical thought by quoting song lyrics are just not up to the challenge.

    That is elitist, no matter how irenic. That is spiritually abusive, especially when you backpedal to explain it away after you’ve been called on that elitism or inconsistency. It can’t all be a lack of perspicacity here and there.

    And this is very different from an irenic debate concerning points of doctrinal conflict.

    Until the day when we are brought into the full depth of the knowledge of the Truth, when we do stand “shoulder to shoulder” in our understanding, by God’s grace, mercy and long suffering.


  75. If Carmen was bored before, wait until the very next post where (assuming this blog software can handle its length) I will include a Special Chalcedon Position Paper printed in the October 1994 Chalcedon Report on the topic of geocentricity.

    To correct a few probable misconceptions: several evangelical Christians were invited to speak at that Catholic conference. I was one of those who accepted the invitation. I am not Roman Catholic.

    Note also that the following article is 19 years old — the situation has changed rapidly and shifted even more favorably since then. A major motion picture (featuring major scientists on both sides of the divide concerning the validity of the Copernican Principle) recently concluded several years of principal photography and is undergoing editing and color correction. At the time I wrote the contents of the next post in 1994, the astronomer’s “Axis of Evil” hadn’t yet become a serious concern for modern astrophysics. That has materially changed, and is one of the eye-opening themes of that movie. Keep an eye out for it.

    My primary concern in posting this material is that the Greek symbols and subscripts appear properly. It is possible that a lower case omega followed by subscript letters “FOUCAULT” will simply print here as wFOUCAULT, and that superscripts won’t work (there are references to the Planck Density, symbolized by the Greek letter rho, which is 3.6 x 10 to the 93rd power grams per cubic centimeter — but I don’t know if it will print correctly here). So, I do have to disavow any mathematical expressions that can’t be reproduced correctly in this blog site.

    I apologize for the length, but even the following post only scratches the surface of this particular area of foundational physics. Stand by. I am posting it because there have been repeated requests for it. I think it’s off-topic, but folks here have made it part of the issue. I trust you’ll read it with care.


  76. In a surprising turn of events, Dr. Gary North hired Dr. Michael Martin Nieto, theoretical physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, to analyze alleged fatal flaws and defects in geocentric cosmology from the standpoint of an astrophysicist. Dr. North paid Dr. Nieto for the resulting essay, entitled “Testing Ideas on Geostationary Satellites,” which is incorporated as the bulk of the publication bearing the superscription, “Geocentrism: An Astrophysicist’s Comments.” Dr. Nieto interacted with virtually no relevant geocentric material, although it was not only available to Dr. North, but actually forwarded to him in 1992. Dr. North saw fit to return the most technically-oriented and complete videotaped lecture on geocentricity available at that time, without having ever watched it. The video provided up-to-date technical references in answer to Dr. North’s many challenges, but he refused to view it. He could have saved himself the money, and Dr. Nieto the trouble, had he not inflicted such blindness upon himself. The response to Dr. Nieto is contained in that video, and we need merely rehearse it here to refute Dr. Nieto’s and Dr. North’s papers. The fact that Dr. North held that very video in his hands and yet refused to view it, reflects a tragic breakdown of academic and intellectual integrity on his part. The great irony of Dr. Nieto’s essay is his complete reliance on Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. The irony obtains from the fact that general relativity stipulates that any observer can consider himself to be at rest – and that solving Einstein’s field equations for his position will properly and satisfactorily describe all phenomena observed from that vantage point. When Drs. North & Nieto assert that if the earth were at rest, geosynchronous satellites would necessarily fall down, they are asserting that general relativity is completely false. Since Dr. Nieto uses 2 of his 7 pages to air alleged experimental proof for general relativity, we observe that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand, and that Dr. Nieto thereby destroys his own arguments. In fact, Dr. Nieto appears to be completely unaware of the well- documented key doctrines of general relativity, both as presented by Einstein and Mach, and developed subsequently into our own decade. This failure of scholarship (surprising, since the essentials are taught in freshman-level courses in physics) has led Nieto into multiple errors. North and Nieto are searching for the mystical geocentric force that holds up geosynchronous satellites, preventing them from falling to the earth given the geocentric hypothesis that they are not orbiting objects. ”Where is this force?” they ask, for they have searched and found it not. So they appeal to their readers to search as well and see for themselves there is no such force, just as the Pharisees challenged, “Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet” (John 7:52). Had the Pharisees glanced at Isaiah 9, they could have spared themselves an embarrassing gaffe. Had Dr. Nieto reviewed Einstein first, he could have done likewise. The urge to hide the geocentric force acting on the geosynchronous satellite from his readership resulted in the following error by Nieto. Says he, “… one sees that there is no explicit mathematical theory as to why the satellite would stay up there if the universe were geocentric. The authors postulate that maybe there is a sphere of matter (no good, they realize, there is no force inside a sphere of matter), or then maybe there is a ring and maybe this could account for it. They speculate. But they do not show.” Actually, we did show, but Dr. North didn’t watch. Einstein taught that there is a force inside a sphere of matter that is in motion. He wrote plainly to Ernst Mach on June 25, 1913, “If one accelerates a heavy shell of matter S. then a mass enclosed by that shell experiences an accelerative force. If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around.” Geocentrists have never denied the Gaussian proposition that there is no net force inside a stationary shell of matter — but the distinguishing feature of geocentricity is the daily rotation of the universe around the earth. How did Nieto and North miss it? By using return mail. The magnitude of the force (usually discussed under the heading of ”dragging of inertial frames”) is cited in many references. Misner, Wheeler & Thorne, in their tome Gravitation, pp. 547, quantify the rotational drag by “simple dimensional considerations” and propose that ωFoucault must be identical with ωstars, or, namely, that the angular velocity of a Foucault pendulum equals the angular velocity (speed of rotation) of the stars (i.e., the rest of the universe) – ibid, pg. 548. These well-respected authors (Kip S. Thorne is Cal Tech’s black hole and general relativity expert; Wheeler & Misner taught at Princeton, Cal Tech and Oxford) approvingly cite the 1918 work of Thirring (pg.547) in connection with this force and its computation. This last circumstance is doubly ironic, since Dr. Nieto’s final footnote begins, “There is a gravimagneto effect related to the Earth’s rotation, which amusingly draws upon the work by Thirring cited by [Dr. John] Byl.” Dr. Nieto’s faulty understanding of basic relativity theory could have been remedied by checking the work by Thirring. Hans Thirring begins by citing Einstein’s 1914 paper. Einstein defines K as a Galilean-Newtonian coordinate system, and K1 as a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to K. Since this directly represents the earth (K1) and the universe (K) in Dr. Nieto’s antigeocentric cosmology, I will substitute these identifications for K and K1 in italics in Einstein’s text to make Einstein’s position clear to every reader: ”Let the earth be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to the universe. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest in the universe’s coordinate system, while no such forces would be present for objects at rest with respect to the earth. [The geosynchronous satellite is precisely such an object, at rest with respect to the earth, but viewed as having a centrifugal force acting on it with respect to the universe — MGS.] Already Newton viewed this as proof that the rotation of the earth had to be considered as ‘absolute,’ and that the earth could not then be treated as the ‘resting’ frame of the universe. Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of the earth; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of the earth, where the earth is treated as being at rest.” In quite precise language, Einstein taught that the centrifugal force on an object in the earth’s rest frame (the condition satisfied by the hovering geosynchronous satellite) is inadmissible as evidence of the rotation of the earth, for in the earth’s frame that force arises from “the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses.” This 1914 teaching of Einstein is rather old news — and it remains inconceivable that Nieto would cite it, “amusingly enough,” without reading it. Or is there a tragic pattern here? Thirring observed in his opening paragraphs that the complete equivalence between the reference frames, explaining such phenomena as the geosynchronous satellite or Foucault pendulum equally well in a geocentric reference frame, is secured by definition by Einstein’s 1915 work: “the required equivalence appears to be guaranteed by the general co-variance of the field equations.” This is what geocentrists mean when they assert (much to Dr. North’s disdain) that the mathematics is the same for the heliocentric and geocentric models: Einstein’s field equations are structured to supply the necessary upward force on the geosynchronous satellite in a geocentric as well as a heliocentric framework. In fact, the only reason Thirring wrote his paper was because the boundary conditions of Einstein’s paper were geared for a finite universe, so that Thirring set forth, in his own words, “the mathematical development of a rotational field of distant masses for a specific, concrete example.” After ten pages of tensor analysis, Thirring summarizes: “By means of a concrete example it has been shown that in an Einsteinian gravitational field, caused by distant rotating masses, forces appear which are analogous to the centrifugal and Coriolis forces.” Hard again to imagine Dr. Nieto’s amusement in citing in his favor a source, even second-hand, that negates his position. Harder yet to imagine Dr. Nieto rejecting Thirring’s argument, since it simply (and ably) develops Einstein’s own stated position. Einstein’s position has not lacked for continued, and contemporary, treatment by the world’s top relativity scholars. Another key (and, in fact, decisive) reference cited in the video North refused to view was taken from the journal, General Relativity and Gravitation, Volume 21, No. 2, 1989, pgs. 105-124. Professors Ø. Grøn and E. Eriksen, in the article Translational Inertial Dragging, take up, again, the issue of what forces arise within a spherical shell of matter. (Recall that Dr. Nieto wrote, “there is no force inside a sphere of matter.”) Grøn & Eriksen inform us that “The rotational inertial dragging effect, which was discovered by Lense and Thirring, was later investigated by Cohen and Brill and by Orwig. It was found that in the limit of a spherical shell with a radius equal to its Schwarzchild radius, the interior inertial frames are dragged around rigidly with the same angular velocity as that of the shell. In this case of “perfect dragging” the motion of the inertial frames is completely determined by the shell.” (pg. 109-110). Intriguingly, the authors point out that “with reference to Newtonian mechanics we talk of inertial force fields in accelerated reference frames. However, according to the general principle of relativity, we may consider the laboratory as at rest. We then talk of gravitational dragging (acceleration) fields. The concept of “inertial forces,” which may be regarded as a sort of trick in Newtonian mechanics, is thereby made superfluous.” What is fascinating here is the recognition that the Newtonian centrifugal force due to inertia (of which Dr. North is so fond) is a fictitious force, and is “a sort of trick.” One would have expected the geocentric model of the geosynchronous satellite to be the one filled with tricks and fictional forces, but such is not the case. (The authors intend no derogation of fictitious tricks in the Newtonian case, while buttressing the claim that geocentricity posits actual rather than fictitious forces to account for the behavior of objects such as geosynchronous satellites.) This is explicitly stated on page 113, where G&E cite C. Møller “in his standard [1952] textbook on general relativity,” from chapter 8: “Einstein advocated a new interpretation of the fictitious forces in accelerated systems of reference. The “fictitious” forces were treated as real forces on the same footing as any other force of nature. The reason for the occurrence in accelerated systems of reference of such peculiar forces should, according to this new idea, be sought in the circumstance that the distant masses of the fixed stars are accelerated relative to these systems of reference. The “fictitious forces” are thus treated as a kind of gravitational force, the acceleration of the distant masses causing a “field of gravitation” in the system of reference considered. Only when we work in special systems of reference, viz. systems of inertia, it is not necessary to include the distant masses in our considerations, and this is the only point which distinguishes the systems of inertia from other systems of reference. It can, however, be assumed that all systems of reference are equivalent with respect to the formulation of the fundamental laws of physics. This is the so-called general principle of relativity.” This quote is important on two counts. (I) The italicized sentence (emphasis apparently in Møller’s original textbook) is precisely what Dr. Nieto denies in his argumentation, namely, the general principle of relativity. But on what does Dr. Nieto base his arguments against geocentricity? General relativity! But count (2) is equally telling: Møller tells us that the only reference frame in which we can exclude consideration of the distant masses of the galaxies is in “systems of inertia,” which G&E more carefully define as “frames of reference in which the cosmic mass has no observed rotation or translation acceleration.” By this definition, the earth does not fulfill the requirement for being a system of inertia, since the heavens are observed to rotate around it. Therefore, Møller alerts us that we may NOT omit the rest of the universe in deriving the forces acting locally on the earth. Geocentrists assert as much, consistent relativists (e.g., Fred Hoyle) assert as much, but inconsistent or forgetful relativists (e.g. Nieto) fail to do their homework before taking up the issue. Grøn & Eriksen develop the consequences of Einstein’s position to the hilt on pages 117-118 with an ironclad example: “As an illustration of the role of inertial dragging for the validity of the strong principle of relativity, we consider the Moon orbiting the Earth. As seen by an observer on the Moon both the Moon and the Earth are at rest. If the observer solves Einstein’s field equations for the vacuum space-time outside the Earth, he might come up with the Schwarzchild solution and conclude that the Moon should fall toward the Earth, which it does not. So it seems impossible to consider the Moon as at rest, which would imply that the strong principle of relativity is not valid. “This problem has the following solution. As observed from the Moon the cosmic mass rotates. The rotating cosmic mass has to be included when the Moon observer solves Einstein’s field equations. Doing this he finds that the rotating cosmic mass induces the rotational nontidal gravitational field which is interpreted as the centrifugal field in Newtonian theory. This field explains to him why the Moon does not fall toward the Earth.” This is the decisive answer to Dr. North and Dr. Nieto. The Moon always shows the same face to the Earth, so that from the point of view of the Moon, the Earth is hovering 240,000 miles above it. In this picture, the Earth is to the Moon, what a geosynchronous satellite is to our Earth. The hypothetical Dr. North on the Moon solves his equations and wonders, “What holds the Earth up? Why doesn’t it fall down here?” And Grøn and Eriksen have provided the answer, in complete consistency with the work of Einstein (1913, 1914, 1950), Thirring (1918, 1921), Møller (1952), Misner, Wheeler, Thorne (1973), Brill and Cohen (1966, 1968) and Orwig (1978). Which is only natural, since it is unthinkable that Einstein’s disciples would break with him on the central tenet of his general theory. Whereas Dr. Nieto seems to recognize the element of curved spacetime in general relativity, he has failed to grasp the general principle of relativity itself, from which the subsequent geometric model flowed. In fact, he has (inadvertently, I would hope) lashed out at it. In passing, note that the plane of rotation of the cosmic mass in G&E’s example is equatorial for the Moon — general relativity provides for explaining such geosynchronous phenomena only for equatorial satellites. Dr. North wrongly assumes that in the geocentric model one can place geostationary satellites over North Dakota, whereas the geocentric literature has repeatedly taught that the field equations arising from cosmic rotation permit stable geostationary satellites only over the equator, and at the same prescribed height as that indicated by the Newtonian methods Dr. North favors. This has been asserted in books, in journals, on audiotapes, and videotapes. You’d have to try real hard to miss it. While on the subject of Einstein and Thirring, let us examine Dr. Nieto’s final footnote: “There is a gravimagneto effect related to the Earth’s rotation, which amusingly draws upon the work by Thirring cited by Byl. Attempts will be made to measure this effect with a gyroscope orbiting about a rotating earth (Schiff gyroscope experiment) and by two satellites (LAGEOS I and III) orbiting about a rotating Earth in complementary orbits. This is a prediction, whose test will hopefully come about this decade.” Reading this somewhat flippant note, the certainty of the Earth’s rotation is flatly assumed as proven, and about to undergo additional, if superfluous, proof. It is made to appear that Dr. John Byl erred by quoting from a source that is being used to develop an experimental proof of the earth’s rotation! But all is not as it seems in footnote 13. The fundamental reference to experiments like this is found, again, in Misner, Wheeler & Thorne’s Gravitation, pages 1117-1121, where the experiment alluding to Nieto’s complementary satellite orbits (one polar, the other equatorial) is set forth in detail. MW&T tell us that “the Earth’s rotation ‘drags’ the local inertial frames along with it. Notice that near the north and south poles the local inertial frames rotate in the same direction as the Earth does (Ω parallel to J), but near the equator they rotate in the opposite direction (Ω antiparallel to J; compare Ω with the magnetic field of the Earth!)” (page 1119). By sending satellites in orbits 90 degrees apart, scientists can maximize the effect they are trying to measure, which is very microscopic indeed (0.1 seconds of arc per year). But Nieto’s use of this argument falls to the ground, since the physics being described here are those local to the gyroscope. Whether or not the earth is motionless, the experiment yields the same result. In fact, the very wording of the authors’ argument deflates Dr. Nieto’s point, since they specify that the motion is relative between the Earth and the distant galaxies. The force that the satellite experiment will be measuring is precisely the kind of force (inertial frame dragging) that general relativity scientists affirm holds up geosynchronous satellites when the earth is taken to be at rest. So, the amusing part of Dr. Nieto’s footnote 13 is how badly it appears to have backfired. If it be objected that a 1973 book, definitive tome though it be, is somewhat dated in dealing with the 13th footnote, the literature is still rich in more recent references. In General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1988, Cerdonio, Prodi and Vitale published an article entitled Dragging of Inertial Frames by the Rotating Earth: Proposal and Feasibility for a Ground-Based Detection, pgs. 83-87. The kind of hardware that Dr. Nieto has in mind is there described in depth, where ”the effect of rotation results in a net magnetization of the [instrument’s ferromagnetic] rod” (pg. 85). The resulting magnetic flux is measured by a device known as a SQUID. Yet, throughout the article, general relativity is assumed, and relative motion is affirmed. The very effect itself is described thus: “The Lense-Thirring field due to the rotating Earth is locally equivalent to a rotation in respect to distant stars….” Another expression is “the time average of the Earth’s rotation with respect to distant stars.” The choice of coordinate system is arbitrary, and the field mathematics follows after the preference of the physicist. Consult, by way of comparison, the citations of Thirring discussed earlier, on which this paper is dependent. In short, we have here Thirring cited against Thirring, Einstein cited against Einstein, and general relativity cited against general relativity. Dr. Nieto deliberately and directly undermines his own physics, and his arguments are manifestly self-contradictory. Consistent relativists have never been hostile to geocentricity. Dr. Fred Hoyle pointed out that had the trial of Galileo been held after Einstein published his general theory, it would have resulted in an even draw by mathematical and physical necessity. This is the legacy of general relativity: the overthrow of absolute reference frames, and the democratization of all coordinate systems. Let it be clearly understood that the presentation of general relativity’s teaching on the geocentric model presented herein is central, not peripheral or obscure, in Einstein’s theory. It was plainly presented to this author when he learned the fundamentals of general relativity and geometrodynamics at the California Institute of Technology at the age of 16 (as a research fellow for the 1973 California Junior Science & Humanities Symposium, under the supervision of Dr. Kip S. Thorne and his associates — and often studying, in fact, from the galley proofs of Gravitation as it was being completed for publication). We can therefore safely rule out the idea that Dr. Nieto’s training somehow glossed over this key proposition, in light of the fact that it is basic to Einstein’s theory, and that Dr. Nieto freely cites references from general relativity’s body of extant literature. He even indicates that he is actively seeking to improve upon Enstein, which would, presumably, imply some mastery and understanding of the theory one is attempting to supplant. Therefore, Dr. Nieto’s multiple citations from the world of general relativity constitute academic suicide so far as this particular debate is concerned. A geocentrist could have easily quoted the selfsame references as Dr. Nieto did, but in so doing remained consistent with Einstein. (There are, in fact, a number of geocentrists who base their scientific understanding of the geocentric model directly upon general relativity, at least one of which has conveyed this clearly and concisely to Dr. North.) To summarize: it is impossible to launch an attack on geocentricity on the basis of general relativity, by definition. Proof of a moving earth is simultaneously proof that general relativity is a myth. This means that Dr. Nieto’s analysis is shot through with factual errors in regard to the primary force of his presentation. Some of his errors are relatively innocuous, e.g., his description of Kepler’s theory as involving concentric spheres “within which were inscribed regular polygons.” (Kepler used Platonic solids and not flat polygons.) Unfortunately, most of the errors (factual, logical, and scientific) are simply fatal. Dr. Nieto, however, has also evidenced poor research in setting forth geocentricity’s distinctives. He asserts at least six times that geocentricity has failed to predict certain phenomena that modern science has correctly predicted. These alleged failures earn geocentricity a demotion to the status of an antirational dogma. Through ignorance of geocentric physics, Dr. Nieto imposes a Procrustean bed on those he criticizes — tantamount to stuffing words into the mouths of geocentrists. The predictive power of geocentricity, and its more comprehensive analytic range, will be addressed below. First, however, consider Dr. North’s accusation that modern geocentricity has failed to produce fruitful results. Citing the parable of the fig tree, wherein “Jesus allowed it only four years of fruitlessness before cutting it down,” North finds geocentricity long overdue for immediate termination. His arbitrary time-frame reveals a shallow view of modern physics. Galileo himself learned that merely setting forth a more elegant and attractive geometry for orbital kinematics was inadequate to prove his heliocentric model: he had to provide a complete, new theory of dynamics to support it. This work, undertaken by one of the great intellects of the period, was decades in the making. The formalism later received its capstone in the work of Newton. This development spanned more than a century of time. Dr. North’s “fig tree” view finds its analogue in the vitriolic attacks launched against Galileo by his enemies, whose motivations were political and personal. The new dynamics of Einstein were born in the work of mathematician Georg Riemann, whose work on space curvature appeared so far removed from any known practical application that it appeared completely useless. Yet, gravitation is now described using his tensor notation, which Einstein incorporated into the heart of his general theory. With Einstein came a new dynamical theory, geometrodynamics, with spacetime geodesics replacing outdated Newtonian trajectories. This revolution took the better part of a century, from the laying of the mathematical foundations in the mid-19th century to the completion of this towering edifice of 20th century physics. The case is no different with geocentric science: it, too, must develop a brand new dynamical theory to support its description of the behavior of the heavens. Unlike the peaceful development of Einstein’s theory, the geocentric model’s slow codification is being undertaken under tempestuous circumstances, in the face of ridicule, contempt, and self- indulgent scorn, yet propelled forward by laborers operating near their personal limits of physical stamina. Yet the work goes forward, and should be allowed the time that was accorded the preceding revolutions to bear their fruit. A preliminary overview of progress to date, giving a glimpse of the dynamical theory being presently developed by modern geocentric scientists, is herein set forth. Where the discussion touches on Dr. Nieto’s concerns and challenges, the connection will be pointed out. (Keep in mind that not all geocentrists will agree with every detail of the following summary — it only purports to be representative of the dominant strains of thought among top geocentric scholars.) GRAVITY AND RELATED MATTERS One would think that the only viable theories of gravitation worth considering were Newton’s and Einstein’s, given the substance of Dr. North’s and Dr. Nieto’s critiques. This gross oversimplification merely misleads the unwary reader, historically and scientifically. Newtonian gravity received competition from the LeSagean theory of gravity, and the LeSage hypothesis even received the theoretical attention of Lord Kelvin (”On the Ultramundane Corpuscules of LeSage,” Royal Society of Edinburgh Proceedings, pgs. 577-589, 1871). The LeSage theory is a physical theory of gravitation, meaning there is an actual, understandable physical reason why gravitation exists and can be felt (unlike abstract notions such as action-at-a-distance and curved spacetime). The theory has undergone important revisions in the hands of geocentrists over the last decade, but the fundamental idea is retained. George-Louis LeSage developed “his” theory in the late 1770’s (the work was almost certainly plagiarized). He postulated that the universe is filled with countless infinitesimal particles, which he termed ultramundane corpuscles. These corpuscles are in extremely rapid motion, analogous to molecules in a gas, and are colliding continually with material objects from all directions, so that a net pressure is applied to all objects within this kinetic “ocean” of ultramundane corpuscles. In the case of a spherical mass in the middle of this corpuscular flux, the net force on the mass is zero, since the pressure is applied to it equally from all directions. However, in the case of two spherical objects near each other within this flux, the one sphere will block some of the corpuscles from colliding with the other, and vice versa. The objects shield one another from a portion of this flux, as determined by their mass and separation, such that there are more corpuscles pushing them together along the line joining their centers than there are keeping them apart. The closer they are, the greater the corpuscular pressure becomes. LeSage calculated the well-known inverse-square law from this shielding effect. In his theory, gravity is not a pull — it is an external push. According to this view, a man’s weight reflects the difference between how many corpuscles are hitting him from above, compared to how many are hitting him from below — and is a function of the earth’s mass attenuating the upward-directed flux. (In fact, the mathematics of LeSagean mechanics is the mathematics of attenuation.) It is easy to see why the LeSagean theory is termed a physical theory of gravitation: its fundamental principle is simple enough for a child to grasp, without metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. Advocacy for the theory declined after Lord Kelvin observed that the collisions between the hypothetical particles and normal matter would, over long periods of time, involve a heat transfer sufficient to melt planetary objects. (Subsequent physics showed how such particle collisions can be “elastic” and thus avoid any degradation of flux energy to heat — but by then, LeSage had been forgotten in the stampede to canonize Einstein.) LeSagean gravitational theory is an important component in the dynamical thinking of most geocentrists, excepting those who prefer basing their position on general relativity. The theory has predictive power, for the equations of attenuation make it clear that the shape and orientation of an object determine the magnitude of force on it. In the LeSagean theory, a barbell held horizontally is heavier than one held vertically, and a feather will drop faster in a vacuum than a small ball of lead-predictions that directly oppose the dynamics of Newton, Galileo, and Einstein. Until the last decade, the predictions of LeSage would have been laughed off the stage, until instruments sensitive enough to detect such anomalies were pressed into service. When these anomalies were discovered, modern science rushed in to herald the discovery of some fifth fundamental force, termed (erroneously) supergravity by some excited researchers. But they had been beaten to the theoretical punch by more than two centuries by the gravitational theory championed by the geocentrists. The peculiar behavior of pendulums just before and after an eclipse, and within deep mine shafts, has likewise been troubling to the standard gravitational theories, Einstein’s included. Saxl and Allen’s pendulum measurements during the solar eclipse March 7, 1970 were startling, and subsequent measurements by Kuusela (Finland: July 22, 1990 and Mexico: July 11, 1991) still reflected anomalous, though less severe, deviations. (Cf. Physical Review D3, 823 and General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 24, No. 5, 1992, pg. 543-550). Mineshaft measurements of the gravitational constant evaded conventional analysis (Cf. Holding & Tuck, “A New Mine Determination of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant,” Nature, Vol. 307, Feb. 1984, pgs. 714-716). These anomalies were predicted by the LeSagean theory, not by Newton, not by Einstein. An ultrasensitive Cavendish torsion balance was pressed into service in the mid-1970’s to determine experimentally how sound the inverse- square law of gravitation was (Long, “Experimental Examination of the Gravitational Inverse Square Law,” Nature, April, 1976, Vol. 260, pgs. 417-418). The apparatus revealed systematic discrepancies of 0.37%. Considering how relativity, theory makes much ado of infinitesimal anomalies it “predicts,” this reported glitch is enormous — and is predicted by the LeSagean model promoted by modern geocentrists. Here are several key experimental effects predicted and/or adequately explained only by geocentrists pursuing their theory of dynamics: one could legitimately turn the tables on Dr. Nieto and ask, “Where was modern physics? Its theories predicted something other than what was measured!” Modern physics tends to respond with a yawn to such challenges, and Dr. Nieto’s view that the theories that fit the data best are the ones worthy of acceptance is, in fact, naive. When comparisons between theories are made, the faithful will prove loyal to their theories, not the data. When confronted with evidence demonstrating the superiority of one theory over others (e.g., “A Comparison of Results of Various Theories for Four Fundamental Constants of Physics,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 15, No. 4 (1976), pp. 265-270), the world of science merely shrugged, unmoved in its pre-existing biases. (In the example cited, the best theory, being anti-Einsteinian, gained no adherents for having met the experimental criteria better than did its cousins.) (This author, in phone conversation with a chief research scientist at the Laurence Livermore Labs in 1992, pointed out that the electron diffraction effect had been again recently derived using classical physics. Quantum mechanics was developed in part because classical physics could not account for this effect, but now that this was no longer true, the scientist dismissed the news with an annoyed “So what?” His precommitment to modern QCD theory colored his scientific worldview completely.) The LeSage theory was developed mathematically, in painstakingly rigorous detail, and then underwent an important conceptual evolution in the mid-1980’s. What if the ultramundane corpuscles were compressed to a greater density, so that more of them filled a smaller volume? In fact, what if they were squeezed shoulder to shoulder, so tightly packed that they could only jostle one another, but were no longer free to rocket through space like gas molecules do? Do the same rules of shadowing and attenuation apply now that the so-called LeSagean gas has become an ultradense mass? Would the pressure effects transmit in the same way as the original theory stipulated? Indeed, the same principles hold, except that acoustic pressure waves transmit the background gravitational pressure through this ultradense matrix. This ultradense medium of geocentric physics is identified as the Biblical firmament. It has a density so great that a teaspoon of the firmament would weigh more than a trillion universes combined. (The computed density is termed the Planck density, 1094 g/cm3.) Such assertions seem to earn Dr. Nieto’s label of being merely “ad hoc.” But a little research (in contrast to cavalier dismissal) would reveal that the constituent elements of this geocentric postulate can be found in the most highly respected scientific journals and publications. In fact, the literature has been of inestimable help in obliterating objections to the geocentric notion of a physical, ultradense firmament. In The Very Early Universe (Gibbons, Hawking & Siklos, © 1983 Cambridge University Press), M.A. Markov defines a “particle” termed a ”maximon,” possessing the 1094 g/cm3 density defined above, or more precisely, 3.6×1093 g/cm3 (pgs. 359, 361). He writes, “If a black hole has internal Planck dimensions and an external mass equal to the Planck mass, the matter density in it is quantum (πq). If it is not decaying, such a black hole represents some degenerate case: it can neither collapse, nor anticollapse if one assumes that the mass density cannot exceed πq. In other words, the requirement of a limiting density is very strong and leads to nontrivial consequences” (pgs. 366-367). Markov then explores the implications of a “liquid” made up of such maximons, and points out that from “a topological point of view the maximon liquid is a model of a quasi-isotropical space” (ibid). This citation is important, for geocentrists are often criticized for their description of “empty” space as a medium millions of times denser than lead, leading to the common objection that physical objects could never possibly move through so dense a medium. But the physics affirms the fact that such a medium can function as a space, through which other objects can freely pass. (A maximon is not necessarily a black hole, according to Markov, but ”may be a particle of the same Planck dimensions, but with a structure essentially different from a black hole. Their gravitational radius coincides with their Compton length,” ibid, pg. 365. This is pointed out here to cut short any critique that the firmament model clearly leans on general relativity by relying on the existence of microscopic black holes.) Note Markov’s use of the word, “nontrivial.” This word is the most appropriate term one could apply to the firmament of the geocentrists — any object as stupendously massive as the firmament is asserted to be is to be taken very seriously, since it dwarfs the rest of the universe in comparison. It is ironic that geocentrists are routinely called upon to abandon this “quirky, inconsequential” notion, whereas secular science has continued to probe the idea theoretically and experimentally, while unaware of its ultimate implications. In short, “empty” space is not a vacuum; it is not a “nothing,” it is a ”something.” Correspondingly, it has properties and attributes that ”nothingness” cannot possess. Dr. Robert J. Moon, Professor Emeritus in Physics at the University of Chicago, published an article in 21st Century , May-June, 1988, pg. 26ff, entitled “Space Must Be Quantized,” addressing precisely this issue. He points out that “according to accepted theory, free space is a vacuum. If this is so, how can it exhibit impedance? But it does. The answer, of course, is that there is no such thing as a vacuum, and what we call free space has a structure. … [This impedance] equals 376+ ohms.” This reactive, energy-storing impedance is a natural corollary of geocentric theory and its ultradense firmament; it has not been accounted for by conventional science, and is not contained within either Newton’s dynamics or Einstein’s gravitational field equations. Where was conventional science in accounting for this effect? The ultradense firmament of the geocentrists pops up in the literature in various guises, as theorists attempt to account for the experimental data flooding into the various centers of higher learning. Princeton’s John A. Wheeler is credited with being the first to describe what is now called “spacetime foam,” the notion that on ultramicroscopic scales empty space is filled with countless ultradense particles popping into existence and then becoming instantly extinct (1957). In 1968 he observed that “the central new concept is space resonating between one foamlike structure and another.” Noted astronomer Stephen Hawking developed the implications of this “foam,” which is distinctive in that on extremely small scales empty space is jam-packed with violently random activity and enormous mass (”virtual” mass in the modern terminology). (Cf. MW&T, Gravitation , pgs. 10, 11, 1180.) The physics at this scale, and the mathematics used to describe it, are daunting even to the cognoscenti. The geocentric firmament differs from the conventional understanding in affirming that the underlying particles are permanent and stable, whereas modern physics prefers to regard them as undergoing continuous and extremely rapid creation and annihilation, like an unstable foam. Both theories put the density of the particles at the Planck density. In Physical Review D. Third Series, Volume 47, Number 6, March 15, 1993, pg. R2166ff, Redmount and Suen explore the question, “Is Quantum Spacetime Foam Unstable?” Utilizing fluctuating black holes and wormholes as constituents of the structure of space is a serious liability, the physicists conclude, because the inherent instability of these structures makes them unsuitable candidates as components of the underlying structure of space. There must be, in fact, “strong constraints on the nature” of the structure of space at scales down to the so-called Planck length (about 10-33 cm), the size of a maximon. This recent research points away from the Wheeler & Hawking models and toward the firmament of the geocentrists, which does not suffer from the stability problem associated with the hypothetical objects (wormholes, blackholes) populating the general relativity menagerie. In the geocentric hypothesis, the firmament particles, although unable to “break ranks” because their neighbors are too close, are yet in rapid motion, colliding rapidly and continuously with their neighbors. (The fact that they possess rotational spin, something first proposed by Maxwell, will be taken up a little later in connection with electromagnetic theory.) Their behavior has a somewhat stochastic, or random, nature — as clearly taught as far back as LeSage in 1778. Their behavior is classical, but being as small as they are, they influence and induce other larger particles to behave in ways heretofore thought explicable only on quantum mechanical grounds. And, in point of fact, the tenets of the geocentrists’ firmament theory have emerged in connection with quantum mechanics, going as far back as Louis De Broglie’s work in the 1920’s. An excellent discussion of this matter is set forth in J. P. Vigier’s article, “De Broglie Waves on Dirac Aether: A Testable Experimental Assumption,” Lettere Al Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 29, No. 14, Dec. 6, 1980, pg. 467f. Vigier wrote, “Since Dirac’s pioneer work it has been known that Einstein’s relativity theory (and Michelson’s experiment) are perfectly compatible with an underlying relativistic stochastic «aether» model. Inherent to this model is Einstein’s idea that quantum statistics reflects a real subquantal physical vacuum alive with fluctuations and randomness. This concept of a nonempty vacuum has been recently revived not only to yield a foundation to the stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics but also to explain causally possible nonlocal super luminal interactions resulting from the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Indeed, if a forthcoming experiment of Aspect confirms their existence, the only way out of the resulting contradiction between relativity and the quantum theory of measurement seems to lie in the direction of an extension of the causal stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics. This assumes the existence of causal subquantal random fluctuations induced by a stochastic «hidden» thermostat proposed by BOHR, VIGIER and DE BROGLIE. (pg.467) Although to the layman the last citation might appear impenetrably dense, the main points can be made clear. There are two schools of thought in the world of quantum mechanics, termed the Copenhagen Interpretation, and the Stochastic Interpretation (sometimes called the Causal Interpretation). The Copenhagen Interpretation is rather counterintuitive and mystical sounding to the layman. One example will suffice: flip a coin and cover it up immediately before looking at it. Is it heads or tails? The Copenhagen Interpretation asserts that the coin is simultaneously heads AND tails while it is covered, but can be forced to fall back into either heads or tails once you take your hand off it and observe it. It then suddenly flips to a unique state by the mere act of observation. The Stochastic Interpretation, unsatisfied with this somewhat bizarre worldview, asserts that the various unusual quantum effects measured on subatomic scales have an actual physical cause (hence, Causal Interpretation). If there is difficulty in simultaneously measuring the momentum and position of a subatomic particle (the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), it may be due to actual background noise: this is the point of view of the Stochastic Interpretation. This source of noise is the ”nonempty vacuum” Vigier refers to, a level of physical reality discernible on ultrasmall scales, and freighted with significance. Vigier’s prologue used the word “superluminal,” meaning any entities or interactions that travel faster than the speed of light. He pointed out that if Aspect’s then-upcoming experiment measured any superluminal interactions, the contradiction between general relativity and the stochastic theory would have to be decided in favor of the stochastic theory. Translation: if Aspect’s experimental result is positive, the consequences would be hostile to general relativity and favorable to the firmament model, the one stochastic model that satisfies the stability constraints stipulated by Redmount and Suen in March,1993. Vigier reminds us “that Dirac «aether» rests on the idea that through any point O there passes a flow of stochastic particles and antiparticles” (pg. 468), reminiscent of the original LeSage theory. He then introduces spin to the stochastic particles making up what he calls a background sea of activity. He even prefers (pg. 470) that his stochastic particle undergo only short range motions: “contact particle-particle collision type interactions.” This is the same restraint geocentrists place on their ultradense firmament model. Vigier, working with Petroni, published an important article a year earlier than the last reference, in Lettere Al Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 26, No. 5, Sept. 29, 1979, pg. 149, entitled “Causal Superluminal Interpretation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox,” wherein he demonstrates that his stochastic model does not encounter the same pitfalls that the competing tachyon theory of Sudarshan, Feinberg, & Recami encounters in explaining faster-than-light interactions and objects. Says he, “We show in particular that superluminal, phaselike, phononlike, collective motions of the quantum potential in Dirac’s «aether» do not induce the well-known causal paradoxes of tachyon theory.” At the conclusion of his exposition he points out, “It is interesting to note that this elimination of causal paradoxes is only possible in a subquantum model built on a Dirac’s vacuum and cannot be applied to theories where superluminal signals are carried by tachyonic particles.” He proposes allowing “superluminal signals to be «acoustical» waves with associated quantum potential…” in harmony with the better attested geocentric firmament model. (Geocentric astronomer Dr. Gerardus Bouw has performed some of the seminal computational work in this area of firmament dynamics in the early 1980’s.) The experiment by Aspect that J. P. Vigier was anticipating was performed, and the results published in Physical Review Letters, Vol. 47, No. 7, August 17, 1981, pgs. 460-463. Aspect, with partners Grangier and Roger, introduces his results with a little history: “Since the development of quantum mechanics, there have been repeated suggestions that its statistical features possibly might be described by an underlying deterministic substructure.” The apparatus, which performed polarization correlation on photon pairs, involves hitting an atomic beam of calcium with a krypton ion laser and a second Rhodamine laser. The results confirm the existence of superluminal (faster-than-light) interactions, and served to further buttress the stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics, which, as has been pointed out, has been evolving closer and closer to the geocentrist’s firmament hypothesis. (The experiment was conducted again with greater precision, agreeing with the first experiment, and the new results published in Physical Review Letters Vol. 49, No. 2, July 12, 1982, again pointing to the geocentrist’s firmament model by proving the existence of the quantum potential.) The issue of superluminal phenomena is significant in light of the common theoretical challenge to geocentric cosmologies that they require every object past Saturn to travel faster than the speed of light in order to complete a daily revolution around the earth. Just as most of the preceding technical citations were provided and explained in the famous videotape that fell on closed eyes, so too are the following references. In the February 1992 issue of the American Journal of Physics, W. M. Stuckey published an analysis titled, “Can galaxies exist within our particle horizon with Hubble recessional velocities greater than c?” (pgs. 142-146). Stuckey proposes to measure the speed at which galaxies are traveling away from us, utilizing their red shift. His test object, a quasar with a red shift of 4.73, is computed to be receding from us at 2.8 times the speed of light. So why is it a problem when geocentrists propose faster-than-light velocities for celestial bodies, and not a problem when mainstream scientists take such measurements in stride? Stuckey explains that the quasar is fleeing from us so rapidly (at what would at first glance appear to be a completely impossible velocity) due to a property of the space between here and there. The vacuum between us and the quasar is stretching and expanding, and thus carries the quasar away from us faster than the speed of light. When modern scientists inform us that objects can travel faster than light due to the expansion of space, we marvel at their wisdom and learning. When geocentrists inform us that objects can travel faster than light due to the rotation of space, we marvel at their insanity. Yet, both models stipulate the same origin of the superlight speed, namely, the intrinsic properties of the space in which the objects are placed. The idea of a rotating universe has been addressed in the secular literature on many occasions. Yu. N. Obukhov, in the recent study ”Rotation in Cosmology” (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1992, pgs. 121-128), observes that “Since the first studies of Lanczos, Gamow and Gödel, a great number of rotating cosmological models have been considered in the literature. Nevertheless the full understanding of observational manifestations of cosmic rotation is still far from reach. Moreover, there is a general belief that rotation of the universe is always a source of many undesirable consequences, most serious of which are timelike closed curves, parallax effects, and anisotropy of the microwave background radiation. The aim of this paper is twofold — to show that the above phenomena are not inevitable (and in fact, are not caused by rotation), and to find true effects of cosmic rotation.” Unfortunately, Obukhov refrains from putting the other foot down: “Here we shall not enter into a discussion of [the] philosophical significance of cosmic rotation (though, in our opinion, the analysis of its relation to the Mach’s principle is of great interest).” Nonetheless, he follows the evidence to its conclusion: “As we can see, pure rotation can be, in principle, large, contrary to the wide-spread prejudice that large vorticity confronts many crucial observations.” Rotating universe models have continued to receive analytic scrutiny (cf. Soviet Physics Journal, March 1992, JETP 74 (3), “Accounting for Birch’s Observed Anisotropy of the Universe: Cosmological Rotation?”, by Panov and Sbytov; also General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1993, pgs. 137-164, “Synchronized Frames for Gödel’s Universe,” by Novell, Svaiter and Guimares). So the question remains: if outer space can stretch faster than the speed of light and carry objects with it, why can’t it rotate faster than light and do the same? Sauce for the general relativity goose is sauce for the geocentric gander. Dr. Nieto raises some observational challenges for geocentric cosmology, beginning with the parallax effect. There are two schools of thought among geocentrists as to how parallax arises (and if the quantum mechanicists can have two schools of thought, why not the geocentrists?). The “pure” form of geocentricity centers the stars on the earth, and describes the resulting annual stellar shifts by placing the Earth at one sink of a conformal mapping. This procedure has been worked out in rigorous detail for the two-dimensional case by James Hanson, and agrees with the observed phenomena. (This paper regards this model as ”pure” inasmuch as it conforms to the original cosmology of Tycho Brahe without modification.) The “modified Tychonic model” centers the stars on the Sun, so that the stars participate in the Sun’s annual migration, with the observed parallax being directly predicted by the subsequent geometry. This second model would satisfy the requirements that any consistent relativist would impose on a legitimate geocentric frame of reference, and may well even have direct and indirect Biblical support. In the geocentric model, the firmament is in daily rotation around the earth, and undergoes annual oscillations as well. This motion of the fir mament is evidenced in the Sagnac effect, the well-known Coriolis forces, and by geosynchronous satellites (or, in a more Tychonian vein, geostationary satellites). In the geocentric model, we agree that if the heavens ceased their rotation, the satellites would fall to the earth. But when the heavens are postulated to be in motion, it is Dr. Nieto’s equations that are deficient, not ours. There are four fascinating aspects of the geocentric model. (1) The notion of a structured firmament analogous to a crystal lattice permits one to consider elementary particles (electrons, protons, neutrons, etc.) to be phonons (quantized vibrations) within that crystal. (Cf. P. J. Bussey, ”The Phonon as a Model for Elementary Particles,” Physics Letters A 176, 1993, pgs. 159-164.) Bussey shows how phonons exhibit all the experimentally measured properties of elementary particles, including particle splitting and wave collapse. The appeal of the theory is in its predictive power and correlation with reality. Its difficulty is that an appropriate medium must exist in which these vibrations are to propagate, namely, a medium having the properties of the geocentrist’s firmament. Because the geocentric firmament’s fundamental ultramassive particles are packed as tight as atoms within a crystal, it serves as the ideal lattice structure for a phonon-based theory of particle structure to succeed. The notion of space being some kind of crystal (in harmony with the geocentric and Biblical views of the firmament) is a topic of serious discussion in modern physics. Holland and Philippidis have explored the idea in their article, “Anholonomic Deformations in the Ether: A Significance for the Electrodynamic Potentials,” (Hiley & Peat, eds., Quantum Implications, © 1987 Routledge, pgs. 295ff). They write, “In attempting to discover the classical significance of the Aμ, [electromagnetic potential — MGS] we have at our disposal several clues. Bohm has suggested an analogy between the Aharonov-Bohm effect and the dislocation of a crystal lattice…. Dirac showed how an ether which at each point has a distribution of velocities which are all equally probable would be consistent with relativity, and alternative approaches to the quantum theory by Bohm and Vigier have indicated that a suitably fluctuating ether can contribute to an understanding of the microdomain. We recall that much effort was expended in the nineteenth century in trying to understand electromagnetic processes in terms of stresses set up in an ether treated as an elastic solid.” Philippidis, Dewdney and Hiley pointed out that “as far as the quantum domain is concerned, space cannot be thought of simply as a neutral back cloth. It appears to be structured in a way that exerts constraints on whatever processes are embedded in it. More surprisingly still, this structure arises out of the very objects on which it acts and the minutest change in any of the properties of the contributing objects may result in dramatic changes in the quantum potential…. It is clear, therefore, that the quantum potential is unlike any other field employed in physics. Its globalness and homogeneity in the sense of not being separable into well-defined source and field points indicate that it calls for a different conceptual framework for its assimilation.” (”Quantum Interference and the Quantum Potential,” Il Nuovo Cimento, Vol. 52B, No. 1, July 11, 1979). The firmament of the geocentrists is explored under the name of the quantum potential by some, and by different names by other researchers. G. Gaeta, writing in Physics Letters A 175 (1993), pgs. 267-268, wrote of an “unknown medium originating” the observed quantum Brownian noise. Says he, “If we accept this picture, the particles of the EPR experiment are in permanent contact with a NGV stochastic process.” This functional synonym for the geocentrist’s firmament is named after the scientists whose constraints color its characterization, Nelson, Garbaczewski and Vigier. Gaeta treats this medium as completely universal: ”The universality of quantum mechanics corresponds to the universality of the NGV process: this means that no physical system or particle can be regarded as truly isolated, as every physical system or particle — being subject to quantum mechanics — is a least in contact with the universal NGV process.” The concluding paragraph in the article, “Causal Particle Trajectories and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” (Quantum Implications, pgs. 169-201) exposes the dilemma for modem physics in telling language: “The interpretation of Bohr and of de Broglie-Bohm-Vigier both emphasize that the fundamentally new feature exhibited by quantum phenomena is a kind of wholeness completely foreign to the post- Aristotelian reductionist mechanism in which all of nature in the final analysis consists simply of separate and independently existing parts whose motions, determined by a few fundamental forces of interaction, are sufficient to account for all phenomena. The difference arises in the methods for dealing with the situation. One thing however is clear; the organization of nature at the fundamental level is far more complex than mere mechanistic models can encompass. The ghost cannot be exorcised from the machine.” (2) The firmament itself provides for a complete gravitational theory based on the physics of shadowing and attenuation, yielding predictive results beyond those of conventional theory. By introducing the element of spin, and thus angular momentum, to the firmament subparticles, the antisymmetric properties of electromagnetic fields obtain, being construed as a transfer of angular momentum particle by particle and giving rise to the well-known perpendicularity of the electric and magnetic fields. In Dr. Bouw’s model, the firmament even accounts for the strong nuclear force that holds protons and neutrons together in atomic nuclei: as two nucleons make actual contact, the shadowing effect goes asymptotic according to the known attenuation expression, and the total force is all inward, its magnitude characterized by the Yukawa potential. This model therefore is a nascent unified field theory, or what is now termed a GUT (Grand Unification Theory), that accounts for all available physical effects that can be measured by science, from gravitation, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, the Uncertainty Principle, elementary particle structure, etc. In other words, the early work of developing a new dynamics is well underway, as propounded at the outset. The third and fourth developments are recent, homespun insights not heretofore published, and therefore not yet subjected to peer review. Although potentially premature, the benefit from airing them outweighs the risk; I invite the reader to weigh the following notions carefully. (3) It is often objected that if geocentricity were true, and the rotating heavens were dragging Foucault pendula and weather systems around, why doesn’t that force pull on the earth itself and drag it along, causing it to eventually rotate in sync with the heavens? It appears that this straightforward application of torque to the earth should cause it to rotate in sum, but this turns out to be an oversimplification. As the heavens rotate, and the firmament rotates on an axis through the earth’s poles, each firmament Al particle (the ones comprising the ultradense lattice) also rotates with the same angular velocity. Ironically, this is precisely the reason the earth can’t be moved. In MT&W’s Gravitation, pg. 1119- 1120, we are invited to ponder the following scenario: “Consider a rotating, solid sphere immersed in a viscous fluid. As it rotates, the sphere will drag the fluid along with it. At various points in the fluid, set down little rods, and watch how the fluid rotates as it flows past. Near the poles the fluid will clearly rotate the rods in the same direction as the sphere rotates. But near the equator, because the fluid is dragged more rapidly at small radii than at large, the end of a rod closest to the sphere is dragged by the fluid more rapidly than the far end of the rod. Consequently, the rod rotates in the direction opposite to the rotation of the sphere. This analogy can be made mathematically rigorous.” Now reverse the situation. If we want to cause the sphere to rotate clockwise, we would need to turn the rods at the poles clockwise, and the ones at the equators counterclockwise. (Consider the equator as a big gear, and the firmament Al particles as small gears that engage it. It is intuitively obvious that the small gears must always turn in contrary motion to the large one at the equator.) This picture is clear then: to turn the sphere, the rotation of the particles (MT&W’s “rods” and this author’s “gears”) at the poles must be the opposite of that at the equator. However, in the case of a rotating firmament, all the particles are rotating in the same direction, with the angular velocity common to the entire firmament. The equatorial inertial drag is in the opposite direction as that acting near the poles. Using calculus, one integrates the effect from the center of the Earth outward in infinitesimal shells, showing that the Earth is in fact locked in place, the resulting inertial shear being distributed throughout the Earth’s internal volume. It could be demonstrated that were the Earth to be pushed out of its “station keeping” position, the uneven force distribution would return it to its equilibrium state. Intriguingly, the significance of these internal forces on seismic stress, plate tectonics, and the earth’s magnetic field may prove central, if so be that these postulates survive the inevitable peer review to come. (4) Consider again Grøn & Eriksen’s position that a rotating cosmic mass imposes an upward force on a geostationary satellite. (They used the Earth as a synchronous satellite for the Moon in their article to illustrate the principle.) They posit that the centrifugal force on the satellite arises from a cosmic non-tidal gravitational field pulling up on the satellite. Consider, then, the behavior of light traveling to the Earth from distant celestial objects: would it not also be subject to the effects of this cosmic nontidal inertial pull? Logic would dictate that, yes, in accordance with the late Dr. Richard Feynman’s Lectures in Physics, Vol. 2, pgs. 42-10 & 42-11, as well as the extended discussion in MT&W’s Gravitation , pgs. 1055-1060, incoming light subject to the induced gravitational field will lose energy and thus decrease in frequency, according to the known relations that govern calculation of gravitational red shifts. If true, then the rotation of the cosmic mass could be responsible for the red shift heretofore understood as a Doppler consequence of the Big Bang. This in turn would provide a new basis for measuring the distance of celestial objects, one wholly different than the system erected upon the Doppler view of the red shift, which could involve a significant remapping of the heavens. But more intriguingly, this result, if confirmed, would be hostile to general relativity, because the theory would require the red shift to be observed whether it is the Earth or the heavens that are rotating, whereas on classical grounds it would only be expected if the heavens were rotating, and the result would be the same whether measured from the Earth, from a satellite, or from the space shuttle. At this point in time, the experimental evidence militates against relativity on this effect, so that relativity would either need to neutralize the red shift predicted under a rotating cosmos scenario, or abandon its core postulate. It would then appear that geocentrists are more than willing to risk making scientific predictions to put their hypotheses to the test. Some have already passed muster, but others are too recent to have gone through the requisite shaking-out period. This is to be expected in the infancy of the development of a new dynamical theory that embraces every aspect of reality, from unthinkably massive and immense objects to the world of the ultramicroscopic reality underlying the atomic realm. LikeLike
  77. The above post is from October 1994 and appeared as a Special Position Paper in the Chalcedon Report. And as I feared, the exponents don’t work on this blog site. If you see 1094, it is 10 to the 94th power, same with 1093 being 10 to the 93rd power.


  78. Cindy K on November 29, 2013 @ 12:55 PM. Thanks for the correction on attribution, and no offense taken.

    And since I happen to be on the thread at the moment, I’ll just note that I’ve mostly stayed out of commenting on posts related to Reconstructionism — not because I’m not interested, but because my current work requires me to write and edit. A.Lot. So, that brain capacity has to go elsewhere instead of stay current and cogent with the material at hand here.

    And the bulk of the entries here are so intensely dense that I do not have the energy right now to navigate the nuance and crack the code. (And it ain’t for lack of ability … I sometimes edit Ph.D. dissertations, write procedure manuals for non-profit processes, and do content clarity reviews for medical grants to national-level foundations, that kind of thing.)

    Still, I do believe the issues here are important. But I must also say, I suspect we find clues of fundamental flaws when theological systems such as Reconstructionism (plus its various knock-offs and spin-offs and pop-ups that have made guest appearances here) are so erudite as to be inaccessible to the everyday disciple. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from church planting and non-profit start-ups since the mid-1990s, it’s that if you find a drastic flaw in the “spiritual DNA” of a theological system and/or its leaders/teachers, an iceberg of titanic proportions awaits in the trajectory ahead. My last five years of studying spiritually abusive systems in depth — their presuppositions and values, their trajectories, and their inherent and inevitable tragedies — and analyzing my own experiences of abuse, reconfirms that notion.

    When it comes to the systems under scrutiny here, I made my own drastic course correction over 25 years ago. I flipped the toggle switch to turn away from theonomy, its rules, and its rulers. (However, I did not ditch the concept that God’s Word offers crucial *wisdom* for discernment and decision-making when the New Testament system of grace does not give us obligatory commands on specific issues.)

    It’s too easy to get sucked in to a system that sucks the spiritual life right out of us. I pray for all who read these threads (and similar ones on other spiritual abuse survivor blogs) to develop the discernment needed to avoid *any* theological vortex that will sink the ship of their faith and practice. Amen!

    Okay, back to my editing work … thanks for letting me rant.


  79. RJR contra Selbrede.

    Rushdoony devoted a chapter in THE POLITICS OF GUILT & PITY to this metaphysic that Mr. Selbrede is advocating in the name of RJR.

    “[I]t [unlimited identification] is an affirmation of faith, and the faith affirmed is not in any wise the historic Christianity of Western culture: it is the concept of identification. This is said to be the meaning of true brotherhood. And this faith modern science increasingly affirms. The hostility of many scientists to matters of national security is grounded, not in Marxist sympathies, as with a few, but in this doctrine of identification, and in terms of it many have become ardent evangelists.” [p.78]

    “[I]n liberal neo-Protestantism, the religion of identification [Alienism] has largely supplanted biblical Christianity.”

    “Justice then ceases to become the function of government, and identification by enforced equalization is the goal … “The ‘freedom’ which Dr. King envisions is not merely freedom from domination or discrimination but a freedom from difference.” This is the heart of the matter, and, in every stratum of society, there is a lust today for ‘a freedom from difference’ and a resentment against any who claim such a right … liberal neo-Protestants are especially vocal in this regard.” [p.81]


    If RJR made a error here it was not in realizing that it was indeed Marxist sympathies which was driving the doctrine of identification that Mr. Selbrede likewise is championing.

    Note the success of the work of identification in statements like “All cultures are equal.”


  80. Well, Martin! Since I’m an English major (and a Science dunderhead), I’ll respond to your essay above with one of Mark Twain’s lines – “I would rather have my ignorance than another man’s knowledge, because I have so much more of it.” Believe me, sometimes ignorance is bliss. (. . . grin!)


  81. So Martin Selbrede really does subscribe to the notion of geocentricity, the distinguishing feature of which “is the daily rotation of the universe around the earth.” I find it interesting that he makes reference to Fred Hoyle, who authored the very first textbook I read on astronomy. Sure enough, Hoyle demonstrated how the apparent motions of the solar system could be MATHEMATICALLY described in terms of a stationary earth, but he certainly wasn’t advocating that the earth was in fact stationary while all else revolves around it.

    Selbrede is seriously taking the position that the entire universe rotates around the Earth daily. Mr. Selbrede, lets cut to the chase. Does the universe appear to spin at the same rate from Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and every other point within the solar system as it appears to spin from Earth? I thought not. Eh, well, I suppose maybe Mr. Selbrede will argue that I am not smart enough to understand the details of his argument; therefore I am not qualified to comment. Qualified or not, here is my official, non-irenic assessment:

    Loony tooney, rhymes with Rushdoony.


  82. On the other hand, maybe Mr. Selbrede is entitled to a certain modicum of credit. Whether speaking as an apologist for Mr. Rushdoony, or as an expert on cosmology, he is quite the “spin” meister.


  83. The sad thing is that people follow loony tooney Rushdoony and also Doug Phillips, and Scott Brown, and Kevin Embedded Fetuses in Wombs Swanson. People are still following Swanson even though medical professionals spoke out against his ridiculous claims about embedded fetusus. They put people up in hero status. They try to be the godly parent, godly wife, godly husband just like their heroes represent. And then their children rebel, turn away from their faith, get in trouble, families are torn apart, and parents wonder why. Ugh. I get it. I was one.


  84. Enoch (2:31pm), ““The ‘freedom’ which Dr. King envisions is not merely freedom from domination or discrimination but a freedom from difference….and, in every stratum of society, there is a lust today for ‘a freedom from difference’ and a resentment against any who claim such a right … liberal neo-Protestants are especially vocal in this regard.””

    That is the biggest load of malarkey I’ve heard since I listened to the defensive BS by the National Security Administration this summer. It’s a flimsy spin for why people didn’t like what Rushdoony said, an alternate to the old canard of “being persecuted for the sake of truth”.

    And what makes it particularly ridiculous is that there is currently some discussion about the problems of identity politics, how it is the Achilles heel of an individualistic society during a time when we, as a nation, need to gather ourselves together to take on increasingly corrupt corporate and governmental structures.

    I have nothing more to say to you.


  85. Martin (9:47am), whenever someone uses the word “tone” I revert to vulgarity, even when only directed to those who are perpetually uncivil. My computer’s ears are burning.

    A person can maintain perfect tone (which I imagine has something to do with not upsetting social niceties as defined by the person who uses it) and still be without civility in a discussion.

    You are such. You simply elide and evade, not directly answering question after question so that we may know where you, the person, stand on vital issues. I do not know why you insist on subterfuge. I can only conclude that there are agendas that need to be kept underground. The only other option is that you are ashamed of what you believe.

    But you revealed something of yourself when you wrote to Enoch and Mickey in an unaddressed comment: “It is apparent that intelligent men, who’ve done research in specific areas, and who can be formidable in debate, are engaging here…” By laying it on thick, you make clear that you believe a good deal of what they say, even if requiring greater civility, maturity, and more and better words.

    I have no idea how an intelligent man can believe such, but there are many intelligent people in this world who believe completely absurd things. I am sorry for you. I cannot wish you well in your further endeavors, but I do wish you to someday know the love and liberty of my God, who has a tremendous amount of patience for us all, certainly much more than I.

    I am finished here.


  86. Gary writes, “Sure enough, Hoyle demonstrated how the apparent motions of the solar system could be MATHEMATICALLY described in terms of a stationary earth, but he certainly wasn’t advocating that the earth was in fact stationary while all else revolves around it.”

    I note that Gary capitalizes the word “mathematically” so that we are led to believe this is sleight-of-hand with no physical reality. Is that what Sir Fred Hoyle said? Let’s consider two statements, from page 88 and 89 respectively, from Hoyle’s book on Nicolaus Copernicus (1973 Harper & Row) when speaking about heliocentricity versus geocentricity: “The relation of the two pictures is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation, and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view. Moreover, in the Einstein theory the method of calculating the effect of gravitation is changed to a form which applies equally to all such related ways of expressing a problem.” (pg. 88) “Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense. The two theories, when improved by adding terms involving the square and higher powers of the eccentricities of the planetary orbits, are physically equivalent to each other.” (pg 89).

    So Hoyle said, three times over two pages, that the theories are physically equivalent to each other. Gary emphasizes that they’re merely mathematically equivalent (else why capitalize the word?).

    I don’t think Hoyle would do any better in this blog room than any other participant in respect to having his views reproduced accurately.

    P.S. Note Hoyle’s discussion of calculation of the center of mass on pages 84-85, where he points out that “Although in the nineteenth century this argument was believed to be a satisfactory justification of the heliocentric theory, one found causes for disquiet if one looked into it a little more carefully. When we seek to improve on the accuracy of calculation by including mutual gravitational interaction between planets, we find–again in order to calculate correctly–that the center of the solar system must be placed at an abstract point known as the ‘center of mass,’ which is displaced quite appreciably from the center of the Sun. And if we imagine a star to pass moderately close to the solar system, in order to calculate the perturbing effect correctly, again using the inverse-square rule, it would be essential to use a ‘center of mass’ which included the star. The ‘center’ in this case could lie even farther away from the center of the Sun. It appears, then, that the ‘center’ to be used for any set of bodies depends on the way in which the local system is considered to be isolated from the universe as a whole.”


  87. Patrice, let me respond to this point of yours:

    “But you revealed something of yourself when you wrote to Enoch and Mickey in an unaddressed comment: “It is apparent that intelligent men, who’ve done research in specific areas, and who can be formidable in debate, are engaging here…” By laying it on thick, you make clear that you believe a good deal of what they say, even if requiring greater civility, maturity, and more and better words. ”

    Would it then be true that St. Paul was doing the same invidious thing being attributed to me when he said of the Jews that “they have a zeal for God, but not after knowledge?” Why did Paul give them any credit whatsoever? I would think it was because it was right to do so. Even Christ says of the Ephesians, “Yet this you have, that you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.” Is Christ then providing a blanket endorsement of that church’s works? Were Jesus and Paul laying it on thick? Even the paragraphs around the one you quoted from me clearly allege that logical fallacies were entering the discussion (and I even defined some that appeared to be gaining ground).

    To assume no question asked here is “overly broad” is simply self-serving. Christ Himself, when asked to justify the authority by which He was doing things, posed a question about the baptism of John, not to be disingenuous, but to set up the preconditions for answering the question posed to Him.

    Of course, this remains a free country, and a blog spot with quite a liberal posting policy, so anyone can charge that even my mentioning these things is designed to obscure matters (even though I’ve been inviting people to ask questions with more specificity so that I can answer them accurately). While I regret the frustration that it might take two or three refinements before the answer is forthcoming, this often goes with complex questions (or simple questions that have complex answers).

    As for tone, I do take it as an important truth of Scripture that the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God, and soft answers turn away wrath. Paul says, “So far as it lies with you, be at peace with all men.” Imputing a pejorative motive respecting this point is somewhat troubling. I’m not a mind-reader, but evidently many people here are (and heart-readers too). My presence here has been in good faith. It’s not necessary that good faith be reciprocated, but the net result of such violation of the Golden Rule is that your other opponents here will have been vindicated. I can hardly imagine this to be intended, but I may be quite wrong.

    And why, specifically, do I keep bringing up God’s Word when answering questions? Because I agree with the Psalmist who says, “the entering in of Thy Word giveth light” (Psalm 119:130). The alternative is a grim one: “To the law and the testimony: if they do not speak according to these, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8:20). So to be charged with darkening counsel here is no small thing.


  88. M. Selbrede allows that, “It appears, then, that the ‘center’ to be used for any set of bodies depends on the way in which the local system is considered to be isolated from the universe as a whole.” Well wonderful. Recognizing that the Earth can be the MATHEMATICAL center of the universe, and conceding for the sake of argument that the mathematical is identical with the physical, then it is likewise possible to establish that 1) the the Sun and Saturn and Pluto and every other point in the whole entire Milky Way Galaxy, yea every point in the whole entire universe is, each and every one of them, the MATHEMATICAL center of the universe, and that, 2) therefore, each and every point in the entire universe is also the PHYSICAL center of the whole entire universe.

    But Martin does not point any of this out. Martin emphasizes only the proposition that the Earth is the center of the whole entire universe. It’s all Alice in Wonderland stuff, except with Martin it’s both words and numbers that mean what he means them to mean.


  89. Gary, that point is alluded to (in a paper two decades old that responded to a specific challenge by Dr. Nieto) in saying that I knew of one geocentrist who based their position on General Relativity (the others, including myself, do not). The issue you brought up has been responded to hundreds of times in the last two decades. Here it is for the umpteenth time, again:

    Geocentricity follows a two-step apologetic (paralleling Dr. Bahnsen’s application of logic). First, we show that on scientists, on their own principles (General Relativity), have to admit that all their attacks on geocentricity are illegitimate because their position officially holds to the doctrine of polycentricity (or acentricity), that any place can be the stationary center. So there can be a lunocentric or jovocentric universe no less so than a geocentric one: they’re all equivalent (in fact, this is termed the “strong principle of equivalence.” This gives geocentricity a seat at the table. The first apologetic step, then, is to show that the objections to geocentricity don’t fly, and they fall apart on the basis of the critics’ own positions. (This is what Bahnsen called “the internal critique of the system,” exposing the explicit consequences of the opposing system.)

    The second apologetic step follows immediately behind and is just as important, because Einsteinian relativity was designed to explain why attempts to measure the earth’s speed have all failed (interferometers, Airy’s water-filled telescope, etc., all measure the earth’s speed as zero). So relativity asserts that nature conspires to hide the earth’s speed, making it unmeasurable, so we can ignore the speedometers that read that speed as zero. So if relativity itself is faulty, then that useful alibi disappears, and then those measurements stand unchallenged, and unexplained away. And as you can read in that large post above, general relativity has failed in many principal experiments to account for the data in gravimetric studies and elsewhere.

    Because of the nature of the criticism of geocentricity (alleged to have been a matter resolved four centuries ago), the first stage is put first by necessarity: dealing with objections about the systems’ center of mass (the barycentric argument), the superluminal issue (speed of rotation), how centrifugal forces arise (equatorial bulge of the earth), Coriolis forces, etc. Some of these are explained by Mach’s Principle, and it is Mach’s Principle that bridges the first apologetic method very naturally to the other (because after a century of analysis, scientists still are not sure if Mach’s Principle is relativistic or non-relativistic — it being neither fish nor fowl, at least officially, it is the analytic lever that pulls us over to the second stage). The second stage further involves showing the predictive successes of geocentric physics over heliocentric physics (some of which was documented in that long post above). And science, whether one likes it or not, must go where the data goes, and not be ideologically driven. In that upcoming motion picture, you’ll see secular scientists divide sharply on the “Axis of Evil” data in the cosmic microwave background: lots of hand-waving and whistling in the dark that the data will [hopefully] be shown to actually be statistical noise and not real. When the Planck data came in earlier this year, the filmmakers went back to MIT to get additional footage from one of the professors who had regarded the anti-Copernican effect to be real (and who was vindicated by the Planck results). So much has happened recently on this front, and the public is generally unaware of it. (Hence, the making of that motion picture to expose the dark seamy underside of modern science, a film in which modern scientists are allowed to speak for themselves and say their piece from their various perspectives.)


  90. In respect to the above quote entitled something like “RJR contra Selbrede”:

    I decided to carefully re-read the chapter in Rushdoony’s Politics of Guilt and Pity that you cut into snippets and applied some skilful taxidermy to, arranging the snippets, with ellipses and bracketed insertions, into something that the unwary reader would think would support your thesis. The chapter’s 17 pages begin and end with a discussion of Albert Schweitzer (he occupies one-third of the chapter), and I see nothing in-between that remotely justifies your pressing any of these texts into the service of your views. In fact, Rushdoony’s solution to the problem defies your revisionist take on what he was talking about. The remedy to such revisionism is for the entire chapter to be quoted here to show that Rushdoony has been publicly misused. If such misrepresentation persists, I will indeed post the entire chapter (Julie Anne permitting, of course) so that everyone can see the surgery you applied to the quotation.


  91. So, Martin, let me make sure I am understanding. Are you saying that:

    1. The Sun revolves around the Earth once a day, or about once a day?

    2. The Solar planets revolve around the Earth rather than around the Sun?

    3. The entire universe revolves around the Earth once a day, or about once a day?


  92. Post script for Martin: I have a brother similar to you, very bright but didn’t attend college. His fine mind flies in many directions and arrives at multiples of dubious conclusions because he was never taught how to govern/direct it, nor given good tools by which to evaluate reality. (Yet some of his ideas are amazing!) When he was younger, I tried to convince him to attend college, but he was too uncertain of his abilities. It took him a long time to accept his gifts but then he thought that he was too old even though I said “Never so!”

    It seems to me that, in your youth, you latched onto Rushdoony and used his thought systems as your education. I suspect that you did not learn about reality through your eyes, but through Rushdoony’s.

    With all my heart, I wish you would set aside Rushdoony’s systematics for a while and go on a quest to understand other systems, not from Rushdoony’s perspective but openly, without fear, as is. You are more than capable of it. It can only be good for you because even if you return to his, you will have obtained breadth and greater clarity. (It will also help you be more succinct and direct in your communications because you have also adopted the old guy’s evasions and circularities and it doesn’t suit.) I hope you would not think, as my brother has, that an old dog can’t be taught new tricks. For minds like yours and my bro’s, this is not a problem, even though it will be a challenge.

    But I will pray for you, Martin. I will pray, for a long time, that you will realize the immensity of our God as seen (only partly!) in the vastness of His/Her great art piece, the universe. I hope for you to realize that we small creatures do not have to be at His/Her center in order to be fully cherished. I will pray for you to understand that God doesn’t carefully measure the value of one thing against another and force things to stay in prescribed spots; S/He loves whatever a creature is and can reach. And S/He delights in the changes that occur throughout time while also weeping for the destructions that occur, keeping careful watch over all. I pray that you will see this.

    I will also pray that you can find in your music, the delight of the world and the freedom God offers. But most of all, I pray that you can know down to your toes how much He/She loves the unadorned composition that is you. Then maybe you can leave behind the tight strictures of one very lovely truthful but small Book and find everywhere reflected the vast loving character that is our God, of which some is mentioned in that Book.

    I would enjoy a meet-up with you sometime after we enter heaven—just to share our wonder at how it all turned out, and to laugh at ourselves for our sillinesses and our mistakes. Would you?


  93. Gary, I’ll answer question 2 first, then 1 & 3 together.

    Since at least the time of Tycho Brahe (Kepler’s mentor), no geocentrist has held to the planets circling anything other than the Sun. The retrograde motion of Mars was illustrated in the video that Dr. North refused to view, and is premised on a Sun-centered orbit for Mars. By the same token, the phases of Venus, etc., also are natural results of the geocentric model.

    There are two versions of the Tychonic model for geocentricity, and they differ in how they account for parallax and aberration. The so-called “Modified Tychonic Model” is the one that geometrically parallels the heliocentric model and is what is usually conceived of as being the relativistic equivalent of the heliocentric model and its physics. Parallax and aberration arise naturally in this model per both Galilean and Einsteinian relativistic considerations.

    The second version of the Tychonic model, the Pure Tychonic Model of geocentricity, centers the rotation of the rest of the universe existing beyond the planetary system upon the Earth, explaining parallax and aberration as two components of a single phenomenon involving what is known as a conformal mapping with the Earth situated at the primary sink. This phenomenon has been made rigorous in two dimensions, but is intractable in three dimensions and thus requires numerical (computational) methods to properly solve. The two dimensional derivation, however, satisfies the requirements for fully accounting for parallax and aberration within such a geocentric system.

    So that is the short answer to your second question. As to your first and third questions: most geocentrists treat the diurnally rotating object to be the background entity bearing the Planck Density (which exhibits that 376+ ohm reactive impedance referred to in that long post above) that functions as a quasi-isotropic space in which the universe is embedded (the “sub-quantum thermostat” described by noted physicist Jean-Pierre Vigier, for whose Festschrift even Richard Feynmann contributed). It is this object that rotates, carrying the proportionally tiny mass of the universe with it. Consequently, the Sun does revolve around the Earth because it shares the motion of the sub-quantum domain in which it is embedded. (FYI, that object is not the same thing as the proposed hypothetical dark matter, an ad hoc Band-Aid applied to patch up serious holes in modern astrophysics.)

    Although Hoyle had already anticipated objections arising from bald application of the barycentric argument (heavier objects don’t revolve around lighter objects) by showing that the center-of-mass calculation arguably errs in excluding the rest of the universe from consideration, the presence of this massive density underlying conventional matter is a total game changer when talking about “the most massive body.” This material is vastly more massive than the universe itself, and neglecting its presence and effects leads to self-inflicted scientific blindness. Consequently, a good portion of that big post above dealt directly with the properties of this background domain in which the universe is embedded.


  94. Patrice, I would indeed look forward to the meet-up you describe.

    You’re not far off the mark about my background. The head of the musical composition department at CSU Northridge examined one of my orchestral scores that I had written at the age of 16 and declared that it was graduate-level material. He offered me, on the spot, a full four-year music scholarship at the university. My father had me decline it on the grounds that music was the “brotlose Kunst,” the “breadless art,” i.e., a ticket to poverty. So theoretical physics (my other love) prevailed, and later other vocational interests, but I’ve continued to work both sides of my brain my whole life. My biggest regret leaving California in early 2001 was that I had to resign my post as assistant conductor of an orchestra.

    In any case, your brother sounds like what they call “an idea engine.” Combined with the many talents that others bring to the table, it has its own part to play in our complex world. And I can see that you do appreciate him for who he is.


  95. Gary,

    I’m re-reading my answer, and I don’t see what’s unclear about it. I strongly answered question 2 in the negative, and explained specifically what the revolving body is in respect to questions 1 and 3 (because I assume you were interested in dynamics, not merely kinematics). I answered this with precision so that the motion and its origin would not be distorted or misconstrued by any readers. Would an illustration help?

    Further, is it your view that a quick 3-question challenge will undo that 9,000+ word post above? Why didn’t astrophysicist Dr, Nieto (who was actually paid to debunk geocentricity) use your simple technique? Perhaps because he was trying (not too well) to confront the arguments of Dr. John Byl, who is a geocentrist with an earned doctorate in astronomy from the University of British Columbia?

    Although I know there are some geocentrists who do a poor (if not execrable) job in defending geocentricity from a scientific perspective, the general rule is that you have to confront the strongest, most technically skilled protagonists of a position, not those who are incompetent to defend it (any “wins” by heliocentrists then reflect the calibre of their opponent, not the merit of the position). And since holding this position gives you an instant hit in your credibility (due to how everyone is taught in elementary science what the “truth” is, although you learn different in college when you get to Einstein), most exponents are wise enough to study the question at considerable depth. The notion that mounting a technical challenge against geocentricity is child’s play is quite wrong.

    And if I were a heliocentrist (or acentrist/polycentrist), I’d probably avoid dealing with any sharp geocentrists, knowing on how many fronts they can document problems with the standard models and confound my astrophysics with inconvenient facts and data that tend to show that scientific integrity sides with them and not with me (at least in regard to how things stand now). And if I were a heliocentrist, I would hope that the public can be railroaded into simply reasserting what we’ve hammered into them in school, and hope that when they recite a few historic disproofs of geocentricity, they don’t run into someone who can debunk them. I would trust cavalier dismissal to get the official heliocentric/acentric/polycentric position off the hook, and use my media channels to confirm my heliocentric version of reality with sarcasm against ignorant Luddites and plenty of confident assurances of the party line position. “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”

    You might have noted in my big post above how secular Soviet astrophysicist Y. Obhukov gingerly stepped around the philosophical implications of his research on cosmic rotation (he pointed out that they were disquieting, and he wasn’t going to get into a debate on philosophy, he was going to focus on the data and its interpretation). In other words, some data can get you into trouble if it’s not politically correct, and he didn’t hesitate to point this out. (In this instance, if the cosmos is rotating, then there is a central axis to it, and the idea of polycentricity or acentricity is discredited — which is why some secular researchers substitute the word “vorticity” for “rotation” to help get their research published.


  96. Martin,

    It’s difficult to get a straight answer out of you. I am now understanding that you are answering my questions as follows:

    1. Does the Sun revolve around the Earth once a day, or about once a day? Yes.

    2. Do the Solar planets revolve around the Earth rather than around the Sun? No.

    3. Does the entire universe revolve around the Earth once a day, or about once a day? Yes.

    Do I understand your position?


  97. No, Gary, it’s difficult to get an inaccurate answer out of me. Question 3 already embraces question 1, so question 1 is superfluous and creates a false impression of motions being independent.* And the rotation of the cosmos (in your question 3) is an effect of the rotation of the background subquantum domain that the matter of the universe is embedded in. So, given these provisos (and not without these provisos) I would let stand your answering those questions for me. If you run with your bald answers without reference to my actual position (summarized briefly here, and at greater length in the above posts), that would constitute a gross distortion of my position, which I would then disavow. And it would be a distortion that I labored to prevent. A person should be allowed to present their position for themselves, and their position as they state it in their own words is a legitimate target for dispute, debate, rebuttal, etc.

    But on the supposition that you’re genuinely sincere in your questions and seeking to understand the geocentric viewpoint (rather than positioning yourself for repartee), I apologize for the frustration of getting long, detailed answers in lieu of Yes and No. Had your questions been phrased differently, or had you asked me to assert my position about the motion of extraterrestrial bodies, this might not have taken so long. Because the position is built on physics, it must be described using the parameters of physics — otherwise, you end up where Galileo started (kinematics, that is, positions and speeds being observed, without dynamics, namely, without forces to account for the kinematics). And that was Galileo’s contribution: he founded the entire science of dynamics, later solidified by Newton. Since Galileo, no astronomical model of merit has ever attempted to assert mere kinematics: all models are on the hook to provide a plausible dynamics — otherwise, they’re inherently worthless. So, we must put the dynamics up front, just as Galileo rightly did in the service of the mainstream heliocentric model.

    *After all, we are embedded in the Orion arm of the Milky Way galaxy. This is what made the work of Rubin, Thonnard, etc., from Jet Propulsion Laboratories so interesting: they summed up all the know motions (galactic, galactic cluster, up to the largest superclustering known, and other superimposed motions) and were shocked to find that those motions added up to zero at our location. Dr. Vera Rubin, by the way, is the scientist who coined the term “dark matter.”


  98. Martin,

    O.K. Am I understanding that you are saying that , yes, the Universe spins around the Earth once every day, but not in the sense this statement would have meaning according to the classical Newtonian physics — in which case objects near the periphery of the universe would be traveling VERY fast, indeed.

    Maybe it would help if you could explain in layman’s terms what you mean by “the rotation of the background subquantum domain that the matter of the universe is embedded in.”


  99. Gary, actually pretty much everything past Saturn would be exhibiting a tangential velocity greater than the speed of light. However, the general theory of relativity permits this (see the discussion in the big post about recession velocities of quasars measured much larger than the speed of light). In 1994, Cambridge University’s Sir Herman Bondi (a long-time collaborator of Sir Fred Hoyle’s) publish an article in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London entitled “The angular momentum of cylindrical systems in general relativity” where he uses examples of spinning systems where the outer shells of the cylinder travel faster than light. These give rise to what’s called “perfect frame dragging,” which is what we experience here on earth.

    That last citation, and many others from the literature of relativity, make clear that these high speeds do not violate the laws of physics. So, while I would be free to avail myself of these models, I do not. My choice of model is not because I’m forced to the model I have because it’s the only one that can explain those speeds, however. Therefore, I want you to understand that important point.

    Okay, it’s tough to explain “in layman’s terms” the more esoteric points of quantum mechanics — so we are driven to use analogies, and analogies always have weaknesses. The more accurate the analogy, the harder it is to understand. The easier it is to understand, the more likely it deviates from the physical reality it is trying to illustrate. So I’ll try the harder analogy first, and resort to the easier one if we still haven’t made this sufficiently clear.

    Modern physics (after Louis de Broglie) sees particles as having a wave nature: in fact, every particle also has what as known as a Compton wavelength. So if we extrapolate a little bit about these waves, we can talk about the notion of waves traveling through a solid body (like light waves through glass). So long as the wave’s size (wavelength) is greater than the particles making up the glass, the glass is considered transparent and the particle moves freely through the glass (although at a slower speed than it would through a vacuum, based on the refractive index of the glass). So, we see that waves can travel through a solid (we experience this every day: light through glass). But if the particles in the glass were sufficiently large, they would interfere with the waves and scatter them (glass with such features looks cloudy) and with sufficient tampering of its internal structure, the glass can finally be made opaque (light waves go in but they never come out — they’re absorbed rather than scattered or transmitted through).

    Okay, so if the particles comprising atoms (electrons, protons, neutrons, etc.) are considered as waves, they would be able to pass through an object that has individual components much smaller than the Compton wavelength of those particles. And this is precisely what the subquantum domain has: the subquantum particles (Planck particles) which comprise it are about 20 orders of magnitude smaller than the wavelength of the subatomic particles, so the waves that constitute these particles pass freely through it (despite the huge density). The subquantum domain is to atoms what a sheet of transparent glass is to light waves: a medium through which they can freely travel.

    However, if you pass a light wave through a slab of transparent glass that is being moved, the light wave moves along with the slab (a phenomenon called Fresnel drag). And this is what happens (in the analogy) with the subquantum domain: it is like a giant slab of glass in rotation, and all the waves in it partake of its motion (undergo the analogue of Fresnel drag).

    Matter (considered in its wave nature) is embedded in the subquantum domain and therefore participates in any motions of this domain. So when we say something as imprecise as “the universe rotates,” we would be saying that the Planck particle matrix in which the universe is embedded is in motion, taking the universe with it (just as a rotating slab of glass takes any light traveling in it along with it).

    Again, analogies like this are imperfect — they are what they call heuristic tools to help grasp concepts that can be counter-intuitive (e.g., how can rigid matter pass freely through something countless times more dense than that matter? the well-known wave properties of matter explain this issue).

    The simpler analogies are more deeply flawed, and I would hate to bring them out and then have the flaw in the analogy be held against me. But the analogy above has benefits and I’m willing to stand behind it within the limits of the analogy. (As a technical point, the subquantum domain has a measured electrical impedance of 376+ ohms, and it’s a reactive impedance, meaning it stores energy and returns it without loss, corresponding to full transparency in respect to matter embedded in it.)

    Let me know if we need to dive deeper into this point.


  100. In the fourth paragraph it would have been more clear had I written that the WAVE passes freely through the glass. Although the “wave” is the one comprising the specific “particle” we were discussing, I ended up using the word “particle” in two different senses: the particles comprising the glass slab, and the particle passing through the glass viewed from the point of view of its intrinsic wave nature. This dual use of the term “particle” might have seemed confusing at first glance. My apologies.


  101. Martin,

    That helps me understand your position, though I don’t suppose you will be surprised to hear that I remain highly skeptical.

    If you are willing to continue to humor me:

    First question: Somewhere above you refer to a quasar with a red shift of 4.73, which is computed to be receding from us at 2.8 times the speed of light. Now, you may not be inclined to help me refute the argument you are making, but Is there not some way to explain the red shift measurement without requiring that the quasar actually be receding at a speed greater than that of light?

    Second question: Do you posit your theory of a geocentric universe dogmatically, as though it is not subject to question, or do you posit it as a theory you think credible while recognizing that it may well be false?

    Third question: Whether or not you hold to your particular theory dogmatically, do you believe that the Bible somehow requires a geocentric universe, much like many, possibly yourself, insist that the Bible requires 6 literal days of creation and a young earth? If so, what passages lead you to think the Bible requires a geocentric universe?


  102. The poem credited to Anne Graham Lotz (above in a post by Hannah from 11/26 at 9:32 am) is actually an excerpt from a famous sermon by Dr. S.M. Lockridge, who was pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in San Diego from 1953 to 1993. He passed away in 2000 at age 87.

    Portions of Lotz’s book “Just Give Me Jesus” can be viewed on Google Books. She doesn’t mention Lockridge in the introduction of the book, or the acknowledgements, or on page xii where she actually quotes him without citation. In the end notes on page 289 she mentions him without actually giving him much credit. She says:

    “Some time ago, I received a homemade cassette tape with the handwritten title “My King Is . . .” From what I could gather, a man named Lockridge had been called to the platform during a church service to tell the congregation who his King is. The tape was a recording of his eloquent answer. In a rich voice that resonated with passion and increased in volume and tempo as he warmed to his subject, he thundered his description of his King, Jesus–in three minutes! When the tape ended, I rewound it and replayed it. This unknown brother in Christ had absolutely thrilled my soul with his description of my King, Jesus! I have taken Mr. Lockridge’s idea–and, at times, some of his very phrases–and written descriptions of Jesus that appear at the beginning of each couplet of chapters in this book. Even as I pray that these descriptions of our King Jesus will be a blessing to you, I pray for Mr. Lockridge: God bless you always, sir, for the blessing you have been to this servant of the King!”

    Well, he’s not an “unknown brother,” and he didn’t just amble up to the platform to extemporize. He was a pastor for 40 years, and he labored over those beautiful words that have touched so many people. I’m frankly disappointed that Lotz did not cite him properly nor even properly identify him. I expected much, much better from her. This appears to be another incident of sloppy and inadequate citations in Christian publishing.

    For those who are interested, one of the most moving videos online is the famous Lockridge excerpt with scenes from “The Passion”:
    The entire sermon is here:
    Biographical info on Lockridge is here:


  103. Hi Gary,

    No, no surprise on the skepticism (I’d be too in your shoes). But you ask good questions.

    In the text of the big post, the explanation given for those superluminal (faster-than-light) recession speeds is that the space between us and the quasar is stretching (expanding), carrying the quasar away from us at those allegedly “impossible” speeds. As the text noted, the speed is attributed to a property of space (expansion of space). The majoritarian model and the geocentric model agree in attributing these speeds to a property of space, but the majoritarians attribute it to spatial expansion, whereas geocentrists attribute it to spatial rotation. On the face of it, the idea of space rotating is less troublesome than space expanding or stretching. Moreover, the rotation of the cosmos has (in a recent secular paper from 2010) been employed to explain the existence of rotating bodies in the universe. (Under the popular Big Bang model, it is difficult to account for rotating systems when everything exploded apart in straight lines away from the alleged center of the Bang: if there’s no angular momentum to begin with, it can’t create itself without violating physical law.)

    Okay, so on to your specific question: is it possible to explain the red shift of these quasars without arriving at a faster-than-light recession velocity? Yes, but for astrophysics the cure is worse than the disease: it would mean the red shift is not due to a Doppler effect, and that the Hubble Law (the basic law describing the post-Big Bang expansion) is therefore erroneous. But the secular literature does show significant challenges to the Doppler interpretation (in fact, Dr. Vigier collaborated with two MIT researchers, Peck & Robertson, to publish a paper in the big British science Journal, “Nature,” in the early 1970s entitled something like “A Non-Doppler Interpretation of the Cosmic Red Shift” (I don’t have it in front of me at the office). These men held that attributing a tiny non-zero mass for photons and allowing them to interact inelastically (permitting energy loss in such interactions) would account for the observed red shifts. The red shift of a galaxy would actually be a function of its temperature, then, not its recessional speed. These men worked out the mathematics and proposed an experiment: pass a green laser across a horizontal path, then simultaneously pass a gamma beam through the same path. Modern physics holds that the gamma ray won’t change the color of the green laser, but these men predicted that the gamma rays would shift the green laser toward the red. The results of the experiment were apparently not published (something that only makes sense if the green laser reddened, because that result would send the entire Big Bang theory crashing down, because the Big Bang theory is premised on (1) the cosmic red shift being a Doppler effect in combination with (2) the background cosmic microwave background radiation and its 2.7-degree-Kelvin signature).

    In any case, I’m not bothered by whether those quasars are or are not receding from us (I’m inclined to believe they’re not, though other noted geocentrists believe they are, so it’s not necessarily germane to geocentric physics). This part of the discussion is really the first-stage-apologetic (where the objections against geocentricity are shown, on the opposition’s own principles, to be invalid). In the second-stage-apologetic, it would be fair game to challenge things like the red shift and its interpretation (where weaknesses in the opposition’s principles are subject to exposure and critique).

    As to your second question, I believe that all true scientific theories must be falsifiable. This must also be true for geocentricity. But of course, this is where it gets dicey for the other side, because although they WANT to assert that science involves the leveraging of data, this is not the case when they attack geocentricity. The other side is running away from the data, and the invention of relativity (by Poincare and Einstein) was intended to help science discount the results of measurements. The Michelson-Morley experiment WAS repeated more carefully in the Michelson-Gale configuration, and still the researchers found no measured velocity of the earth through space. Do scientists accept these results? No, the data must be explained away, which they do. Who is truly dogmatic, then? Here it’s the geocentrists pointing to the instrument readouts, not the heliocentrists, who are pointing away from the instruments and explaining why it’s safe to ignore those measurements (while yet wearing the mantle of “we’re the true empiricists”). So, I find it curious that the other side insists they’re not being dogmatic (that’s simply not true). Their official position is (1) there is no center to the cosmos and (2) if there were, it isn’t the Earth. The argument is premised not on astronomical evidence but on “extreme improbability,” an issue which never bothers them when discussing macroevolution with confidence.

    Which brings us to your fascinating third question. The Roman Catholic church went to war over Copernicus and Galileo not so much because of the Church’s understanding of the Bible, but because of its adherence to Aristotle, and its willingness to (essentially) criminalize dissent from Aristotle. Few and far apart were men like Paracelsus (who tore up his students’ papers for regurgitating Aristotle rather than conducting actual experiments — Francis Bacon’s scientific method was still in the distant future). And the Catholics found themselves in this position because an earlier pope instructed Thomas Aquinas and William of Moerbeke to develop a synthesis between the Bible and Aristotle. This put the Church on the hook to support Aristotle’s views, for better or worse (worse in my opinion). The Puritans, who treated Aristotle as a toxic influence, were not beholden to his work in the natural sciences (much of it admittedly quite good, but far from inerrant), so their motivations were different.

    Concerning Biblical texts, note that Bernard Ramm’s book, “Science and Scripture,” did much to appeal to “phenomenological language,” the language of appearance, to attempt to harmonize Biblical texts with modern science (asserting the prescientific character of the “primitive men” to whom those writings were directed). I don’t find Ramm’s views to be particularly satisfying: it’s an attempt to weasel out of a very serious conflict between the two sources of information about the natural world.

    As to specific Biblical texts (apart from the ones that speak about the creation of the subquantum domain), I think the most troubling one for accommodationist Christians is James 1:17 because of WHEN it was written and its choice of terms. We know that when James wrote his epistle, heliocentricity had already been on the scientific scene for at least two centuries (and arguably more looking if you examine data in the older star charts then in use) and that heliocentricity was being suppressed due to pagan religious commitments to geocentricity (e.g., via the Serapic cult at Canopus, etc.). So, here was the perfect time for the Bible to come out and side with the modern heliocentric view, which was already out in the open and doing battle with pagan religion for decades. But James doesn’t go there. He contrasts the constancy of God as the “father of lights” with the variability (“parallage” in the Greek, remarkably akin to our word “parallax”) and shadow cast by turning (“trope aposkiasma,” an astronomical term of specific geocentric intent) in regard to the heavenly bodies.* In short, by supporting geocentricity here in the New Testament, the Bible is endorsing an already dated view that the leading astronomers for several centuries had discounted in favor of heliocentricity. The Bible is either woefully out of date, and this passage is a terrible embarrassment (as H. Gordon Poteat asserts in “The Interpreter’s Bible” when he shames James for making a “show of erudition” over things he doesn’t understand), or the Bible is correct and not issuing a course adjustment to stay relevant with then-contemporary heliocentric science because there was no reason to do so.

    *The notion of such a turning (“trope”) in James 1:17 might have arisen from the Greek translation of Job 38:8. The Hebrew reads, “Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven?” but the Septuagint translation into Greek reads, “Knowest thou the turning of the heavens?” But James doesn’t just use the bald term “trope,” he annexes the qualifier “aposkiasma,” compounded from “apo” (a radial-measure preposition roughly meaning “from”) and “skiasma” (from the Greek “skia,” shadow or occlusion).


  104. Martin,

    I would never in my wildest dreams have imagined that James 1:17 impacts on questions of cosmology. You appear to be reading it as having at least evidentiary value in favor of geocentrism, but are you going so far as to say it actually establishes the geocentric position (no pun intended) in the same sense that Genesis 1 establishes the proposition that God created the heavens and the earth?


  105. Hi Gary,

    Yes, James 1:17 often gets short shrift. I consulted over 30 commentaries, and many modern ones were running away from the text. The earlier ones confronted it head-on. What James 1:17 does is presuppose the geocentric position (it cannot be explained on any other grounds), and that fact alone is quite damaging to the Bible if geocentricity is nonsense spouted by ignorant non-scientists. And as I mentioned, the timing of the composition of James is damaging in light of the work of Aristarchus and Hipparchos prior to that point.


  106. Martin,

    A few more questions before I am even more late for work:

    1. Would you agree that your view of geocentricity requires going beyond Newtonian mechanics, if that is the correct term?

    2. Do you agree that your view of geocentricity requires going beyond special relativity?

    3. Am I correct in thinking that ideas such as the expansion of space itself are derived from general relativity?

    4. Regardless of your answer to question 3, does your view geocentricity, including the rotation of space itself, require going beyond general relativity?

    5. If you are taking us beyond general relativity, where are we going? Where do we find the theoretical framework? Are you now proposing to take us into a realm of ideas where the world of classical and relativistic physics is contained within a quantum mechanical domain rather than the other way around?


  107. Gary W,

    Question 1 is tricky: the entire force equation (including standard acceleration, centrifugal, Coriolis, and Eulerian forces) is identical in Newtonian notation between heliocentricity and geocentricity (only the referential subscripts are altered). Further, Newtonian dynamics has problems, which is why there are so many Post-Newtonian formulations in the literature. According to Newton, a barbell held horizontally weighs the same as one held vertically if the center of mass is in the same position. This is not true (see the discussion in the long post about Long’s experimental evaluation of G using a Cavendish torsion balance for similar anomalies). In fact, both Newton and Einstein have problems accounting for these anomalies, which are accounted for in the LeSagean model of gravity.

    Question 2: of course, the special theory of relativity only works in flat spacetime, and if there’s any mass in the universe, spacetime is by definition NOT flat. So STR is used as an approximation for local spacetimes that are asymptotically flat (approach flatness — as in “close enough”). The general theory was developed to handle non-inertial systems, and the Earth is not an inertial system in either the heliocentric nor the geocentric model. So, yes, it’s the wrong model to use for the physical reality we’re dealing with.

    Question 3: Yes, expansion of space is usually regarded as a corollary of general relativity theory, and GR mathematics allows for it. But the “space” that expands in the majoritarian view is different from the “space” that rotates in the geocentric view, since a good number of geocentrists don’t believe the Planck particles are virtual particles but are real particles (based on the stability problem identified by Redmount & Suen referred to in the big post above).

    Question 4: Yes, I think there are flaws in general relativity that require going beyond it to something that better explains the data without fudging. It’s not only geocentrists who have issues with GR — mainstream scientists are also giving it the gimlet eye in the light of mounting anomalies it fails to explain.

    Question 5: that would take a book to answer. Basically, we’re talking about the recovery of a classical regime in physics, both in the world of relativity and in the quantum world (the latter is already evidenced in the Causal Stochastic Interpretation of QM that opposes Bohr’s Copenhagen Interpretation (like the hilarious wanted poster with a cat on it that reads: “WANTED: Schrodinger’s Cat — Dead and Alive”). So, just to take one example of the recovery of a classical electrodynamics: when muons are accelerated, time for them is alleged to slow down because they don’t decay as quickly as they did when stationary. So says relativity. But with a classical electrodynamics, the interaction of the muon with its own electrical field produces a magnetostrictive effect that makes the particle more stable than when it was stationary. So, time isn’t changing with speed, the particle’s stability is changing with speed, and this is accounted for using Maxwell’s equations. The assumption that the particle’s stability doesn’t change with speed leads to the conclusion that its decay is an accurate clock. But since this isn’t the case, what we have is clock error, not time dilation. And so it goes, case by case, experiment by experiment. It’s going to take decades to clean up the mess in science that the 20th century has bequeathed to us.


  108. Martin,

    Changing topics, but not entirely. It’s been awhile, but I read a book by a young-earth physicist who explained the apparent age of the universe as indicated by red shift measurements (billions of years), as being consistent with a young earth. Something about time running at different rates depending on speed of (relative?) movement and the presence of mass. But it only worked if the Earth is at the center of the universe. I’m almost reluctant to encourage you, but what do you think?


  109. That would be Starlight & Time, by the guy at the High Voltage Group at Sandia National Labs, Dr. Russell Humphries. The model relies on the theory of white holes, so if general relativity is falsified, this approach to the starlight problem is falsified with it. Humphries is in the minority with this approach. The other approaches include Spencer & Moon’s 1953 work on Riemannian paths for light rays, other small-universe models premised on negative parallax phenomena, and the CDK work by Australia’s Barry Setterfield. CDK is an acronym that sounds out the words “c decay,” as in the speed of light has been decaying since a recent creation. The final asymptotic roll-off of this decay can be seen in the optically (not electrically) measured speed of light since the early 1600s. Setterfield finds much in the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 speed anomalies to back up his view. It’s the wild wild west out there in astrophysics. The line between serious dissidents and crackpots tends to get pretty thin under these scenarios. The jury is out on all these approaches, but more data comes in daily. Which hypothesis finally wins the day (if any) might not be determined for years. Nobody knows.

    So, I’d give the Humphries model a 5% chance of surviving peer review. It rides relativity’s coattails, and that could prove fatal. If relativity should sink, the Humphries white hole model will sink with it.


  110. Gary,

    For the record, Humphries isn’t a geocentrist. He would put the Milky Way somewhere fairly near the center of the universe, but he doesn’t get heartburn if the center is simply “nearby” as seen on a cosmic scale. In this respect, the Humphries model has one or two similarities to the work of award-winning secular physicist George F. R. Ellis of South Africa (he’s of the more respected names in astrophysics and relativity theory).


  111. Martin,

    I am not, of course, competent to pass scientific judgment whether your geocentric views are or are not accurate, or even tenable. I will be rather astonished if your views should force themselves into general acceptance, but what is there about modern physics that is not astonishing, even to a layman? I should take a closer look, but your understanding of the James passage seems to me to be a stretch. Yet, if only as a matter of pure speculation, why would it surprise Christians if God should choose to make the location of the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection the very physical center of His creation?

    Inasmuch as your geocentric views are not at all what I anticipated they would be, I hereby withdraw the charge that they are looney tooney.


  112. Hey Gary,

    Fair enough. Of course, I may still hold to views that ARE indeed looney tooney. No guarantees here.

    Re: James. Indeed, if I just examine the verse without reference to previous biblical scholarship, I’d conclude the same as you. But if I get a running start and see what several dozen scholars over four centuries had to say about it, then I might acquire additional context about the verse (the constancy of God in contrast to the inconstancy of the astronomical bodies over which He stands as Father — James is saying that “like father, like sons” isn’t true in this situation — James is denying specific attributes as inapplicable to God although applicable to the lights in the heavens). That’s why when I lecture on this topic, I have a bunch of Powerpoint slides painstakingly quoting the consensus scholarship on James 1:17 to establish my point. I dislike having a weak case. To avoid that, you do the research and see how strong the case really is when put under the microscope.


  113. “Do you, Mr. Selbride, find the kinist views of the League of thr South to be biblical? Yes or no.

    It’s not a compound question. Another rambling noncommittal answer will be deemed a “no” and we can move on. Others can determine for themselves whether you are right about that.”

    Readers: Did this question ever get answered by Mr. Selbride? I cannot find it.


  114. Why did Rushdoony, who made a big deal about his Armenian heritage, name his foundation after a council (Chalcedon) that the Armenian church famously rejected?


  115. If anyone thinks that Christians can rule the earth better than other people we only have to look at the state of our churches! We can’t even get our acts together and get along in church. I would think our first priority would be cleaning up the messes within our four walls first before we tell others how to run the rest of the world. We attract others to the message by living it not giving it lip service.

    This is like saying I will have brain surgery only by a Christian doctor, who has done one surgery, versus a non-Christian surgeon who has done thousands successfully. Who would you trust your loved one to in that case?


Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s