Pastor Scott Lively Corrects Andrew Torba re: "Christian Nationalism"

 

Scott Lively's Mission Dispatch, September 22, 2022, Observations and Action on Current Events, History and Theology. Photo above is at Tel Gezer archaeological site looking west toward Jaffa, Israel. Subscribe HERE. Contact/Comment HERE.  DONATE HERE.

Open Letter to Andrew Torba re “Christian Nationalism” Dear Brother Andrew. I am a Hebraic-oriented Evangelical Christian attorney, pastor and historian who has devoted my entire adult life in Christ to Christian social, cultural and political activism. I bought your book “Christian Nationalism” to support the mission of Gab Social, and want to offer you some constructive criticism.  At the outset, I want to commend you for your courage and vision in taking on the powers and principalities of the present age by working to break the chains of censorship and suppression of free speech, particularly of the biblically-informed views that so powerfully contradict the secular humanist dogma of our Marxist would-be masters. They are the true enemies of “Judeo-Christian” civilization, and of course I choose that phrase intentionally to respectfully contradict your well-intentioned but misguided representation of its meaning and purpose relative to our national identity and heritage.  I will also add that I am both a member of Gab and a vehement defender of your right to address the distinctions between Judaism and Christianity. I do not consider you an anti-Semite, and in fact believe that the secularized ethnic Jews working to destroy your work are actually far more anti-Semitic than they claim you are in that they deny and/or defy the Torah, whereas you worship and revere its Author.  What defines a “Semite” (Shemite) if not Yahweh-worship? It certainly can’t be an ethnic connection to Shem (or Abraham or even Jacob) which virtually all humanity now shares because of genetic diffusion over millennia. No, it must be the practice of true Judaism, whose terms are defined by the Torah and Tanach (Old Testament Scripture), NOT the Talmud (commentaries on the Scripture by various Hebrew scholars with widely divergent views, values and validity).  Indeed, Judaism itself is as factional as Christianity but on a smaller scale, only because it’s so much smaller in numbers. Jews are not just doctrinally divided, but notoriously so! As the famous old joke goes “Ask two Jews, get three opinions.” Thus, to cite the view of any Talmudic “sage” as representative of all Jews or Judaism itself (as you did on page 56) is as intellectually dishonest as an anti-Christian Jew or Secular Humanist cherry-picking from the collective works of Christian scholars to define all Christianity.   You begin Chapter 4 “This is Not a ‘Judeo-Christian’ Movement” asserting that “Christianity and Judaism are totally distinct, incompatible, and irreconcilable religions.” In one essential sense that is true because, as you emphasize, Judaism denies that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. BUT, unlike all the other people groups of the world that also deny Christ (including all the secular factions in our diverse MAGA and populist/conservative movements whom you rightfully seem very comfortable collaborating with), true Torah-faithful Jews believe in A Messiah who will do all the things that Christians anticipate Jesus Christ will do on His second coming. Most Jews simply “missed the bus” on Jesus/Yeshua during His first advent (by God’s own plan), but remain standing in line for the next one, which Romans 11 tells us they WILL catch, when (as God adds in Zechariah 12:10) “I will pour out on the house of David and on the people of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and prayer, and they will look on Me, the One they have pierced [and] mourn for Him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for Him as one grieves for a firstborn son.”  You and I presumably share all or most of that would be considered the most fundamental tenets of the Christian faith, and many non-essential doctrines too. But we differ strongly on “supersessionism” (replacement theology) which you defend as the justification for your personal theology. Importantly, what you have laid out in “Christian Nationalism” is your personal theology, which does not represent Christianity as a whole, but only one slate of views among the constellation of denominations. That’s not a problem insofar as you admit it, and don’t attempt to impose your interpretations on non-essentials as dogma on the rest of Christendom. The flaw in your analysis of supersessionism (page 57) is the appeal to tradition (one of the classic fallacies of formal logic)  Whenever we justify ourselves by church tradition instead of the Bible itself, we depart from sound Holy Spirit guidance to tenuous worldly humanism – the common error behind Roman Catholicism’s self-authorizing “Magisterium” theory and Talmudic Judaism’s self-authorizing “Revered Sages” club. Correcting that error in Christendom was the implicit premise of the Reformation, but unfortunately, the reformers failed to reform numerous extra-biblical human-created doctrines in Protestantism, including the RCC’s dramatic changes to the God’s holiday calendar, the presumed right of the church to enforce dogma through murder (i.e. Calvin’s execution of Michael Servetus), and a severe Greco-Roman cultural bias in interpreting Scripture that differs markedly from the Hebraic cultural perspective of the Apostles and the Prophets. Many of those human-created doctrines were quickly jettisoned as Protestantism splintered into numerous factions, such as Presbyterianism that made the world-changing quantum shift from the top-down ecclesiastical power-pyramid exemplified by the papacy (and Anglicanism) to bottom-up self governance authorized by the “priesthood of all believers” and organized like the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. THAT is the deepest foundation-stone of America and of the modern movement for constitutionalism (foreshadowed by the Magna Carta in 1215, also heavily influenced by Jews).  The process of getting from Scottish Presbyterianism to the Pilgrim Separatism of the Plymouth Colony was heavily influenced by Christian-Jewish cross-pollination. Indeed, I know from my studies of this, that there would never have been a US Constitution or the populist overthrow of the western monarchies if not for the 16th and 17th Century Hebraic Movement in Holland and Great Britain. And that is why America is and has always been “Judeo-Christian.” It has nothing to do with how many Jews were active in the physical founding of America, or how Christian-centric the first state constitutions were, it is simply an honest acknowledgment of the Jews’ role in nudging Christians back to their First Century heritage that made America possible: a shared intellectual property right, if you will, like co-authors of a book or a scientific theory.  Lastly, you asserted on page 61 “It is impossible to overstate the importance of the historic cataclysm that was the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD.” Sorry, but it not only IS possible, you have done it. If that post-millennial doctrine were true, the real proof would have been unmistakable over the next thousand years, especially the end, but of course, it didn’t look at all like the Millennial Kingdom of prophecy – because Christ’s earthly kingdom, while very near, has not yet begun. You would know that if you studied the Bible from the literal Hebraic perspective, but you don’t and I respect that as your right within the bounds of Christian liberty.  My point with the prior paragraph is to illustrate that factionalism will be the death-knell to any attempt to build unity on a theological foundation, which is why the Founders and subsequent Christian generations chose the broadest possible platform – Bible-based Yahweh-honoring monotheism (exemplified in our national motto, “In God we trust”) – and not any flavor of Christian sectarianism (which led to many serious conflicts among the denominations in our early days as a nation and thus the ban on establishing state “religions” – meaning “denominations” -- in the “Establishment Clause” of our constitution.)   I don’t expect you to change your theology based on one letter from me, but I do hope you will reconsider your gratuitous exclusionary rhetoric regarding our spiritual cousins in the House of Judah, treating at least the many who share our cultural values (and the all-important Creationist paradigm) with the same basic respect and comradery you show to Atheists in the MAGA and conservative movements. And I offer my assistance in making this necessary course-correction if you care to accept it.  Pastor Scott Lively, J.D., Th.D.

Pastor Scott Lively Explains: "Replacement Theology is a Fraud"

 A CAUTION TO THORN KICKERS

The most famous Jew of the Bible, after the Judean Jesus, was Paul, the self-described “Pharisee of Pharisees.” That chief persecutor of Christians, who was known first by his Hebrew name Saul, adopted the Latinized version “Paul” after being famously, uniquely saved and anointed for service by the ascended Christ Himself on the road to Damascus in Acts 22. When giving that testimony to King Agrippa in Acts 26:14, Paul reported that Jesus had said “in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”

To kick against pricks (thorns) has ever since been a metaphor for foolishly harming oneself by persisting in futile acts against God’s will. Significantly, the thorns in question were almost certainly from the same plant of which Jesus’ Crown of Thorns was made: “Euphorbia Milii,” known commonly today as “Christ thorn.” That crown was the first element of the Romans' mocking tribute to "The King of the Jews" in John 19. 

Paul believed he was serving God by opposing the Christians but was only hurting himself because he didn’t understand God’s plan for the church until his spiritual eyes were opened -- by being (temporarily) physically struck blind. 

Likewise, many Christians in today’s “anti-Zionist” camp don’t understand God’s plan for the Jews and are thus “kicking against the pricks” by denying their right to the Holy Land.

As God’s post-conversion Apostle to the Gentiles, the Jews’-Jew-become-Christian Paul was uniquely qualified for his special mission as God’s messenger to non-Jews and his letters provide us most of the reasoned systematic theology that defines Christianity. God’s perspective about the Jews and Judaism is scattered throughout Paul’s letters, but is most complete in his Letter to the Romans, including the critical question of how Gentiles are to treat Jews in the Gentile age, filling the entire 11th chapter, key excerpts of which follow: 

“I [Paul] ask then, did God reject His people? Certainly not! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject His people, whom He foreknew....What Israel [as a whole] was seeking, it failed to obtain, but the elect [those few Jews who accepted Christ] did. The others were hardened...I ask then, did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Certainly not! However, because of their trespass, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel jealous...For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?...Now if some branches have been broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others to share in the nourishment of the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, remember this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.

“You will say then, ‘Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.’ That is correct: ... And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut from a wild olive tree, and contrary to nature were grafted into one that is cultivated, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree! I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not be conceited: A hardening in part has come to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved [at the Second Coming, when]...The Deliverer will come from Zion...For God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable.”

Romans 11 is an unequivocal proof-text against “supercessionism” (replacement theology) which holds that the church fully replaced the Hebrews as the beneficiary of His covenant. Supercessionism (and its pernicious cousin punative supercessionism) is the great error of Roman Catholicism (which was largely retained by Protestantism in the reformation), justifying the persecution of the Jews in many pogroms throughout history, and in turn causing Jews to create their own culture-shaping/controlling mechanisms in self-defense, as God gave them the power to do (Genesis 22:17c). 

[My only goal in stating this observation is to seek the objective truth above that fray. I have come to believe that much, or perhaps most of world history in the Age of the Gentiles has been shaped by a largely behind-the-scenes war for world control between the institutions of Roman Catholicism and Talmudic Judaism. I have launched a new book research project on this hypothesis with the working title of "Judah Under the Gentiles."] 

As much as I love both Roman Catholic and Talmudic Jewish friends whom I have known, both religious camps represent a departure from Scripture through the undue elevation of (sometimes but not always false) human-created doctrines and interpretations that came to define them. But just as Paul noted in Romans 11:2-5, there has always been a remnant of true believers in both Christianity and Judaism (which fact does not nullify John 14:6). 

Nullify Obergefell--No False Marriage, Restore True Marriage!

 From the desk of Pastor Scott Lively:

This article is archived here for those who prefer to read from a website FEDERAL TYRANNY VS STATES RIGHTS ON TRUE MARRIAGE WND recently covered a story from the U.K. in which a public health agency has declared – with total conviction – that Christian beliefs regarding marriage are “incompatible with human dignity.” In America, and much of the Western world, public policy on the many variants of homosexuality and “transgenderism” has left the world of rationality and plunged increasing deeper into literal insanity. Normal people are being punished for “misgendering” those who invent new “gender identities” and matching pronouns for themselves; many young people are clamoring to be chemically and surgically mutilated; women athletes (no matter how strong their feminist credentials) are routinely suffering humiliating defeats by men in drag; and even conservative media have so lost their bearing that sodomy-based partnerships (like that showcased by the unfortunately named Peter Buttigieg) are applying the word “marriage” to them without challenge, with or without quotation marks. To all of this, I say “I told you so.” Elections have consequences, but more importantly, so does the logic of legal arguments. When you, as voters or through your representatives, stipulate in binding anti-discrimination laws that it is morally and ethically wrong to reasonably discriminate against the behavioral disorders (aka “sexual orientations”) of a militant, implacable army of political activists (instead of preserving sexual normalcy as essential to a healthy society), you are GUARANTEED that their disorders will eventually be mainstreamed. And, you are guaranteed that these malicious bullies will use their new legal powers force you out of the mainstream, exploiting your unthinking agreement that “discrimination” is morally, ethically and legally wrong. You essentially abandon the moral and legal high ground to your cultural adversaries, all to save yourself from the discomfort of being called a “hater” – by people who will never stop calling you that unless you totally surrender on every subsequent point. Despite intense persecution by the left, I have worked diligently to educate the conservative movement on these matters in several books, including “Redeeming the Rainbow” (my Th.D. doctoral thesis, which I converted into the only textbook ever written on the subject) and countless sermons, speeches and articles. About 20 years ago I boiled it down to a simple lesson called “The Five Stages of Homofascism.” These stages are Tolerance, Acceptance, Celebration, Forced Participation, and Punishment of Dissenters. Tracking and backing this cultural transformation had been the U.S. Supreme Court during the entire tenure of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s reign as the all-powerful “swing vote.” Kennedy, the worst enemy of biblical marriage in American history, not only wrote the majority opinion in all four of the landmark cases that established LGBT cultural supremacy over Christianity, he also paved the way for the normalization of pedophilia in his 2002 majority opinion that “simulated child pornography is protected free speech,” a fact I cited in my recent prediction that Mark Zuckerberg’s emerging “Metaverse” will allow pedophiles to indulge their perversions with virtual children in that artificial world, feeding their inner demons with real-world consequences. The LGBT agenda has always been the point of the spear of Cultural Marxism, and thus it is no surprise that the triumph of the putative Biden presidency is most gloatingly in-your-face in the heartbreaking, sexually dysfunctional parade of America’s children dancing willingly into the flames of Sodom as the demonic media and politicians applaud. But, suddenly there is a small glimmer of hope thanks to a bold conservative legislator in Texas named James White. White, who happens to be black, contends that Texas state law on marriage trumps Obergefell v. Hodges, the so-called “gay marriage” ruling, which was the pinnacle of Justice Kennedy’s LGBT championing-career in 2015. I have always contended that the Obergefell ruling is illegitimate and void because both Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan performed “gay weddings” during the pendency of the case. That was the most egregious violation of judicial ethics in the history of the court, making a mockery of the bedrock principle of judicial impartiality every jurist owes to every party before the court regardless of their personal views or past rulings on similar cases. The White strategy appears to be an expansion of the states rights movement that has grown powerfully over the past few years as federal tyranny on leftist social policy has angered conservative states. This battle has been most obvious on gun rights and more recently “vaccine” mandates. But the battle for true marriage was encouragingly bolstered in October 2020 by the comments of Justices Thomas and Alito regarding a case that was actually unanimously denied review by SCOTUS on a technicality. As NPR wrote in a blind panic: “Nevertheless, [Thomas and Alito] said, the case ‘provides a stark reminder’ of the consequences of the same-sex marriage decision. By choosing to endorse ‘a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the court has created a problem that only it can fix,’ they said. ‘Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'” Right now, we’re awaiting an opinion by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and are guardedly optimistic based on his record. But the far left is not waiting at all, their attacks being led by the Lincoln Project – the LGBT propaganda arm of the establishment wing of the Republican Party – which I exposed as such last July. A pro-family victory in Texas would undoubtedly start a stampede of conservative states to follow suit (remember that 35 states and counting banned “gay marriage” before Kennedy nullified the peoples’ will by judicial fiat in Obergefell). So amidst all the doom and gloom, here’s at least one reason for hope and cheer (and optimistic prayer) as we head into the Christmas season.

MassResistance: Conservative Primary Challenger Scott Lively Upends Massachusetts Governor Primary

In Massachusetts, Pastor Scott Lively is turning the Governor’s race inside out against incumbent RINO Charlie Baker in GOP primary. Election this Tuesday, Sept. 4.

Governor spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to beat Lively – a close election is looming!

Lively HATED by liberal media and GOP establishment

September 2, 2018

Scott Lively (center, in suit) has passionate supporters across the state.

Imagine a state where the Republican Governor is a proud pro-abortion, pro-LGBT hard-left liberal. A pro-family conservative comes out of nowhere to run against him in the primary. He ignites the GOP grassroots, barnstorming the state, and is in striking distance of winning. The incumbent is forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising to gain back ground. Welcome to Massachusetts!

The most exciting statewide pro-family political campaign in America is taking place in, of all places, Massachusetts. On Tuesday, Sept. 4, Republican voters who come out to vote that day will decide between Scott Lively, an unapologetic conservative pro-Trump Christian pastor, and incumbent Governor Charlie Baker, probably the most liberal anti-Trump Republican Governor in the country.

Most people concede that Baker is far more popular among Democrats and Independents than the Republican base. But since there are several big primary races among Democrat liberals, it’s likely that only Republicans will vote in the Republican primary, not Independents.

Just how bad is Charlie Baker?

Governor Charlie Baker, who was elected in 2014, has never tried to hide his contempt and disdain for the conservatives who make up the base of the party.

Here are just a few of the things he’s done in that time:

• He made a campaign video celebrating “gay marriage.”
• He's filled much of his administration with liberal Democrats.
• He signed the outrageous transgender “bathroom bill” into law.
• He raised over a million dollars to unseat conservative members of the GOP State Committee.
• He supports “abortion rights” 100%.
• He announced that he would provide funding for Planned Parenthood if they lost federal funding.
• His state budget included $1.4 billion to fight “climate change.”
• He has nominated LGBT activists as judges.
• He refused to vote at all for President in the 2016 election.
• He refused to meet with Vice President Pence when he came to Massachusetts.
• He signed a bill to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour – to please liberals.
• He opposed repealing Obamacare.
• He opposed President Trump’s ban on immigration from certain dangerous countries.
• He signed the automatic voter registration bill, a favorite of liberals.
• He signed a bill allowing the government to confiscate firearms from people who are “considered a danger.”
• He will be giving the keynote speech at the radical homosexual Log Cabin Republicans’ fundraising dinner in Washington DC this fall.

By many accounts, Charlie Baker is worse than his liberal Democrat predecessor, Deval Patrick. It’s no wonder that the Boston Globe constantly labels Charlie Baker “the most popular governor in America.” (We’d like to see those polls!)

Lively shocked the establishment by getting on the GOP primary ballot!

Scott Lively is a conservative Christian pastor based in Springfield, MA, but with a worldwide following. He ran for Governor in 2014 as an Independent and got about 2% of the vote. But he clearly learned a lot!

His 2018 campaign started off with a bang. On April 30, Lively shocked the GOP establishment by getting 28% of the vote by the delegates at the Republican State Convention in Worcester, despite a well-financed effort by the Baker and the establishment keep him off the ballot entirely. Since then his support has only gone up. Much of that, as with President Trump, is a reaction to massive attacks on him by the liberal media and GOP establishment.

VIDEO: Scott Lively's barnburner speech before Mass. GOP Convention on April 30!

Hysterical hatred by the Boston-area mainstream media

When he ran in 2014 Lively was virtually ignored by all the media. They considered him a “fringe” candidate who was going nowhere.

But liberals despise any real conservative who is becoming potent. This time, the Boston area mainstream media has exhibited an astounding and relentless a “Lively derangement syndrome.” There have been more lurid, hysterical articles and radio/TV reports about Lively than any other candidate in the state, ever. In the Globe he’s called “anti-gay pastor Scott Lively.” If you compare opinions in The Boston Globe(liberals) and The Boston Herald (RINOs) they don’t agree on a lot, but they both hate Scott Lively.

The blatant lies and visible anger are remarkable. From their completely twisted depiction of his book The Pink Swastika (fact: it’s a compendium of research by various mainstream historians) to the lies about his dealings in Uganda (fact: Lively argued AGAINST onerous laws affecting gays), the media fabricates, distorts, and simply makes up their “facts” about Scott Lively. It’s beyond “fake news.” Luckily, conservatives are so used to seeing this done to President Trump that it has little effect.

The only exceptions to the anti-Lively parade are conservative WRKO Boston radio hosts Howie Carr and Jeff Kuhner, and the Boston Broadsidenewspaper, all of whom identify with the grassroots and enthusiastically support Scott Lively over Baker.

This is the winning lunatic anti-Lively headline so far. But it’s been a close race! From the Beacon Hill Patch, it quotes extensively from the extremist Southern Poverty Law Center.

Excluded from all help from the GOP

We wish there was more room to describe this. The Massachusetts State Republican Party (which is so corrupt that many people consider it a criminal enterprise) has broken its own written rules to deny Scott Lively the use of any GOP offices, equipment, election materials, or other help – even though he’s a legitimate GOP candidate for office. But the Baker campaign gets full use of it.

EVERY GOP State Legislator has publicly endorsed Charlie Baker

One good thing about this race is that it exposed the phony “pro-family” frauds in the State House. Every Republican state senator and representative has thumbed his nose at the grassroots conservatives and has publicly endorsed pro-abortion, pro-LGBT, anti-2nd Amendment Charlie Baker.

Screen shot of video being broadcast at the Republican GOP Convention of Jim Lyons (right) asking the delegates to vote for Charlie Baker (left).

A very disappointing example is State Rep. Jim Lyons. Lyons got elected as a “solid” pro-life, pro-family guy. And he’s ridden that wave with conservatives. But this year, he’s campaigned passionately for Baker against Lively. He was even featured in a giant Baker video at the GOP convention. What’s going on? By strange coincidence, Baker did a fundraiser for Lyons just last week at the Lanam Club in Andover. This is what pro-family people are up against from GOP politicians. It fuels the support for Lively even more.

Ignored by the Massachusetts pro-family establishment

This is a problem all over the country. “Mainstream” pro-family groups don’t want to get their hands dirty by openly supporting “embarrassing” hardcore conservative candidates like Scott Lively. So they back away and just ignore it. Take a look at this voter guide for the Sept. 4th election – the Governor race is not included!

Lively barnstorming the state!

Over the summer Scott Lively has been like a machine, barnstorming the state, often speaking at several events a day. He’s in parades, in stores, seemingly everywhere. And his signs are seen a lot in many parts of the state.

Signs like these are seenacross the state.

(Handwritten sign at bottom: Vote Sept. 4th!)

Baker spending HUGE to beat Lively in Sept. 4 primary

In 2014 when Charlie Baker was running against Mark Fisher in the primary, Baker hardly spent any money at all. He was virtually invisible, waiting to focus on the general election.

But this time he and his campaign staff are obviously worried. Baker’s flooding the TV airwaves with very expensive commercials, and also mailings, aimed at Republican primary voters. In other words, he’s trying desperately to get his RINO supporters to come to the polls instead of doing something else that day.

Baker's TV commercials targeting the Sept. 4 primary have been flooding the airwaves.

And also numerous mailings telling Republican voters to "Vote Septembber 4th" for Charlie Baker

You’ve got to love it!

Come on, is this a fun race or what? A horrible RINO incumbent governor running scared because of a no-holds-barred pro-family, pro-Trump conservative – in one of the bluest states in America. You’ve got to love it!

The Boston Broadside, the only Massachusetts newspaper to enthusiastically support Scott Lively (and other conservatives) put out a special issue for this primary. They are distributing 100,000 copies across the state. It is full of great information for real, no-excuses conservatives! In case you didn’t get one, you can download it here. (And check out the ¼ page ad for MassResistance.)

100,000 copies of this special edition of the Boston Broadside are being distributed across the state.

THIS TUESDAY, SEPT. 4 -- If you live in Massachusetts PULL THE LEVER FOR SCOTT LIVELY!

     

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!