McAtee Contra the Baptist Fairchild On Baptism

This is from some Baptist Minister in Houston Texas serving at a Mega Church. Like most mega Churches the ministers are long on feel goods and short on doctrine. His name is Rev. L. David Fairchild.

Fairchild writes;

“The fatal flaw in paedobaptism is that it treats the New Covenant like the Old. A mixed bag. Some believe, some do not. But that is not how the Bible describes it. Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 are clear. The New Covenant is made with those who know God. Who have been forgiven. Who have the Spirit. That is not a crowd you get into by birth. That is a regenerate people.

BLMc responds,

This would be true if it were not the case that the Old Covenant is like the New Covenant. The only difference is that the Old Covenant is the New Covenant not yet come to full flower. The Old Covenant is the not yet mature New Covenant.

That the New Covenant is like the Old Covenant in that both covenant are a mixed bad is seen in the fact that in the Old Covenant not all of Israel was of Israel as the Holy Spirit says in Romans 9. Some of Israel belonged to the outward administration of the covenant without having the essence of the covenant. In the same way the New Covenant is a mixed bag. We see this for example in Jesus warnings in Revelation to the seven churches that He would take their lampstands away if they were not faithful. We see this in the book of Hebrews with the warnings against falling away. We see this when John says of unregenerate people of the Church;

“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.”  I John 2:19

Then there is the Wheat and Tares parable that many a theologian has seen being about the Church having in it both wheat and tares.

So Fairchild’s idea that the New Covenant is comprised only of regenerate people is just a Baptist assumption with no foundation. Now, it is true that the essence of the New Covenant, who is Jesus the Christ, is only occupied by the regenerate but there are many people who are in the administrative outskirts of the New Covenant who do not have the essence of the New Covenant who will say on that day …

22  Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 7

So, clearly it is a Baptist interpretive mistake to say that only regenerate people are in the boundaries of the New Covenant. It has always been the case, both in the Old Covenant and the New Covenant that not all of Israel is of Israel.

In terms of Fairchild’s appeal to the language of Jeremiah and Hebrews Calvin easily dismisses Fairchild’s mis-interpretative ravings on this score;

“It may be asked, whether there was under the Law (Old Covenant) a sure and certain promise of salvation, whether the fathers had the gift of the Spirit, whether they enjoyed God’s paternal favor through the remission of sins? Yes, it is evident that they worshipped God with a sincere heart and a pure conscience, and that they walked in his commandments, and this could not have been the case except they had been inwardly taught by the Spirit; and it is also evident, that whenever they thought of their sins, they were raised up by the assurance of a gratuitous pardon. And yet the Apostle, by referring the prophecy of Jeremiah to the coming of Christ, seems to rob them of these blessings. To this I reply, that he does not expressly deny that God formerly wrote his Law on their hearts and pardoned their sins, but he makes a comparison between the less and the greater. As then the Father has put forth more fully the power of his Spirit under the kingdom of Christ, and has poured forth more abundantly his mercy on mankind, this exuberance renders insignificant the small portion of grace which he had been pleased to bestow on the fathers. We also see that the promises were then obscure and intricate, so that they shone only like the moon and stars in comparison with the clear light of the Gospel which shines brightly on us.”

Calvin’s Commentary
Hebrews 8

L. David Fairchild writes,

“So baptizing someone with no faith, no regeneration, and no profession, like an infant, just does not fit. It breaks the meaning of baptism from the inside out.”

BLMc responds,

In point of fact since regeneration & justification are all God’s work with man contributing nothing baptizing infants is a perfect picture of God doing all the doing in saving helpless man. What Fairchild has done here is what all Baptists do. Fairchild has turned man’s faith into a work that he has to exchange as a work to trade in for salvation. This is justification by faith as a work alone. It is not a particularly Christian doctrine but really does lead back to some kind of pelagian arrangement. Of course it is the Baptist who breaks the meaning of Baptism from the inside out and turns the grace of God into something that is only gracious upon man’s trading up faith for grace.

L. David Fairchild;

I know the argument. Circumcision was the sign of the Old, baptism is the sign of the New. But that logic only works if the covenant structure stays the same. And it doesn’t. The Old Covenant was temporary. Shadows and types. The New Covenant is the real thing. It is better. It doesn’t just get a new sign. It has new membership. Baptism isn’t a repackaged circumcision. It’s the sign of a new creation.

BLMc responds,

1.) This reveals the Baptist propensity to assume discontinuity between the covenants. The Reformed, on the other hand, are disposed to seeing continuity between Old and New Covenant unless explicitly told of discontinuity such as the end of the sacrificial system and the ceremonial law.

2.) To deny that there is sameness between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant suggests that

a.) God isn’t immutable but changes between Old Covenant and New Covenant. This is a serious theological problem. If there is as much change between Old Covenant and New Covenant such as Baptists like Fairchild is positing then we really have a different God in the OT then we have in the NT. This is a problem.

b.) the Old Testament believers were not saved by grace alone just as the New Testament believers are saved. This Baptist thinking posits that the OT saints if saved were saved by a different kind of salvation then the salvation by which the saints are saved by with the coming of the magnificent Jesus Christ.

c.) The reason there is a new sign for the new and better covenant is because the Lord Christ fulfills all the blood shedding required in the old covenant and so the water of Baptism is given as a sign of forgiveness. However, Baptism signifies just what circumcision signified in the Old Covenant. This explains why it is St. Paul seems to mix his circumcision and baptism metaphors in Colossians 2;

11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body [h]of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

The New Covenant has come with Christ and so circumcision is no longer the sign of the covenant as was the case when the Messiah was only anticipated. The reality is that the Old Covenant promised is now realized with the coming of Christ and so the covenant sign that was both anticipatory and yet at the same time proleptic is set aside for the sign (Baptism) that the reality has come. However, inasmuch as the old covenant was a unfolding and growing reality serving as a proleptic harbinger of the new covenant the new covenant remains related to what the old covenant anticipated.

Fairchild writes,

The pattern in the New Testament is painfully obvious. Hear the gospel. Believe. Repent. Then be baptized. That’s it. Over and over. There isn’t one clear example of an infant being baptized. Not one command to do it. Every baptism you can point to involves someone responding to Christ in faith.

 BLM responds,

1.) The problem here is what St. Peter himself says in that Pentecost sermon;

“38 Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the [k]remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.’”

Now, there is no way in Hades that a 1st century Jew would’ve heard these words and thought … “I can’t bring my children to be baptized.” It is just ridiculous to contend otherwise.

2.) We know from the NT record that the Jews howled and howled about the Gentiles coming in to the covenant and yet we are to believe that the Jews did not raise a peep about their children being excluded from the “new and better covenant.”

3.) There is an abundance of household baptisms in the NT. This gives us conclusive evidence that children should be given the sign of the covenant because household baptisms as practiced in the NT scream at us that if children had been present they would have been baptized since that was the very nature of NT Household baptisms.

4.) There also isn’t one clear command or example of women taking the Eucharist. Does that therefore mean that women today shouldn’t receive the Eucharist?

Baptist logic is so jejune.

Fairchild writes,

When you baptize someone who hasn’t believed, you confuse everything. You blur the line between the visible and invisible church. You give false assurance. You end up with churches full of people who think they’re Christian because water touched their forehead decades ago. That is not the gospel.

BLMc responds,

1.) Whenever Fairchild baptizes anybody he does not know they believe. I bet more Baptists have been baptized who never believed than Reformed Babies have been baptized who never believed.

2.) Who says that a baby can’t believe? John is recorded as leaping his mother’s womb for joy thus signifying his recognition of Jesus. The Psalmist (22) writes even;

9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
    you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.
10 From birth I was cast on you;
    from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

3.) How can Fairchild even talk about a distinction between the visible and invisible church when he has said that he holds that all in the church are regenerate. The whole distinction between visible and invisible church rests upon the reality that not all members who say they are regenerate are indeed regenerate.

4.) The whole idea that paedo-baptist churches give false assurance is just Baptist bloviating. As paedo-baptist churches routinely preach to their people the 1st use of the law there is no false assurance going on.

5.) If Baptists want to talk about false assurance being given they should worry about the false assurance that comes with telling their membership that they are all regenerate.

Fairchild writes,

If you baptize someone who cannot believe, then you either have to say baptism doesn’t mean what Scripture says it does, or that it does something magical without faith. That’s precisely how you slide into baptismal regeneration, whether you admit it or not.

BLMC responds

1.) Scripture does not teach that infants can’t believe. See above.

2.) No paedo-Baptist teaches the Roman Catholic/Lutheran doctrine of Baptismal regeneration. Fairchild writing this just demonstrates the man’s ignorance on the subject once again.

McAtee Vindicated By President Donald J. Trump … CRC’s Rev. Reggie Smith Seen As Clueless

“It’s a genocide. White Farmers are being brutally killed and their land is being confiscated. And the media doesn’t even talk about it. If it were the other way around (Whites killing Black farmers), that would be the only story they talk about.”

President Donald J. Trump
Press Conference

https://x.com/_johnnymaga/status/1921944478778069489?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1921944478778069489%7Ctwgr%5E2e8d7cff0847334521c42deaa6460434852a5cb4%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Frevolver.news%2Fnewsfeed%2F

This has been known for a very long time now. However, it has also been denied as being true by the usual Marxist apologists. Indeed, in point of fact, my praying about this reality mentioned above became fodder for a front page Lansing State Journal story in 2021. The Lansing State Journal is the Paper of record for Mid-Michigan – located in the State Capital as it is. Here is their report that they featured so prominently. They are quoting from one “Rev. Reggie Smith” a black denominational chieftain of the CRC, who at the time was in attendance at a Charlotte Christ the King church service in order to attempt to destroy myself and the Church; Here is what the Lansing State Journal printed quoting this black chieftain of the CRC;

“McAtee’s sermon was like “any other traditional church until the prayer time came,” Smith said, and a woman in the crowd of about 20 asked for prayers for the white people living in South Africa.

“There was this supposedly false rumor that white people were being killed by Black people in South Africa, which was totally untrue,” Smith said.

Smith said McAtee “embraced” her sentiment.

“That’s when I knew this was not what I thought it would be,” he said. “There’s something wrong here.”

I just want to emphasize here now that Trump has made this clearly known before God and all the world that what we prayed for that morning was not based on a false rumor. It was true then and it is true now that white farmers are being viciously murdered by blacks and Rev. Reggie Smith, the CRC, and the Lansing State Journal were and are providing cover for the black murderers of white farmers in South Africa. Nothing that happened on that Sunday Morning in 2021 was racist unless you consider “the sin of noticing” to be racist.

Five years later very few people will care that I was right and wrongly indicted by Rev. Reggie Smith, the CRC, and the Lansing State Journal for praying that God would avenge Himself on these black animals who are torturing and murdering judicially innocent white farmers and their families. Very few people will care that Trump has vindicated my concern for South African White farmers and that Rev. Reggie Smith and the CRC has been revealed to either being knowing liars or a unwitting dupes.

Finally, to put a fine point on this, when all this occurred in 2021 I personally knew a South African man whose own grandfather farmer had been murdered by blacks. I wasn’t speaking out of my hat that morning. Some ministers in the US still keep abreast of what is happening elsewhere in the world.

Leo XIV; Divorcing The Doctrine of Christ From Knowing Jesus Christ

“We are often preoccupied with teaching doctrine, but we risk forgetting that our first task is to know Jesus Christ.”

Leo XIV
Newly Minted Pope

A few words here on the new Pope. First, all Popes…. all Roman Catholic Bishops, Priests, Monsignors, and members who embrace the official teaching of Rome (which includes the council of Trent) are anti-Christs without exception. Now many individual Protestants are as well but the Roman Catholic church as an institution is officially anti-Christ. Now, this is not to say that there does not exist within the membership of the Roman Catholic Church genuine Christians but if they are genuine Christians then they are not genuine Roman Catholics.

Second, we already see the post-modern mindset of this freshly minted Pope in the quote above. His words sound so noble… so pious and yet that sentence is stupidity on stilts.

a.) We wonder how is it we come to know Jesus Christ apart from teaching doctrine. What does knowing a doctrine-less Jesus look like?

b.) Underneath this statement is the assumption that experience trumps doctrine. What is being left unsaid is that knowing Jesus (in an experiential way) trumps knowing Jesus in a doctrinal way. However, there is no knowing Jesus in an experiential way that is not first anchored in doctrine.

c.) I would go as far to say that there is no knowing Jesus … no growth in knowing Jesus apart from knowing Christology (the doctrine of Christ). I can’t have Jesus over for a meal. I can’t go to a ball game with Him. There is no knowing Jesus on that kind of a “personal” level. The only way for me to know Jesus is to grow in my understanding of the doctrine of Christ.

Now, I suppose that knowledge could become sterile and antiseptic but a sterile and antiseptic knowledge of Jesus could only be cured by our doctrine of Jesus (Christology) improving. It would not be cured by having a greater experience of Jesus unless that experience was conveyed via a greater understanding of the doctrine of Christ.

Now, we should immediately recognize here that what the Pope says above is not unique to the most recently minted papal anti-Christ. All kinds of Protestants today say that kind of nonsense. Moderns and postmoderns alike have this mad infatuation with all things experiential. Similarly, moderns and postmoderns alike are allergic to the idea of doctrine.

It is a fact that the more we learn of the doctrine of Christ (Christology) the more we have a deep experiential love for our great Captain and Liege-Lord; Jesus the Christ. The more we come to understand the grandness and greatness of His person and work as mediated via the means of doctrine (Christology) as found in Scripture and as illumined by the Holy Spirit the more we are lost in wonder, love, and praise.

As an aside here, we should note that a man’s knowing of Christ will typically look different than a woman’s knowing of Christ. Neither knowing is superior or inferior. The point is that when a man increases his knowing of Christ it is an increased knowing that leads to a response that is akin to how a soldier responds in his increased knowing of his great Captain and leader in battle. When a woman increases her knowing of Christ it is an increased knowing that leads to a response that is akin to how a wife responds to increasingly knowing the way her husband loves her and for the way he cherishes and takes care of her. Men and women are different and so the way they respond to an increased understanding of Jesus via the doctrine of Christology, as drawn from the Scripture and illumined by the Spirit will be different.

The Lite WOKE Left’s Accusation That The Dissident Christian Right Is Really “WOKE Right”

Recently, it has become all the rage for the lite WOKE left to accuse the dissident right of being “WOKE RIGHT.” The like WOKE left is doing this in order to try and gate-keep for the hard WOKE left. It is hoped by those slinging around the accusation of “WOKE RIGHT” that they will be able to discredit the dissident and Christian Right with many who are not epistemologically self conscious in our current truth contest.

Now, I have never understood the guts of this accusation and I have legitimately tried to understand that the WOKE Right and the WOKE Left are really the same only as mirror opposites. The argument that the WOKE Right is the same as the WOKE left is that both use the same methodology to arrive at their opposite positions.

I hope to give the lie to that idiocy in this post.

The only way to examine a position is to look at the Worldview and theology undergirding it. That is how I intend to answer the question; “Is there such a thing as the WOKE Right which mirrors the WOKE Left?”

When it comes to Worldviews we have to consider the issue of Ontology. Ontology (or metaphysics) examines  the principles and causes of being. It examine issues of origins and the nature of reality. The Ontology of the WOKE Left, not believing in an extra-mundane personal God, is time + chance + circumstance. Because of this denial of an extra-mundane personal God, man becomes the agent who determines all of reality. The WOKE left thus have created, whole-cloth, an ideological narrative that posits an Oppressed vs. Oppressor dynamic wherein those defined as “Oppressed” by the WOKE left are now allowed to be the “Oppressors” in the WOKE Left worldview. The problem here is that those labeled as “Oppressed” and “Oppressors”are completely arbitrary. This arbitrariness is allowed because, in their Ontology there is no extra-mundane personal and authoritative God who can set the standard for “Oppressed” and “Oppressor.” Not believing in the God of the Bible they are their own God and being their own God they create, by manipulating the evidence, who occupies the “Oppressed” and “Oppressor” categories and lo and behold the chief “Oppressor” in this God hating worldview is the Christian White man who has been, by God’s grace alone, the chief carrier of civilizational Christianity.

Now along comes the WOKE lite left who has a vested interested in coming to the aid and assistance of the hard WOKE left and the WOKE lite left accuses the Dissident Right of being WOKE right. However, this accusation fails, particularly as pointed at the Christian dissident right, because   the Christian dissident rights worldview includes an extra-mundane personal and authoritative God. The dissident right holds that God created all things in six days and all very good. Because of this affirmation of the extra-mundane personal and authoritative God, the dissident right bows to God’s determination of reality. This means that the dissident right does not move in terms of the WOKE left’s “Oppressor vs. Oppressed” categories but rather moves in terms of the Christian antithesis which teaches that Christians are blessed and the wicked are cursed. When the dissident right looks at world history they see not “Oppressed vs. Oppressor” but they see blessed vs. cursed. When the cursed are successful over the righteous the Christian sees that as the chastening hand of God against His people for their rebellion against God.

All this means that the Christian sees history as much more complex than merely a “Oppressed vs. Oppressor” dynamic. This also means that the idea that a WOKE right exists is just pure bollix. The ontology embraced in the Christian worldview does not allow for a WOKE ontology. Something else that should be noted here is that the dissident Christian right also believes that the righteous should rule over the wicked. That rule over the wicked is to be consistent with God’s revealed Word but make no mistake — it is God’s good toward the wicked that the righteous rule over them.

This brings us in turn to the issue of epistemology in the competing worldviews of the dissident Christian right and the WOKE left. Epistemolgoy answers the question; “How do we know what we know.” The epistemology that the WOKE left has embraced is that of Critical theory as applied across a host of disciplines. Critical theory thus provides the WOKE left epistemological foundation. Critical theory arose in the context of postmodernism. Postmodernism held that true truth (absolute truth) did not exist and that as such all that existed was what they called “social constructs.” “Social constructs” were human inventions serving as “arbitrary truth dynamics” that different people groups and sub-groups would abide by until such a time they changed their minds moving to a different “social construct truth paradigm.” Critical theory arises in this mix insisting that absolute truth does not exist while agreeing with the pomo project about truth as social construct and the social construct truth that the Critical theory builds is, as we have seen, the whole myth of “Oppressed” vs. “Oppressor” as they alone – solely upon their own authority – designate the “Oppressed” vs. “Oppressor” categories. Now, WOKE epistemology hates the God of the Bible and hates the idea that true truth exists and so not surprisingly, as noted above, the WOKE project has labeled as the chief “Oppressor” throughout world history as the people who own the worldview handed down from God and revealed in Scripture. The anti-Christ worldview that is WOKE finds their natural #1 enemy to be the ones guilty of being the “Oppressors” throughout history. How convenient. Now, the WOKE lite left (many of whom insist they are Christian) come along and support the worldview of the hard WOKE left in the name of Christ. The WOKE lite left join hands with the hard WOKE left to put Christian Nationalists in the dock in order to accuse them of being just like the hard WOKE left. This is a classic example of the Saul Alinsky tactic of accusing your opponent of that which you are guilty.

So, the WOKE Left uses Critical Race theory as their epistemology. This epistemic part of the post-modern project and worldview that the hard WOKE left embraces, rejects the idea of true truth. Contrasted with this is the so-called WOKE Right which rejects CRT as their epistemology choosing instead God’s Word as their epistemic authority. As such, we have to ask, “How can WOKE Right be the same as the WOKE Left when their epistemology is diametrically opposed to one another?”

By continuing to examine the worldviews of both WOKE left and dissident right we continue to discover complete opposition at every point. Another example would be the anthropology of WOKE left vs. dissident Christian right. The WOKE left hold an anthropology that man is merely matter in motion. Not owning a personal God all that is left for the WOKE left is to affirm that man only has the meaning that man himself gives to himself. With this anthropology the WOKE left has chosen to take as the ideal man the pervert, the feminist, and the Christless minority to be their “Oppressed” heroes. This arbitrary choice is completely in concord with Rousseau’s noble savage theory. For Rousseau and the Romanticist worldview there existed an idealized concept of uncivilized man who symbolized the innate goodness of man as not exposed to the corrupting influences of civilization. This anthropology continues for the WOKE left. The only thing that has been changed out is that whereas for the worldview of Romanticism it was the frontier Indian in the new World who served as the noble savage who was to be esteemed as the ideal man, now it is sexual pervert, feminist, and Christ-hating minority who now serves as the noble savage. Further, the anthropology of the current WOKE left, teaches that the man who is the least of all mankind is the Biblical Christian who insists that justice needs to be brought against the modern noble savage.

To the contrary of all this the dissident Christian right embraces an anthropology that teaches that man outside of Jesus Christ is a sinner who can only sin all the time since he has a sin nature out of which arises nothing but sin. The anthropology of the dissident Christian right rejects the idea that man is basically good — and this is never more true than when considering the WOKE left’s noble savages. Because of this the WOKE left hates with all their might the dissident right.

The “Christian” Woke lite left once again does the dirty work of the Hard WOKE left by indicting other Christians with sharing the same worldview as the hard WOKE left. We begin to see then a pattern. The lite WOKE left, though claiming Christ, are operating out of a Christless world and life view. They are, by their accusations against their dissident Right brothers of being WOKE Right demonstrating that they belong to their father the Devil.

We move next to the worldview issue of teleology. Teleology deals with man’s conviction concerning the purposeful development toward an end, as in history. Teleology answers the question “where are we headed.” For the dissident Christian the answer that is “the Kingdom of God and His Christ.” For the Hard WOKE left the answer is “the Kingdom of man.” Note the diametrical opposition between these two answers. The Hard Woke left believes he is building a better if indeed not perfect Utopia and the one group of people who stand most decidedly against his Utopian project are the dissident Christian right who absolutely hate the idea of building Utopias where, because man is the god in the Utopian visions, always end up being the ugliest of Dystopias. The dissident Right does not look for a man centered Utopia but instead sees history directed towards the postmillennial end of God’s Kingdom being built up on planet earth due to the God’s determination to, by the work of His Holy Spirit to have the Kingdoms of this earth become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ.

So, given this opposition how can the WOKE lite left – manned by “Christians” who hate Christian Nationalism –  ever accuse, with a straight face, that the dissident Christian right is in point of fact serving as a “WOKE” right? The idea is just ludicrous and could only be vomited up by those who have no capacity to think in Biblical categories.

Our last Christian worldview category that we will consider is the worldview issue of axiology. Axiology is the study of values and value judgments. Axiology answers the question; “What is our ultimate value.” For the dissident right the answer to that question is always; “Our ultimate value is the glory of God and His Christ being seen, as determined by God’s revelation found in Scripture.” For the WOKE left the answer to that question is alaway; “Our ultimate value is the advancement of the glory of man, as determined by our completely subjective analysis.” Remember in the WOKE left world and life view there is no God who exists to whom glory can be given. As such, the question of axiology is always reduced to man being his own ultimate value. The hard WOKE worldview is always about the glory of man as determined by some Christless God hating elite. This Christless God hating elite most usually exists as occupying seats of power located in the Mega-State or the Mega-Corporate or the Mega-Banking world. This Christless, God hating elite finds their penultimate value in destroying any Biblical Christian belonging to the dissident Right who would oppose their Hard WOKE or even lite WOKE left world and life view and agenda.

So, we see the whole accusation of being “WOKE Right” is utterly without foundation and so completely ridiculous. The Hard WOKE left and the lite WOKE left are operating out of a completely different Weltanschauung as compared to the Dissident Christian Right. To suggest that the Hard WOKE right is the same as the Hard WOKE is just a ploy to poison the well of what the dissident Christian right advocates as it advocates the Crown Rights of the Rightful Rule – the Lord Jesus Christ – over every area of life. The accusation of “Hard WOKE Right” is a brilliant subterfuge birthed from the womb of Satan purposed to dilute the impact of the advance of Biblical Christianity as championed by the dissident Christian Right.

McAtee Contra The Insidious & Disgusting Teaching Of Jeff Durbin

“So there will be one flock and one shepherd. One flock. One shepherd. Jews and Gentiles. Every tribe, tongue, people and nation. Every language, believing in Jesus Christ – trusting in Him and being one flock together….(1) Sometimes you have an inordinate amount of white people (in Mesa, Az.). Not that there is anything wrong with white people. I hope not(2) …. I love a church like ours when I can look out over the congregation and I can see the diversity among us, the different colors, the backgrounds, the tribes — I love it.(3) Glorify God and what God has done to bring together a body of believers with so many differences amongst us in terms of cultural differences, being raised a certain way, having a different background, a different heritage and yet here we are one body trusting in Jesus Christ.(4) What unites us is our savior. What unites us is Jesus. What unites us is the truth. One shepherd. One flock. One body.(5) …. There is an insidious, and disgusting teaching that is becoming popular now, oddly, — I don’t understand it –Reformed people talking about the way … talking about one of the ways we can save the west is by white families having more white kids.(6) If you’ve respected a man who teaches that stop listening to the podcast. Stop listening to the  sermons because if you don’t understand the basic level of what unites us as Christians and what changes the world — the Gospel and God’s truth. If you don’t understand those basics you should never be listened to or respected again. Any Reformed pastor or teacher that is teaching that we save the West by white people having more white kids should shave their heads and go buy some sackcloth and ashes. That doesn’t save the world.(7) Jesus has a flock that He is shepherd over and it contains Jews and Gentiles and people from a variety of tribes and we are united because of our union with Jesus and with His Gospel and His truth.(8) What changes the world and the future has nothing to do with your skin.(9) That is a disgusting and insidious teaching that has broke its way into the Reformed community. And when you see it call it down, call it to repentance. (10) It might be easy to teach that kind of awful message, that disgraceful abominable message in a place (in a community) where most of your church is white. Try saying that in a Apologia church. Everybody would stand up and walk out…. One shepherd. One flock. One body. There is a diversity within the body of Christ that we should glory in God in.” (11)

Jeff Durbin
Baptist Minister

(1) & (5) & (7) = Durbin does not understand the passage he keeps referencing here. Here is the passage;

Johnn 10:16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep fold. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 

Instead of me pointing out Durbin’s faulty thinking here, I’ll allow Dr. R. J. Rushdoony to explain the proper understanding of the text;

“This is a very interesting point because there is a verse that is used in St. John with respect to ecumenicism and the assertion of one worldism. In this verse, our Lord says, ‘Other sheep have I which are not of this fold,’ and he declares that them also he is calling that there may be one fold, one shepherd, it reads. Actually, it should read one flock, one shepherd. Now, what’s the difference here? The translators, by and large, have been ignorant of the meaning of the words, because they’re not sheep men. You can have a fold of sheep which is a part of a larger flock. If we are all to be one fold, then we are all to be in one church and in one world government, but if we are many folds in one flock, then our Lord is saying there are to be many groups, many peoples, many nations, but not in one fold, in one flock. In other words, our unity is in Christ, not in our organizations. Today, all attempts at unity are to make men one in organization, not in Christ, and the two are radically different.”

RJR
Lecture — The Virgin Birth and Property (Q & A section)

Pocket College

So, obviously Durbin at this point is a false under-shepherd dispensing  false teaching. He is twisting the word to fit his egalitarian agenda.

We need to also say here that Jesus isn’t any less the one shepherd over His one flock if the one flock is organizationally worshiping together with all the black sheep only worshiping together, or all the Korean sheep worshiping together in a worship service, or all the Hmong worshiping together in a worship service. Would Durbin, given his hackneyed reasoning, fault Presbyteries or Churches that are organized exclusively for Koreans or for Hmong peoples? If the fact is that this happens in the Reformed world (and it does) why is it a problem if white people were to worship predominantly with other white people? What is the problem here? Even when worshiping according to a homogenous unit principle that doesn’t make Jesus any les the One Shepherd ruling over the One Flock.

(1) = Jeff insists that it has to be one flock together. Yet Reformed theologian John Frame wrote years ago to this point;

“Scripture, as I read it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially. Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God’s grace into one body. They were expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers in the faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups.”

John Frame,
“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”

So, there is nothing in Scripture that suggests that if the local church isn’t multicultural it is not a true Church and there is nothing in Scripture that teaches that if the local church isn’t multicultural it is somehow not as quality of a church as a multicult church.

(2) = Jeff hopes there is not anything wrong with white people, but he doesn’t seem to be absolutely sure of that.

(3) Jeff says here that he loves to see the different skin colors, backgrounds and tribes in his congregation, thus communicating that he is pleased with the ethnic diversity in his congregation. Yet, the whole overarching point the man is making is that ethnicity makes not difference in the Kingdom of God. All that matters, per Jeff, is being in Christ. So, which is it Jeff… you love the diversity in your congregation or ethnicity is irrelevant as long as everyone is united to Jesus?

(4) & (8) = Nobody denies that what unites all believers, regardless of their tribe, tongue, and nation, is being united to Christ. Nobody denies that and for Jeff to keep insisting that his imaginary opponents suggest that all believers are not united in Christ is a the weakest of strawman argumentation. All of us believe that the black Christian, the yellow Christian, the brown Christian, the red Christian, and the white Christian are all united in Christ. Further, we all believe that all of us together have one Shepherd, being part of one flock. What we don’t agree with is that our union in Christ makes our creaturely realities float away. We do not agree that grace destroys nature and that is what we hear “ministers” like Durbin saying. Just as a woman remains a woman once united with Christ so a black man remains a black man once united to Christ. These creational realities don’t go away upon conversion. Since those creational realities don’t go away it is altogether reasonable if different people groups find themselves more comfortable worshiping with people that are uniquely from their own people group, realizing that doing so does not deny our corporate union in Christ that cuts across every tribe, tongue and nation.

John Calvin agrees with me here;

“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

John Calvin (Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3)

(6) = Here Durbin’s damnable Baptist commitments are leaking through. Of course Reformed people, who believe in covenant theology, would believe that having more white children could very likely be one means of rescuing the formerly Christian West. Reformed people believe that children are a blessing from the Lord and that God normatively builds His church by Christian marriages producing many children who will be ratified as in the Kingdom of God via Baptism and then who will be raised under the nurturing of their parents and the nourishment of Word and Sacrament. For Durbin to deny that one way to rescue the West is by Christian white people having more children is insidious, damnable, and disgusting Baptist teaching. Keep in mind that white people are still, percentage wise, in the majority in the West and so it is a truism that Christian white people having more children could be one means by which God might rescue the West. When Reformed clergy say that one way to rescue the West is by having more white children implied in that is the Gospel. We Reformed non-Baptist Christians don’t divorce bringing our children to the Baptismal font from the message of the Gospel. I understand that Baptists like Durbin can’t understand that but when he uses words like “insidious,” and “disgusting” it gets my dander up.

(7) & (10) = What doesn’t save the world is Durbin’s Baptist theology which completely abstracts the Gospel from God’s graciousness and faithfulness as seen in the covenantal succession that is part of the essence of Reformed theology. God normatively works in family lines. Parents pass on the faith to their children as God promises to be God to us and to our children to a thousand generations. Durbin, as a Baptist, can’t really grab the essence of this and so he insists that it is only the Gospel that can save the West as if that idea isn’t anchored in the statement, by Reformed clergy, that one way to save the West is by white people having more children. All of this is why the Belgic Confession of faith teaches;

“Therefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one only baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, whom we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant,11 as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised12 upon the same promises which are made unto our children. And indeed, Christ shed His blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful than for adult persons;13 and therefore, they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ hath done for them; as the Lord commanded in the law, that they should be made partakers of the sacrament of Christ’s suffering and death shortly after they were born, by offering for them a lamb, which was a sacrament of Jesus Christ.”

Look, folks, ideas have consequences. One consequence of Durbin’s Baptist ideas is that somehow it is an insidious and disgusting teaching that one way to rescue the West is by white people having more children. Because of Durbin’s horrid Baptist theology he has no way to understand that statement in its best possible light.

(9) = Here we need to consider how reductionistic Durbin is. Like so many clergy today he wants to try and insist that race is only about skin color. This is a magnificently stupid statement. The fact that race is about more than skin color is seen in articles like this;

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marrow-donors-rare-for-mixed-race-patients/

If race was only about skin color then these problems wouldn’t arise. If race was only about skin color forensic pathologists couldn’t tell you the race of a person who died in a fire who is burned to a crisp, having no skin to look at. Saying race is only about “skin color” or only about “the level of pigment” someone has is an unparalleled example of indefeasible stupidity.

(11) = Yes, we should glorify God for the diversity in the Church. But glorifying God for the diversity in the Church does not mean that the Church has to be multicultural. Even in heaven the Church will not be multicultural as we find in Revelation 21 that it is the nations as in their nations who enter into the New Jerusalem. The Church is a confederated nation that is one but as remaining many. The Church is a nation of nations. There is unity and diversity in the Church and for Durbin to suggest that anyone who disagrees with his Baptist bloviating is insidious and disgusting is just jejune to the max.

In the end Durbin, like so many of the clergy in 2025, is still living as if he is championing the Civil Rights agenda of Martin Luther King. He has no capacity to think in any terms except white people who want white people to be distinct are evil. For Jeff his is a multicult Tower of Babel Christianity where the best expression of Christianity is when all colors bleed into one.

By his position Durbin condemns the Reformed Fathers of the past who had no problem with white people worshiping with other white people;

“This is a law of our being….Members of the same nation have a feeling for each other which they have not for foreigners. Member of the same tribe or class in a community are bound together by a still closer tie.”

Charles Hodge
“The Unity of the Church”, p. 24