Theology, Politics, Ethics, & Natural Law

This morning I caught a interesting exchange on X between a chap named “Luke Stamps” and the Natural Law 2K fanboy Stephen Wolfe.

Stamps wrote,

Theological retrieval should recognize a hierarchy of doctrine. We should read everything we can get our hands on, but I’m way more interested in the tradition’s views on Trinity and Christology than its opinions on politics and science.

Stephen Wolfe responded,

“You’re a theologian, and you care more about theology. I support this. Leave politics to others.”

Bret responds,

This is the essence of presuppositionalists disagreement w/ Natural law fanboy Dr. Stephen Wolfe.

The presuppositionalist observes that politics (& economics, education, mathematics, arts, etc.) are all just the out-working of theology in other fields. These disciplines are not theology independent but each and all reflect a particular theology driving their respective emphasis. Show a man’s politics and I will tell you, his theology.

The NL chaps see the various academic fields as completely isolated from theology. Wolfe, and all Natural Law fanboys, actually believe that when they are doing “politics” they are not doing theology at the same time. Wolfe, like the R2K simps that he so much disagrees with, believes that his politics is a “theology free zone.” However, politics must work off of various theological axioms in order to move forward. Politics must consider, for example, ontology, epistemology, anthropology, axiology, teleology, etc. and all these are what they are because of they are informed by theology. All of this is why the Medievalists were correct in asserting that “Theology is the Queen of the sciences.” The Medievalists understood that theology was the fountainhead of all other disciplines.

The Natural Law chaps like the R2K fanboys (Van Drunen, Darryl Gnostic Hart, J. V. Fesko, etc.) and the 2K fanboys (Wolfe, Baird, Justice, etc.) though have their own theological biases that are informing their 2K declaration of Independence. All of them presuppose that man, starting from himself, without presupposing the God of the Bible and His Word can, while relying on right reason and natural law, arrive at proper conclusions regarding truth in fields like politics, education, philosophy, etc. This is called “humanism.” It was this subjectivist humanist theology that has brought us, via incremental epileptic fits, to the destruction of the West. The appeal to that which was the genesis of our downfall is hardly a remedy for restoration. This is why the presuppositionalist is forever crying out,

Isaiah 8:20  To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. 

And,

Psalm 36:20 For with you is the fountain of life; in your light we see light

The presuppositionalist, contrary to the humanist Natural Law fanboy understands that any light that is seen in politics is because of the light provided by theology that makes politics genuinely politics.

The danger of the Natural Law position, of course, is the inability to realize that neutrality is a myth. No man comes to politics (or any other discipline) without carrying his theological baggage into his conclusions. There exists no theological nowhere man living in a theological nowhere land.

The thread on X wherein I began with found the exchange above found a Dr. Daniel Strand piping in. His comment was interesting because Strand apparently teaches “ethics.” Strand says of Wolfe’s anti-theology in politics stance;

“A very sensible position. I read theology but am not a theologian. I tend to defer on matters of theology proper. I wish theologians took a similar attitude to ethics and politics, which they often are ill equipped to address.”

This is astounding if only because it is hard to imagine of any discipline that is more theology dependent than ethics. Strand says here that theologians are ill equipped to address the issue of ethics. Such a statement tis to boggle the mind. Ethics are the immediate consequence of theology. What a man thinks and believes about the character of God necessarily forms and shapes his ethics. Scripture teaches that we become what we worship. If we worship a vile God our ethics will be vile.

The inability of people to connect theology with all of life leaves me bumfuzzled. I can’t understand the inability to understand the centrality of theology.

At one time I had hopes that Wolfe and company might overthrow R2K but increasingly I doubt that the Wolfe project, even if successful, will leave us in any better of a situation than we would be if R2K continued to dominate the “conservative,” “Reformed,” “churches.”

A Brief Biblical Case Detailing God’s Opposition to Inter-racial Marriage

A common maxim in Reformed theology is that “grace restores nature.” What is being communicated here is that once the Triune God visits a man with redemption that man becomes, over the course of time in light of ongoing sanctification, the best version of himself.  Grace, in this understanding doesn’t make the man into something other than when he was when visited by and with grace but rather it restores what was taken from man by the fall and his sinful nature. So, because of this when a man or woman is visited by renewal unto eternal life he/she neither loses his maleness or femaleness. Neither do they lose their genetic predispositions, but grace restores those predispositions in a Christ honoring direction. In the same sense once a person is redeemed, they are not evacuated of their ethnic/racial identity. To insist that grace unmakes nature so that the convert is now something completely other than what they were before grace is a Gnostic position. It is a denial of nature and an insistence that grace un-anchors us from whom God providentially created us to be.

This is demonstrated in the reality that the Lord Jesus Christ, who is now at the right hand of the Father remains male, remains a member of the tribe of Judah, and retains His human nature. Even in resurrection (an event akin to our regeneration) Christ is not other than who He was, according to His divine and human nature, before His death and resurrection, though now glorified.

The scriptures teach that the Triune God ordained not only our redemption, but He ordained who we would be in creation as well. God ordained that we would be male or female. God ordained our genetic strengths and weaknesses. God ordained what family, tribe, nation and race to which we would belong. So, we see in scripture the beginnings of races, languages and nations according to God’s creational intent. These distinctions are maintained even after redemption. This is seen in texts like,

Rev. 7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,

Rev. 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,


Rev. 11:9 Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations [a]will see their dead bodies three-and-a-half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves.

Rev. 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people—

Rev. 20:3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

Rev. 20:8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea.

Notice the repeated mention of nations as nations being present in the New Jerusalem.  This is testimony that grace does not destroy nature. This is testimony that it is not God’s intent for distinct nations to disappear into a Gospel blob that finds all colors bleeding into one. Christianity does not put humanity in a giant genetic blender while hitting the high-speed button. This was the agenda of those at Babel (Gen. 11). The agenda of a coffee-latte colored multi-racialist/cultural nation has always been the agenda of the Marxists. Always.

Our Lord Christ Himself maintained the creational distinctions ordained from eternity. Jesus, whose own genetic descent was instrumental to His Messiahship (Matthew 1, Luke 3, Romans 1:3), sent His disciples first only to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt. 10:6, cmp. Mt. 15:24) yet later the resurrected and ascended Lord Christ directs St. Paul to the Gentiles (Acts 22:17-29 cmp. Acts 13:2-3). During His own ministry Jesus says,

16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

A fold is a portion of the larger flock. The Lord Christ has one flock, but that flock is made of folds that exist in many ethnic/racial places. The Church has a unity (one flock) found in a diversity of folds. In the Church there is unity in diversity. There are German folds, Japanese folds, Ndebele folds but together they form one flock with Christ the chief shepherd. The reality and even necessity of various folds does not negate the unity found in the flock (Church). Again, even in heaven these folds will be present as one flock. When the New Jerusalem is let down upon the New Earth in the eschaton (Rev. 21:1-3) we read

Rev. 21:24 And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it. 25 Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). 26 And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it. 

Here we see the creational distinctions that God ordained in Gen. 10:5, Dt. 32:8, and Acts 17:26 would be perpetually established into the eschaton.

5 From these the coastland peoples of the Gentiles were separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations.

Dt.32:8When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations,
When He separated the sons of Adam,
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the children of Israel. 

Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,

The sin of Babel was the same attempt that modern man pursues now and that is the sin of amalgamation. The desire in Gen. 11 (Bable) was to adulterate the nations (adulterate in the sense of water down or dilute) with the humanistic purpose of fallen man apart from God seeking to “make a name for himself.” This attempt at adulteration/amalgamation of the races/nations is what the multi-racialist/culturalist pursues today. They are the intellectual descendants of Nimrod and Babel. The fact that many of these Babel-ites are clergy only increases their guilt.

The Scripture teaches that God condemned those who would remove these distinctions by means of amalgamation/adulteration.

Dt. 7:3 Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son.

Ezra 9:10 And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? For we have forsaken Your commandments,

Nehemiah 9:2 Then those of Israelite lineage separated themselves from all foreigners; and they stood and confessed their sins and the iniquities of their fathers. (See all of Nehemiah 9-13).

Now the typical Evangelical and Cultural Marxist Reformed response to these passages is to insist that the only segregation/separation that God requires is a forbidding of marriage and breeding between believers and unbelievers regardless of their race/ethnicity. The problem with this defense against the clear teaching of Scripture is found in the abhorrence of Isaac and Rebecca as to Esau’s choice of wives. Gen. 25-28 teaches that one of Esau’s rebellions was his miscegenation. However, Esau was no believer marrying unbelieving women who were not members of the covenant. Esau was an unbeliever marrying unbelievers. Now combine this observation that Jacob in marrying Rachel was hardly marrying a daughter who wasn’t from a pagan family. (Witness her theft of her father’s gods.) Clearly, there is something other going on in the Holy record besides Isaac and Rebecca being put out because Esau as an unbeliever married unbelieving Hittites or Ishmaelite women or Jacob as a covenant child married Rachel who could not be considered a covenant member at this time. Clearly, there are racial/ethnic considerations going on here. Isaac and Rebecca are put out because Esau married outside his kin and Rebecca sends Jacob to her brother Laban to find a wife among her and Isaac’s kin, even if Rachel, the wife to be, was not at that time a servant of Yahweh.

Also, we need to consider in all this that in the Ezra and Nehemiah texts where the requirement is to send away all the foreign women that the Israelites had married, that the requirement was also to send away children of those unions. If it was the case that the problem was only that the Israelites had married unbelieving women why then were the covenant children of those unions also to be sent away? Clearly, God held there to be such a problem with these unions that both the foreign wives and the children born of those foreign wives had to be sent away. The issue here in Ezra and Nehemiah is not one only of unbelieving wives. The issue in Ezra and Nehemiah is also one of ethnic mixing that displeased the God of the Bible.

Underscoring all this is God’s instructions regarding beast and crop;

Lev. 19:19 ‘You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.

Rushdoony comments on this passage,

“These laws forbid the blurring of God-ordained distinctions. The nature and direction of sin is to blur and finally erase all the God-ordained boundaries … God’s laws are case laws. If vegetable seeds are not to be mingled, nor an ass and a horse crossbred, then in the human realm it follows that the confusion of God-ordained boundaries is even more serious.”

R. J. Rushdoony

Commentary on Leviticus – p. 230

A second’s thought understands that if God wants lesser distinctions retained how much more would we expect God to desire greater distinctions as between races to be retained?Now, in this discussion we take notice of the 7th commandment.

“Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery”

Adultery includes the obvious sexual sins that are commonly associated with it. However, the forbidding of “Adultery,” includes the forbidding of “Adulteration.” The adulteration that is forbidden includes a watering down or diluting of the original stock. When a marriage is contracted between people of different races the issue from that marriage is an adulteration from both racial stocks.

Calvin in his commentary on Genesis 36 touches the subject of adulteration,

24. This was that Anah that found the mules. Mules are the adulterous offspring of the horse and the ass. Moses says that Anal was the author of this connection. [131] But I do not consider this as said in praise of his industry; for the Lord has not in vain distinguished the different kinds of animals from the beginning. But since the vanity of the flesh often solicits the children of this world, so that they apply their minds to superfluous matters, Moses marks this unnatural pursuit in Anah, who did not think it sufficient to have a great number of animals; but he must add to them a degenerate race produced by unnatural intercourse. Moreover, we learn hence, that there is more moderation among brute animals in following the law of nature, than in men, who invent vicious admixtures.

John Calvin

Commentary — Genesis 36:24

Calvin clearly here shows the modernly ignored meaning of adultery: to bastardize/adulterate. While marital adultery (promiscuity) is definitely a sin, the inherent meaning of miscegenation/mongrelization is included in the word “adultery” and “adulterate” and that is all but forgotten in our modern context. As we have also seen in Genesis, God referred to Esau’s taking of wives outside his racial family as fornication (Hebrews 12:16)!

The reader would profit greatly from taking the time to learn about adulteration from this article

A Kinist Commentary on the Ten Commandments: The Seventh Word

Heritage Reformed people, following Calvin, have always had this abhorrence of all attempts to wipe out God ordained distinctions. We follow Calvin here,

“But the notion that what ails the world [inseparably from sin] is confusion had much practical value for Calvin … Thus, when Calvin associated disorder with obscurity, he could conceive of correcting it by sharpening the contours of the various entities composing the world; once one thing has been clearly distinguished, physically or conceptually, from others, it can be assigned its proper place in the order of things … Thus he abominated ‘mixture,’ one of the most pejorative terms in his vocabulary; mixture in any area of experience suggested to him disorder and unintelligibility. He had absorbed deeply not only the traditional concern for cosmic purity of a culture that had restricted mixture to the sublunary realm but also various Old Testament prohibitions. Mixture, for Calvin, connoted ‘adulteration’ or ‘promiscuity,’ but it also set off in him deep emotional and metaphysical reverberations. He repeatedly warned against ‘mixing together things totally different.’ …

The positive corollary of Calvin’s loathing of mixture was his approval of boundaries, which separate one thing from another. He attributed boundaries to God Himself: God had established the boundaries between peoples, which should therefore remain within the space assigned to them … ‘Just as there are in a military camp separate lines for each platoon and section,’ Calvin observed, ‘men are placed on the earth so that each nation may be content with its own boundaries.’”

W.J. Bouwsma

John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait — p.34-35

 

The reason this kind of defense of intra-racial marriage is necessary is due to the constant Cultural Marxist hyper push on achieving what those behind the Tower of Babel could only have dreamed of achieving. If this kind of push in the larger culture (Governments, Media, Hollywood, Advertising, etc.) didn’t exist these kinds of arguments here would not be needed. Clearly, it is not the occasional occurrence of a inter-racial marriage here or there that calls for this kind of clarity. What demands this kind of clarity is the ever-increasing achievement of the long-held Marxist dream of eliminating all races and nations. Further, what demands this kind of clarity is the clear intent to completely genocide the White race — particularly White Christians. Replacement theory is no myth.

It is obvious that this reasoning can be taken to extremes that I would not be comfortable with and that I would oppose. Being a believer in freedom of association, I would not support laws that would find the state trying to legislate on these matters. These matters are better being put under the government of the family. Further, I understand that inter-racial marriages are going to happen, as much as I don’t think that is profitable, especially for the children of such unions. Compassion on those children as well as on my people group requires me to speak as a Christian minister. What I am trying to lift my voice against is the current Babel zeitgeist that finds miscegenation being stuck in the face ad nauseum of what at one time was referred to as Christendom. There clearly is an agenda here and that agenda needs to be opposed the way Samson opposed the Philistines.

There is nothing that I oppose more than the presence of the New World Order in the Church and the attendant clergy who have reinterpreted Christianity through the lens of Cultural Marxist worldview.

 

 

 

 

Daily Kinist Quote — R. J. Rushdoony & McAtee on the Noble Savage NAPARC

“Norman Mailer has pointed out that the modern outsider to God and law finds his hero in the Negro, whom he sees as a ‘natural and social adventurer sworn against respectability, conformity, dullness, and emotional timidity. The modern ‘white Negro’ is a man who imagines the Negro to be the ideal man, a natural anarchist and nihilist, and therefore social hero. Moreover, to gain the acceptance of the Negro, irrespective of his character, is to gain a victory against law and standards in the name of equality.

“There is indication already of another ‘civil rights’ offensive as a next step after the Negro: ‘the sodomite may be partially replacing the Negro as an object of liberal solicitude and the prime test of liberal tolerance. If there is no God and no divinely ordained law, then not only does perversion have equal rights, but actually, truer rights, because Christian morality is seen as an imposition on an a dehumanization of man, whereas perversion is an act of liberty and autonomy for this school of thought.”

“In any case, the goal is, whether directly or slowly total destruction of Christian civilization. Some have called for … a long period of chaos and revolution, and the total destruction of civilization.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Roots of Reconstruction – p. 618

Much of this began with the age of Romanticism and its infatuation with the idea of the Noble Savage. Initially the noble savage was identified with the American Indian. Because the American Indian was untouched by civilization, the American Indian bore a automatic nobility about him per the Romanticists. As time continued the noble savage mantle passed on to others. In Rushdoony’s time it was the American Negro that was seen as the noble savage. Precisely because he was not civilized, as seen by crime rates, the civil rights movement latched on to the cause of the American Negro and the championing of civil rights became proof positive of one’s own nobility. To support the noble savage in one’s midst was to clothe one’s self with nobility.

As Rush mentions, the status of “more of a noble savage than thou” eventually passed on to the sodomite. Until the rise of the Tranny, it was the sodomite and lesbian who were the noblest of all noble savages. To be friends with a sodomite or a lesbian proved how much humanity one had, just as previously having friends among Negroes once proved how broad minded one was. Now of course the class of people who get to be designated “the most noble savage of all the noble savages” are those who have had their breasts or genitals removed. Well, unless they are out positioned by the pederasts and pedophiles.

Of course, all this corresponds perfectly with the cultural Marxist work of the long march through the Institutions. The Cultural Marxists have recruited these very same noble savages as well as the adjacent noble savages to overthrow civilization. Cultural Marxism was a good fit with American Romanticism in this regard. As such, it is the case, that the noble savages have turned our whole former Christian civilization into a vast jungle of savagery.

Even our “Conservative” Christian churches have pursued this Noble Savage theme as seen in their embrace of “MLK 50” and their embrace of Side-B sodomy and their embrace of Rev. Greg Johnson and Sam “honest, I can resist temptation” Allberry. The Christian churches with their overt hostility to traditional, heritage and historic Christianity are doing all they can to rid themselves of people who would write honest prose as I have given here. If they hated Rushdoony when he was alive (and they did) how much more do they hate anybody today who dares quote RJR approvingly? The “conservative” Christian church in the West today with their thoroughly Romanticist/Cultural Marxist inclinations is aiding and abetting the end of Christian civilization all in the name of being “nicer than Jesus ever was.”

This is all proven by the fact that NAPARC churches today would NEVER ordain a Knox, a Calvin (read his pamphlet on the Jews), a Chrysostom, a Machen, a Van Til, Luther, etc. The modern conservative church today is the enemy of historic Biblical Christianity. If you’re in one of these NAPARC churches (yes, I understand there are always exceptions) you are supporting the very thing that Rushdoony warned of in the quote. If you are supporting NAPARC churches and clergy (or the CREC) then you are “Noble Savage adjacent.”)

Rejoicing Over the Fall of Sam Allberry

“Statement from The Gospel Coalition’s Board of Directors

TGC was informed yesterday by Sam Allberry about “an inappropriate relationship with another man a few years ago” and that an announcement would be made today at Immanuel Church regarding his resignation as a pastor.”

Allberry, once an Anglican priest, had wormed his way to Reformed denominations being championed by other sodomite-adjacent clergy, advocating a position styled as “celibate but gay.” The whole side-b sodomy argument denied that the fact that men admitting that they were sexually attracted to other men was sin. The position that Allberry championed was that as long as a man remained celibate, he could continue in the ministry while having this un-natural lust.

That whole thing was warped from the beginning. What made it doubly warped is that so many of the Reformed clergy supported this kind of thinking as seen in the Greg Johnson case in the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA). In the PCA Rev. Greg Johnson took much the same position as Sam Allberry and there was found little will in the PCA to take disciplinary action against Johnson. Johnson finally left the PCA on his own accord taking the congregation he Pastored with him.

All that aside I want to briefly speak to much of the hand wringing that has gone on with the fall of Sam Allberry. In many quarters people are being tongue lashed by the same clergy who simped in support of Allberry and Greg Johson (and others like them) that we should not rejoice in the fall of Allberry. Sarcastic comments like, “Who could have ever seen this coming,” or, “I miss the good old days when clergy were drummed out of their congregations for liking women not their wives” were seen as being in “poor taste,” and “demonstrating a lack of maturity.” We are now being told that we should not rejoiced in the fall of Sam Allberry.

I dissent.

If you can’t rejoice over the fall of Sam Alberry your sentimental pietism is eating up your ability to think straight. The man was leading countless numbers of people into sin. He was mainstreaming sodomy in the “Conservative” “Reformed” denominations. The fact that the nonsense of someone advocating for a “celibate gay” position has been exposed ought to be reason to pop the cork on the finest champagne. It is a good thing that Sam Allbery has fallen if only to keep others from embracing the lunatic position of “gay but celibate.”

Understand the irony that is currently occurring in the PCA churches. This denomination can’t run out on a rail fast enough anyone who embraces the historic position of the church on race-realism while at the same time they couldn’t find the ecclesiastical will to even bring up charges against a man (Rev. Greg Johnson) who had spoken glowingly on the need to accept sodomites in the Church as long as they remained celibate.

It is one thing to admit one’s besetting sin. It is quite another to expect the Church to no longer call besetting sins, “besetting sins.” Men like Allberry and Johnson and their advocacy was proof positive that the Church no longer viewed sodomy or the desire for sodomy to be particularly heinous. The fact that all of this side-b sodomy was a mainstreaming of sodomy is seen in the fact that no one (yet) would use the same logic for side-b bestiality. No one would accept in the Church people who admitted into the mic that they had a physical attraction to farm animals, but it was all ok because they were celibate. Side-b sodomy is just as repulsive as side-b bestiality and yet clergy in the PCA refused to discipline it.

Of course, we pray that Allberry’s repentance after being caught is genuine. Of course we desire his genuine restoration. Despite those realities though we also rejoice that his hypocrisy has been exposed since it means that others won’t fall into the lifestyle he had been advocating.

Yes… I’m happy that Sam Alberry fell.

And so should all Christians.

I am also taking heed of myself lest I fall into some sin.

Pushing Back Against Slander Against Kinism by the CRCNA’s Reggie Smith IV

Reginald Smith, Head of the Race Relations Dept. in the CRCNA writes,

4. How did kinism come to light in the Christian Reformed Church? 

The overture that was sent to Synod 2019 resulted from a specific situation. A CRC pastor had been teaching and preaching kinist theology in his church for about a decade. Several attempts to deal with it through ecclesiastical means were used, but they did not stop the pastor’s actions altogether. In addition, the pastor made his perspective known through social media posts and the church website, publicly giving the impression of a tie between the Christian Reformed Church to kinist teachings. The pastor and his church have left the CRC, but during the deliberations of Synod 2019, several delegates gave testimony that the pastor was not the only one sympathetic to kinist theology. They commented they knew other CRC members who warmed to kinist ideas.

Bret responds,

1.) Reggie here tells a lie in the second sentence above. I was the person to which he is referring. However, the lie here is that I was a CRC pastor. I was NEVER an ordained Pastor in the CRCNA. I was someone serving as stated supply the whole time I pastored with a church that itself was never a particular church in the CRCNA.  So, when Reggie says “A CRC pastor had been teaching Kinism,” he is just lying since I was never ever a CRC pastor, according to their own book of Church Order.

2.) It is a lie that “Several attempts to deal with it through ecclesiastical means were used” to stop me from my Kinism. Not one person had a discussion with me on the subject before or after my departure. Nobody contacted me privately. There was one Classis where the BCO (Book of Church Order) was NOT followed and where something nebulous about “racism” was brought up. To this day I have no idea what they were talking about at that particular Classis meeting.

3.) Since I was never a Pastor of a CRC particular church, nor even a Pastor at all in a CRCNA church I’m completely unsure how anybody could tie the CRCNA to my Kinist (Christian) convictions.

The problem here is that the CRCNA dropped the ball. They allowed me to serve a mission church in their denomination without being ordained for over 25 years without making sure that I was a Liberal-tard like the rest of the clergy in the CRCNA.

4.) I very seriously doubt that there were any Kinists in the CRCNA. If there were or are they never made themselves known to me. The CRCNA is filled with lib-tards like Reggie Smith.

It should be said here that to a heretic, Christian orthodoxy is going to be accused of being heretical. That the CRCNA has labeled Kinism to be heretical only proves that the CRCNA is a heretical denomination accusing Christian orthodoxy of being heretical.

If Kinism is heretical … if I am a heretic … then Kinism and I as a Kinist are heretics together with all the Church Fathers throughout Christian history excepting the Levelers in history.