Robertson on the Relation Between Kin and Faith

“If you will not preserve your ancestral heritage, ultimately, you will not preserve your doctrinal heritage either. Honoring the former teaches us how to honor the latter. The two are inextricably intertwined. Thus, alienism ultimately destroys not only families but also all of Christianity.”

Wilmot Robertson

The Dispossessed Majority


The unipolar world that the NWO is going for by necessity not only means a coffee colored world where all colors bleed into one but it requires a hyper blended faith world where all faiths are put into a blender which is then hit at high speed. In a unipolar world distinction is the enemy. This is the ultimate explanation for the attempt at the erasure of genders. Uniformity must be achieved. And yet, even this is a proxy war for an even grander project and that is the millennium hold Luciferian project to erase the distinction between the Creator and the Creature. This is the ultimate strategy of the Uniformitarians.

And every time someone attacks a Kinist, at that moment they have entered into league with the Christ haters who are seeking to destroy distinctions. This is why Kinism is so important. This doctrine alone is standing against the raging Luciferian Alienists of our day. All clergy who resist Kinism are in principle advancing the agenda of Lucifer.

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

4 thoughts on “Robertson on the Relation Between Kin and Faith”

  1. > not only means a coffee colored world where all colors bleed into one but it requires a hyper blended faith world where all faiths are put into a blender

    I see this as an argument from natural law. You’re saying nature behaves a certain way (aristotelian empiricism). That there are consequences that have implications for biblical morality. This is the basis of reasoning for the Westminster Standards imo.

    The contemporary church is saying that grace and the gospel is going to trump nature. They are saying there are no consequences.

    They believe God’s Word is arbitrary (i.e. sodomy). Where as I would say it conforms us to natural law.

    1. Nah … Natural Law conforms to God’s Word.

      In order for humans to understand Natural Law aright it must be read through the prism of Special Revelation. If not read through that prism they will misinterpret Natural Law every time except when reading it aright serves the larger project of rebellion against God.

      Keep in mind that the believer alone can read Natural Law aright since he is presupposing the God of the Bible so any “Natural Law” observation by the believer can in fact be an accurate reading since the believer is presupposing God.

      And as the WCF presupposes God it could be easily argued that the WCF is not a natural law document but a presuppositional document. Keep in mind that Reformed Christians of that era appealed to Natural Law but they did so presupposing God.

      1. The is–ought problem necessitates presuppositions, so natural law in the far-right quite different to that of the Thomists. The Westminster standards do a lot of A => B (A results in B). The bible says B ought not to happen, therefore we ought not allow A to happen. But my frustrations is that the church will no longer accept that A => B (the death of this second order reasoning is why I assert we are living in a dark age). They say if there’s nothing in the bible against A, then we have to allow it. The far-right are specializing in justifying A => B from natural law.

        I now recall that Paul extensively uses “natural law reasoning” for justifications. So if we apply the “general equity” of Paul’s reasoning then Westminster standards result. Unfortunately, everyone hates Paul (except maybe on soteriology).

        > Gen. 11, Acts 17, Rev. 21-22, Micah 4, Isaiah 2, Romans 11

        Thanks, I’ll learn these verses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *