“Kinism is a fundamental denial of God’s redemptive plan to restructure the world under the culture of resurrection and ascension. It wishes to return to a pre-AD 70 universe where race and lineage prevailed instead of the new creation in Messiah Jesus.”
Rev. Uriesou Brito
Yet Another CREC Retard
One wonders whose ear these guys are pulling this waxy substance from.
1.) Note here the matter vs. spirit kind of Manicheanism/Gnosticism. Pre-Ad 70 material world bad. Post-AD 70 new creation (spiritual) world good. Apparently, when Jesus brings in the new creation the new creation is no longer corporeal so that race and lineage are real realities.
2.) Someone might want to tell Rev. U Brito that race and lineage do not go away simply because someone or some people group are redeemed. When the Sawi people, by God’s grace were visited with Redemption as brought to them by the Herald of God’s Gospel, Don Richardson, the Sawi people did not cease being Sawi. They became the Sawi people living now in a Sawi culture that was shaped by the resurrection and ascension.
For Pete’s sake is Rev. UB going to gainsay the great Augustine?
“Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains imbedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected, and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule.”
St. Augustine on Galatians 3:28
Is Rev. UB wiser than Calvin?
“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)
One wonders what Rev. UB does with Jesus being the “Lion of the Tribe of Judah?” Were the inspired writers of Scripture also denying God’s plan to restructure the world redemptively? Frankly, this is so dorky, so lamebrained, so chuckleheaded that one begins to run out of synonyms for “stupid.”
3.) The problem that Rev. UB has (as well as these other lunkheads) is that his anthropology really sucks eggs. Does man, upon regeneration, becomes something other than who God has created him to be corporeally? Once again we see the denial the grace restores nature, in favor of a doctrine that grace destroys nature.
4.) Notice the antithesis the Rev. UB has introduced. Rev. UB’s antithesis is race and lineage vs. new creation as if new creation erases race and lineage, as if race and lineage are wicked and new creation is righteous because it eliminates race and lineage. It is maddening enough to cause a bald man to go get hair implants so he can tear it out.
5.) What does Rev. UB do with all those passages in the OT (Isaiah 2 & Micah 4 to just name two) that talk explicitly about all the nations streaming to the Mountain of the Lord?
6.) Everything said by Rev. UB said above is completely out of his nether regions. It has absolutely no roots or grounding in Scripture. It is the height of desperation and frankly, it is a gross mishandling of the Word of God.
These chaps are going to be awfully disappointed at how corporeal the new heavens and the new earth is going to be.
“1.) Note here the matter vs. spirit kind of Manicheanism/Gnosticism. Pre-Ad 70 material world bad. Post-AD 70 new creation (spiritual) world good.”
As it happens, modern egalitarians have NOT been the first ones to try to pull this one (smuggling, for their own power-grabbing purposes, de facto Gnostic, matter-despising notions into the church). For the first ones who did it, and on really grand scale, were the ones whom the Presbyterian tradition officially calls, AFAIK, as Antichrist figures – the megalomaniacal medieval popes in their struggle against the secular imperial power:
http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/THE%20FALL%20OF%20ORTHODOX%20ENGLAND%205X8.htm#_ftnref193
“Indeed, “who would not know that kings and dukes took their origin from those who, ignorant of God, through pride, rapine, perfidy, murders and, finally, almost any kind of crime, at the instigation of the devil, the prince of this world, sought with blind desire and unbearable presumption to dominate their equals, namely other men?”[194]
Hildebrand’s attitude to political power was almost Manichaean in its negative intensity. Indeed, as de Rosa writes of a later Pope who faithfully followed Hildebrand’s teaching, “this was Manicheeism applied to relations between church and state. The church, spiritual, was good; the state, material, was essentially the work of the devil. This naked political absolutism undermined the authority of kings. Taken seriously, his theories would lead to anarchy”.[195]”
The Roman Catholic doctrine of forced clerical celibacy, that “doctrine of devils,” was likewise built on semi-Gnostic premises: physical sex was vile material activity, and thus holy priests could not indulge in it (even though this went directly against Biblical teachings).
Also in the Counter-Reformation era, the partisans of universal papal power like the Jesuits spread proto-globalist ideas like that countries were ultimately just meaningless lines on the map – this was meant to counter the Protestant ideology of national churches.
The Victorian-era Church of England clergyman Charles Kingsley depicted these kind of Jesuitical arguments in one of his historical novels thus:
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1860/pg1860-images.html#link2HCH0004
“And what is England?” said Parsons: “A heretic and schismatic Babylon, whereof it is written, ‘Come out of her, my people, lest you be partaker of her plagues.’ Yea, what is a country? An arbitrary division of territory by the princes of this world, who are naught, and come to naught. They are created by the people’s will; their existence depends on the sanction of him to whom all power is given in heaven and earth—our Holy Father the Pope. Take away the latter, and what is a king?—the people who have made him may unmake him.”
Good information Viisaus. Thank you very much.
Also, regarding Manichaeism, ancient Christians already observed that this heresy could often mimic the outward forms and mannerisms of Christianity pretty well (and was thus all the more dangerous): in that regard, too, it was like modern Wokeism that infects churches. The church historian Socrates of Constantinople wrote:
https://archive.org/details/ecclesiasticalh02valogoog/page/56/mode/2up?view=theater
“Hence it was that a little while before the time of Constantine a species of heathenish Christianity made its appearance together with that which was real: just as false prophets and false apostles heretofore insinuated themselves amongst those who were constituted of God. … Now the contents of these treatises are apparently accordant with Christianity in expression, but thoroughly Pagan in sentiment: for Manichaeus, being an impious person, incited his disciples to acknowledge a plurality of gods, and taught them to worship the sun.”
In one of his writings, E. Michael Jones drew the connection between Gnosticism, alchemy, witchcraft and modern Cultural Marxism:
“Harry’s friend Hermione “is particularly interested in Transformation,” which is to say, “you know, turning something into something else.” Transformation is, of course, “supposed to be very difficult.” But that’s why we send our children to places like Hogwarts where they begin by believing that they can change “matches into needles and that sort of thing” and end up believing that maleness and femaleness are cultural constructs that they have transcended through gnosis.”
Along with Manicheanism/Gnosticism (the old testament doesn’t count), there’s another similar heresy (George Bernard) Shawism (Paul doesn’t count).
George Bernard Shaw had this take that Paul corrupted Jesus teachings with religion. I find this to be pervasively assumed by professed inerrantists (except on soteriology of course).
If one ever argues: well Paul said this therefore…, they contradict it by quoting Jesus. But this exposes the fact that they don’t believe Paul’s canonized epistles spoke for Jesus. Even though when challenged, they would never concede this.
I recall Doug Wilson saying you should never say “The Jews”. But doug where exactly did this atypical ethnic label originate from? The KJV (and probably the original Greek too). Doug is implying Jesus wouldn’t speak like this. But this is not exactly the highest view of scripture is it? And Doug doesn’t even have the excuse that he only ever uses the sanitized “male-shrine-prostitute” bible versions.
They treat the scripture the same way Bart Ehrman does. Only their presuppositions differ.