While this (taking the Noahic covenant as a common grace covenant) is a common construction among many today (think R2K) (17th century Puritan) Francis Roberts rather understands the Noahic covenant as an ‘expressure’ of the Covenant of Grace. Roberts will write of a double covenant made with Noah, one before the flood, in which God covenanted to save him and his household, and one after the flood ‘superadded’ to the former covenant. In this second instance of covenanting, several things are noticed that indicate not common, but special saving grace. The first is the occasion of it, that God ‘smelled the sweet savor’ of Noah’s sacrifice, as the outward moving cause of it, which indicates an appointment to Christ and His sacrifice, the inward ‘moving cause’ being God’s ‘mere grace and commiserating mercies’ to Noah. Second, the parties covenanting are the appeased God on the one hand, smelling that ‘savor of rest’ and second, Noah and his sons, and their ‘seed.’ Third, the matters covenanted consist on God’s part that He will not again destroy all flesh. For Noah and his sons, on their part, and especially in reference to the ‘seed,’ to believe God’s gracious dealing in this promise, but more to believe in Christ, the true sacrifice as the one who appeases God’s wrath and restores rest to the perishing and cursed creature, preserving God’s gracious design. Fourth, the token of the covenant, the rainbow in the cloud, concerning which Roberts declares, ‘So then the rainbow which physically and naturally denotes rain theologically, supernaturally and by institution signifies fair weather and security from rain and flood.’ ”
God’s Covenants: The Mystery & Marrow of the Bible Vol 1 — p. 36
Rev. Dr. Todd Ruddell — Preface
In line with these sentiments, I’d like to highly recommend Francis Roberts’ work “God’s Giving the Law on Mt. Sinai as a Covenant, and that of Faith.” He debunks the notion that the Sinai covenant was a republication of the so-called covenant of works.
https://reformedbooksonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/roberts-francis-of-gods-giving-the-law-on-mt-sinai-as-a-covenant-and-that-of-faith.pdf
Dr. Kloosterman,
Is that included in his 6 volume set republished recently? Do you know?
Thanks for the link.
Bret
Sorry, I do not know. I just realized that the link I gave supplies a synopsis, not the real thing. But chasing the links can provide at least an online digital version of his entire work. This one may be useful: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A57385.0001.001?c=eebo;c=eebo2;g=eebogroup;op2=and;op3=and;q2=roberts%2C+francis;rgn=main;rgn1=author;rgn2=author;rgn3=author;view=fulltext;xc=1
“We believe that the Christian religion should be proclaimed without fear or favor, and in clear opposition to whatever opposes it, whether within or without the Church.”
J. Gresham Machen
Recently, I was sent a letter by a disgruntled dilettante and I think it needs a response since the thrust of it is being shopped around as a criticism of me as a Pastor. I am not defending myself so much here, as I am the truth of Christianity. If I let this go without response people may be sucked into the vortex of this horrible reasoning.
Kareem wrote,
It has become clear to me that the term Kinism or Kinist is much more encompassing than what is believed or taught by you. As I listen on Sermon Audio to your sermons I agree with your teaching and preaching on the subject of kin and have no problem with the article you sent to me with your letter recently. It is interesting to me that the article, as well as Dow and Achord’s book, do not use the word “Kinism” or “Kinist” at all.
Bret responds,
Here the complaint is taken up in objection to a word. That word is “Kinism.” If I used the word “ethno-nationalism” or “racial-realism,” or “Natural Communities” or “Oikophilia” it seems that all would be well but because Kareem has become scared of a word she finds herself objecting to the word itself.
The odd thing here is that there are all kinds of nutcases who use the term “Christian” and yet no one insists that because there are some nutcases that use the term “Christian” therefore we dare not use the word Christian for fear of being associated with the other nutcases who also use the word Christian.
Similarly there are a whole lot of terrible men out there that make me ashamed of my gender but I do not stop calling myself a man simply due to the fact that that identity has been dragged through the mud.
Kareem writes,
Instead, phrases like “natural communities” are used. It is my opinion that those who hold, what I call the “Biblical view of kith and kin” make up a small percentage of those who would identify as “Kinist.” The broader umbrella includes Christian Identity, white nationalists, neo-nazis, etc. Despite how historically and Biblically consistent your views of kith and kin may be, a dark cloud has been placed over the church you serve by identifying as “Kinist.”
Bret responds,
Now here we have sheer opinion. Personally, I know of no neo-Nazi’s or skinheads, or white nationalists or Christian Identity who call themselves “Kinists.” These people might exist but I have read no surveys that somehow give me statistics on this matter. I mean how does Kareem know this? Did she do a survey to find out how commonly this is the case or is she only guessing? I suspect the latter.
The whole “dark cloud” metaphor is lame. In the first century a dark cloud hung over the sobriquet “Christian.” Christians were pilloried and accused of all kinds of slander, libel, and mud. No one ever said; “Hey, I have an idea. Let’s give up on calling ourselves Christian, since everyone hates us.” Neither has anyone today said that, “since there are many people out there now who are calling themselves “Christians” (like Mormons and JW’s) who are not Christians therefore we better quit calling ourselves “Christian.” This is very odd reasoning.
Honestly, the “We can’t identify with you because of the dark cloud” is really a fig leaf cover for lack of courage. Either Kinism, as I have set it forth (and not as how I have been successfully slandered and libeled for putting it forth) is Christian doctrine or it is not Christian doctrine. If it is Christian doctrine then people should play the man and stand up against the slander and libel that has been unjustly showered upon me by the enemies of Christ. To bring forth this complaint is to join with the SPLC and Mid-Michigan media and the CRC in affirming the accuracy of their slanderous work.
Kareem wrote,
The reputation of the church you serve and church members is now associated with groups that people want to distance themselves from. For members of the church this association is inescapable.
Bret responds,
Says you. This is just more talk of one who is not courageous.
In logic class this is called the fallacy of “a hasty generalization.” A hasty generalization is a fallacy in which a conclusion that is reached is not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence. You don’t know this is true. You’re just guessing that it is true. Where is your unbiased evidence of this accusation?
What we are seeing here is somebody saying,
“I privately agree with your doctrine on kith and kin but I dare not publicly associate with you for fear of getting splashed with the positions of others that you have explicitly gone out of the way to refute.” Again this is a lack of courage.
Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go.”
Essentially, this position says, “I agree with you privately but publicly I dare not associate with you because of what others have said about you. Oh… and by the way, it’s your fault that others have successfully lied about you.”
Kareem writes,
Distinctions between the Biblical view of kith and kin and these unbiblical Kinist views have not been sufficiently made, so the average person who searches the church you serve and finds out that we are labeled “Kinist” naturally associates us with them.
Bret responds,
1.) It’s just an substantial inaccuracy that I have not sufficiently made the proper distinctions between proper and unbiblical views of Kinism. I challenge anybody to scroll through Iron Ink here to see the work I have done to that end.
2.) Of course the average Normie will hyper-ventilate when they see we are labeled with the term Kinist. The average normie would hyper-ventilate with any terms that has been successfully slandered and libeled. This is really a “Captain-Obvious” statement.
3.) I think Kareem and people like her need to hear;
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Kareem writes,
Bringing that identity over to the church you serve is harming the reputation of Christ and the members of that local body. It is besmirching the name of those of have gone before us and have advocated a biblical view of kith and kin. Many Christians practice the biblical doctrine of kith and kin without knowing it. I don’t need to show them my tattoo or announce that I am rabidly anti cultural-Marxist to be faithful to the Word. Actions speak louder than words.
Bret responds
This is posturing.
I have not brought this identity over to the Church I serve. Those enemies of Christ who have slandered and libeled me (SPLC, Mid-Michigan Media, CRC) have brought this identity over to the Church I serve. People who attend have to decide if they are going to bear the Cross or if they are going to depart in order that their personal peace and affluence will remain untroubled. You, and others like you, have obviously opted for your personal peace and affluence, thus showing yourself to lack courage. The lack of Biblical courage is not a virtue.
Many Christians do practice the doctrine of kith and kin without knowing it. I quite agree. But you know what, that window is closing. In this cultural moment, with its emphasis on the attacking and replacing of Christian white people, being not epistemologically self-conscious about the doctrine of kith and kin is going to get one rolled over by the steam roller that is cultural Marxism. It is either stand and fight or it is to be swallowed alive. You might (MIGHT) get one more generation of people who will be able to survive as nominal Kinists but the next generation is not going to be able to get away with that. I’m fighting for that next generation. Too many, are satisfied with protecting themselves and their children. They have lost the vision of generations. They are circling the wagons around themselves and their children but I promise you because they refuse to fight their grandchildren are going to be cultural Marxist unless God blesses the efforts of the handful who are contending for the cause.
Actions do speak louder than words. Which accounts for why I have been libeled and slandered by the enemies of Christ. Because of my actions for Christ and for His people, Hate organizations (SPLC), Denominations (CRC) and the whole of Mid-Michigan media and now you and your ilk, have descended upon me. Don’t tell me about actions speaking louder than words. My loud actions have gathered the enemies of Christ around me. The actions of brave men would be to support where God’s Word is being taught regardless of how the enemies of God pillory God’s servant. The actions of brave men is not to cut and run, screaming about how the servant of God has brought this on himself.
Finally, to be rabidly anti-Christian Marxist is simply to be pro-Christ. Indeed, we are in a cultural hour where there is a necessity to be rabidly anti-Christian Marxist just as there was a necessity in the 16th century to be rabidly anti-Roman Catholic.
A large problem with this critique Kareem, is that it is completely unaware of the cultural hour in which we find ourselves. If we will not be rabidly anti-Cultural Marxist we will be rolled over by the cultural Marxists. (Something that is currently happening in spades precisely because the Church and its members are not rabidly anti-Christian Marxist.)
Kareem writes,
Not only that, but I believe that you have erred in absolutizing Kinism.
Bret responds,
Since Biblical Kinism is merely Christianity 101 what you have accused me of is absolutizing Christianity.
Yeah, color me guilty.
Not well thought out Kareem.
Kareem writes,
The article that you referenced doesn’t do so, but states “To deny this is not necessarily formal heresy (by which I mean the error of teaching a doctrine that one knows undermines essential features of the gospel), but it is material heresy (by which I mean the error of inconsistently believing a doctrine that, if believed consistently, would undermine the gospel).”
Bret responds,
You do realize Kareem that both formal heresies and material heresies means separation from Christ don’t you? Both a formal heresy and a material heresy undermines the Gospel. Did you read what you quoted to me?
Kareem finishes,
I think we must be careful to make distinctions between core doctrines and doctrines that are important, but not salvific. It is troubling to me that you have put Kinism on par with justification and the deity of Christ.
Bret responds,
I do affirm that cultural Marxism (the opposite of Kinism) will damn a soul the same way that the denial of Justification by faith alone and the denial of the deity of Christ will damn the soul. Kinsim is in opposition to Cultural Marxism which has as its overall goal to roll Christ off his throne. To relegate opposition to it to a secondary doctrine, in this cultural moment, is to not understand the battle we are currently fighting.
I don’t think you understand the points you are trying to make. The reason I say that is none of this should be troubling in the least.
That you can’t see the importance of Kinism, Natural Communities, Oikophilia, racial-realism, ethno-nationalism, Christian nationalism (all largely synonymous) likely only means that you have yourself quaffed too deeply from the well of the spirit of the age.
I pray that the Lord Christ will continue to give us the Spirit of Christ to understand the times and what must be done.
____________
Or like a dhimmi Christian, who is content to live under the boot of infidels. Dhimmitude makes even men think like women.
(But sometimes the dhimmis even directly served their Muslim masters as cannon fodder; for example, a large part of the Ottoman army that conquered Constantinople in 1453 was made of Christian auxiliaries from the Balkans whom their rulers had sent to serve their sultanic overlord.)
Approve | Reply | Quick Edit | Edit | History | Spam | Trash
jetbrane
IronInk.orgx
jetbrane@gmail.com
67.149.79.28 In reply to Anon.
You’re right Kareem is thinking like a woman.
Unapprove | Reply | Quick Edit | Edit | History | Spam | Trash
Anon
fake@example.com
222.153.81.153
Kinism is defined in contrast to Christian identity (salvation is limited to certain ethnic groups).
The real issue is Kareem is a woman and can be controlled by labels. The only way to deal with this is to insulate them from any social partners that would disapprove. If I recall her pastor disapproved. Big problem.
Unapprove | Reply | Quick Edit | Edit | History | Spam | Trash
Viisaus
pietari.tamminen@luukku.com
86.115.81.160
One of the most significant historical precedents for the current predicament of Christian churches in PC soft-totalitarian Western countries was the degraded condition of Eastern Orthodox churches under Muslim rule – the notorious “dhimmitude.”
The Islamic overlords did not DIRECTLY get involved in the lives of their Christian subjects – like forcing them to submit to some pro-Islamic heresies. But they used many ways of indirect influence, like for example demanding huge bribes from EO prelates at the times of their coming to office. This made simony and other forms of financial extortion rampant in the Eastern Christian communities.
And Christian dhimmis were not allowed to make any kind of offensive remarks towards Islam, or to make any converts from the ranks of Muslims. They very much needed to “know their place” and not to try to defy their Muslim betters in any manner.
Thus dhimmi EO churches were not directly theologically corrupted by Muslim rule, but practically their were gelded or emasculated, living a life of humiliating inferiority. And one of the side effects of this condition was that many spirited young men, who could not live that kind of life, ended up apostasizing. As W.A. Wigram put it, in the early 20th century:
http://www.aina.org/books/itthotac/itthotac.htm#fn25
“A saintly soul’s service to his Master may be only the higher and purer for the humiliation that the service imposes on him. A man of inferior type may accept the position into which he has been born; and by striving “to do the best for himself” in it, may develop in a few generations into the supple and often cringing and deceitful person, whom we know as the Levantine of to-day-an instrument, that is, whom his soldier master of the ruling race uses for his convenience, and whom he despises. A youth of fire and ambition, with no more than the average young man’s realization of things unseen and spiritual, is always tempted, under these circumstances, to find a career for himself where he will not be exposed to the constant fret of knowing himself undeservedly despised; and to find it either by abandoning the faith which for him spells humiliation, or the land whose laws impose it on the faith.
…
Islam has in this been only the heir of Zoroastrianism: both have taken throughout the centuries a “Janissary-tribute,” not from the lives only, but also from the souls and characters of the Christian races subject to them.”
R.J. Rushdoony’s parents were born into a society like this.
In the somewhat similar manner today, any orthodox, Bible-believing Christian who publically defies the egalitarian dogmas of our corrupt, apostate society (or just refuse to “bake the cake”) can expect getting smacked around institutionally. We are now living as “dhimmis” of Liberal-Leftist secular humanism, as this guy observes:
https://twitter.com/baronitaigas/status/1767703044504817839
Unapprove | Reply | Quick Edit | Edit | History | Spam | Trash
Amelia
rakie1991@gmail.com
104.7.17.32
“It has become clear to me that the term Christianity or Christian is much more encompassing than what is believed or taught by you. As I listen on Sermon Audio to your sermons I agree with your teaching and preaching on the subject of Christ and have no problem with the article you sent to me with your letter recently. It is interesting to me that the article, as well as (insert name’s) book, do not use the word “Christianity” or “Christian” at all.
It is my opinion that those who hold, what I call the “Biblical view of Christ” make up a small percentage of those who would identify as “Christian.” The broader umbrella includes racists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, etc. Despite how historically and Biblically consistent your views of Christ may be, a dark cloud has been placed over the church you serve by identifying as “Christian.”
The reputation of the church you serve and church members is now associated with groups that people want to distance themselves from. For members of the church this association is inescapable.
I privately agree with your doctrine on Christianity but I dare not publicly associate with you for fear of getting splashed with the positions of others that you have explicitly gone out of the way to refute.
Distinctions between the Biblical view of Christ and these unbiblical views of Christ have not been sufficiently made, so the average person who searches the church you serve and finds out that we are labeled “Christian” naturally associates us with them.
Bringing that identity over to the church you serve is harming the reputation of Christ and the members of that local body. It is besmirching the name of those of have gone before us and have advocated a biblical view of Christ. Many Christians practice the biblical doctrine of Christ without knowing it. I don’t need to show them my tattoo or announce that I am rabidly anti cultural-Marxist to be faithful to the Word. Actions speak louder than words.”