Iron Ink

From The Mailbag; “Pastor, Aren’t You Being Unreasonable?”

Joshua Ambassador asked;

“The practical question in the debate is this: Nearly everyone in society is unregenerate today, spiritually blind, and suppressing the truth. What basis can there be, then, for law and justice?”

Bret responds,

There can be no basis for law and justice if we compromise with the heathen. Indeed, compromising with the heathen means “non-law,” and “injustice.” Let the heathen compromise with Biblical Christians.

The basis of any social order must be God’s Law Word enforced by Magistrates. The current humanist “Law and justice” is enforced on me by the Magistrate. Why shouldn’t we advocate that God’s Law and Justice be enforced upon the heathen by Christian Magistrates? Is God so small that we must wait until the Christ haters agree to be ruled by God’s law in the civil realm? This is the Usus politicus sive civilis of the law. This the understanding that the law serves the commonwealth or body politic as a force to restrain sin.

JA asked,

When people who are new to the debate hear the arguments of presuppositionalists, it sounds like they are saying that all the unregenerate are so willfully blind that it’s pointless to even try to come to a common agreement with them about what is right and wrong. The basis for Law, justice, and government in society can’t exist. Therefore Christians should go to some uninhabited place and form their own society.

BLMc responds

Because all ground is common ground (God’s ground) it is not pointless to pray and expect conversion. At the same time it is true that no ground is neutral ground. Since no ground is neutral ground we must not yield any ground to the unregenerate as if they have deed, title, or right to that ground. All must yield to Christ’s Lordship in every area because every piece of ground is the Kings.

If the heathen are given the whip hand though, it is true that the basis of Law, justice, and government in society can’t exist. This because increasingly obvious as the antithesis works out its implications on both sides. Therefore non-Christians should Kiss the Son, lest they perish in the way.

If you compromise with the heathen, the end will ALWAYS eventually be increasing heathenism and humanist anti-Christ law.

Let the heathen go look for uninhabited lands to live in.

Look… it is either rule or be ruled. We can rule by God’s glorious law – and this despite the heathen screaming like stuck pigs, or we can be ruled by Old Slewfoot’s hobnail ruinous law that seeks to maim, kill, and destroy.

Whose law would you be ruled by?

JA wrote,

Yes, the Pilgrims did that but there was a lot more land available then. And plenty of Christians have to “seek the peace of the city where they are captives” (Jeremiah 29 from memory), which surely involves co-operating with the unregenerate and coming to some kind of agreement with them about how the city/community/nation should be governed.

BLMc responds

Cooperate with the unregenerate on these matters? Isn’t that defined as sin? Let the unregenerate co-operate with me.

An Exchange On Natural Law With Evan Gerber

Evan Gerber wrote,

McAtee Bret It’s not just opinions though—there is, objectively, content in natural revelation, with moral implications, over which we disagree.

Bret responds,

True … but the unbeliever is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and so to suggest that he can enter in the discussion about the moral implications of objective NL is just contrary to Scripture. Scripture teaches in Rmns. 8:7 that the carnal mind is at enmity to God’s law. It cannot submit.

So, it is just opinions for the fallen man. To deny that is to deny total depravity. And for the Christian it is just an exchange of opinions on what NL is objectively teaching since there is no “thus saith the Lord in NL.” In order to read Natural Revelation aright one must first presuppose Special Revelation.

EG wrote,

I think this is obvious even from the comprehensibility of Scripture itself. Without natural revelation, Scripture we would be unable to comprehend Scripture. Further, without tradition—because that is what all language is—we would have no way access the Truth of Scripture.

BLM replies,

Our comprehending Scripture as God intends is dependent upon reading it via the proper presuppositions. After all, the JW’s read Scripture and still get it wrong. So… while we must be able to read to understand Scripture reading doesn’t guarantee that we will understand Scripture. So, even the reading of Scripture depends upon proper presuppositions which can only be given by God in regeneration. Special Revelation still precedes General Revelation.

Indeed, even the “we” doing the reading cannot know who we are without presupposing God. So, whether it is the reader or the one doing the reading any progress is dependent upon having God centered presuppositions.

EG writes,

In order to argue against NL, I think you have to affirm *just* enough natural revelation to make Scripture comprehensible, but somehow make a distinction between what is necessary to understand Scripture and all other natural revelation. I just don’t believe this distinction is warranted.

Bret responds,

See above. I think it is warranted. You have not yet plumped the depths of the fall.

EG writes,

[Side note: If this is just a semantic disagreement over the term “Natural Law,” I’m happy to use “Natural Revelation” instead. I am not contending that NL exists “independent” of God, nor is that my understanding from reading Aquinas.]

BLM responds,

Aquinas teaches that fallen man can read NL aright since in Thomism man’s intellect is not completely fallen.

Might I recommend that you read Francis Schaeffer’s “Escape From Reason?”

An Exchange On Natural Law With Cody Justice

Cody Justice wrote,

If there is no natural law, no one dispossessed of Scripture can know right from wrong, nor can they be justly judged by God. But those dispossessed of Scripture do know right from wrong and are justly judged by God. Ergo etc.

BLMc responds

1.) Yes, they can know right from wrong since the Scripture clearly teaches that fallen man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. I have never denied Natural Law exists. I have and do deny that NL can be used as a ordering mechanism for social order since fallen man as suppressing the truth in unrighteousness refuses to operate in terms of what he can’t help knowing to be true. So, I believe that God is sending NL but that fallen man, being a Christ hater, refuses to read it for what it is except when it serves his sinful necessity.

In Bahnsen’s words, the unbeliever knows and doesn’t know at the same time.

2.) Enforcing this is the Scripture that explicitly teaches that the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. (Romans 8:7).

This vs. alone immediately rules out all Thomistic NL theories.

3.) Even if the above were not true, man is responsible to God if only because God says “man is responsible to me.”

CJ wrote,

QED (for the thousandth time). Also: Drew is a goober for appealing to NL for egalitarianism just as much as Wilson is a goober for appealing to theonomy for legalizing pornography.

1.) If I was forced to embrace NL it would be of your flavor.

2.) However since Thomistic NL is a myth I can advocate for a better way.

3.) Wilson is not a theonomist. He has written that his goal is to be 0.5 of what RJR was. Wilson is a Libertarian. He’s also an idiot though he is a master marketer, propagandist, and has never met a false dichotomy he wasn’t intimate with.

4.) BUT…we do agree that Drewski is a “Goober.”

Examining Some Of The Highlights Of The RPCNA’s Book Against Kinism

Alright … I just completed Rev. Drew Poplin’s “The Canvas of Creation; A Biblical Response to the Heresy of Racial Superiority”

All I can say is;

Rev. Poplin, what you’ve written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read.

At no point in your rambling, incoherent text were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.

Everyone in this room is now dumber for having been exposed to it.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Below find random interaction. It would take a 500 page book to thoroughly expose this 55 page tract. Much of this will be done by quoting random Poplin quotes and then interacting a wee bit.

___

“If the idea of race is limited to focusing on the colors of the canvas, then ethnicity involves the currency paid for the paint (tribes), what stores the paint came from (peoples), and how the paints are going to be applied to the canvas (languages). The Kinist likes to point out – just like every other atheistic sociologist – the great differences between American sub-cultures in order to legitimize his claim that blacks and whites and every shade in between are different ethnicities. It is doubtful that these ‘sub-cultures’ are really as foundationally different as the Kinists exaggerated claims.”

Rev. Drewski Poplin

The Canvas of Creation – p. 12

I will name my next born child after the person who can tell me what the Hades the above even means.

1.) No Kinist limits the idea of race to a focus on color. Indeed, most Kinists would say that color is the least important reality concerning race.

2.) I literally have ZERO idea what the cute little metaphor is supposed to mean. I have read and re-read that part and to me that is all gobbledygook. I would say though that because Drewski Poplin is so completely confused on the categories of Race, ethnicity, nation, tribes, and families his whole effort is cornholed from the beginning.

3.) I recommend that Drewski attend a Black church meeting in the deep south and compare it to a Presbyterian meeting… or he could examine the difference between the work ethic of your average white man and the work ethic of your average black man…. or he could he could look at the bastardy rate compared to black and white subcultures if he wants to see the substantive differences between races/ sub-cultures.

4.) Poplin talks about the differences between Normans, Anglos, and Saxons. Someone needs to clue Rev. Drewski that Anglos and Saxons while being different ethnicities belonged to the same race of men. They were all sons of Japheth via Japheth’s son Gomer.

___

OK… so Rev. Drewski Poplin appeals to the perspicuity of Natural Law to make his case. This is the same Natural Law that Stephen Wolfe and Cody Justice are always insisting is perspicuous. Which is also the same Natural law that David Van Drunen and R. Scott Clark insists is perspicuous. Yet if you put all these chaps in the same bag you’d have a three way war and that right quickly over the meaning of Natural Law.

Thomistic Natural Law is a Myth.

____

After reading the first 25% of Rev. Drewski Poplin’s book on race, I can only conclude that not only is Drewski of a different race than myself. He also is from a different planet than myself. I think he is from planet Dumbarseolia.

___

“The Kinist believes that certain persons are prone to particular sins by virtue of their race — they simply cannot help it.”

Rev. Drewski Poplin
The Canvas of Creation – p. 17

LOL … yeah, guilty as charged. We believe in such a thing as genetics. We can’t help it. We are genetically prone to thinking that red hair, blue eyes, long legs, short tempers, a predilection to diffidence, and even propensity to like booze are all realities that can be passed on genetically.

Look, genetics play a substantial and well-documented role in addiction, including alcohol, nicotine, opioids, cocaine, cannabis, and other substances. Twin, family, and adoption studies show that – 40%-60% of the risk for developing any substance use disorder (SUD) is heritable, with the rest due to other factors. Further genetics play a moderate but real role in violent tendencies, accounting for 40% – 60% of the variance in aggressive an antisocial behavior, according to twin, adoption, and molecular genetic studies. Finally, genetics play a modest but real role in lying and deception, accounting for 20%-40% of the variance in trait dishonesty (i.e., habitual lying or cheating), according to twin and molecular studies.

We Kinists, it is true, are guilty of believing in things like DNA, Genes, and hereditary traits.

Better call a church council to excommunicate us Drewski.

____

“The commands for strict separation between Israel and the surrounding nations were religious, not racial; and ceremonial not permanent.”

Rev. Drewski Poplin
The Canvas of Creation – p. 18

If this is so then why did Ezra and Nehemiah send the covenant children away with the the foreign wives? Clearly it is because the covenant children were not of the Hebrew people. It was racial and not merely religious.

As to “ceremonial and not permanent” … well, that’s just Drewski’s opinion.

____

“Kinism claims that it is wrong for one race to intermix w/ another…”

Rev. Drewski Poplin

The Canvas of Creation – p. 20

Now, as I am the oft described “King of the Kinists” by my enemies I condescend to inform Drewski that not all Kinists say it is wrong or even a sin for one race to intermix with another. Certainly, some might say that but most of my Kinist subjects ( ) would merely claim that it is normatively unwise for one race to intermix with another.

Most people, not from the planet Drewski if from would understand the difference between Drewski’s claim about Kinists and the “King of the Kinists” claim about Kinists.

This is just more strawman material and it’s pretty close to libel and slander.

_____

“We are called to love our neighbor, which is the summary of the second table of the law. Our Master goes great lengths to teach that our neighbors includes those who are racially and religiously different from us.”

Rev. Drewski Poplin

Canvas of Creation – p. 21

Yes, we are called to love our neighbor. Yes that includes neighbors of other religions and races. However, loving our neighbors doesn’t necessarily translate into marrying and bedding our neighbor. Salvation does not imply copulation.

SMH

____

File Under: Wherein Drewski reveals he really is a Kinist underneath it all.

“If a group of children are skating on a frozen lake and the ice breaks, just because the father first saves his daughter does not means he hates the other children; and after he has rescued her, he will doubtless go after the others if no one else has already.”

Rev. Drewski Poplin

Canvas of Creation – p. 22

BEHOLD KINISM.

_____

“In many ways, Kinism has crept up as an over-reaction to the popularization of Critical Race Theory, which is philosophically driven by envy. But in doing so, the Race Realist has replaced envy with boasting and makes the same error as the Critical Race theorist: everything has become about power and domination on the grounds of characteristics over which we have no control. This is not love, and is therefore, directly contrary to the whole law of God.”

Rev. Drewski Poplin

Canvas of Creation – p. 23

1.) Truth be told, Kinism has crept up as a result of the ongoing attempt to destroy and replace the Christian white man. Kinism, is a natural defense mechanism against the attempt to totally subjugate, enslave, and destroy the white man…. particularly the Christian white man. It is hard to imagine it being possible to over-react to the threat of being destroyed. In brief Kinism is the natural auto-immune response to the attempt to be genocide-ed. Without Kinism, there would be virtually no response of defense or self protection existent.

2.) The Kinist does not boast any more or less than the Apostle Paul did when he listed his Hebrew bona fides (Philippians 3:5f).

3.) The White Kinists have no desire to dominate anywhere but in the lands his fathers settled, tamed, and built. The White Christian Kinists wish the best for their black, brown, red, and yellow Christian Kinists in their own respective homelands. Drewski is just in error here (but we are used to that).

4.) What is contrary to the Law of God is Drewski’s constant violation of the 9th commandment.

______

And it is this Gospel that corrects the strongholds of malice and bitterness that comprise the Kinist philosophy.”

Rev. Drewski Poplin

Canvas of Creation – p. 25

LOL… I know a ton of Kinists. They are the most kind, good humored, humorous, intelligent and forgiving people you’d ever want to meet. They merely do not believe that Scripture creates a death cult that requires them to support their destruction.

However, it is true that we are particularly malicious towards all things that smell of sulfur.

____

“The Word did not assume a race, but a nature; therefore, race is not essential but circumstantial, to what it means to be human.”

Rev. Drewski Poplin

Canvas of Creation – p. 26

If this was true then it would be true that all colors should bleed into one.

However, it is not true. The Word did not assume a race? Someone better cut out all that Scripture that teaches that the Messiah had to be born of the house of David. If born of the House of David was a necessity then being of the race of Shem (sorry all you Anglo-Israelis) was absolutely required. So, quite to the contrary of what Drewski asserts the Word not only assumed a nature but He also assumed a race … a race that He still belongs to.

Race is essential to what it means to be human, just as gender is essential to what it means to be human.

Poplin is an idiot.

____

I think Drew Poplin’s middle name is “Strawman.” Rev. Drew Strawman Poplin. Remember to say it with respect and deference worthy of clergy.

____

Can you pin the tail on the contradiction?

1.) “If a group of children are skating on a frozen lake and the ice breaks, just because the father first saves his daughter does not means he hates the other children; and after he has rescued her, he will doubtless go after the others if no one else has already.”

Rev. Drewski Poplin

Canvas of Creation – p. 22

2.) “Kinists claim that there should be no intermingling of races AND that we should show partiality to those who are our own flesh and blood. Our Elder Brother (Jesus) does the opposite of the former, and rejects the reasoning of the latter.”

Rev. Drewski Poplin

Canvas of Creation – p. 27

Which is it Drewski? Will you save your daughter or will you follow the dictates of our “Elder Brother?” Decide quick… your daughter is drowning.

____

“Kinism would perpetuate divisions, but the work of Christ brings together the breaches caused by sin.”

Drewski Poplin

Canvas of Creation – p. 28

Scripture teaches that the distinctions that Kinism advocates for are perpetual. Rev. 21 speaks repeatedly of the nations. The distinction of nations is a distinction that exists for eternity. The same is true for race and even for families. For eternity I will be a McAtee. Entering into glory will not change that. The reason that this distinction remains (not division as the idiot Poplin insists upon) is that it is neither a breach caused by sin, nor are these distinctions sinful.

In Drewski’s version of “Christianity” Christ brings together what Drewski calls “breaches caused by sin,” with the inevitable result that Drewski’s Christianity yields a Christianity that has the same characteristics that they were aiming at in the Tower of Babel project.

Drewski, would give us a “Christian” New World Order where all colors bleed into one. Drewski and his ilk are opposed to Sauron’s NWO, but are damned determined to build Sauraman’s NWO.

It’s all heretical and it is going to get all killed. These are the stakes.

____

“Our greatest affinity is not the natural affinity of blood and soil, but of Spirit and truth.”

Rev. Drewski Poplin

Canvas of Creation – p. 32

This is one example of what I mean by Drew’s middle name being “Strawman.” No Kinist denies that our greatest affinity is our affinity of Spirit and truth (with those we share a common faith). However, Kinists would say the closest affinity is with those with whom we share the Spirit and truth while also sharing a common blood and soil.

____

Drewski insists that Kinists are a fearful lot. He insists that the fear they have is of being “replaced.” Drewski says this fear is sin and we Kinists should just trust God. Would Drewski say that fear of going hungry is sin and we should just trust God AND not plant a garden? The fear that the Kinist has of replacement theory is a fear that is driving them to take the action warranted in order to cast aside that fear. So, do we Kinist have fear? Yes, and it is as appropriate as having a fear of sinning, or a fear of drowning when our ship goes down and we are floating on some isolated refuse of our now sunk ship.

Now, this fear is not all consuming. It is the kind of fear that causes us to raise our voice in warning about “Demographics being destiny.” It is the kind of fear that keeps one from walking in front of a Semi-truck. It is the kind of fear that keeps one from marrying a loose woman. Some would call what Drewski calls “fear,” “wisdom.”

Drewski has no fear because he is a fool who is not taking caution for the coming day of destruction. He is the example of the foolish man who built his house on the sand.

___

Drewski says the rise of Kinism is explained by three factors;

1.) Fear of replacement

2.) Bitterness @ being left behind & not having godly inheritance

3.) Father hunger

I say the rise of Alienism (opposite of Kinism) is explained by four factors;

1.) Cowardice to stand against the enemy

2.) Ignorance of history

3.) A gross mishandling of Scripture

4.) Turning the Christian faith into a death cult

I charge Drewski with being guilty of fearing Kinism as evidenced by the writing of this book. In this book I see all kinds of bitterness as evidenced by the slander and libel against Kinists. Finally, I see Drewski being consumed with Father hunger as this book was obviously written in order to earn the approval of chaps like Benjamin Glaser, Brad Isbell, and Nathan Eshelman.

____

I can’t believe, for the life of me, that the movers and shakers in the RPCNA read this book and said to themselves … “Yeah, we need to print this ‘masterpiece.'” This volume not only screams how lacking Rev. Drew Poplin is but it screams that every person who read this before publication (clergy and non-clergy alike) are infinitely jejune. This book is an indictment against the whole ruddy RPCNA denomination.

The End Of Full Preterism

^{I Corinthians 15:12}Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? ¹³But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. ¹⁴And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. ¹⁵Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. ¹⁶For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. ¹⁷And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! ¹⁸Then also those who have ^[c]fallen asleep in Christ have perished. ¹⁹If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

²⁰But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have ^[d]fallen asleep. ²¹For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. ²²For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. ²³But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.

For years I have on again, off again, conversations with Tony Pomales and Kim Burgess on the subject of full Preterism. Recently, Kim, along with Gary DeMar published a two volume book on full Preterism. I always enjoyed the conversations with Tony and Kim because it was clear that these chap had done their homework and because out of that homework they had presented some really quite fine exegesis. Indeed, because of their work in introducing me to the subject (first Tony 20 years ago or so, then Kim doing a good deal of filling in the gaps) I became a partial Preterist. However, despite their pleadings and frustrations with me, I could never go with them to full Preterism. I remain thankful for all the books they shoveled my way on the subject. I remain thankful that I was delivered from my Amillennial convictions, consistent with their pleadings and consistent with other material I was reading on that subject. I am thankful to God for dropping them into my life.

Yet despite my gratitude (or maybe because of my gratitude) I continue to warn them as I did while in conversation with them that they had left the faith by embracing full Preterism.

Below, I explain how that is so.

The force of Paul’s argument in I Corinthians 15 rests in these two points:

(1) Paul establishes an ironclad logical relationship between the “bodily resurrection of Christ” with the “bodily resurrection” of other dead people (“Christ is the first fruit of those who have fallen asleep.”)

When it comes to the issue of bodily resurrection what ever is predicated about Christ must be predicated also of those who have “fallen asleep in Christ.” In point of fact so tight is the corollary between Christ’s bodily resurrection and the saints future bodily resurrection that Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, insists that if the dead in Christ are not bodily raised then it is the case also that Christ was not bodily raised (vs. 16). Full Preterist can not deny the future bodily resurrection of the Saints without denying the past bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. In point of fact the logic of the Full Preterist position requires that since there is no future bodily resurrection for dead saints they (Preterists) remain in their sin owning a dead futile faith (vs. 16-17).

This is why full Preterism is heresy and a denial of the Christian faith. In order for Christians to be forgiven Christ had to have resurrected AND those united to Christ must bodily resurrect because if those who are united to Christ don’t bodily resurrect that means that Christ did not bodily resurrect. All of that in turn means men are still in their sins and that in turn means that the wrath of God abides on them. So, the denial of the future bodily resurrection of the Saints is a denial of the whole ball of wax.

(2) Whatever is meant by “resurrection” must mean the same thing throughout the argument for the argument to work. And since the self-same, bodily resurrection of Christ is clearly in view, then the self-same, future bodily “resurrection of the dead,” is what is being stipulated as true for the rest of the dead in St. Paul’s argumentation.

That the “resurrection” must mean the same thing throughout the argument is seen by the fact that Christ is referred to as “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.” The whole idea of “firstfruits” in the OT economy (which is what Paul is reaching back to for analogy purposes) is that the firstfruits (those parts of the harvest that ripened first) were promissory of the fruits which would ripen and be harvested later. Jesus Christ is the first fruit of the bodily resurrected dead and is promissory of later fruit that would follow of a future ripened fruit of the bodily resurrected dead.

Full Preterism turns the Christian faith into an embrace of the status of “the most pitiable.”