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.

Example of R2K Thinking in the Rank and File Clergy

“Should Pastors spend their time trying to develop a textbook level theory of Reformed political theory that better matches the context of the 16th-17th centuries, or should they disciple their people to live faithfully as exiles in our respective Babylons?”

Rev. Daniel F. Wells
PCA Sycophant

1.) This is amil eschatology. Note everyone is living in Babylon. There is no victory. It is Babylon always all the time.

2.) This is R2K theology. The whole “exile” language is a central theme in R2K surrender theology. The Gates of hell always prevail w/ R2K.

3.) Should Pastors learn their craft in learning to apply Christian theology to politics. R2K always says “NO.” This is because for R2K theology is completely cordoned off from politics, economic, family life, sociology, history, education, etc.

This man should NOT be in the pulpit, just as no R2K fanboy should be in the pulpit. The presence of R2K fanboys in the pulpit guarantees the death of the West since for R2K the world is not our home, we’re just a passing through.

James Madison on Legal Establishment of Christianity … McAtee on Legal Establishment of Religious Liberty

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

— James Madison, 1784

“During 250 years of American Independence religious liberty has been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, the continued dumbing down of America, the ever increasing rise of sexual perversion, the embrace of explicit polytheism, a clergy that is more akin to Franz Boas than to John Calvin, and most recently the growing persecution of Biblical Christians.

— Rev. Bret L. McAtee, 2026

Go tell Madison he had his head up his southern most bodily aperture.

McAtee Repudiates Dr. Jeffrey Stivason’s Article on “A Word to Kinists” VI

“Put plainly, the man (Timothy) of mixed heritage humbled himself for the sake of those who prized ethnic purity. The so-called “interracial” man did not recoil from racial exclusivists; he moved toward them in costly love, seeking not to preserve boundaries, but to bring them into the fullness of the gospel.”

Jeffrey Stivason

A Word to Kinists?

No, Timothy humbled himself for the sake of those who were without God and without hope. The fact that Jews prized ethnic purity was ancillary to that. By Stivason’s logic, Titus, who was not circumcised, did not desire to bring the Jews into the fullness of the gospel.

When we look at all the evidence, it’s clear that Titus’ case was all about defending the freedom Christians find in Christ, whilst in Timothy’s case, it was all about utilising that same freedom to win more souls for Christ. It was freedom that led Paul not to allow Titus to be circumcised, and it was freedom that led Paul to allow Timothy to be circumcised, 1 Corinthians 10:23-24. Because this is true, we should not force men to become Alienists anymore than Titus was forced to become circumcised.

Finally, using Stivason’s own logic, we might ask doesn’t Stivason love non Christian Kinists enough to move toward them in costly love, seeking to preserve boundaries, and so bring them into the fullness of the gospel?” If Timothy could be circumcised for the sake of winning Jews to Christ, can’t Stivason embrace Kinism for the sake of winning Kinists to Christ?

Stivason writes,

“There is a vital lesson here for us. When the church fixes its gaze on Christ—even in a case like Timothy’s circumcision, which served to set Christ before those still living in the shadows—the result is strengthening, unity, and growth. But when the church turns its attention to skin color or ethnic distinctions, it shifts from Christ-centeredness to man-centeredness, and, in doing so, it becomes weak.

This is not a small or secondary matter. If left unchecked, such a focus does not merely distract—it can eclipse the gospel itself. And where the gospel is eclipsed, love will not long remain. Brothers and sisters, we must guard against anything that would displace Christ at the center. Let us be vigilant, then, to keep our eyes fixed on Him alone, for only there do we find the power that builds up the church and binds us together in true gospel love.”

Jeffrey Stivason

A Word to Kinists

Bret responds

1.) It is interesting here that Stivason is advancing an argument that would, in effect suggest, that the Genesis 11 project of Babel is only wrong if it is not a “Christian tower of Babel.” All colors bleeding into one is only evil when the Marxists / egalitarians attempt it. All colors bleeding into one is something God approves of as long as the New World Babel Order is Christian.

2.) Kinists teach “All of Christ for all the nations.” How in the world is that man-centered over Christ centered? This is more 9th commandment violation coming from Stivason.

3.) I see little evidence of the Church being strengthened, unified, and growing in light of the embrace of Stivason’s antiChrist Alienism. Indeed, what I see is the Irwyn Ince type of embarrassments that recently plagued the PCA. The Church in the West is more weak than it has been in generations. A quick glance at the decline in Church attendance witnesses that truth.

4.) Stivason’s last paragraph explains why Kinists oppose the Alienism of NAPARC. This debate is indeed not a small and secondary matter. If the Alienism in NAPARC wins out the Gospel of Jesus Christ and all of Biblical Christianity will return to the Babylonian captivity that Luther lamented over.

5.) Stivason and his Alienist cohorts are giving us a Christianity that is diametrically opposed to the Christianity found in Scripture. May God grant them repentance and the joy of knowing the Lord Christ who is and will be worshiped by people in every tribe, tongue and nation in their tribes tongues and nations.

McAtee Repudiates Dr. Jeffrey Stevenson’s Article on “A Word to Kinists” V

“The church is composed of a multitude drawn from every tribe, language, and nation—all of whom stand equally in need of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, the Kinist will readily affirm this point in word. He will say that the gospel is for all people without distinction. But this verbal concession collapses under the weight of his own system.

For if, as Kinism maintains, certain races are marked by enduring genetic deficiencies—moral or cultural traits that the gospel does not fully overcome—then the universality of the gospel is not truly believed but merely stated. In such a framework, the gospel may be offered to all, but it is not equally powerful for all. It becomes, in effect, a partial remedy—sufficient for some peoples but inherently limited in its transforming ability among others.”

Jeffrey Stivason
A Word to Kinists?

Bret responds,

1.) You were good in the first paragraph until the last sentence of that paragraph. The system of Biblical Christianity which includes Kinism has no collapse.

2.) No Kinist says that people with mental deficiencies such as retards are not elect. We believe that retards can be converted. Kinists believe, along with Scripture, that people from every tribe, tongue, and nation, in their tribes, tongues, and nations, will have elect drawn from them and be present at the great marriage feast of the lamb. Kinists, like the Apostle Paul (See Romans 9:1-3) would have never denied that there would be Cretans in heaven.

3.) Nobody denies that sanctification works in all peoples that are converted. What is denied is that all peoples will be equally sanctified. For example, converted Headhunting people groups will not likely be equally sanctified as compared to a people group converted who had been leavened with cultural Christianity for generations.

4.) So, Jeffery, we see you are a liar and have violated the 9th commandment by writing what you write above.

Stivason writes,

The New Testament proclaims a Christ who breaks down dividing walls, who creates one new man in place of the old divisions, and who renews fallen sinners without regard to ethnicity or lineage. But Kinism reintroduces those very barriers under the guise of “nature,” suggesting that grace is bounded by blood.”

Jeffrey Stivason
A Word to Kinists

Bret responds,

1.) Here is a fine argument on Stivason’s part on why grace destroys nature. If you believe that grace destroys nature but instead believe that grace restores nature then you are just fine with Stivason’s asinine conclusions.

2.) The one new man that the Spirit creates refers to the SPIRITUAL union that believers of all races have in common. However, Jeffrey, justification does not mean copulation. The distinctions that God created us with do not disappear upon conversion. I mean… think about it Jeffrey, isn’t it the case that “the one new man in Christ,” also includes females? Does that mean that gender goes away upon conversion? Now follow me here Jeffery … if you can … if gender doesn’t disappear with the one new man in Christ why would you think that race/ethnicity would disappear upon conversion?

For Pete’s sake … even John Calvin, the Kinist, is against you here,

“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)

3.) You use the term “grace is bounded by blood.” Kinists, believing covenant theology, might indeed believe that. We do believe that because of God’s grace, God’s favor runs in familial lines. However, I suspect you mean by that phrase that “grace is negated by blood,” which all Kinists reject. If God could save the sons of Japheth, despite their current high handed rebellion against His Word (as seen in what your writing) then God can save any people group. God can even save Stivasons.

4.) Again, you have violated with unwholesome speech the 9th commandment by what you have written. Please repent.

McAtee Repudiates Dr. Jeffrey Stevenson’s Article on “A Word to Kinists” IV

For example, he (Sam Ketcham) has obviously confused means and merit. “Reformed theology readily affirms that God uses means (language, education, printing presses, roads, political stability). But Ketcham’s statement goes beyond means and speaks of “superior culture, language, and race” as contributing causes. Second, Ketcham reintroduces grounds for boasting—not in Christ, but in one race’s superiority to that of another. And third, to argue the gospel succeeded because of racial or cultural superiority implicitly denies that the gospel is equally at home in every culture, a point upon which Scripture insists (e.g. Col. 1:23).”

Jeffrey Stivason
A Word to Kinists

1.) Here Stivason is being disingenuous. Ketcham, clearly affirmed that all of this was caused by the Holy Spirit. However, the Holy Spirit uses secondary causes in order to achieve His ends. Ketcham nowhere even hinted that those spreading the Gospel have earned or achieved merit or preformed a meritorious work. It is NOT claiming merit by saying that a race, language, or culture is superior if one admits (as Sam has) that superiority is all due to God’s grace.

2.) Stivason’s boasting claim is just stupid. How can Ketcham be accused of boasting when he explicitly says that the Holy Spirit gave success. If Sam is boasting he is boasting in God’s favor and gifts. To God alone be the glory.

3.) Sam never argued that the Gospel succeeded because of racial or cultural superiority. Sam argued that the Gospel succeeded because of the Holy Spirit’s use of the racial and cultural superiority of those He gifted to the work to be accomplished. To God alone be the glory.

Stivason writes,

“But why does it always come down to skin color for the Kinist? Why not eye color, birth hospital, or shoe size? Perhaps another question. Why does Kinism seem to fixate on Blacks and Jews? The likeliest answer is that Race Realism is really race hatred masquerading as love for those who are actually despised.”

Jeffrey Stivason
What is Kinism

Bret responds,

1.) It comes down to skin color you idiot because skin color is the leading indicator for race, though race is not limited to the reality of skin color. For example, it is possible for a black albino to be birthed but the fact the albino does not have black skin does not prove that the person is not black. Are you trying to be stupid Stivason?

2.) Perhaps Kinists speak on blacks and Jews because blacks and Jews are a large problem in our culture. Have you seen the FBI crime rates for blacks? Have you not read on the history of conflict between Jews and Christians? The question might be turned on you Jeffrey, “Why do you ignore the social order problems related to Jews and blacks?” “Why do you fixate on Kinists when all Kinists are trying to do is to get you notice reality?”

3.) Committing the sin of noticing is not the same thing as race hatred, though that certainly would work well for you in all your hatred for Kinists.

4.) You do realize Jeffrey, don’t you, that there are those who are black, brown, yellow, and red who are also Kinists? I mean, Jeffrey, it is not only white people who are kinists. Aren’t you being kind of racist when you hint that only white people are kinists?

5.) Stivason’s very question, which he seems to think is a slam-dunk refutation of Kinism, only proves he has no idea what Kinism is. That’s the most charitable take possible on it because the alternative would be to assume that Stivason knows he is entirely misrepresenting the issue. We are assuming mere ignorance and arrogance on his part because that is more gracious than assuming Stivason to be a rabid Liar.