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.

The Difference Between Andrew Fraser’s “Ethnoreligious” Vision & McAtee’s Ethno-Christian Vision

Over at the link provided at the bottom of this page Andrew Fraser published an article that spilled some ink mentioning myself and Iron Ink. Upon reading the article my first thought was, “Given Andrew’s concerns in this article, I’m not sure why my name and my article dealing with dismissing the accusation that the Dissident Right is really ‘WOKE Right,’ even got into Mr. Fraser’s sites.” Most of his article dealt with the way he was dismissed and ignored by the “Right Response” chaps at a recent conference the Right Response guys held. It seems they refused Mr. Fraser the opportunity to set up a book table at the conference.

I should say at the outset that I am a wee bit familiar with Mr. Fraser’s works. Several years ago, I read, with great delight, his “Dissident Dispatches.” There was very little in that book with which I found myself disagreeing. As such, it was quite the surprise when Mr. Fraser should find himself disagreeing with me so strenuously.

It seems that Mr. Fraser thinks that the chaps at Right Response (Joel Webbon, Wesley Todd, and Michael Belch,) are somehow intellectually linked with myself. I would like to say here to Mr. Fraser that I’m pretty confident that’s not true, especially given the fact that they would move heaven and earth to avoid being labeled as “Kinists” while Rev. Andy Webb has called me “The Godfather of Kinism.”

Mr. Fraser, on the other hand, seems to embrace the idea of Kinism given what he writes in one of his analysis pieces explaining his recent book;

“Accordingly, in the Anglosphere at least, the postmodern restoration of Christian nationhood should be inspired by a neo-Angelcynn theopolitics best organized around four “orienting concepts”: process theism, preterism, kinism, and royalism.”

And he complains in that same analysis piece that;

 Even Stephen Wolfe, the most prominent American Christian nationalist, downplays, when not outright denying, the intractably biocultural dimension of Anglo-Saxon identity.  He has suggested, for example, that even black men such as Booker T. Washington and Justice Clarence Thomas (who happens to be a devout Catholic) have been assimilated into the Anglo-Protestant ethnonation.

So, on the narrow points of esteeming Kinism and thinking Stephen Wolfe is in error when Wolfe downplays the biocultural dimension of Anglo-Saxon identity Fraser and I are in league. If the blokes in charge of the Right Response conference knew of this conviction of Mr. Fraser regarding Kinism that would have been, by itself, reason enough for them to block Mr. Fraser from setting up a book table. For reasons that continue to completely mystify me, the Christian Nationalist movement remains scared out of their skin at the idea of Kinism. Alternately, they have no problem with the idea but the word itself makes them wet their pants with fear. They would, it seems, rather be flayed alive then to be associated with Kinism. Go figure.

In terms of the other three pillars that Mr. Fraser is building advocacy for his position upon (Royalism, Preterism, and Process Theism) I am personally indifferent to the first one (Royalism) am cautious about the second (Preterism) and am radically opposed to the third one (Process Theism).

I could easily live within a Monarchical system though I would prefer it to be a Constitutional Monarchy with the King hemmed in by the parameters of God’s Law. I have no problem with a healthy Partial Preterism though I remain convinced that Full Preterism is unabashed heresy. The Scriptures are unmistakable about the literal resurrection of the persons and physical bodies of those who have died — some to eternal misery, with the vast majority resurrected to eternal life in the renewed heavens and earth. The problems with Process of Theism are so vast that anybody who embraces it can no longer be considered a Christian. Process theism holds to a god that is a stranger to the God of the Bible. The God revealed in the Bible is immutable, eternal, impassible, and is taught to have aseity. The God of process theism to the contrary is a God who is affected by temporal processes and so therefore is mutable, time-bound, passable, and lacks aseity. This is the god of Hegel who is constantly becoming as he responds to mankind in history.

Of course by embracing Process Theism one can’t help but wonder if Fraser is a Christian in any traditional, orthodox, or historical sense. If the chaps at Right Response Ministries understood all this about Mr. Fraser it stands to reason they wouldn’t give him a book table to hawk his books. I wouldn’t either. Christians don’t promote non-Christianity at their conferences.

The somewhat ironic thing about this is that I agree with Mr. Fraser that what is needed is the Christ who is not only Universal but who is also particular. Christ is indeed a global Christ but He is a global Christ who rules over a confederated church that is represented by and comprised of many national churches. The New Jerusalem, we are taught, is populated by people from every tribe, tongue, and nation, in their tribes, tongues, and nations. When Revelation 21 teaches that it is nation by nation that enter into the New Jerusalem we learn that Christianity is a faith that does not champion the Universal Jesus to the neglect of the particular Jesus. Because of this teaching there is no threat in my theology, as Mr. Fraser writes;

 “Of an exclusive ecclesiastical allegiance to a generic cosmic Christ reducing the distinctive character of every earthly ethnoreligious identity to mere adiaphora (i.e., things inessential in the eyes of the church).”

And so I have no problem with what Mr. Fraser writes that “the rebirth of Anglo-Protestantism demands an ethnoreligious foundation.” However, I would war against any ethno-Christian foundation that included process theism or full Preterism. Further, I would vigorously argue that one doesn’t need either full Preterism, or process theism, in order to have the rebirth of a folk Christianity that is Anglo-Protestant. Indeed, I would argue that any Christianity that is characterized by full Preterism and/or process theism would be anti-Christ and so anti-Christianity.

Mr. Fraser complains about a lack of particularity in current versions of Christian Nationalism and yet that complaint is what one would expect from a man who has the lack of the Universal in his theology. For Mr. Fraser there is no Universal to hold his particulars together into a cohesive whole. Without a Universal the particulars are not possible, just as without a “Uni” in University, there can be no “(di)versity.”

Mr. Fraser did me the courtesy of correctly stating my position when he disagreed with it. I do believe that;

“Biblical Christianity … believes in a universal ‘history directed towards the postmillennial end of God’s Kingdom being built up on planet earth’ in fulfillment of God’s plan ‘to have the Kingdoms of this earth become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ.’”

And in that statement we find the presence of the Universal and the particulars. There is one Kingdom of God (Universal) that is occupied by the “Kingdoms of this earth” becoming “the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ.” Further, as mentioned earlier, these sundry and varied Kingdoms all come into the New Jerusalem on that final day in all their particular nationalistic glory.

Revelation 21:22 I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23 The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it.

In the end, I quite agree with Mr. Fraser that “the rebirth of Anglo-Protestantism demands an ethnoreligious foundation,” though I would prefer the phrase “ethno-Christian.”

Much more might be said but I think this covers both my agreements and disagreements with Mr. Fraser. Given his embrace of Process Theism with its implicit Hegelianism I would lack kindness if I did not end with politely asking Mr. Fraser to consider repenting of such non-Biblical axioms.

Those wanting to read a more exhaustive explanation of Mr. Fraser’s position should read here;

Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus: Projects of Peoplehood from Biblical Israel to the Collapse of British Patriotism

If more questions by the readers arise from reading Mr. Fraser’s article I would be more than glad to answer them.

The CREC is NOT Conservative & Rev. Rich Lusk Proves It

The CREC is chock full of ministers who man the walls of the “conservative” Left. Rich Lusk is one of them. Uri Brieto is another. Doug Wilson is the godfather of the WOKE LITE Left. These chaps, if you recall, were the ones who just a few years ago, led the charge in trying to redefine Reformed theology by giving us the heresy called Federal Vision. Now, they are back at it seeking to implement a kind of Christian Nationalism that is not particularly Christian nor especially concerned with Nationalism. As the old proverb goes these chaps on these subjects are all hat and no cattle.

One of their schticks is to try and gate-keep the Reformed world by thinking they can tell us who among the Reformed can be in the inner circle of the Christian Nationalism movement and who is going to be kicked out. They are the modern day version of Wm. F. Buckley kicking out one person after another (Sobran, Francis, Brimelow, Derbyshire, etc.) from the “Conservative” movement. These chaps of the CREC think they are the sheriffs of the Christian Nationalist movement and that they get to round up anybody who disagrees with them.

Well, I disagree with them. I detest their propositional nationhood type approach. I abhor their Boasian approach to race and nationhood. As such I routinely pray that they will fail and be tossed on the ash-heap of history. I especially don’t want to see their version of Christianity becoming hegemonic since Federal Vision is a return to semi-pelagian non-Reformed theology.

Recently, one of their acolytes, Rich Lusk, has been on the net insisting that certain people get read out of the Christian Nationalist movement. In this brief piece I interact with Lusk a wee bit;

Rich Lusk writes,

1. Whatever shift you think you’ve seen, none of us are multiculturalists or cultural egalitarians. Wilson, myself, and others are still happy to cite Rushdoony, Dabney, etc., when it’s fitting. I don’t subscribe to their infallibility but I do appreciate them. The question is not, “Would Dabney be excommunicated if he were in the church today?,” but, “Would Dabney make the same errors if he were in the church today?” I think Wilson has done a fair job evaluating Dabney.

Bret responds,

A.) Actually, Wilson, Lusk and company are soft multiculturalists. Sure, they aren’t as extreme as the Clergy in the mainline churches but if you compare them to Machen, or Rushdoony, or John Edwards Richards, or Clarence McCartney, or Francis Nigel Lee, or Morton Smith — Reformed theologians only a generation or two removed from Wilson — then the CREC chaps are indeed multiculturalists. It’s not even close. I have the quotes to prove it.

So, the question these blokes present to us is; “Do we want to settle for ceasing the multicultural slide thus sticking with the present status quo or do we really want to reverse and undo what is now known as the Post-War consensus that includes all the advances of the civil rights movement — a movement that was driven by Marxist ideology?” Getting on the CREC wagon means that we codify as normal where we are right now. Sure, it might mean an end to the continuing slide leftward (though I seriously doubt that) but it will do nothing to reverse the hell-ward slide we’ve been on since the 1960s.

B.) When Lusk says that he and his CREC mavens are happy to cite Rushdoony and Dabney when it is fitting he means that the CREC mavens are glad to cite Rush and Dabney when it is convenient. I promise you that both Rush and Dabney would want nothing to do with Wilson, Brieto, Lusk, and the CREC headcases. If Rush could criticize Francis Schaeffer (and he did) then Rush would certainly light out after these compromisers.

Secondly, on this score, keep in mind that Wilson has publicly said that he has no interest in being Rushdoony 2.0 preferring instead to be Rushdoony 0.5. Which being interpreted means that Wilson wants to dilute and water down Rushdoony. It means that he thought Rush was too extreme. Wilson wants to be a kinder and gentler Rushdoony, which means he’s not interested in Rushdoony except for when Wilson can cloak himself in Rush’s mantle.

C.) Note that Luks speaks of Dabney’s errors in the same breath as saying he appreciates Dabney. Lusk does so without saying what errors it is that Dabney would no longer embrace. I guarantee you that if Lusk were to list Dabney’s “errors” that Dabney would no longer embrace a vigorous debate would immediately break out as to whether or not what Lusk says was a Dabney mistake was indeed a Dabney mistake.

D.) The idea that we should take seriously Wilson evaluating Dabney is akin to saying we should take seriously Joel Osteen evaluating John Calvin.

Rich Lusk wrote;

2. A Christian, conservative political agenda can be accomplished without racial identity politics (the successes of the Trump administration are an excellent test case for this).

Bret responds,

First, we are way way too early to talk about the “successes of the Trump Administration as a test case for the CREC’s position on negating multiculturalism.

Second, a conservative political agenda might have been accomplished without racial politics back when Pat Buchanan was running for President but we past that exit long ago. There will be no genuine conservative political agenda accomplished apart from racial realism. This reality is seen by the voting patterns in Presidential elections. To this point only white people are voting in majority for conservative, populist, or nationalist candidates. This has been the case for several Presidential cycles and there is no reason to think this is going to change UNLESS Trump is able to send upwards of 30 million illegals back home while at the same time extremely narrowing the amount of legal immigration.

Rich Lusk wrote,

3. Racial identity politics from the right, including making a big issue of interracial marriage, is bound to lose. If you want to be a martyr for racial identity politics, go ahead. I’d rather win as a Christian – and I do think significant victories are possible if Christians will be wise and vigilant about it. The alt right, or Neo-Nazis, or whatever they should be called, are fools and a distraction from the task at hand.

McAtee responds,

Here we find the proof that the CREC is not serious. Our culture is being bombarded with the New World Order push for interracial marriage. It is being pushed in our advertising world, in our film world, in our television programs, on University campuses and in “conservative” churches and Lusk is saying that resisting this New World Order push for interracial marriage is a loser issue. This is proof that the CREC is multicultural. If they are willing to give up on this issue they have planted their flag on the side of the One Worlder types. This is an example of CREC pragmatism at its worse.

Lusk says he’d rather win as a Christian but I’m here to tell you if Lusk and the CREC wins like this then the Christian faith loses. Lusk wants to lose gracefully and then call that losing, “winning.”

Fools like Lusk from the Lite-left or Neo-Cultural Marxists, or whatever they should be called, are idiots and will only, in the end, at best temporarily slow down but not reverse the slide we are currently experiencing. People need to realize that “Conservative” denominations like the CREC and “Conservative” clergy like Joe Boot, Andrew Sandlin, Rich Lusk, Doug Wilson, Uri Brieto and Peter Leithart are in reality just a variant of what is called “controlled opposition.”

___

Addendum

So similar analysis from Nate Keane;

They live in a complete echo chamber of their own creation. Any of us outside that echo chamber recognizes that a reckoning is coming on these issues, and a tearing down of all the presuppositions and theories that have undergirded the modern egalitarian world. They’re busy saying they’re not woke, while endorsing all of those assumptions. They think that because they can purge dissent in THEIR ranks, that they can stave off the reckoning by just Tabula Rasa-ing harder. That reckoning is coming, the question is Will Christians have a voice in it or not. They’re doing their best to ensure that we don’t. They won’t like what comes next. The lesson they took from WW2 is “we must root out racism and antisemitism” not, “when the magistrate abdicates his duties, you will get an Absalom”.

Of Sanctification In Dog Breeds On A Narnian Like Planet

Once upon a time on a Narnian like planet there were three breeds of dogs. There were the Beagle breed, the Yorkie breed and the Pitbull breed. Now, everyone agreed that these were all dogs but at the same time everyone agreed that they were not all the same kinds of dogs. Only a very few people insisted that the idea of Yorkie, Pitbull and Beagle were social constructs, though those people did exist and lobbied very diligently to force the rest of the world to agree with them that breed really made very little difference since all dogs were the same. These folks were do-gooders and very often Christians who couldn’t imagine that God would create dog breeds to be different. They couldn’t imagine that God would delight in dog breed diversity. They refused to countenance that the Yorkie, the Beagle, and the Pitbull were very different kinds of dogs even if they were all dogs.

Now, the Pitbull over the course of their existence was understood by countless numbers of people to be a mean, aggressive and vicious animal. That was its nature. It is the way God created it. There were even studies done that statistically demonstrated that the Pitbull breed was demonstrably different in its nature than the Yorkie or the Beagle.  Despite what was evident to the eye and  what was objectively proven via measuring Pitbull crime stats and IQ ability, there were people who insisted that the Pitbull was the same as the Yorke and the Beagle. They insisted that a dog is a dog is a dog is a dog.

These folks also insist when it comes to sanctification for dogs that the sanctifier has an affirmative action program for Pitbulls since they start out further behind in acceptable behavior than the Yorkie or the Beagle before conversion. The sanctifier thus gooses the factor level of sanctification for the Pitbulls knowing that they need a little bit more sanctification juice in order to become equal (the same) with the Yorkie and the Pitbull.

Now, a strange thing happened to some of the individual Pitbulls in the Pitbull breed in this alternate Narnian like universe in which all this took place. In this Narnian like universe all dog breeds could possibly experience ongoing progressive sanctification. For those people who insisted that all dog breeds are the same they concluded that because Pitbulls, Yorkies, and Beagles could be sanctified that therefore the effect of sanctification on Pitbulls, Yorkies, and Beagles would have the same even impact across all breeds so that sanctified Christian Pitbulls, sanctified Christian Yorkies and sanctified Christian Beagles would become indecipherable in terms of disposition and behavior. Many people started taking their sanctified Christian Pitbulls out to hunt rabbits along with the Beagles while at the same time insisting that Pitbulls were just as cute as Yorkies.

For these people the grace in sanctification destroyed the nature of all three Breeds so that they no longer were distinguishable. These believers in egalitarian sanctification thought that the Holy Spirit could sanctify a Pitbull so as to result in a Pitbull being sanctified so as to be the same as a sanctified Beagle or sanctified Yorkie. As it turned out in our Narnian like Universe many of the clergy recited loudly as a chorus of Rev. Dufflepods, “Nature goes away with Grace,” and “sanctification takes away innate dispositions,” and “A Beagle is a Yorkie is a Pitbull not only before sanctification but especially after sanctification.” Rev. Wilson Dufflepod and Rev. White Dufflepod were the most excitable of all the clergy dufflepods in singing;

Imagine there’s no breeds
It’s easy if you try
No innate dispositions in us
Genetics can be liquified
Imagine all the dog breeds bein’ all the same
Ah, ah, ah-ah

Imagine a sanctification
That makes a Pitbull coo
A Beagel’s now a bird-dog
And Yokies, hunt them too
Imagine all the doggies being all the same
Yoo, hoo, oo-oo

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
Pushing a sanctification that’s this much fun

Imagine no innate behavior
I wonder if you can
Everything is malleable 
Nothing fixed upon to stand 
Imagine all the species becoming now all one
Yoo, hoo, oo-oo

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
Pushing a sanctification that’s this much fun

There were a handful of people who stood up and insisted that there was a boatload of “The Emperor Has No Clothes” reasoning going on as among the egalitarian “all dogs breeds are the same after sanctification” crowd. These folks understood that while Pitbulls could be sanctified they would never be sanctified so as to become the same breed with the same disposition as the Yorkie or Beagle. Sanctification might well make a Pitbull the best Pitbull he could be but it would never make a Pitbull to be a Yorkie or a Beagle. The Pitbull breed, the Beagle breed, and the Yorkie breed would all have to be satisfied that God in His infinite wisdom causes breeds to differ and causes some breeds to have ten talents, while other breeds only have five talents or one talent.

And that’s a good thing since God loves diversity… even after sanctification.

Coast to Coast Radio Interview With The Chaps @ “The Political Cesspool”

https://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/radio-show-hour-1-2025-05-17/

The Episcopal Church made headlines this week for refusing to resettle white Afrikaner refugees. Pastor Bret McAtee returns to the radio program to offer his response. How should Christians address the concept of white guilt? Pastor McAtee provides a decisive answer.

More Interaction With Mr. James Pelton On Christianity & Race I

 I am interacting with Pelton here because the com boxes on X don’t allow for me to respond to him given the length of his responses. I don’t pay out cash to Twitter in order to be allowed more script space. Second, I am responding here because it has become clear that no matter what I say to Mr. Pelton he is just going to come back with more extended Gnostic type reasoning that, in his mind, overturns what I’ve said.  To keep going back and forth with him yields to the law of diminishing returns. However, making our conversation public here may well help other people.

First, I really would encourage people to take a look here on Iron Ink where I have stored more than a few of the quotes from our theological fathers throughout Church history.

So Say We All … A Protest To Dr. Sproul 2.0’s Comments

What I am trying to say to Pelton is not unique to me. It has been the position of the Church in all times and in all places until about 1960 or so when the Post War and Civil Rights consensus began to take hold in the West. These two historical realities were themselves just the final flowering of the Enlightenment period, which itself find its roots back to the Renaissance and before that to the ancient pagan world and before that to the Garden of Eden.

I give the whole exchange with Pelton because I don’t want anybody accusing me of misrepresenting his view. Here they are in total.

Pelton writes,

 “Desires may involve bodily impulses—hunger, sexual attraction, adrenaline—but the decision to sin is spiritual and volitional. Jesus had a body. He experienced hunger and attraction as a man (Hebrews 4:15), but He never sinned. That proves biology is not the cause of sin.”

BLMc responds,

In the previous post I did not say that biology was the cause of sin. I said that when desires and lusts occur the reality of our biology in those desires and lusts can’t be cast aside. So, I think we agree that biology alone is not the cause of sin. However, Scripture clearly teaches that our biology is far more influential then your Gnostic type reasoning is allowing for;

Rom 7:21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. Rom 7:22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, Rom 7:23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

1Co 9:26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; 1Co 9:27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

2Co 4:7a But we have this treasure in earthen vessels

In terms of our Lord Christ, the fact that He did not have a sin nature surely means something in this whole discussion. Calvin touches on this in his commentary;

“Thus he (Jesus) not only really became a man, but he also assumed all the qualities of human nature. There is, however, a limitation added, without sin; for we must ever remember this difference between Christ’s feelings or affections and ours, that his feelings were always regulated according to the strict rule of justice, while ours flow from a turbid fountain, and always partake of the nature of their source, for they are turbulent and unbridled.”

Because our biological impulses are intertwined with a sin nature Jesus didn’t have they are far more influential than you are allowing for, as seen in the Scriptures I noted above.

Pelton writes,

To say “biology influences behavior” is not to say “biology causes sin.” Influence is not determinism.

BLMc responds,

As long as we agree with the passages I posted above (Rom. 7, I Cor. 9, II Cor. 4) we can move on from this.

Pelton writes;

Yes, God created nations and families. That’s good. But sin didn’t enter through creational order—it entered through Adam’s disobedience.

Bret responds,

And Adam was part of the creational order… right?

Pelton writes,

The Bible doesn’t say we sin because we’re in this or that biological group. It says we sin because we’re in Adam (Romans 5:12–19). Saying “grace restores nature” is true— Saying “grace blesses sin-influenced nature” is false.

Bret responds,

Yes, we sin because we are in Adam but that truth doesn’t negate the idea that patterns of sin can’t run in familial lines. For an overview of this idea see,

https://biblehub.com/topical/g/generational_patterns_of_sin.htm

And I wonder, could you please point out to me where I ever said, “grace blesses sin-influenced nature?” I have no idea where from where that is coming.

James Pelton writes,

Traducianism holds that the soul is inherited, not that sin is encoded in DNA. It means we inherit a spiritual nature, not a physical mutation. Even if genetics predispose someone to a temper, the moral choice to act in anger is sin. Otherwise, you’ve collapsed moral agency into determinism—which Scripture does not allow.

BLMc responds,

There you go again… divorcing the spiritual from the corporeal. That’s Gnostic James. Since man can resist the devil knowing he will flee we know that determinism isn’t true as you falsely accuse me of. However, the genetic predisposition proves my point as Scripture does in Romans 7, I Cor. 9. and II Cor. 4 as I posted above.

James Pelton writes,

You talk about Jesus being a “supernatural exception.” But that proves my point. If sin were genetic, God would have to stop the genetics for Jesus to be sinless. Instead, Scripture teaches that Jesus shared in our humanity (Hebrews 2:14) without sin. That shows sin is not transmitted through DNA.

Bret responds,

Have you never heard of generational sins James? This primer might help you out here. Give it a read. There is much more on the subject out there. As I said, this link is only a primer. It demonstrates again, that you are Gnostic.

https://biblehub.com/topical/g/generational_patterns_of_sin.htm

You keep referring to our Lord Jesus Christ but you do realize that he was born without a sin nature right? This means that like Adam, He had no predisposition to sin. That is not true of us James, since we do have a sin nature and since that sin nature is expresses itself as Paul states above.

I think, if I am reading you right James, that you would say “yes” to the question, “Was it possible for Jesus to sin?” On the other hand I would answer that question “no” since He was predestined not to sin and since He had no sin nature. On the other hand we have a sin nature and that “law of sin is in our members.”

You see, James, I am not Gnostic like you. I understand man is spiritual and corporeal. I also understand that man’s spirituality and corporeality are intertwined and can’t be divorced like you are doing. Man’s sin nature is coded in man genetically though that sin nature is not restricted to man’s genetics. When I receive my glorified body I will be the same me but without the encoded sin in my genetics and without the sin nature. It just strikes me James that without some understanding like what I am communicating you are left with Gnosticism…. you are left isolating and divorcing the corporeal from the spiritual realities that comprise man.

James Peloton writes,

I’m not denying the body or downplaying the goodness of creation. I’m simply affirming: •Sin is spiritual and moral •Salvation is spiritual transformation •Identity in Christ transcends but doesn’t erase earthly distinctions That is classic, biblical orthodoxy—not Gnosticism. “The body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.” — 1 Corinthians 6:13

BLMc responds,

Yes you are. Your most certainly are. I hope I have demonstrated that above. Sin is indeed spiritual and moral but that does not mean that it isn’t biological as well.

Rom 7:23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

Regeneration, is indeed, spiritual transformation, but that transformation doesn’t mean that we quit contending with and against sin in this life. Greed, lust, deceit, gluttony, sloth … we continue to war against these sins in this life and partly because our very real corporeality urges us in sinful directions. We await our full transformed bodies … our glorified bodies, where all these sinful bodily biological desires, as well as our sin nature, will be done. To deny what I’ve said is Gnostic James. It is a denial of our the sin that is part and parcel of our corporeality.

James Peloton writes,

I’m not dividing body and spirit. im distinguishing them, like Scripture does. Calvin also affirms that: •In Christ, we are spiritually equal •Our creational identity is not the source of sin •Grace doesn’t validate the fallen expressions of our nature, but heals them Calvin would never say different ethnic groups have lingering, God-ordained spiritual deficiencies that salvation “restores.”

BLMc responds;

Really… Calvin would never say that? Well, let’s go to the well and consider a wee bit what Calvin said on this subject;

“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)

“The inhabitants of Crete, of whom he speaks with such sharpness were undoubtedly very wicked. The Apostle, who is wont to reprove mildly those who deserved to be treated with extreme severity, would never have spoken so harshly of the Cretans, if he had not been moved by very strong reasons. What term more reproachful than these opprobrious epithets can be imagined; that they were “lazy, devoted to the belly, destitute of truth, evil beasts?” Nor are these vices charged against one or a few persons, but he condemns the whole nation.”

John Calvin (Commentary on Titus 1:12)

“Let us perceive that their are wicked nations; let us examine their vices in order to keep ourselves from (learning) them. The French, for example, are more corrupt in their attire than other nations. Why? Because they have always had the folly of having to dress the body now this way, or the neck now that way – there is no style they have not seen fit to try, and God has condemned them and had them in derision, because of this mad curiosity which they have always had. And it is more today than ever.

Thus it is true, that all the world must be completely corrupt, and everything topsy turvy now. Yet, be that as it may, we must still take note of the particular vices of the nations, so that we know how to keep ourselves from them.”  John Calvin (Sermon on I Cor. 11:11-16)

“All are not created on equal terms … This God has testified, not only in the case of single individuals; He has also given a specimen of it in the whole posterity of Abraham, to make it plain that the future condition of each nation was entirely at His disposal.”

John Calvin (Institutes Vol. 3, ch. 21, section 5)

Now, I’m sure Jame you will insist that Calvin does not say what he is clearly saying here about this subject but that is par for the course for people who don’t want the greats saying what they say because it contradicts their errant views.

I’ll leave you with one more quote from a distinguished Reformed theologian of the 20th century who wrote on this subject;

“We would maintain that all the necessary chromosomes required for the later development of the various racial strains now extant were already present in the perfect seed within the body of the unfallen Adam, even though his body and his chromosomes too must also have been adversely affected later as the result of his sin.”

Francis Nigel Lee

James Peloton writes,

That’s not Reformed theology—it’s ethnonationalism in theological garb. “The nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light…” — Revelation 21:24 That doesn’t prove ethnic traits are spiritually significant in the new creation—it shows that the diversity of the nations is redeemed to glorify God.

BLMc responds,

But ethno-nationalism (a tautology if there ever was one) is what Reformed theology teaches. Doubt me? Purchase a copy of “Who Is My Neighbor” and go to the Reformed / Presbyterian / Puritan section and see what all these chaps said in favor of ethno-nationalism. You just don’t know what you’re talking about James and you’re talking out of your hat.

If ethnic traits are not spiritually significant in the new creation then what are the nations doing there in their nations?

James, the nations are diverse precisely because they are diverse in their ethnic traits. Clearly, God delights in these diverse ethnic traits in the New Jerusalem because those traits remain as glorified.

Keep in mind James if Christianity does not teach ethno-nationalism the only option left is for it to teach either Gnosticism or some variant of Marxism, which has always pushed the same thing your pushing and that is the elimination of the ethnic distinctiveness of the nations.

James Peloton writes,

It (Revelation 21) doesn’t say “and their generational curses or weaknesses are retained and celebrated.”

BLMc responds,

I don’t know why you are repeating this canard — especially given the fact that I never said anything close to that. Clearly, as existing in the New Jerusalem the nations are glorified so that all generational curses and all sinful weaknesses removed.

James Peloton writes,

It actually more supports the point I am trying to make “Cultural Marxism” is about tearing down institutions and eliminating distinctions. I’m not doing that. I affirm God created us male and female, and made nations. But Scripture is clear: in Christ, we are one body (Eph. 2:14–16), and our old selves have died (Col. 3:3).

BLMc Responds,

Let me quote a distinguished Reformed theologian that remains alive;

“Scripture, as I read it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially. Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God’s grace into one body. They were expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers inthe faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups.”

John Frame,
“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”

Spiritually, we are one body but the creational distinctions remain James. This is seen even in the Church where because of the creational distinctions women are not allowed to rule over men. If they were spiritually one the way you are Gnostically trying to argue women would be allowed to rule over men. Creational distinctions remain James. Because of creational distinctions we celebrate the presence of Korean churches and Hmong churches in our midst. If creational distinctions disappeared once people are in Christ, as you suggest, then denominations would demand that these Korean, and Hmong churches be eliminated.

James Peloton writes,

That’s not Marxist—that’s gospel transformation. Ironically, saying that certain peoples carry unchangeable spiritual traits rooted in biology is much closer to Darwinian racial theory than biblical Christianity. Scripture teaches that all have sinned, all can be redeemed, and in Christ there is one new man (Eph. 2:15). Grace doesn’t reinforce fallen nature—it transforms it.

BLMc Responds,

Yeah … it is Cultural Marxism… though you can’t see it … yet.

And I don’t deny that God has people in every tribe, tongue and nation as in their tribes, tongues, and nations.

Oh… you accuse me of Darwinian racial theory. Allow me to accuse you of Boasian racial theory. Look him up. Probably one of the most influential men of the 20th century that very few have heard of.