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.

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

“Brothers and sisters, the gospel may not make you able to jump higher or lift heavier weights, but it can and will sanctify your character, conforming you to the image of Christ; and to believe differently is serious error. It’s part of the Kinist heresy.”

Jeffrey Stivason

A Word to Kinists

1.) This is the teaching that grace erases nature. If owning the Gospel does not make one jump higher or lift heavier weights it likewise is not going to take away genetic predispositions touching genetically patterned character flaws. Now, what sanctification will do is have you embrace those realities about yourself as besetting sins, and sanctification will grant you grace to grow in resisting those peculiar temptations but grace does not alter who we are genetically. Grace does not change my genes so that now can jump higher or run faster and it does not change my genes so that the stubbornness of one descended from the Scots is eliminated after conversion. Grace may turn stubbornness into determination so one is conformed to the image of Christ but it does not erase that genetic predilection. Nature is real.

2.) Hence the heresy that Stivason is teaching here is Gnosticism. Material reality (Genetics) is waved away by this Gnostic elimination that the corporeal is real. Stivason desires to denies nature and nurture insisting that spiritual supernature make nature and nurture to be nothing. Grace destroy nature and nurture for Stivason. He is a Gnostic.

Stivason writes in his article,

Kinism, and by extension Race Realism, fails to understand something vital. Genetics are not the source of blessing. The gospel is the source of blessing. Samuel Ketcham illustrates this error in a Substack article titled “Race and Nature,” stating, “When the white man took the true religion around the world, the Holy Spirit made their mission effectual. But to deny that their superior culture, language, and race had anything to do with it—is foolish.” In this statement, Mr. Ketcham has undermined the Reformed gospel.

Jeffrey “Gnostic” Stivason
A Word to Kinists

Bret responds,

Is it not the creator God who was and is the source of our genetics? If the creator God is the source of our genetics then why can genetics not be a blessing from God as the source from whom all blessings flow?

For Stivason to insist that what Sam Ketcham wrote is denying the Gospel is just top shelf lunacy. First, Sam clearly and unambiguously says that “the Holy Spirit made their mission effectual.” Is Stivason actually saying that the Holy Spirit made their mission effectual apart from the superior aspects of the culture, language, and race which the creator God Himself blessed the white race? If Stivason is saying that Stivason is denying Biblical Christianity for Gnosticism.

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

:Early on in their journey, Paul and Silas picked up a new protégé, Timothy, who was the product of an interracial marriage. His mother was a Jew and his father a Gentile. Yet, his reputation within the church is foregrounded. Timothy was “well spoken of” by the brothers. Put another way, Paul and the brothers did not rebuke Timothy’s mother for spoiling the bloodlines or mixing the races. Timothy was recognized as a godly and useful brother. The church loved him.”

Jeffrey Stivason

A Word to Kinists

Bret responds,

No Kinist would say that someone who is the offspring of a mixed race marriage could not be a godly and useful brother. Second, all because Timothy’s mother was not rebuked does not therefore mean that the Apostles thought marriage between Jew and Gentiles was a good idea to be pursued as normative.

Jeffrey Stivason writes,

Where does the Kinist obtain the idea of forbidding intermarriage? In other words, why shouldn’t races intermarry?

Jeffrey Stivason

A Word to Kinists

“To return to the Biblical doctrine, a wife is her husband’s helpmeet. Since Eve was created from Adam and is Adam’s reflected image of God, she was of Adam and an image of Adam as well, his ‘counterpart.’ The meaning of this is that a true helpmeet is man’s counterpart, that a cultural, racial, and especially religious similarity is needed so that the woman can truly mirror the man and be his image… Cross-cultural marriages are thus normally a failure.”

R. J. Rushdoony

“Institutes of Biblical Law” (Vol. 1), page 357

The Kinist would only add that “Cross-racial marriages are thus normally a failure.”

Also on this score we would quote Dr. John Edwards Rice, one of the founding fathers of the PCA,

“No human can measure the anguish of personality that goes on within the children of miscegenation… Let those who would erase the racial diversity of God’s creation beware lest the consequence of their evil be visited upon their children.”

John Edwards Richards
One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

“The vast majority of good thinking people prefer to associate with, and intermarry with, people of their respective race; this is part of the God-given inclination to honor and uphold the distinctiveness of separate races. But there are many false prophets of oneness, and many shallow stooges, who seek to force the amalgamation of the races.”

Dr. John E. Richards
One of the Founders of the PCA

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

Jeffrey Stivason

A Word To Kinists

1.) Let’s be clear here. What Stivason, following Poplin, would have us to believe is that races should intermix and not remain in their allotted boundaries set up by God. This follows the clearly articulated belief system of the Marxists and cultural Marxists, who have likewise articulated this very same belief.

2.) It does not necessarily follow that all because someone believes that races should not intermix and should remain in their allotted boundaries therefore the person believing that premise also believes in racial superiority. That is a non-sequitur by both Stivason and Poplin.

3.) What could be the case instead is that Kinists believe that superiorities and inferiorities are present in all the particular races and as that is so those superiorities and inferiorities should be respected.

4,) Notice how we begin with Kinism and soon enough we learn that Kinism is a synonym with race realism. This is contrary to the ARP report which defines Kinism and race realism very differently at the beginning of the report. It seems these chaps can’t get their definitions down.

5.) The Apostle Paul clearly thought the Jews were superior to other peoples. Listen to how he speaks,

What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the [a]oracles of God.

In having the advantage over the Gentile Paul is saying that the Jews were previously superior because they had the oracles of God.

Is God guilty of the terrible sin of Kinism?

PCA Endorses Principled Pluralism … Speaks out Against Theonomy

According to the PCA’s Christian Nationalism Report…

(1) Religious pluralism is “entirely consistent” with the 1788 Westminster Standards: The document states,

“Some…mean…that Christian piety (per WCF 23.2) is best promoted and protected when the civil magistrate promotes and protects the free exercise of all religions. This position is entirely consistent with the PCA’s constitutional standards.” (p. 2721)

Compare this statement by the PCA to Article 36 of the Belgic Confession of Faith,

… “The government’s task is not limited
to caring for and watching over the public domain
but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry,
with a view to removing and destroying
all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist;
to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ;
and to furthering the preaching of the gospel everywhere;
to the end that God may be honored and served by everyone,
as he requires in his Word.

Bret responds to the PCA blather,

It is impossible to embrace religious pluralism without embracing religious polytheism. Religious pluralism allows all the gods into the public square which, in turn, yields a public square that is, by definition, polytheistic.

Keep in mind also that a genuine “free exercise of all religions,” must include the free exercise of the religion that put the Satanist statue of Molech in the Iowa state house last year. The free exercise of all religion means the mushrooming of Sharia law, Mosques, and cows strutting around as holy in your community. The free exercise of all religion means Burqas (Muslims), turbans with blades in them (Sikh), and  tiny hats.

Per the PCA report Christian piety is best promoted and protected when the piety of false religions and false gods is unleashed.

(2) But views held by the Reformed Orthodox and even some American Presbyterians are “out of accord with the Standards.” The PCA document states,

“An officer who believes that the civil magistrate has the duty to suppress heresies… holds a view that is directly contrary to the text of WCF 23.3 as adopted by the PCA…. In the judgment of the Ad Interim Committee, such an officer is out of accord with the Standards on this point.” (p. 2721)

Bret responds,

Here we are told that a Church officer in the PCA who believes that a civil magistrate should put down the heresy of Mormon polygamy holds a view contrary to the WCF. Here we are told that a Church officer in the PCA who believes that the civil magistrate should put down the heresy of Muslim incestuous breeding holds a view contrary to the WCF. Here we are told that a Church officer in the PCA who holds to the Establishment principle is out of accord with the WCF.

And,

“A candidate who argues that the state should enforce the specific penal sanctions of the Mosaic judicial code (like capital punishment for idolatry, blasphemy, or heresy) has, in our judgment, crossed a boundary that the General Assembly has already established.” (p. 2724)

Bret responds,

This is a direct attack on theonomy.

I wonder … can a candidate say in an ordination exam,

“Well, since God’s word requires capital punishment for murder and kidnapping I believe those convicted of murder and kidnapping should be visited with capital punishment.”

Or

Must he say instead,

“Well, since principled pluralism hints at capital punishment for murder and kidnapping I believe those convicted of murder and kidnapping should be visited with capital punishment.”

 

Ghost Citations & Footnotes Keep Popping Up … Glaser & Friend Discuss

On 28 May I wrote this mocking Rev. Ben Glaser for completely creating both a citation and a footnote in his ARP moderator’s report on Kinism;

“Rev. Benjamin Glaser, in a recent article, reported that his wife agreed to his marriage to three other women while conceding that she would be glad to be a mother to all his children from various wives. 1

(1) Benjamin Glaser, “Happiness in a Household of Many Wives,” Westminster Theological Journal, accessed March 17, 2026, https://WestminsterTheologicalJournal.com/…/happiness…/.”
—

A friend put a laugh emoji on this and was messaged by the right honorable Benjamin Glaser asking why this was post was so funny.

The following exchange occurred between Glaser and my friend;

Glaser — Why is McAtee’s post so funny?

Friend — It’s a hallucinated citation just like what you posted in your ARP report. Do you have no sense of irony?

Glaser — “You think its funny to mock my wife? Do you have no shame? Disagree with me all you want, don’t bring my family or wife into this.

Friend – “Em, it’s not mocking your wife. It’s mocking you”

Glaser – “Tell my wife that who is balling (sic) her eyes out right now, and my youngest son who doesn’t understand the humor. You own that.”

Friend – “Yeah. McAtee’s story has all the credibility of your ARP study report on Kinism with its hallucinated citations.”

Glaser – “”I know what kind of man you are, and you have to live with that.”

Friend – “That’s a line from the Walking Dead, you hack. LOL”