Alienism – Iron Ink

Kevin DeYoung’s Attempt To Institutionalize Polytheism In The Westminster Confession

There has been a debate that has arisen in “conservative” “Presbyterian” circles that finds a certain party in these denominations insisting that their founding revised 1788 American Westminster Confession of faith (WCF) was a repudiation of the 1646 Original WCF on the matter of how the Civil Magistrate is related to the claims of Biblical Christianity. The argument being advanced by Judas Goats like Kevin DeYoung is that in 1788 American Presbyterians had become recalcitrant in extending Establishmentarian religious authority to the state and consequently drafted a “revision” that had “more robust notions of religious liberty,” than what had previously existed in the original WCF. In the mind of the Quislings like DeYoung the American adaptation represent movement of the Reformed from historically Reformed position to a more Anabaptist/Libertarian understanding on the subject of Magistrates. DeYoung’s position putatively allows for more religious toleration. More religious toleration is, by definition, less religious toleration for those whose religion teaches that Christ and His Word is to be King over the civil Magistrate and that the Civil Magistrate is to be a “Nursing father to the Christian Church (Isaiah 49:23).”

We see here then that DeYoung and his pirate crew is not really pursuing a course that leads to an expanding of religious toleration but rather DeYoung and his pirate crew is pursuing a course that diminishes toleration for Biblical Christianity, with its claim that Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords and that all Kings must submit to Him. That DeYoung is on such a course is seen in his own words;

“As new debates about the proper relationship between church and state continue to multiply, it’s important to recognize that the two versions of WCF 23:3 represent two different and irreconcilable views of the civil magistrate.”

Dr. Kevin DeYoung
Presbyterian “Minister”

In DeYoung’s pursuit of revising the 23:3 WCF revision so that it is interpreted in a more Anabaptist/polytheistic fashion DeYoung is staking out the territory that disallows 23:3 to be read in such a way wherein the civil Magistrate is to be uniquely committed to upholding the first table of the law, while requiring the Magistrate to be more of a Pontifex Maximus putatively representing the interests of all the religions in the Republic. Of course we know that such a Pontifex Maximus doesn’t really represent the interest of all religions in the Republic because such a Magistrate could not represent the religion that said all the religions in the Republic except Christianity must, in light of the 1st commandment, be abominated by the Christian Magistrate.

One humorous aspect of this debate is that the American WCF, even as revised in 23:3 clearly still supports Christian Magistrates as we see in the Westminster Larger Catechism 191 where the Catechism answers “What does thy Kingdom come mean,” answering, in part with the statement that, “the church be … countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate.” My friends, the Christian church can not be countenanced and maintained by the Christian civil magistrate if he, at the same time, is countenancing and maintaining all other pagan religions, for to countenance and maintain a pagan religion would be at the same time to discountenance and pull down the Christian church. Caesar can not serve two or more masters.

Pertaining to the WLC the above is not all. Previously, in teaching on the 5th commandment the WLC states that our superiors include not only “father and mother” but also those superiors as located in church and commonwealth, and then goes on to teach that all these superiors must provide “all things necessary for body and soul (Q. 124, 129).” This must as a shock to Rev. DeYoung, to think that the Magistrate must, as in their defined role as Magistrate, provide all things necessary for the soul, since for DeYoung the Magistrate is to be the Polytheistic Pontifex Maximus.

If humor is part of the landscape for this discussion nobody did a better stand up routine then when R2K guru, R. Scott Clark — he of “Recovering the Reformed Confessions” fame — recently offered on X that DeYoung is correct about the WCF being a complete revision of the WCF 1646 in an anti-Establishmentarian direction and that the inconsistencies of the WCF with the WLC could be explained by the fact that the Americans in 1788 just forgot to go ahead and change the WLC so as to be consistent with the 1788 WCF change. As we all know … remembering details can be a tricky thing.

Of course all this is being driven by the push in Reformed circles, since the days of Meredith Kline, to turn the Reformed faith into a R2K playground. Increasingly the Seminaries are embracing R2K and this sudden pursuit to officially change the WCF, in a Anabaptist/Libertarian direction, is just one more expression of Radical Two Kingdom “theology.” By insisting that the Magistrate has no obligation to the Christian church to be unto the Christian church a uniquely nursing father, R2K succeeds in their ongoing attempt to make all of life, in the words of D. G. Hart, a hyphenated life. If DeYoung’s effort succeeds to reinterpret 23:3 of the WCF the result will be an even more retreatist Christianity. Reformed Christianity will more and more be a religion that belongs to the catacombs. If DeYoung is successful Christianity will increasingly retreat from the public square.

DeYoung’s Christianity is the Christianity cherished by every polytheist in the public square. If Michael Servetus were alive today he might have taken DeYoung’s methodology to make room for his Socinianism in Geneva. The Mooselimbs, Talmudists, Hindus, etc. in America are all cheering on Dr. Kevin DeYoung’s attempt to officially strip the WCF of any notion that it might support Christian Nationalism. After all, if the 1646 WCF is correct then, by necessity Christian Nationalism is true. If Christian Magistrates are required by the WCF then of course that can not be apart from a Christian nation.

We should end by noting what a nation looks like if Dr. Rev. Kevin DeYoung gets his way. Such a nation would by definition have to be polytheistic. The kind of pluralism that DeYoung envisions cannot exist apart from the religious polytheism that drives political/sociological pluralism. It is an odd position to take when we are increasingly seeing what pluralism looks like in these united States. For example, recently in Minneapolis, a city ordinance was passed that allows for the public Mooslimb call to prayer 5 times a day regardless of the time that the call to prayer is required. Another example is found in Dearborn, Michigan where the Mooselimb Mayor hired a Mooselimb Chief of police who has recently arrested a non-Mooselimb for posting something on social media that was foolishly threatening in a vague manner Mooselimbs who were marching in Dearborn shouting “Death to America.” Another example of the implications of Rev. Dr. DeYoung’s heretical war against the 1st commandment would be the requirement of a state to allow Baphomet statues in state capitals such as was the case in Iowa in 2023. In Rev. Dr. DeYoung’s world such realities would not only have to be tolerated by Christians but they would also have to be applauded as part of the doctrinal foundation upon which Christianity is based.

If Benedict Arnolds like Kevin DeYoung are successful there will be no public roadblock to blasphemies of every shape and size. DeYoung’s views institutionalize Polytheism in the Westminster Confession and institutionalize polytheism in formerly Christian America. It is one more nail in the coffin of any notion of Christendom.

Keep in mind that Kevin DeYoung is the chap who is heading up the committee in the PCA taking up the subject of Christian Nationalism. Given this “man’s” views what do you think that PCA committee is going to produce as it speaks to the issue of Christian Nationalism?

Doug Wilson Insisting He Is A “Conservative” – His Audience Tries Not To Laugh

“It really is possible to be a hard line conservative of the old school without getting sucked down a reactionary wormhole. It is possible to hold to the historic Reformed view of Romans 11 on the Jews without being in any way beholden to the liberal post-war consensus. It is possible to be an unfazed and unapologetic Burkean conservative—when some are maintaining you are not conservative at all unless you are clamoring for a Protestant Robespierre.

Not only is it possible, it is far and away the straighter path. I commend it to you, and invite folks to join us.”

Pope Dougie — He of Moscow fame
Blog Mablog – 11 August, 2025

Doug likes to think of himself as a hardline conservative. Remember, this is the man who himself testified he was not interested in being Rushdoony 2.0 but was trying to achieve being Rushdoony 0.5. Only in a world of effeminate smurfs can Dougie be considered “hardline conservative.” This is the problem with the nomenclature. As a culture we have swung so hard to the Revolutionary Left that a soft revolutionary like Wilson can think of himself as “a Hardline conservative.” I imagine that is the way the Girondins thought of themselves during the French Revolution. I supposed compared to Robespierre, the montagnard Jacques Pierre Brissot was a hard line conservative.

Dougie thinks his view of Romans 11 is standard Reformed orthodoxy but when you add his statements about the glories of his family’s relation to the Bagel bloodline combined with his “Covenant with Hagar” nonsense his is a tenuous claim. Pope Doug claiming he is in line with standard Romans 11 interpretation is like saying that lab created meat is in line with a standard 16 oz. porterhouse steak. It demands the response … “Where’s the beef?”

Pope Dougie’s next claim is that he is not beholden in any way to the liberal post-war consensus. Yet, the man has written in support of liberal post-war consensus projects like interracial marriage, the good of processed food – labeling those who resist processed food as having “food scruples’ – and coming out in favor of vaccines. The push for each and all of these are part of the post war liberal consensus that Dougie insists that he has successfully avoided. Me thinketh the lady doth protest too much.

As to Pope Doug’s claim to be a follower of Edmund Burke, Burke wrote;

“The blood of man should never be shed but to redeem the blood of man. It is well shed for our family, for our friends, for our God, for our country, for our kind. The rest is vanity; the rest is crime.”

Yet, Doug has repeatedly abominated this kind of overt Burkean Kinist language. Indeed, Doug hates Kinists. You cannot say you hate kinists while insisting at the same time you love Burke.

Doug Wilson has NOTHING to offer in the way of providing an answer to our descending Constitutional Republic. All Doug offers up is warmed over post war liberal consensus dressed up in Doug’s clever wordsmithing evening clothes.

It is past time to realize that there is no strength to remedy our current malady in the cures that Pope Doug offers. Doug calls his opponents “reactionary.” It’s the same thing Revolutionaries have always called their opponents. What the opponents of Revolutionary movements have always called their supporters is “Liberals.” Doug is a Liberal.

Or if you prefer … soft progressive.

From The Mailbag — Randy Watkins asks; “Do You Even Understand The Gospel”

Randy Watkins, (who I don’t know from Adam) left a comment on Iron Ink in response to one of my posts on Kinism. The comment was so good I thought I would turn it into a short post. Randy wrote asking;

“My question would be – do you even understand the Gospel? Do you even know Jesus? Kinism is nothing but pseudo-sterilized racism.”

Thank you Randy for these questions. Let’s take them one by one.

First, I do understand the Gospel. The Gospel is announcement of the good news that Jesus Christ, being the long promised Messiah, came to live, die, resurrect, ascend and sit in session at the right hand of God to vindicate God’s name and to provide redemption for all who call upon the name of the Lord. The Gospel teaches, Randy, that Christ can do this because he was the penal substitutionary atonement who provided satisfaction, by the spilling of His blood, in the place of sinners who deserved God’s wrath for committing the sin(s) of rebellion against a thrice Holy God. In and by His death Christ turned away the wrath of God (propitiation) by taking away our sins (expiation) so that men could have peace with God. In this sacrifice Christ pays the ransom price required for sin committed by sinners and in doing so is the means of our reconciliation. The Gospel teaches that the elect have the righteousness of Christ imputed (put to their account) to them while their sins are imputed to Christ. In light of this finished work of Christ for the elect God commands all men (regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion) to repent and so be united to Christ and numbered among the people of God. This Gospel pronouncement is to go out to every tribe, tongue, and nation, in their tribes, tongues, and nations.

As to your second question, by God’s grace alone I have been knowing Jesus now for over 60 years. Jesus means “Jehovah is salvation,” and knowing Jesus means knowing Him as Prophet, Priest, and King sent by God to speak for God, to be the Priest who offered up Himself as the sacrifice for sins, and to rule as God’s mediatorial King in all matters. Further, Jesus was and is the living incarnation of God’s law. Jesus, as the Lion of the tribe of Judah, remains a Judahite and son of David even now and has gathered to Himself a church that is characterized as a confederated church where each national Church together comprises the one people of God. The fact that Jesus has no other Church except a confederated church comprised of different National churches is explicitly taught in Revelation 21

²²But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. ²³The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine ^[l]in it, for the ^[m]glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. ²⁴And the nations^[n]of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor ^[o]into it. ²⁵Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). ²⁶And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into ^[p]it.

Finally, Randy, you say that “Kinism is nothing but pseudo-sterilized racism.” I’m sure in a Cultural Marxist worldview that is an insult. However, I don’t live in a Cultural Marxist worldview. To be honest… racism, pseudo-sterilized or otherwise, really has no meaning and is just a pejorative intended to end the conversation. Randy, the word “racism” means everything and so means nothing. Water off of a duck’s back my friend.

May God bless you and keep you Randy Watkins.

Jeff Durbin & His Charge Of “Racism”

“There are a handful of things that do cause me to question a person’s profession of faith. One of the things that tops the list: racism. I believe that a person (of whatever color) who is a racist or glories in the color of their skin, knows nothing of the Gospel and very probably has never met the Savior. A person (of whatever color) who creates divides in the Body of Christ around skin-color demonstrates a great deal about just how intimately acquainted they are with God and His Word.

Racism is a sin (it’s hatred) that will be judged by God and will send people to hell. Any professing believer who creates an environment for it to grow will have much to answer for in my estimation.”

Jeff Durbin

November 14, 2016

Someone sent me this quote yesterday and I couldn’t resist playing with it.

1.) Of course the chief problem here is that the Baptist Durbin does not give a thorough definition of racism, so one can’t be completely sure of what Jeffy is talking about here. Personally, I don’t know anybody who glories in the color of their skin though I know lots of people who think that race is real and being real should be taken into consideration when talking about social order issues.

2.) Jeffy would seem to be suggesting here that the matter of race is only about skin color as if only all the races had the same skin color then the issue of race would no longer exist. But as has been said countless times skin color is only the eponymous name given to a far larger reality. If one could make white people have black skin they would still be white people in every other way. For example, Forensic Pathologist can tell you if somebody who died in a fire who no longer has skin what race the deceased was. For example, bone marrow transplants don’t care what color one’s skin is but they do care what race one is. The idea that race is only about skin color, or the amount of pigment one has is ludicrous beyond naming.

3.) I can’t help but wonder if Jeffy here would consider “creates divides” as meaning something like churches that are specifically “Korean” for example. I know of churches that are specifically Hmong for example. When I lived in the South it was common to speak of “black churches,” and the black folks would speak of “white churches.” Are these kinds of churches examples for Rev. Jeff of “creating divides.” Are the Korean Presbyteries that exist in some denominations guilty of creating divides here according to Jeff? And if if is acceptable for Koreans, or Hmong, or Black to worship in their own churches where is the problem in whites doing so and why is that racist?

I mean, Dr. John Frame doesn’t agree with Rev. Jeff here;

“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 in the 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”

I wonder if Jeffy thinks Dr. Frame to be racist?

4.) We have to quit being scared of the word “racist,” or of being accused of “racism,” because the word today, meaning everything, means nothing. I suppose that there does exist people out there who, for example, hate white people merely because they are white and so are “racist” but that doesn’t mean that all people who want to remain distinct in cultural habits, grandchildren, or dispositions or habits are racist against white people. Mohammed Ali was not a racist because he said this;

I take absolutely no offense at what Ali said above. I don’t accuse him of being “racist.” I don’t fault him if he wants to worship with his own people. Because of that I think Rev. Jeff Durbin is intellectually dishevelled.

5.) Jeffy says that “racism is hatred” but as he hasn’t defined clearly what racism is and has not given examples of what he considers “racism” then it is hard to know if hatred is really that which is animating people who do create some divides. I wonder if Jeff would accuse Muhammed Ali of hatred?

I picked on this quote because “racism” is the accusation dujour today. It is what is flung at anybody who won’t conform to the civil rights racial narrative bequeathed to us from the 1960s. It is some of that which lies beneath the whole divide percolating right now between the Moscow Mood and the “Moscow is full of skubala” mood. And Durbin is in the thick of all that.

The Inescapable Nature Of “Racism”

“Antiracism” permits many people to practice racism vicariously by adopting the cause of every race but their own.

Wilmot Robertson

The Dispossessed Majority

Think of those people who are advocating for more immigration or for amnesty or for open borders or for a muscular HB1 visa program. In that advocacy, those people have not avoided being champions for a particular race and they have not avoided being racist as against a particular people. They have not shed themselves of “racism.” Instead, they have taken up the cause for the stranger and the alien as against their own people. They are demonstrating that they desire the stranger and alien to rise higher than the native born. They have determined to render an inheritance to the stranger as opposed to their own children. What they have not done is eliminated their own ethnic bias. They simply now are biased against their people and are biased for those who are displacing their extended family.

“Racism” as it is cast about today had not gone away. They merely have embraced the most fashionable “racism” — “Racism” against their own kin and people. This is an example of self-hatred (oikaphobia) in favor of a muscular xenophilia (love of the stranger and alien). In all this we see that “racism” (stupid Marxist concept that it is) is an inescapable category. No-one ever rids themselves of racism. One merely eschews a non PC racism for a PC racism.

So, if racism is an inescapable category shouldn’t we have a proper order of loves that finds us properly prioritizing our own people, and that without hating those who do not land within the concentric circles of properly ordered love?