Marxism/Cultural Marxism – Page 2

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.

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

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.”

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.”