Category: Apologetics

From the Mailbox; Pastor, Why Do You Insist That The CREC Is On The Left?

Dear Pastor,

Can you tell me why you say that the CREC is on the left as a Christian denomination? As a Pastor in the CREC I think I should know this.

Rev. Kent

Bret Responds,

Hello Kent,

Of course, I am speaking of the denominational spokesmen like Doug Wilson, Uri Brito, and Rich Lusk. Even if you’re not on the left yourself those people who are the face of the denomination you’re part of are on the left. If the wife I’m married to is a whore it says something about me if I stay married to her.

These are my observations thus about the CREC

1.) They are Alienists (multiculturalists). They insist that race does not exist or that race is a social construct. They keep pushing for documents to be accepted by the denomination that will codify those beliefs. Nobody of any stature before the rise of Franz Boas believed this. Franz Boas non-Christian anthropology is what is informing the CREC’s push in Race issues.

2.) Doug Wilson is on record as advocating voting for a female for political office (Sarah Palin). This is a position on the left.

3.) Doug Wilson has said;

“Our family would be much more involved on an active personal level if terrorists overran Israel that we would if terrorists overran Vermont.”

This is a take from the left. It is a confusion of categories. It is a reversal of the Ordo Amoris to love the stranger and alien over your own countrymen. It is Alienism.

And if Doug insists that it is not Alienism because his wife, and grandchildren putatively have so much Jewish blood in them then it is Kinism which Doug derisively calls “skinism.” A derision that only rises as from the left.

Doug Wilson is the face of your denomination (whether you like it or not) and when he speaks he paints everyone who is part of the denomination.

4.) The inclusion by the CREC of both Baptists and non-Baptists in one denomination is a position that only the left could embrace. Reformed Baptists and Reformed non-Baptists are different expressions of the Christian faith so significant that to combine them in one denomination communicates that the denomination doesn’t understand the idea of distinctions. This is a position of the left.

5.) Then there is the whole Federal Vision thing which is humanist to its core since it advocate works salvation. This is the position of humanism and so is on the left. Individual Pastors may not agree with Federal Vision theology but if they are in a denomination that salutes it they are in a denomination that is on the left.

6.) I know for a fact that Wilson has been phoning Pastors of other denominations in order to warn those Pastors against young men who the CREC have deemed unworthy because those young men took up race realist views. This is a position on the left.

You may be my Brother in Christ and as such it is my responsibility to tell you that you are in a denomination that is on the left. I also was also loosely associated with a denomination on the left for years and years and it was something I had to live with every day before I departed. My prayer is that either the CREC repents of its leftism or, failing that, that the orthodox men like you depart from the CREC.

Rome & Eastern Orthodoxy Remain Christless

“For Presbyterians of all others to discount the perpetual danger from Romanism is thoroughly thoughtless and rash. We believe that the Christianity left by the apostles to the primitive church was essentially what we now call Presbyterian and Protestant. Prelacy and popery speedily began to work in the bosom of that community and steadily wrought its corruption and almost its total extirpation. Why should not the same cause tend to work the same result again? Are we truer or wiser Presbyterians than those trained by the apostles? Have the enemies of truth become less skillful and dangerous by gaining the experience of centuries? The popish system of ritual and doctrine was a gradual growth, which, modifying true Christianity, first perverted and then extinguished it. Its destructive power has resulted from this: that it has not been the invention of any one cunning and hostile mind, but a gradual growth, modified by hundreds or thousands of its cultivators, who were the most acute, learned, selfish, and anti-Christian spirits of their generations, perpetually retouched and adapted to every weakness and every attribute of depraved human nature, until it became the most skillful and pernicious system of error which the world has ever known. As it has adjusted itself to every superstition, every sense of guilt, every foible and craving of the depraved human heart, so it has travestied with consummate skill every active principle of the Gospel. It is doubtless the ne plus ultra of religious delusion, the final and highest result of perverted human faculty guided by the sagacity of the great enemy.”

Robert L Dabney
The attractions of Popery

Could it be that one reason people are moving to Rome and EO is because what they are envisioned as doing is pursuing a continuity with a storied past? Could the move away from Protestantism be due to the fact that such a move is the new counter-culture move? Protestantism is seen as irrelevant because it represents all that is shallow, disposable, and unworthy about our current moment.

People want gravitas again and the smells and bells of Rome and EO give them that.

Now, of course, we few Protestants who never took up the worship as a bad rock concert or the sermons as 10 minute self help talks or who never viewed the congregation as a Brothel from which ambitious ministers might have their pick have always known Rome and EO is all promise with no fulfillment and so we know there will be no fulfillment for those traipsing to Rome and EO.

But, in our hearts of hearts we understand that the flight to Rome or EO by the hoi polloi is likely not going to be any worse for their souls and lives then the rancid miasma they are fleeing from. Despite that being so we have a need to be responsible and warn people off of Rome and EO as being dangers to their souls. This needs to be said repeatedly as we now have platformed Protestants out there (Joel Webbon comes to mind) who are suggesting that Rome is a better poison than the poison of the Cultural Marxists. Poison is poison and we cannot make peace with any poison that will kill us dead.

I have no doubt that many in the confederation of Rome or EO share values with biblical Christians that many in the Evangelical/Reformed/R2K world do not share given how degenerate the Evangelical/Reformed/R2K world has become but those shared values do not translate into a shared faith, religion, or God.

Beware Rome … Beware EO.

From The Mailbag … How Has Jacobinism Infected The Reformed World?

Dear Pastor

What is Jacobin Reformed theology and what are Jacobin Reformed clergy?

Billy F

Hello Billy

Thanks for writing. First, we should note that most clergy today in the Reformed world are Jacobin. There are, of course, greater and lesser degrees of this Jacobinism to be found in our Reformed clergy but the tendency is ubiquitous. More about that after a definition;

A.) A Jacobin Reformed clergy embraces (often, quite w/o knowing it) the principles of Jacobinism. Jacobinism was a radical political group during the French Revolution known for advocating egalitarian democracy and engaging in extreme measures. During the French Revolution those extreme measures included the Reign of Terror, but in our context today extreme measures for Jacobin Reformed clergy means hunting down via inquisition type means men who do not agree with their Jacobin egalitarianism often with the purpose of defrocking and/or destroying by means of cancel culture clergy and/or members that are NOT Jacobin. Most frequently this happens by means of violation of the 9th commandment because very few men are guilty of what the 6th commandment violations they are being charged.

The term today has come to represent left-wing radicalism in the pulpit and ruling centers of what is unfortunately thought of as “Conservative” “Reformed” denomination. This kind of revolutionary politics is evidenced in the Church in its embrace of Alienism, egalitarianism, the Post-War (actually Enlightenment) consensus and the conviction that Democracy is God’s plan for social order arrangement.

We see it with the denial in denominations like the PCA, RPCNA, CRC, ARP, and CREC of the reality of race. More than a few clergy from these denominations have said things like, “there is no such thing as race,” or, “race is only about melanin levels,” or, “race is a social construct.” To hold to such views is a window into egalitarian convictions, and so represents Jacobin convictions. Another piece of evidence of how the majority expression of Reformed clergy are adopting Jacobin egalitarian convictions is the rise of female leadership in the Reformed Church. Michael Foster has recently exposed all the other Jacobin congregations in the PCA with his outing of congregations in the PCA that are operating with Defacto female elders. The irony is pretty thick here as Foster himself is likewise Jacobin given his expressed hatred of the anti-Jacobin belief system of Kinism. Foster’s exposure of Jacobin PCA congregations while being Jacobin himself demonstrates that there are different degrees of Jacobinism existing in the Reformed denominations.

Doug Wilson of the CREC is another high profile example of Jacobinism in denominations that are thought of as “Conservative,” and “Reformed.” Wilson has denied the reality of race while still embracing the reality of “ethnicity,” despite the fact that one can’t get to ethnicity without first traveling through race as ethnicity is a subset of race. Insisting that ethnicities exist but races don’t is like saying that Terriers and Retrievers exist but differing dog breeds don’t.

But Michael Foster and Doug Wilson should be understood to be the less excessive norms of today’s Jacobinism. There are many other clergy who are even more extreme in their Jacobinism today. Clergy like Ben Glaser, Rich Lusk, Andy Webb, Andrew Sandlin, Peter Leithart, Al Mohler, Uri Brito, Jeff Durbin, James White, etc. are all further examples of clergy who have been infected with one degree or another of Jacobinism.

The answer to this of course is a return to Biblical Christianity with all the implications of the doctrine of the Trinity (the One & the Many) for this discussion.

Please pray for the Reformed Church in America that God might either grant it reformation and renewal or failing that God might close its doors and raise up new ecclesiastical organizations which will not fall into the trap of Jacobinism.

An Apologetic Against Favoring Relics As Posited By A Roman Catholic

St. John Lateran is the Cathedral of the Popes. The “church” is a treasure house of relics where you will allegedly find;

1.) The heads of St. Peter and Paul
2.) The ark of the covenant
3.) The tablets of Moses
4.) The rod of Aaron
5.) An urn of Manna
6.) The Virgin’s tunic
7.) Five loaves and two fishes from the feeding of the 5K
8.) The dinner table from the Lord’s supper

And in the Pope’s chapel there resides;

1.) Foreskin and umbilical cord of Jesus.

Stephen O’Shea
The Perfect Heresy: The Revolutionary Life and Death of the Medieval Cathars

Bret observes,

Do you realize how credulous one has to be to be Roman Catholic?

It should be further observed that this idea of the necessity for relics as contributive to salvation in the Roman Catholic system continues today seeing , every Catholic church is required to have at least one relic, typically placed within the main altar.

Relics thus, are part and parcel of the Roman Catholic salvation system.  To this day in the Roman Catholic process of salvation visiting a relic can grant a plenary indulgence, which may reduce or eliminate time spent in purgatory, thus hastening the Roman Catholic’s longed for salvation.

Jon Sheldon (Roman Catholic) defending relics replies,

“St John Lateran indeed has relics, as do churches all over the world. (Though I am not familiar with exactly which relics they have.) There is nothing unbelievable about relics unless you have an anti supernatural bias. This is exactly how I would argue against an atheist, by the way.

Relics are long attested to both scripturally and historically. The dead man who fell into Elisha’s tomb and was made alive and Paul’s handkerchief are two examples.

The early church kept and distributed relics.

If this makes us cringe today, or view these people as primitive, it is merely our post-enlightenment sensitivities.

It is also fundamentally gnostic. ‘Old bones and wood can’t possibly transmit power, that’s just superstition. God only transmits grace directly and invisibly.’”

Bret responds,

1.) Your examples from the Scripture on relics suffers from the fact that those examples are FROM SCRIPTURE. All the other relics scattered all over the world were not sanctioned by the testimony of Scripture. Further we are not told from Scripture that those articles mentioned in Scripture should continue to be seen as transmitting power. This is yet another example of Rome reading into Scripture.

2.) There are scads of problems with relics since the Scripture teaches us to place our trust in Christ alone and not power emanating relics. The Heidelberg Catechism, drawing from Scripture, teaches that

Q. Why is the Son of God called Jesus, that is, Saviour?

A. Because he saves us from all our sins,1 and because salvation is not to be sought or found in anyone else.2

1 Mt 1:21; Heb 7:25.
2 Is 43:11; Jn 15:4, 5; Acts 4:11, 12; 1 Tim 2:5.

30. Q. Do those who seek their salvation or well-being in saints, in themselves, or anywhere else (RELICS), also believe in the only Saviour Jesus?

A. No. Though they boast of him in words, they in fact deny the only Saviour Jesus.1 For one of two things must be true: either Jesus is not a complete Saviour, or those who by true faith accept this Saviour must find in him all that is necessary for their salvation.2

1 1 Cor 1:12, 13; Gal 5:4.
2 Col 1:19, 20; 2:10; 1 Jn 1:7.

3.) That the early church was in error is not a surprise to anyone given the problems the earliest churches had (Corinth, Galatia, Colossae, etc.). The early church does NOT get pride of place simply because it was the early church.

4.) A lack of belief on the part of Christians regarding the nonsense of relics does not mean a lack of belief in the supernatural. It merely means a lack of belief in the supernatural when it comes to the Roman Catholic church using this kind of manipulation to keep people in spiritual bondage and from trusting in Christ alone for salvation.

5.) I do not deny that the means of grace that God ordains for salvation are means of grace. In point of fact I insist that Rome cheapens the means of grace by introducing all these other means of grace that you are defending. If everything is a means of grace nothing is a means of grace. God explicitly gave us two means of grace and the foreskin of Jesus and the umbilical cord from Jesus are not among them.

Oh … and by the way … this is the way I argue against credulous Roman Catholics.

McAtee Continues To Pick Apart Tchividijan’s Nonsense

“So much of what passes for “Christian influence” today sounds more like Christian control. We hear calls to “take back the culture,” “reclaim America for Christ,” and “restore Christian values.” But the kingdom of God doesn’t come by seizing cultural control. It doesn’t advance by force or fear. It spreads through weakness, confession, forgiveness, and love. “Christian nationalism” turns the Christian’s calling to serve into a crusade to conquer. It assumes that the kingdom of God is something we build, when the gospel says it’s something we receive. Grace frees us from the burden of “taking back” anything. The world doesn’t need our dominance — it needs our service. The gospel doesn’t build empires — it resurrects sinners.”

📷Tullian Tchividjian
Previous advocate for Anti-nomianism
Now Advocate for Anabaptist theology

1.) There is no such thing as neutrality. Either the Christian faith is in control or a Christ hating faith is in control. Hence Christian control when it is indeed Christian is a reality to be pursued and delighted in.

2.) Tullian is advancing the idea that we seize cultural control by not seizing cultural control. Tullian argues that the Kingdom will indeed be received and so come but it is only to come and be received “through weakness, confession, forgiveness, and love.” Tullian doesn’t have a problem with the Kingdom of Christ coming. His only insistence is that the Kingdom of Christ come as Christians pursue cultural defeat and surrender. So, Tullian wants Christian dominance as much as the person he is complaining about but only in his way — the way of defeat and surrender.

3.) Tullian is seeking to advance his view of cultural control by seeking to shame Christians who disagree with him. That’s not very forgiving or loving or a matter of weakness on Tullian’s part. If Tullian really wanted to be weak he would just shut up on this matter and go into his prayer closet and just pray for his view of the Kingdom to come to pass and so quite lecturing other people because in his lecturing of other people there is a lack of weakness on his part.

4.) Notice that Tullian is seeking to advance his version of the Kingdom by means of fear. The fear that Tullian is trying to stoke is the fear of being displeasing to God if we advocate for the Lord Jesus Christ who is King be owned as King. Tullian would have it that Christ is only going to owned as King when His people do not insist that Christ be owned as King. Per Tullian, only by living as if Christ is not King can the Kingdom be received.

5.) Notice the glaring false dichotomy from Tullian here;

“‘Christian nationalism’ turns the Christian’s calling to serve into a crusade to conquer.”

Who says that a crusade to conquer can not be a matter of service? When cultures are conquered for Christ those who are in bondage to crimes such as sex trafficking, abortion, sodomy, etc. are no longer living in the context where such things are allowed. They may not yet be redeemed individually, but they are no longer living in a culture that is contrary to God’s expressed law-order. Is not the change that would come by Christians conquering be a service to those who would otherwise be plowed under and destroyed by such illegal legalities that exist in anti-Christ cultures?

In brief, there is nothing inherently sinful in conquering and conquering can be done as a means of service. Tullian is involved in a false dichotomy here. It would be a good thing for Talmudic or Mooselimb cultures to be conquered. It would be a matter of service to the people in those cultures if Christ who is King were to be owned as King.

6.) Tullian has another false dichotomy when he puts receiving the Kingdom in conflict with building the Kingdom. Because all is of Grace it is simply the case that when building the Kingdom we are also receiving the Kingdom. If I build a house as a Christian I understand that God is the one who has given me all the resources to that end and so it can be said at one and the same time that as I build my house I am receiving my house. Tullian’s reasoning here is of a nature that we should not plant a vegetable garden to get vegetables because God will provide vegetables, or similarly, we should not seek to build a family by the normal means of having children because God will provide children. In the same way Tullian is saying we should not seek to build God’s Kingdom because we are going to receive God’s Kingdom. Tullian is operating from a completely pietistic/retreatist worldview where man doesn’t work out what God works in.

7.) Tullian gives us another gem with;

“Grace frees us from the burden of “taking back” anything.

Really? Grace frees us from the burden of “taking back” family relationships that were destroyed because of a previous absence of grace? Grace frees us from “taking back” the harm that was inflicted in our business relationship with consumers because of a previous absence of grace? Grace frees us to be obedient and being obedient means that we take back those matters (for God’s glory) that were so injured by the absence of grace. That sentence from Tullian is just really pietistic bloviating. It sounds good but it really has little meaning.

8.) As mentioned earlier, Christian dominance when it is Christian is a service that the world desperately needs. What the world or the church doesn’t need is the kind of Christian dominance by surrender that Tullian is pushing.

9.) Tullian ends with another false dichotomy;

“The gospel doesn’t build empires — it resurrects sinners.”

These two realities are not mutually exclusive. In point of fact the Gospel as it resurrects sinners does build nations. The two go hand in glove. Where the Gospel resurrects sinners the effect is going to be that those resurrected sinners are going to in turn, in obedience to Christ desire to live in social orders that are pleasing to Christ and His authority.

So, while the Gospel may not build empires, it certainly does build nations and social orders where the Gospel and the whole of Christianity is honored.

10.) In the end this is a debate about two very different visions of Christianity. I would insist that Tullian is dishonoring Jesus by not taking Christ’s office of King seriously. Indeed, I would say Tullian completely dismisses the idea of Christ as “Lord.” For Tullian Christ’s Lordship is a Gnostic kind of reality. It is the same kind of Kingship that one finds in R2K thinking. It is the kind of Kingship that says “Jesus is King in a non Kingly way.”