Apologetics – Page 3

In Defense Of Myself Against The Clergy’s Slander & Libel

“Some have complained that Luther was too severe. I will not deny this. But I will answer in the language of Erasmus: Because the sickness was so great, God gave this age a rough doctor … If Luther was severe, it was because of his earnestness for the truth, not because he loved strife or harshness.”

Phillip Melanchthon

Luther’s Funeral Oration

“The pastor ought to have two voices: one, for gathering the sheep; and another, for warding off and driving away wolves and thieves. The Scripture supplies him with the means of doing both.”

John Calvin

Recently, I was having a conversation with a Pastor I had met for the first time. Before meeting we had corresponded somewhat so we were not complete strangers. Within 10 minutes of our initial conversation he casually commented;

“I knew you wouldn’t bite my head off.”

To which I responded; “Who ever said I would?”

His response was not that surprising I suppose. He informed me that he had “Reformed” clergy friends who had witnessed that we were corresponding and those “Reformed” clergy friends upon seeing our corresponding had said things like, “Ah, now we see where you are trending.” My conversational partner made it clear that I had been marked out as one to be avoided by other Reformed clergy. To his credit, this Pastor defended me in his conversation.

A few months prior to this a little known Reformed clergy member in a phone booth sized Reformed denomination wrote in a public post that “Bret McAtee is the Godfather of Kinism,” and continued to warn people against me. Now, to be honest, I could wear the mantle of “The Godfather of Kinism” as a badge of honor were it true, but alas I am merely the lesser son of Greater Reformed Ministers and Doctors of the Church who came before me and from whom I have learned my Kinism.

There have been sundry other incidents. One time when a couple was considering attending the Church I minister at, the Pastor at the church they were leaving pulled the husband aside and in dark tones warned about attending a “racist” church. Said “Pastor” couldn’t wait to pull that card. Yet, nothing I have said on the subject of race was not said by countless other church Fathers as testified to in the Anthology; “Who Is My Neighbor.”

These attacks on my character and reputation are nothing new to me. Years ago newspapers, radio, and TV outlets across the state blackened my name with typical Lugenpresse lies and half-truths about the beliefs I hold that were the beliefs that I learned from my Christian Fathers. They picked this up from a muscular hate organization (SPLC) who also blackened my reputation and name. Not to be outdone, a major denomination in America went out of their way attempting to destroy my good name — again by allowing the enemies of the Gospel create the narrative without any input from me.

Now combine all this vitriolic slander and libel with the fact that like Luther before me I have been a rough doctor because of the sickness of this age. Indeed, we (the church and the culture) are more sick than we can even begin to plumb. Like Luther, I have been severe because of my love for the truth and because of my love for the Lord Christ. I have been severe, at times, in rebuking idiots because I ardently believe that “bad theology hurts people and hurts them badly.” Like Calvin my voice has, perhaps, slightly been used as much to drive off the wolves and thieves than it has been used to gather the flock. For these realities, I do not apologize. Not in the least. Indeed, it is my daily prayer that God would raise up more shepherds who have the ability to see the danger that exists as coming from those reputed to be pillars in the church.

However, all should be aware that I have paid a price for standing athwart the times while cursing the enveloping and settling darkness. It is the kind of price that St. Paul talks about in the Scripture when he talks about being made a spectacle to the world in I Corinthians 4. It as all been the fulfillment of Christ’s words;

“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.”

And I have to tell you I do believe that even though a great amount of this hate is coming from “the church” it is really the case that it is coming from the world as in the Church. I believe this because I have said nothing, or believe nothing, that can’t be found in all the greats throughout history whom I have spent my life reading. None of it is new or original to me. It was all there and I found it in my wall to wall reading habits.

My problem, if a problem it is, is that the tight worldview I have does not allow me to see problems in other people’s thinking without at the same time seeing where even the comparatively smallest of errors in that thinking may well lead. If I have erred it has been to err by not just walking away from discussions without pointing out the implications of conversation partners thinking X, Y, or Z. Even at this age I continue to work at not picking at the tiny scabs in other people’s worldviews.

Still, I have lived through the rise of the heresy Federal Vision and have had to fight that. I have lived through the rise of Radical Two Kingdom theology and have to fight that. I have had to fight the dismal New Perspective On Paul theology. Then there have been the old enemies of dispensationalism, Arminianism, and Free Will Theism, not to mention, the whole abomination that was the “Church Growth Movement,” as well as the monster called “The Emergent Church Movement” — which was really just cultural Marxism and Liberation theology coming dressed up in Evangelical Evening clothes. Then there is, of course, the constant infusion of egalitarianism into the church at every turn — more cultural Marxism.

All of these are heresies. All of them deserve the harshest treatment possible. If the Church’s immune system were not shattered each would have been snuffed out in their crib.

So, my crime, if there is a crime, is that I have strongly insisted on the truth of what the Fathers have said. I have used the “drive off the wolves and thieves” voice to scatter God’s enemies. With God as my witness I have tried to be patient through the years. However, in the face of rank and death dealing doctrine I have protested often… and loudly. And so, I find myself enveloped in a reputation given to me by people who may be well intended but are largely dumb and it seems they have succeeded in making me a pariah in many quarters.

Well, my Lord Christ told me that

^“If we suffer, we shall also reign with him”

So, I have this comfort. It is the comfort that Machen must have comforted himself with when he was defrocked. It is the comfort that Edwards must have known when he was tossed from his congregation. It is the comfort that the Reformers were familiar with when cast out by the Whore of a Church in Rome. Each and all, as well as countless others through the ages, have suffered far far worse than anything I have suffered. Along with everything else, my reputation belongs to Christ and I am secure in the fact that I have pleased Him by standing for His cause — even if I have hurt the feelings of todays “conservative” “Reformed” clergy.

I don’t suppose, at my age, the pitch and intensity of my voice is going to change much. I am not likely to get much softer when confronted with the utter skubala that is so often characteristic of the visible Church today. Counter-Revolutions are not led by the soft-spoken and retiring.

Folks can be comforted by one thing though… they can be comforted that if they are friends of the Christ who walks through Scripture they will be my friends. They can be comforted in knowing that if they are seeking truth I will be their most patient and best friend in that endeavor.

If they are not… well, then it is the rough doctor for you. But if the Rough Doctor comes out try to understand that he is present out of love of God and love for your soul’s well being.

Please pray for my ongoing need for sanctification. It is never easy to determine when it is time for the thief voice or time for the gather the sheep voice and I admittedly often fail in striking just the right tone. Also pray for the visible church and today’s “conservative” “Reformed” clergy corps that God might be pleased to give Reformation in head and members.

Responding to Aaron Renn’s Complaint About Conservatives “Fetishizing Doctrine”

“Doctrine is important. Obviously bad doctrine is bad. But there’s a tendency in conservative circles to improperly fetishize doctrine to the exclusion of other important things. This is the “America is an idea” of conservative Christianity.”

Aaron Renn

1.) Here we see Aaron Renn fetishizing the doctrine that fetishizing the idea that good doctrine is important is bad doctrine.

2.) One presumes that “other important things” are things that have meaning and are to be believed and therefore are doctrinal in nature.

3.) What non-doctrinal realities (other important things) is Renn speaking of that can be enumerated w/o becoming doctrinal matters to be believed? In other words can Renn tell me what these “other important things” are without these “other important things” instantly becoming doctrine – something to be believed and acted upon.

4.) If Renn is talking about “other important things” like acting and/or living in a Christian manner one must ask how one gets to acting and/or living in a Christian manner apart from believing Christian doctrine or apart from believing the doctrine that Christians should act and live as Christians?

5.) Renn then segues from the idea that “doctrine is not the only important thing” to the observation that thinking that doctrine is the most important thing is an example of “America is an idea” conservativism. Presumably, Renn holds the doctrine that “America is an idea” is a bad doctrine that should not be held. If Renn, at this point fetishizing the importance of his doctrine that America is not an idea, or more than an idea doctrine?

Understand, at this point I am not weighing in on the subject of whether of not America is an idea is a good or bad idea. I am weighing in on the subject that whether one concludes that the doctrine that “America is an idea” is bad doctrine or good doctrine it remains doctrine, and clearly a doctrine that Renn seems to be fetishizing about.

6.) What we need from Renn in order to substantiate his claim about fetishizing doctrine — or to even understand his claim about fetishizing doctrine are some examples of things that are important besides doctrine that can be articulated without becoming doctrine.

If he cannot provide those examples his statement is completely self-refuting and he is exposed as a not smart man.

Renn then goes on to say;

“So when the creed says “I believe in the communion of saints” that means agreement on doctrine? When the Bible talks about “the body of Christ” that’s about agreement on doctrine? Again, doctrine is important but doctrinalism is missing important things. Never forget, demons are in agreement with perfect doctrine.”

1.) How can I believe in the communion of saints apart from having a doctrine of what communion of the saints means?

2.) Of course “communion of saints” means “agreement on doctrine.” Does it mean, per Renn, disagreement on doctrine? The Scripture asks, “Can two men walk together unless they be agreed (Amos 3:3)?” Agreed on what? Agreed on doctrine of course. So, “yes,” when the creed says “We believe in the communion of the saints,” a doctrinal belief is being articulated which includes the idea that having communion with the saints means, at least in part, a shared set of convictions and beliefs — doctrine.

3.) How can we know about the “body of Christ” unless we first have a doctrine of “the body of Christ?” So, yes, when the Bible talks about “the body of Christ,” we are talking about a doctrine which then gets fleshed out in our everyday living. If Renn is upset that Christians are not nice enough or that they are inconsistent with their doctrine then let him say that and let him realize that if Christians are inconsistent with their doctrine then it is because what they say they believe as doctrine is trumped by what they are really believing about doctrine. One cannot separate how a man acts from what a man believes.

4.) Ren then reaches for “Even the demons believe and shudder.” However, the demons believe as those who have lost their first estate. Their shuddering is the shuddering of those who, while believing, are damned for not combining their believing with works. Is this what Renn is fetishizing about? Is Renn trying to make the doctrinal point that too many Christians have right doctrine but wrong behavior? Well, the answer then is not to curse doctrine. The answer is connect the dots between unseemly behavior and unseemly doctrine and then to challenge folks on the difference between their stated doctrine and their lived out doctrine.

Renn then ends this anti-doctrinal explosion with;

One example: “And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”

1.) Ironic that Renn chooses the chapter in the Bible to make his point that elucidates most clearly the doctrine of Christian love.

2.) Of course we are to have love as Christians but does love really stand in opposition to doctrine? What does love look like? How does it respond to need? What does it mean? We cannot even begin to talk about Christian love without having a doctrine of Christian love.

All of life has meaning. Everything means something. All doctrine does is gives us handles in order to understand the meaning and purpose of life… of everything. Nothing exists that isn’t driven by doctrine. This is why Scripture explicitly teaches … “As a man thinketh in his heart (in the core of his being) so he is.”

The One & The Many and Our Cultural Moment

For Christianity the cosmos was orderly because the Christian God is a God of order. In God’s creation the parts and the whole served one another in a diversity in unity and unity in diversity symphony — neither the particular nor the universal having dominion over the other. The universals recognized the need for the particulars and the particulars understood the need of the universals.

However, with the rebellion against God in favor of a time plus chance plus circumstance cosmos there is no longer an inherent given coherence to reality. With the abandonment of the eternal One and Many, the temporal one and many loses its way and where there previously been harmony between the temporal one and many there is now a conflict of interest between the temporal one and many.

What this looks like in the social order is a contest between tyranny and anarchy. Having thrown off God in favor of chaos, tyranny seeks to impose itself as a universal before which all particulars must bow. The tyrannical triumph of the temporal one over the temporal many means all things are defined in terms of the temporal one. Diversity is eclipsed in favor of unity. Social order and culture becomes a machine in which undistinguishable men and women and men from women works as universal cogs to support the Universal tyrannical one.

This social order and cultural unitarianism does not allow for mediating cultural institutions. All must serve and exist as derivative of the Tyrannical One (often the State). Everything is for state and nothing is outside the state. Individuality is lost in favor the Mao suit, the Phrygian cap… the comrade and the citoyen. Men become chameleons who all fade into the background provided by the tyrannical state.

On the other hand the triumph of the many is likewise a tyranny but it is a tyranny of the particular (many) over the one. In a anarchistic tyranny the unity (temporal One) is found in hyper-disunity (temporal Many). Each man does what is right in his own eyes. There is no harmony of interest because there is no Universal wherein one can find a harmony. Ironically enough, this leads right back to a beleaguered sameness that is found in the tyranny of the One, although instead of a unitarian motif found in dull sameness one gets the unitarian motif found in the dull sameness one finds in a garbage truck or scow. Precisely because there is no harmony the harmony is found in the lack of harmony, just as garbage in a garbage truck by having no relation to the sundry garbage there is a unity that is found in the negation of unity.

In cultures and social orders who have raised its fist to God the consequence is that often one will find both the anarchistic and the tyrannical temporal one and many operating in the social order and/or culture. In these kind of instances the tyrannical and the anarchistic serve as limiting concepts for one another in their ongoing attempt to have the pre-eminence with the result that there is a fluctuating dialectic that exists between the temporal godless one and the temporal godless many.

We see this phenomenon in our own social order culture. We see the temporal chaotic anarchistic many in the pursuit of much of the citizenry to be completely independent of any unifying social norms or mores. In that anarchistic pursuit away from social conventions people look increasingly the same with their slovenly dress, their tatted up appearance, and their guttural music. They have found a anarchistic unity of meaning in the embrace that there is no meaning.

At the same time we have the State here constantly seeking to provide a temporal tyrannical unitarian/uniformitarian meaning. From the continued increase of the surveillance state to the desire to have operate as a top down control mechanism (think pursuit of social credit arrangements, 15 minute cities, electric cars that can be remotely turned off, Artificial Intelligence, etc.) the Temporal One is seeking a tyrannical arrangement wherein all the anarchy is controlled so as to serve the tyrannical state.

The church likewise is caught in this push me – pull you with its embrace of alienism. By its refusal to understand the temporal one and many in light of the eternal one and many much of the Church today is embracing a unitarian/uniformitarian understanding of race/ethnicity so that the temporal many is swallowed up by the temporal one. The refusal to understand that there can be races in the context of the human race — races that are to be recognized and honored as unique — the Church in the West is currently joining in with the rebellion of the larger culture by denying the impact of the understanding of the temporal one and many in light of the eternal one and many. The Church is in lockstep with the culture insisting that diversity in unity and unity in diversity can not be allowed to exist.

Meg Basham … Not A Wise Person

“Some people caught in this particular sin (sodomy) are lovely, kind, and brilliant people.”

Meg Basham
Author — Shepherds For Sale
Evangelical Female Algophile

This demonstrates how much sodomy has been accepted. Would Basham say the same thing about people caught in sin of necrophilia or bestiality?

She wouldn’t say that because necrophilia, bestiality, and pederasty (as just three examples) aren’t yet socially acceptable. But because sodomy is now socially acceptable one has to confess that at least some sodomites can be lovely, kind, and brilliant people.

Further, per the Meg Bashams of the world, if we don’t agree with her on this then we are being a hindrance to the conversion of these otherwise lovely, kind, and brilliant sodomites.

People like Meg Basham seem not to realize that sodomy is an expression of a serious mental disorder/disease. Do we commonly say that folks with serious mental disorders/disease can be otherwise lovely, kind, and brilliant people?

It’s all so twisted.

Now, having said all that, I don’t deny that some sodomites, no doubt, can be more lovely, kinder, and more brilliant than others when judging on a scale of comparison. However, that doesn’t mean that the means of converting them is ignoring their mental disorder/disease. One of the prerequisites of conversion is being confronted by God’s Law so that those in rebellion to God may see their rebellion that they might see their danger with the consequence that they might flee to Christ for His protective righteousness. Presenting the law to sodomites regarding their sodomy is the very definition of “loving them into the kingdom.” It is not loving them into the kingdom, contra the Meg Bashams of the world, to avoid reminding them of the wrath of God that is upon them for their sin.

Because of their mental disorder/disease I don’t want to see sodomites in place of public responsibility. I don’t want to see the sodomite Scott Bessant as head of the Federal Reserve and I don’t want to see him their because he has a mental disease and I don’t care how good he might be with money. I don’t want to see Rick Grenell as an advisor to the President in any capacity and I don’t care how brilliant he might be on foreign affairs. He has a mental disorder/disease that disqualifies him from that position.

The Meg Basham’s in the church are likewise a disease on the church. I know they are well intended and probably the kind of people you want as Nannies or Au-pairs for your children. But they have no business influence public policy with their inability to understand the world.

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.