Category: Apologetics

Deconstructing R2K

“I’m doing something with this that I don’t know of any other previous Reformed theologian has done exactly what I’m doing.”

Dr. David Van Drunen

This book is dedicated to the proposition that Radical Two Kingdom theology is not Reformed. There is little argument here with historic Reformed 2K theology. The argument here is pointed at Radical Two Kingdom theology of the type being produced now by nearly every brick and mortar “Reformed” Seminary in America, finding its real impetus from a Seminary in Southern California.

The goal in this humble volume is to do something akin to what both J. Gresham did in “Christianity and Liberalism,” and then later what Cornelius Van Til did in “Christianity and Barthianism.” As Dr. Machen said in his introduction;

“The purpose of this book is not to decide the religious issue of the present day, but merely to present the issue as sharply and clearly as possible, in order that the reader may be aided in deciding it for himself.”

And this writer thinks the same way about R2K as Van Til spoke about Barth in his preface to his magnum opus;

“The present writer is of the opinion that, for all its verbal similarity to historic Protestantism, Barth’s theology is, in effect, a denial of it.”
I claim not to be the equal of Machen or Van Til. Not even close. The touchstone between myself and my betters is the desire to strangle the heresy du jour while it yet remains in the cradle. In my wildest most expansive dreams I would do to R2K what President Andrew Jackson’s recorded on his deathbed that he did to the the second National Bank when he was reputed to have said; “I killed the Bank.”

The word “radical” itself derives from the Latin radix meaning root. The radicals in Radical Two Kingdom land have birthed a theology that completely attacks the roots of traditional and historic Reformed theology. In this reformulation the R2K boys have completely rejected temperance and moderation in their push to redefine the Reformed faith. In attacking the roots of the Reformed faith the consequence is that the whole tree of the Reformed faith is changed into something that it heretofore has never previously been. Like any arch-heretic throughout history, Radical Two Kingdom theology is done in the context of the fierce insistence that they alone are preserving the faith once and forever delivered unto the saints. In all of this there is a disorienting push me, pull you between their simultaneous claims that they are both staying true to the tradition of the faith while at the same time insisting that they are indeed theological innovators.

The Jesuit trained chief guru of R2K explicitly does just this at the 37minute mark of the below linked interview.

https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc633/

Within just a few short seconds Dr. Van Drunen manages to invoke that he is on the side of the angels (Voss, Kuyper, Bavinck) while at the same time admitting that he is being innovative. Now add to this that you will see quotes in the subsequent chapters from the types the Van Drunen invokes that will testify that they would have never have recognized Van Drunen’s theology as related to their Reformed theology. If you follow at all the R2K debate within the Reformed church you will find this “push me – pull you” phenomenon repeatedly.

This push me-pull you argumentation has been identified by some as an informal fallacy called the Motte and Baily argument technique. R2K makes some outlandish claims that reveals their real out of bounds theology (the Bailey). However when they are called out on the transparently ridiculous claims they hightail it to safer ground (the Motte) insisting that they were merely advancing traditional historic 2K arguments. If the Bailey is more controversial territory, the Motte is a modest and easily defensible position. It all becomes very convenient as it becomes a device whereby legitimate charges of heresy can be easily snuffed out by insisting; “that all I was saying was ….” From there the R2K boys can claim that their original transparently ridiculous claims have not been refuted. Failing that the R2K boys will act all butt hurt because the R2K critic has been unreasonable for attacking an imagined Bailey when all they were championing was a long accepted Motte. You see the trick here is conflating the push me with the pull you / the Motte with the Bailey. It is as clever as Hades.

To repeat what was said earlier the problem that is being attacked in this book is not historic traditional 2K theology (the Motte). Instead what is being attacked is the Bastardized version of 2K known now popularly as R2K (the Bailey).

So as to be clear as to what is and is not under assault in this volume let us take a look, in this introduction of some of the differences between historic traditional 2K theology and R2K “theology.”

R2K desires to split the two kingdoms as between the grace realm (Institutional Church) and the common realm (everything else that does not pertain to the Church). The grace realm is to be ruled by God’s special revelation while the common realm is ruled by natural law. This bifurcation is the steroid application of “Law vs. Gospel” thinking to literally every area of life. The common realm is law. The grace realm is Gospel. Never shall the twain meet.

The problem with this is when Calvin talked about the Two Kingdoms this is not what the man had in mind. The reality of the Two Kingdoms is not as simplistic as the R2K fanboys desire to make it. Calvin’s vision of the Two Kingdoms can not be reduced to a common realm that is ruled by natural law and a grace realm ruled by gospel. First of all in this arrangement one wonders where the Kingdom is that Paul says we were delivered from (Colossian 1:13)? Perhaps R2K should become R3K?

Calvin was far more nuanced in his explanation of two kingdom theology. Consider:

In 4.20, Calvin writes:

Still the distinction does not go so far as to justify us in supposing that the whole scheme of civil government is matter of pollution, with which Christian men have nothing to do. Fanatics, indeed, delighting in unbridled license, insist and vociferate that, after we are dead by Christ to the elements of this world, and being translated into the kingdom of God sit among the celestials, it is unworthy of us, and far beneath our dignity, to be occupied with those profane and impure cares which relate to matters alien from a Christian man. To what end, they say, are laws without courts and tribunals?

But what has a Christian man to do with courts? Nay, if it is unlawful to kill, what have we to do with laws and courts? But as we lately taught that that kind of government is distinct from the spiritual and internal kingdom of Christ, so we ought to know that they are not adverse to each other. The former, in some measure, begins the heavenly kingdom in us, even now upon earth, and in this mortal and evanescent life commences immortal and incorruptible blessedness, while to the latter it is assigned, so long as we live among men, to foster and maintain the external worship of God, to defend sound doctrine and the condition of the Church, to adapt our conduct to human society, to form our manners to civil justice, to conciliate us to each other, to cherish common peace and tranquillity.

All these I confess to be superfluous, if the kingdom of God, as it now exists within us, extinguishes the present life. But if it is the will of God that while we aspire to true piety we are pilgrims upon the earth, and if such pilgrimage stands in need of such aids, those who take them away from man rob him of his humanity.

(Institutes 4.20.2)

Here we see where R2K departs from Calvin on two kingdom theology. Per Calvin the spiritual kingdom touches on the eternal life that is begun in us; and “it is not to this kingdom” that the external worship of God belongs, but rather the external worship of God belongs to the kingdom of courts and tribunals “so long as we live among men” (having the purpose of) “maintaining the external worship of God, to defend sound doctrine and the condition of the Church…”

Calvin is unmistakably clear here: “the external worship of God belongs to the civil or temporal kingdom.” This statement stands in shark contrast to the claims of the R2K fanboys. For Calvin the worship of God and the condition of the Church are matters of public concern that belong, in R2K language, to the common kingdom. Tell it not in Gath. Publish it not in the streets of Askelon. Proclaim it not in the citadels of Escondido.

Clearly there is a distinction between the two kingdoms but the distinction is not the divorce that R2K envisions.

The purpose of this book is not to wade into the the various nuances of two Kingdom theology throughout history. A subject that probably is fitting for some doctoral dissertation. The purpose is to show that R2K’s insistence that their understanding of 2K theology is the traditional historic Reformed 2K is completely bunk. Further, the purpose is to examine what R2K “theology” does to the various theological categories of Reformed theology.

Perhaps the most grievous injury to the Reformed church that R2K inflicts is to mute the prophetic voice of the pulpit. Because R2K insists that the pulpit must be silent about all that lies in R2K’s “common realm” the minister therefore has his tongue cut out from him in inveighing against the moral meltdown of our broader culture. Because of the “theology” of R2K God’s people have no compass … “have no thus saith the Lord” echoing from the pulpit and so are left blind and dumb as to how to lean into the pagan culture we are now living in. A mist in the pulpit leads to a fog in the pew. And R2K loves it so.

R2K theology also guarantees that no future Calvin, or Knox will ever be ordained to Reformed pulpits. Can you imagine a young John Calvin trying to defend these statements before a R2K infested Presbytery?

“The Lord does not give Kings the right to use their power to subject the people to tyranny. Indeed when Liberty to resist tyranny seems to be taken away by princes who have taken over, one can justly ask this question; since kings and princes are bound by covenant to the people, to administer law in truest equality, sincerity and integrity; if they break faith and usurp tyrannical power by which they allow themselves everything they want: is it not possible for the people to consider together taking measures in order to remedy the evil?”

John Calvin

Sermon I Samuel Chapter 8

I have read a volume of sermons by Calvin from Deuteronomy 27 & 28. The volume is entitled “The Covenant Enforced.” Upon finishing it I pushed away and said to my imaginary R2K Seminary Professor, paraphrasing Lloyd Benson to Dan Quayle; “I’ve read John Calvin. Sir, you’re no John Calvin.

Go ahead and read Calvin’s sermons Deuteronomy 27 & 28. Upon reading it I sincerely don’t understand how R2K can even begin to argue that it is an expression of Calvinist theology. The theology of John Calvin as exhibited in this volume (and this is not the first Calvin I’ve read) screams at David Van Drunnen, mocks R. Scott Clark, laughs at Mike Horton and sticks its tongue out at J. V. Fesko. Whatever these men are, they are in no way partakers of Calvin’s Calvinism. Based on these sermons alone John Calvin could not be ordained in many Presbyterian Presbytery today because he would be accused of not having a proper understanding of the distinctions between law and grace.

Calvin does see much of the OT civil law as applicable today. Calvin does see the law coming to people groups and nations and not just to individuals. Calvin does believe that the Magistrate has a responsibility to enforce God’s Law — and that from both Tables. Calvin does not put law and grace in absolute antithesis. God’s Law-Word has a place as a guide to life in the Christian’s life and that Law-Word should resound from the pulpit just as much as the Law-Word in the role of a street lamp to expose sin.

Like it or not Calvin was the worst of all things.. Calvin was a pioneer Theonomist who believed that cultures of all nations needed to be Reconstructed in the direction of God’s revealed Law-Word. Calvin did not hold to a “Law Gospel” hermeneutic as that is currently defined. Calvin was neither Lutheran nor Anabaptist.

If Calvin were alive today he’d make me look like a wimp in this book with his thunderings against the modern antinomian R2K Reformed Church.

The book before you begins by looking at the implications of R2K for several standard Reformed theological categories. In Chapter 1 we take a look at the Epistemological problems of R2K. In chapter 2 we consider the inherent dualism in R2K. Chapter 3 finds us looking at R2K soteriology vis-a-vis Reformed soteriology. In chapter 4 it is on to considering R2K covenantal malfeasance. In chapter 5 we map out R2K’s belief that religion is an escapable category for magistrate and state. In chapter 6 we are on to matters eschatological. Chapter 7 finds us exploring R2K from the mouth of the R2K fan boys. In Chapter 8 we look at R2K and its views of family life. In chapter 9 we take a peek at R2K’s theocratic fears. In chapter 10 we briefly consider some of the “proof” texts R2K appeals to in order to support their cause. In Chapter 11 we consider R2K’s transformation-phobia. In chapter 12 we spend a little bit of time looking at the history of ideas mapping out the strange ideological bedfellows of R2K. These chapters are followed by several appendixes where I provide some of my apologetic encounters with some of the R2K “theologians.”

Pull up a chair, pull out your highlighter, and let’s have a go.

The Canker Work of Political Correctness

Political Correctness is the anti-standard standard, a negative device designed to overthrow traditional (Christian) mores and Institutions. It does so by arguing that the previous standards were arbitrary, oppressive and characteristic of those who colonize. The PC crowd then masqueraded their anti-standard standard in the guise of the demand that academic freedom and tolerance must be allowed to “enlarge” beyond the previous constraining standard that limited the teaching context to the traditional mores.

All of this explains much of the reason behind the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s grandstanding on January 15, 1987,  at Stanford University’s grand main entrance, chanting with 500 Stanford Students the uber poetic,

“Hey hey, ho ho,
Western Civ has got to go.”

Jackson and company were protesting Stanford University’s introductory humanities program known as “Western Culture.” For Jackson and the protesters, the problem was its lack of “diversity.” As a consequence to this romper room protest Stanford’s faculty and administration raced to appease the protesters, and Stanford’s course of “Western Culture” was formally replaced with a new course labeled, “Cultures, Ideas, and Values.”

The new program included works on race, class, and gender and works by ethnic minority and women authors. Western culture gave way to multi-culture. The study of Western civilization succumbed to the Left’s new dogma, multiculturalism.

Notice here that the Stanford’s previous standards here were not expanded so much as they were replaced. The demand of the students most certainly did not lead to more diversity. Instead, the demand of the students eventuated in a remaining narrow curriculum except as channeled in a different direction.

Once the standards were expanded so that for example, students in the University were reading Black Rappers, Native American Hieroglyphics and Lesbian Literature  as being equivalent in value to reading Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton the West was in principle finished as Universities around the country moved to being Multi-diversities finding their “Uni” in the lack of “Uni”. By “expanding the standards,” the old Christian standards were tossed and new standards were introduced and codified since at the end of the day the idea of absolute standards is limited to the time available for what is seeking to be accomplished by the University.

By hiding their demands and this agenda behind the full throated enlightenment cry for academic freedom the Politically correct crowd tore down the previous standards implemented new PC standards and forced the Institutions that built the West to become the Institutions that would now tear down the West.

And conservatives were party to this because they did not know how to answer this demand for “free speech” rooted as they were in the classical liberal worldview.

The proper response should have been “Your expansion of standards can go bugger themselves.”

The Antithesis

Lunatic Center, once known as “the fringe”
Pervert brigade — Home of the unhinged
Masosadist groupies and NWO friends
Purveyors of shock, and worthy of cringe
Teleological bastards of means and of ends
 
 
As ignoring you is now no longer a solution
To escape from your noxious immoral pollution
The recourse now is the old “Burn us the witch”
To pare back the excess as a cleansing ablution
So bring on the faggots and bring on the pitch
 
We understand the perilous path we now trod
As a result of the worship of your bacchanalian god
We understand that is now either kill or be killed
Either we enter silently into that way which is broad
Or we thin your herd and then it’s time to rebuild
 
 
There is but one exit from this pending conflagration
A way that returns us to our once Christian nation
It is the Law that commands that you must repent
The Gospel that promises you relief and salvation
Give up your filth and coming torment
And enter into Christ’s Kingdom Advent

The Calabrian Butcher Wields His Clever Cleaver Against the Effeminate Soy Boy

Here I am trying to mind my own business while I enjoy my dogmatic slumbers and my name gets sullied and besmirched by a kid whose probably young enough to be my grandson. So much for an Elder being worthy of double honor. It is a tad frustrating that, in the words of Michael Corleone, just when I think I’m getting out they pull me back in. Ah well, I’m always up for another round of whack-an-Alienist.

Tait Zimmerman wrote, ( A shame he was too young to vote for Sarah Palin last time she ran for office),

They (the Kinists) start their argument with the claim that they only want to “love their kin.”

Bret responds,

Imagine the hutzpah in starting an argument with wanting to love our kin? What’s next? Kinists starting arguments that they love their place of birth? The cheek of it all.

Taiter continues,

When developed, though, the argument is they can only love their kin if separated from all other “kins,” which means that the final objective is racial separation and segregation, and declaring a “racially-mixed society” to be an evil society.

Bret responds,

1.) Kinists don’t have to have racial separation and segregation as an objective because it always naturally occurs when Government isn’t legislating that people do not have freedom to assemble, thus unnaturally forcing people together who otherwise wouldn’t gather. If Taiter had eyes wide open he’d notice, for example the self-segregating that happens as the Universities increasingly having graduation ceremonies for their Black students or for their Hispanic students. Maybe Taiter would notice organizations like the Black Congressional Caucus or, I don’t know … something like Black Lives Matter. Kinists don’t have to have as an objective racial separation or segregation because it happens naturally when both,

a.) Government quits legislating against freedom of assembly and
b.) When the Lugenpresse and Hollywood doesn’t jam integration down everyone’s throats. 

2.) I don’t know that I would say that a “racially-mixed society is an evil society,” though I certainly would say that a racially-mixed society is a unstable and unhealthy society. But then if I said that I wouldn’t be alone. I would just be parroting the conclusions found in sociologist Robert P. Putnam’s book “Bowling Alone.” But as Taiter probably doesn’t read much past his multi-volume graphic novel set he probably has never heard of this book or author. Putnam is hardly a friend of Kinism but his conclusions are that a racially/culturally mixed society is one where trust denigrates and people disengage. 

Taiter writes,

Needless to say, (kinists think) “inter-racial” marriages between Christians are sin, or, to put it more mildly, “not according to the original marriage,” where Adam and Eve had the same genetic composition.

Bret repsonds,

Not all Kinists say inter-racial marriage is always sin all the time. Many, like me, say, that inter-racial marriage is on the whole unwise and should not be entered into for the sake of both parties and for the sake of any future children. We look at the statistics for divorce for inter-racial marriages and see that it is even higher than for intra-racial marriages and seeing that we conclude that it is not wise and counsel against it. Kinists believe that two people entering into marriage ought to have us much common ground between the two people as is possible. This includes race/ethnicity, culture, faith, class, lifestyles, worldviews, etc.

However, like me, many kinists also say that once such a marriage is contracted that the Church should support such a marriage as much as possible. 

Taiter opines,

(Kinists think that) Culture is defined not by faith (Henry Van Til, “Culture is religion externalized”) but by the genetic composition of a nation.

Bret responds,

1.) I do believe that culture is religion externalized. However, the religion that is externalized is the religion of a particular people. Taiter is dealing in abstractions while I am saying that, “yes, culture is religion externalized but you can’t have religion externalized apart from a set people who are externalizing that religion.” Even the Scripture agrees with me when we see St. Paul talk about the Cretans. Just imagine the culture the Cretans created because of their religion. Paul said the Cretans were always liar. People who are always liars are liars because of their religion and as part of their religion externalize all that to create a culture of lies.

2.) Taiter is being all Gnostic here to suggest that cultures are made by faith and religion apart from the people — with all their genetic traits — who make up the cultures, faith, and religions in question. Culture isn’t created without people and people, I’m sorry to report to the Taiter, are who they are in their physical reality in harmony with their genes.  One simply can’t peel what a person believes apart from the person who is doing the believing. Culture is religion externalized as that religion is poured over the people God has ordained a people to be in their genetic reality. So, culture, like humans, has both a spiritual component (what we believe) and a physical component (the person who is doing the believing). If Alienists, like our Taiter, here cut off the genetic reality what else can that be but Gnosticism? 

Here I pause to go all C. S. Lewis and ask, “What do they teach these children in Sunday School these days?”

3.) Yes, Taiter I think a culture should be defined in part by the genetic composition of the nation since one can’t peel a culture away from the nation that in which it exists.   

Look, as an example in micro, when we consider the family culture of the McAtee’s we have to consider how what they believe interacts with who God has predisposed them to be by way of who God has made them to be per nature (genes). McAtees historically have been stubborn. Now that can be bent to God’s purposes by channeling it into determination or it can be bent to opposition to God by being pigheaded. Being regenerated doesn’t take away that disposition. However, grace can restore nature so that stubborness becomes a tool in God’s hand for God’s glory. Taiter, on the contrary is suggesting that grace destroys nature which is, as we have said, a Gnostic move.

Taiter writes,

Mixture of genes, then (or, as they call it, “miscegenation”), creates a “multicultural society,” which is anti-Biblical, they claim. They all teach segregation of society, and they all believe a “multi-racial” society is by default a “multi-cultural” society and therefore evil, even if everyone in that society is a Christian.

Bret responds,

I’m completely open to learning about all these multi-racial societies that are not multi-cultural. Let the Taiter march them before our eyes by giving us examples. At the same time let the Taiter give us examples of multi-cultural societies where everyone has been a Christian.   

Taiter, in my favorite part, writes,

Their main guru, McAtee (who, ironically, looks nothing like a Celt but rather like a Calabrian butcher) believes in the forming of segregated “Christian cultures”: Mongolian, Celtic, etc. Segregated by genetic composition, of course.

The Calabrian Butcher responds,

1.) I weep for the lack of originality in American utes. It’s been probably around a decade since a small alienist Bulgarian first dubbed me a “Calabrian Butcher.” Can’t Taiter come up with anything original? I mean I can come up with all kinds of metaphors of what he looks like. “Effeminate soy boy?” “Nightgown boy?” “Honey, how does this dress look on me boy?”  Still, I’m good with the Calabrian butcher title. Have you ever seen those Calabrian butchers handle a cleaver Taiter? Better not get to close Effeminate soy boy.

2.) McAtee believes that Christian cultures will self-segregate so that there will be no need to employ a plan to form these different Christian cultures. When people are left to themselves like will seek out like. But even if McAtee did think exactly what Effeminate soy boy says he would stand in good company with Abraham Kuyper;

“The Javanese are a different race than us; they live in a different region; they stand on a wholly different level of development; they are created differently in their inner life; they have a wholly different past behind them; and they have grown up in wholly different ideas. To expect of them that they should find the fitting expression of their faith in our Confession and in our Catechism is therefore absurd.

Now this is not something special for the Javanese, but stems from a general rule. The men are not all alike among whom the Church occurs. They differ according to origin, race, country, region, history, construction, mood and soul, and they do not always remain the same, but undergo various stages of development. Now the Gospel will not objectively remain outside their reach, but subjectively be appropriated by them, and the fruit thereof will come to confession and expression, the result may not be the same for all nations and times. The objective truth remains the same, but the matter in appropriation, application and confession must be different, as the color of the light varies according to the glass in which it is collected. He who has traveled and came into contact with Christians in different parts of the world of distinct races, countries and traditions cannot be blind for the sober fact of this reality. It is evident to him. He observes it everywhere.”……

Abraham Kuyper:
Common Grace (1902–1905)

3.) Although I would love to think it is true, it is manifestly not the truth that “McAtee is the main guru of the Kinists.” You could lop my head off tomorrow and the strength of Kinism would not diminish one iota. Kinism is a decentralized movement with more gurus then you can shake a stick at. In point of fact, anybody who is epistemologically self-conscious as a Kinist is a Kinist guru. They have to be since they are under such withering idiotic attacks. If a man is a kinist you can be sure he has thought it through to the point that he himself is a guru. I suppose I’d like to be “King of the Kinists,” but that is just nonsense. Every Kinist I know is as much as a guru as I am. Thanks to people like the Taiter that will continue to be true.

Taiter writes,

And no, most of them do not keep it generally to races and skin color, they do go deeper to genetic differences between ethnic groups, for they all use as their support verse in the Bible where the Jews were advised to divorce their non-Jewish wives. That passage, of course, is not about different skin colors but about different ethnicities within the same skin color, and many of the wives were of Semitic nations kin to the Hebrews. So, no, it’s not just general about skin color, it is much more specific about different ethnicities.

Bret responds,

First, race is more than skin color. Only a public school educated person thinks otherwise. Second, naturally kinist would advise that a second generation Italian growing up in New York city’s “Little Italy” would be wise to marry another second generation Italian growing up in similar circumstances. Remember, we kinists advocate that two people entering into marriage have as much common ground as possible. Just shoot us for thinking that way.

Second, in terms of the Ezra passage let us just note that not only the foreign wives were sent away but also the children of these unions. Obviously, as such, there was more than just different religions going on in the dismissal in the Ezra passage.

Now, Taiter, please allow me to return to my dogmatic slumbers.

An Example of the WOKE Reformed Clergy … McAtee contra Barnes

Below is an example of something I posted earlier today. This post was intended as satire to the end of mocking the WOKE crowd. Instead I heard the screams of Rev. Doug Barnes taking exception. It seems that Doug took it not as satire but as another piece of proof of how racist I am.

First is my initial post and then Doug’s repsonse. Following that I will post my response to the good Rev. Barnes;

Bret’s initial post

You know you’re talking to a White Supremacist when you learn that

1.) They are employed full time
2.) They talk about books they’ve read
3.) They paid off their student loans
4.) They have a professional or technical degree
5.) They regularly attend a non-Pentecostal church
6.) They drive with paid up auto-insurance
7.) They have superior credit rating
8.) They’ve never been finger-printed by the Police
9.) They distrust the Government

10.) They remain married after 20 years and their children reflect all the previous

Now clearly, this is all spoken as if it might be posted by someone who is full on WOKE. Therein lies the satire. Personally, I believe everything above is normative. However, in 2002 the Smithsonian Museum told us that these kind of traits were examples of White privilege, White Supremacism, and systemic racism. Everyone (except maybe Doug) laughed then. I figured it would be another laugh for folks.

But Doug charged in to come to the defense of Jesus thinking I was attacking his Jesus.

Rev. Barnes writes,

Hmm … every one of those things is true of me and many of my peers who do _NOT_ embrace the heresy of white supremacism/kinism. Seems to be a flaw in your identification system. Here’s a helpful addendum:

You might be a White Supremacist if:

— You think some people are inherently inferior just because they come from a different branch of Noah’s family.

— You believe the dividing line of race is a legitimate way of predicting intelligence or morality.

— You see no irony in making such claims while claiming to serve the God who commands His followers to be humble servants of all men, thinking little of themselves (1 Pet. 5:6; Mark 9:35; Mark 10:42-45; Luke 14:10-11).

Some excellent passages to consider, over against the proud exaltation of those who are set apart merely by the shade of their skin and the (relatively recent) origin of their ancestors would include: James 4:6; Prov. 3:34; Isa. 2:11-17; Matt. 23:12. Go ahead — look them up, and let them evaluate your heart. OR … harden your conscience by condemning the messenger who brings God’s Word against the pride with which you exalt yourself.

Your choice.

Bret L. McAtee replied to my misdirected fellow member of the clergy,

#1 — does not apply to me — just ask all my Kinist friends who are also not white

#2 — See Charles Murray’s “The Bell Curve.”

#3 — Why Doug, are you claiming to be proud of your humility?

You keep on citing those passages. I do not think those passages mean what you think they mean in the context of this conversation. Unless of course you think that being humble means taking Christianity as a real life death cult.

I’m not sure what you have against the 10 listed above as they are merely what we would expect Biblical Christians to pursue. Or maybe your beef is with just Biblical Christians in general.

Here are some passages you can meditate upon or you can continue to kick against the pricks.

Romans 9:3, I Timothy 5:8, Revelation 21:24, Acts 17:26 (don’t stop half way).

(Oh .. and by the by … those lists were intended to be jokes at the expense of the WOKE crowd. Interesting that you took exception. I wonder what that says about you?)

Listen to Calvin Seminary Professor Martin Wyngaarden from the 1960’s on Isaiah 19 thus suggesting that it is you Doug who are jeopardizing the faith once and forever delivered unto the saints;

Now the predicates of the covenant are applied in Isa. 19 to the Gentiles of the future, — “Egypt my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance,” Egypt, the people of “Jehovah of hosts,” (Isa. 19:25) is therefore also expected to live up to the covenant obligations, implied for Jehovah’s people. And Assyria comes under similar obligations and privileges. These nations are representative of the great Gentile world, to which the covenant privileges will therefore be extended.”

Martin J. Wyngaarden, The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011), p. 94.

 

“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, THOUGH EACH REMAINS NATIONALLY DISTINCT.”

“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance.” 19:25.

Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. YET the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Wyngaarden, pp. 101-102.

Careful Doug how deep you want to go down this rabbit hole. The theologians from Reformed Church history support me and I have a gazillion of their quotes at my fingertips.

Look, Doug, I know you are being earnest and somewhere in your chest there is the conviction that you need to rescue Christianity from my “racist” claws.

Indeed, I do not doubt that you are concerned for my eternal soul. Just as I am for yours and the people sitting under your misdirected ministry.

Doug replied

Bret, I’m not trying to convert you. Just trying to prick the conscience of those listening to your racist folly.

 Bret rounded off the conversation;

Doug, It’s all good. I’m trying to do the same with all those listening to your Cultural Marxist folly.