Category: Apologetics

Gordon Interview w/ Wolfe IV

I.) “I know you don’t identify yourself as a Kinist right?

Rev. Chris Gordon
To Dr. Wolfe

1.) Nobody defines what a kinist is. If you’re ever in a conversation and somebody asks you; “are you a Kinist?” your response needs to immediately be … “Well, you tell me what you mean by the word “Kinist.”

2.) Both Gordon and Wolfe are scared to death of the Ordo Amoris which is all that Kinism is.

3.) Nobody in America in 1965 would have blinked at being called a Kinist. That’s because 88.6% of the US population was white.

4.) The only reason Kinism is abominated is because of the full throated embrace of multiculturalism as combined with the hatred of being white.

On the widespread hatred of white folks see…

II.) “When we start dismissing the concept of blood and soil because we habitually want to go straight to Nazi’s killing Jews we;re losing a basic human truth that is actually good for us.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe
Interview w/ Rev. Gordon
Time Stamp 21:06

Gordon Interview w/ Wolfe III

Rev. Chris Gordon reasons that since a nation as a nation can’t be connected in membership to a visible church therefore it is wrong to use the language of Christian nation. Gordon also desires to make the definition of a Christian Nation as something that is uniquely applied to the State. Gordon confuses the nation with the State. It is possible, after all, for a Christian nation to be led by non-Christian magistrates. Such a situation would not last long, I suspect, but it is possible much in the way when a Protestant people would be ruled by a Roman Catholic Monarch.

Gordon’s problem here is that he will not concede that if a nation operates on the basis of Christian law and custom it can therefore legitimately be considered Christian in the sense that it is governed in a way consistent with God’s revelation and mores. Gordon is insisting that since a nation can’t be baptized and become a member of a particular church therefore a nation can’t be Christian. However, on this basis nothing can be Christian except for the individual. Education can’t be considered Christian since Education can’t be be baptized and become a member of a particular visible church. Law or Jurisprudence can’t be considered Christian since Law/Jurisprudence can’t be baptized and required to take membership vows.

Gordon’s problem here is his constrained definition of the word “Christian.” Gordon can’t seem to conceptualize that when individual Christians bring their distinctly Christian convictions with them in their various callings, those callings are injected with a Christian gravitas that was not previously present in those convictions.

Gordon seems not to realize the distinction between “structure,” and “direction.” It is true that we have these various “structures” as part of our society/culture (family, education, arts, law, politics, church, etc.) but the structures themselves always are going to be arcing in a particular religious direction. That religious direction could be Mooselimb, Bagel, Christian, Humanist, Marxist, etc. When the direction of a societies/cultures is consistent with God’s special revelation it is arcing in a particularly Christian direction and given that direction it can and should be called “Christian.” If the direction of the societal/cultural structures are arcing towards a “Mooselimb” or “Talmudists,” or “Humanist,” or “Marxist,” etc. direction they should be labeled accordingly.

Gordon’s failure to see the above results in his creating, at the very least in a defacto sense, a neutral common realm where no religious appellation can be fixed upon the peoples inhabiting and creating that culture. For Gordon, and all R2K, society/culture is by definition irreligious, non-religious, or a-religious.

Gordon Interview W/ Wolfe
Start appx. 17:30

Gordon Interview w/ Wolfe – II

“People are Christian by virtue to their connection to the visible Church.”

Rev. Chrissy Gordon
Interview w/ Dr. Stephen Wolfe

We need to note here that this is only true where people are connected to a true Church as defined in the Reformed Confessions. A true church is defined as one that rightly preaches the Word, that rightly administers the Sacraments and that rightly practices Church discipline.

Upon that standard, most people’s connections to most of the visible Church in the West today most definitely does not communicate that they are Christian. For example, given that Rev. Chris Gordon is adamantly R2K I would say the Church he Pastors is not a true Church since R2K denies, in the concrete, the office of “King” to Jesus the Christ. This would mean that the members of the Church he pastors should not be seen as Christian only because they are connected to his heretical church.

That is not to say that many (or even most) of the members of the Church Gordon Pastors are not Christian. They may indeed be. It merely means that I can’t measure their status as Christian by reason of their connection to his false church.

Rev. Gordon’s Interview w/ Dr. Wolfe — I

Rev. Chris Gordon reasons that since a nation as a nation can’t be connected in membership to a visible church therefore it is wrong to use the language of “Christian nation.” Gordon also desires to make the definition of a Christian Nation as something that is uniquely applied to the State. Gordon confuses the nation with the State. It is possible, after all, for a Christian nation to be led by non-Christian magistrates. Such a situation would not last long, I suspect, but it is possible much in the way when a Protestant people would be ruled by a Roman Catholic Monarch.

Gordon’s problem here is that he will not concede that if a nation operates on the basis of Christian law and custom it can therefore legitimately be considered Christian in the sense that it is governed in a way consistent with God’s revelation and mores. Gordon is insisting that since a nation can’t be baptized and become a member of a particular church therefore a nation can’t be Christian. However, on this basis nothing can be Christian except for the individual. Education can’t be considered Christian since Education can’t be be baptized and become a member of a particular visible church. Law or Jurisprudence can’t be considered Christian since Law/Jurisprudence can’t be baptized and required to take membership vows.

Gordon’s problem here is his constrained definition of the word “Christian.” Gordon can’t seem to conceptualize that when individual Christians bring their distinctly Christian convictions with them in their various callings, those callings are injected with a Christian gravitas that was not previously present in those convictions and as a result that cultural byproduct that the Christian individual is creating can indeed by considered “Christian,” in the sense that it is being animated by the truths of Biblical Christianity applied to some public square instantiation.

Gordon seems not to realize the distinction between “structure,” and “direction.” It is true that we have these various “structures” as part of our society/culture (family, education, arts, law, politics, church, etc.) but the structures themselves always are going to be arcing in a particular religious direction. That religious direction could be Mooselimb, Bagel, Christian, Humanist, Marxist, etc. When the direction of a societies/cultures is consistent with God’s special revelation it is arcing in a particularly Christian direction and given that direction it can and should be called “Christian.” If that culture is arcing consistent with another religion it should be called; “Mooselimb” or “Talmudists,” or “Humanist,” or “Marxist,” etc.

Gordon’s failure to see the above results in his creating, at the very least in a defacto sense, a neutral common realm where no religious appellation can be fixed upon the peoples inhabiting and creating that culture. For Gordon, and all R2K, society/culture is by definition irreligious or a-religious.

Gordon Interview W/ Wolfe
Start appx. 16:00

Continuing My Conversation With Evan Gerber on Natural Revelation/Law

I appreciate the friendly banter with Evan though I am convinced he is in error. (As he thinks of me.) Van Til said that one must always be willing to buy the next cup of coffee when discussing Apologetics. I hope what follows is in that spirit.

Evan writes,

“If we were to concede that fallen man is incapable of comprehending natural law because he is incapable of using reason correctly, then it *necessarily* follows that he is also incapable of comprehending Scripture. It is impossible to access the truth of Scripture without reason and natural revelation.”

Bret responds,

It is indeed impossible for fallen man to access the truth of Scripture, apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Because the Holy Spirit runs along the tracks of God’s Word, elect men are regenerated and so hear the Gospel and believe. The non-elect on the other hand, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, know the truth as truth when they hear it but because they are reprobate they will not admit to themselves that they have heard the truth because they are vessels set apart for destruction and being those vessels they foreswear that they understand.

Evan writes,

Comprehension of language, whether written or spoken, requires reason, and Scripture is inaccessible apart from language. Not only does communication and reception of language require reason, but further, language itself is tradition, and therefore part of natural revelation.

Bret responds,

And none of it is of any use for those who hold down the truth in unrighteousness. These types use their comprehension of language to evade comprehending language. This is what it means to “hold down the truth in unrighteousness.” Certainly, we have all discussed matter with others on subject wherein it becomes obvious that they are determined not to understand our point. Indeed, Evan, may even accuse me of being determined to not understand what he believes to be the obvious point that Natural Revelation and Natural Law are mechanisms that can be used in conversion. Evan might say of me, “Bret is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.” And from his errant Natural Revelation/Law perspective he would think himself correct.

Before moving on lets take a look at the claim that fallen reason is, absent of the Spirit’s regenerating work, necessary for spiritual renewal. Scripture teaches that;

“the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.”  (Romans 8:7)

And;

“The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”  (I Cor. 2:14)

As far back as St. Augustine it has been routinely embraced that belief precedes understanding and belief is born of the Spirit as He runs along the tracks of the Word.

Evan offers,

Language is handed down from generation to generation; we inherit it from our parents, who inherit it from theirs. Even if we wish to learn some new language as an adult, we fundamentally rely on the knowledge of our native tongue as a springboard to learn that new language, and we rely on the tradition of those who speak (or spake) that other language as inherited from their own ancestors. All propositional truth is accessible/transmissible only through tradition via language.

Bret responds,

Scripture teaches;

 “All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.”  Colossians 1:16-17

I take the “all things” here to be inclusive of language, understanding, and tradition. This is to say that all these find their origin, meaning, and definition in Christ and without presupposing Christ origin, meaning, and definition as words or concepts could not have any meaning. To contend otherwise is another example of climbing up into God’s lap in order to slap Him in the face. We talk about “language, understanding, and tradition,” as if those things had some kind intrinsic reality apart from the God of the Bible. They don’t. So, we presuppose God’s world where “language, understanding, and tradition,” really do have meaning (we climb up into His lap) and then we turn around and say that we don’t need to presuppose God in order to understand “language, understanding, and tradition” (thus slapping Him in the face).

Also, on this score I recognize what Colossians also teaches when speaking of Jesus Christ;

“in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”

Colossians 2:3

I think this Scripture necessitates believing that some of the treasures hidden in Christ are the treasures of “language, meaning, understanding and tradition.” In other words, apart from presupposing Christ, these cannot be considered treasures since in order for them to be counted treasures they must be understood to be hidden in a Jesus Christ who must be presupposed before the treasures are accessible.

Evan writes,

Finally, even beyond language, natural revelation is necessary for comprehension of Scripture. Ex: some conception of “man” is a necessary precondition for receiving what Scripture says about man. Comprehension of Scriptures rests on a basic understanding of created things and categories. And of course, the truth of Scripture must be processed through the senses for us to receive it.

Bret responds,

Natural Revelation is necessary for comprehension of Scripture? Yet, Special Revelation teaches that the natural man is dead in his trespasses and sins. So, Evan’s argument here is that man, dead in his sin and trespasses, is alive enough to access a Natural Revelation that will allow him to walk, in some sense, according to God’s statutes or in some way know true truth?

This is what the Synod of Dordt taught concerning Natural Revelation;

Article 4

There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay, further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.

Evan writes,
 
In summary so far:

1) If man is incapable of comprehending truth in natural revelation because of a native defect, then changing the form of revelation will not alter the outcome; the problem is with man, not the revelation.

Bret responds,

The change in the form of revelation (general to special) does alter the outcome because man is regenerated and brought into the Kingdom of God. I will concede though that absent the power of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, as the Spirit runs along the tracks of the Word, the change in form of revelation would indeed make no difference. However, the Holy Spirit brings fallen man from death to life so as to hear the Word of God proclaimed that man might be redeemed to now look at all reality through a new set of worldview lenses.

Evan writes,

2) If man is incapable of being confronted with natural revelation because of some defect in natural revelation itself, *then he is also incapable of being confronted with Scripture,* since it relies on natural revelation for its own comprehensibility. (It’s crucial to understand this.)

Bret responds,

No, it is rather the reverse Evan. General Revelation in order to be understood aright rests on Special Revelation. It is indeed crucial to understand this.

AND, the defect is NOT in Natural Revelation but in the dead in sin sinner who is suppressing God’s truth in unrighteousness. To be clear here, the problem is not with the sender of Natural Revelation, or the Natural Revelation sent, but the problem is with the person receiving and suppressing the Natural Revelation.

Evan continues,

Pastor Bret also makes the following claim, which I would like to address:

“For the Christian it is just an exchange of opinions on what NL is objectively teaching since there is no “thus saith the Lord in NL.”
Scripture itself directly contradicts this statement. Consider:

1) According to Scripture, natural revelation is didactic.

“Does not even nature itself *teach you* that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?” (1 Cor. 11:4)

Bret responds,

Yes, nature does teach that but that does not mean that fallen man doesn’t twist what nature teaches to his own ends. This was clearly being done because Paul has to deal with the issue. Nature taught about men and long hair and yet there it is as a problem in Corinth.

Evan offers,

Note especially: “teach you.” Since God is the Author of creation, this instruction is from God and bears His authority. This is an example of a “thus saith the Lord” in natural revelation, attested to by special revelation.

Bret responds,

Yes, God sends but man bastardizes.

Evan offers,

2) Natural revelation is perspicuous.

“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been *clearly perceived,* ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Rom. 1:20)

Note especially: “clearly perceived.” Not only does God speak with authority through creation, this revelation is clear.

Bret responds,

Yes, Natural Revelation is perspicuous. However, fallen man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. Fallen man does “clearly perceive” what is inescapable but “clearly perceiving” something does not mean that that which is clearly perceived is owned by the dead in sin, sinner as being clearly perceived. The reality of God is the most obvious fact in the cosmos (this is what Romans 1:20 is speaking of) but the fact that the reality of God is the most clearly perceived fact in existence does not mean that man does not suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

Evan writes,

Continuing in the same passage, we read: “For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.” (vs. 26) A proper sexual ethic is clearly commanded by God through natural revelation. Fallen man engages in wanton rebellion against it, just as he does against special revelation.

Bret responds,

Yes, fallen men engage in wanton rebellion. That is what fallen men do. Fallen man knows, but he insists that he doesn’t know. That dynamic doesn’t change until special Revelation comes to him as accompanied by the Holy Spirit to make fallen man own his fallenness because the Spirit has released man from His work of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Evan writes,

I fully agree with Pastor Bret above (first quote) when he states that the unbeliever “cannot submit” to God’s law. But this in no way implies that the unbeliever cannot *know* or *understand* God’s law; only that he lives in rebellion to this law. Part of this rebellion is the *misuse* of reason in attempt to justify himself. Man frequently attempts to rationalize his rebellion; the smarter the man, the more convincing the rationalization.

Bret responds,

I never denied he can know. I keep saying repeatedly that the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth forth His handiwork. Perhaps, I have somehow not been clear. If so that is my fault, I’m sure. The Christ hater does know or understand God’s law, but that unbeliever suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. General Revelation cannot be a stepping stone to Special Revelation because, as Evan notes above, man is in rebellion — more than that fallen man is dead in his trespasses and sins. So, fallen man knows but furiously denies he knows at the same time. When fallen men do allow a little Christian capital into their worldview it is only to the end of making project of their denial of God more convincing. For example, sodomites may well contend for marriage. Marriage is a General Revelation item. Sodomites might accept that General Revelation teaches marriage. As such they have snuck Christian capital into their Christ hating worldview, but only with the purpose of slapping God in the face by suggesting that marriage can apply to sodomites.

Evan writes,

But he can still be confronted with revelation and reason that contradict his rationalization, even if he ultimately spurns correction because he is unregenerate. This is the case whether that law is expressed through natural or special revelation.

Bret responds,

Evan, keeps missing the fact that Special Revelation, like General Revelation, can indeed be tossed aside until the Holy Spirit accompanies Special Revelation in regeneration. In order for man to own general revelation as general revelation with its wonderous purpose of exalting Christ, Evan cannot marvel when I say “Fallen man must be born again.” Until then any usage of Natural Revelation is a poaching that is done in order to deny God.

Evan writes,

Whether in special revelation or natural revelation, God speaks with absolute clarity and authority; the fault is with the recipient, not the revelation itself.

Bret responds,

Right … and because that is true, fallen man cannot read Natural Revelation aright. Because that is true, in order for general Revelation to find its full meaning it must presuppose Special Revelation.

Evan writes quoting from my favorite author,

More from Bret:

“Our comprehending Scripture as God intends is dependent upon reading it via the proper presuppositions. After all, the JW’s read Scripture and still get it wrong. So… while we must be able to read to understand Scripture reading doesn’t guarantee that we will understand Scripture. So, even the reading of Scripture depends upon proper presuppositions which can only be given by God in regeneration. Special Revelation still precedes General Revelation.”

“Indeed, even the “we” doing the reading cannot know who we are without presupposing God. So, whether it is the reader or the one doing the reading any progress is dependent upon having God centered presuppositions.”

Even if true, this doesn’t refute my assertion above about the necessity of natural revelation for any comprehension of Scripture.

Bret responds,

Yeah, it does. See above conversation.

Evan writes,

Basic knowledge of self is likewise a precondition for “presupposing” God; if I am not self-conscious then I can do no “presupposing.” The distinction between ordo essendi and ordo cognoscendi is inescapable.

Bret responds,

How conscious of any reality is the dead in sin, sinner? Is the dead in sin, sinner dead or not? And if he is dead what does he really know of himself?  Does he know himself such as the early 20th century phrenologists taught? Does he know himself consistent with Freudian theories? Does he know himself consistent with Darwin’s theories? Marx’s theories?

Sure, man is self-conscious but that self-consciousness does not translate into man knowing who he is or even what he is?

Fallen man is God’s fingerprint (Imago Dei) who spends all his time trying to “Un-fingerprint” himself. Given that reality does fallen man really know himself? I see a boatload of people in this culture who, by one means or another, are doing all they can to de-image themselves of any trace of the Imago Dei.

Not seeing a whole lot of people being conscious of themselves, it is a far easier argument to make that they are not conscious to God.

Evan writes,

Two things can be true simultaneously:

1) No comprehension of special revelation is possible apart from natural revelation.

Bret responds,

This is not true as I have demonstrated above.

Evan writes,

2) No complete understanding of natural revelation–especially it’s telos–is possible apart from special revelation.

Bret responds,

This is true.

Evan ends with,

Revelation must be understood as a unified whole.

Bret ends with,

Yes, Revelation is a unified whole. A unified whole, wherein man is suppressing in unrighteousness.