Category: Apologetics

The OPC Embraces Explicit Egalitarianism — Rev. Mize & The Ordained Servant

“The Fatherhood of God is not an archetype of hierarchy but the source of communion. To imitate that Fatherhood is not to rule but to give life. The Church’s task therefore is not to restore a patriarchal system in the world but to embody the new humanity.”

Rev. Aaron Mize
Ordained Servant Magazine
Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Often the egalitarians and complementarians will insist that I Cor. 11 does not mean what it says;

I Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

They will insist that the Greek word for head here (κεφαλὴ / kephalē) means “source” and not head. First, this interpretation was seldom if ever argued before the rise of feminism in the Church. Second, this Greek word is universally translated as “Head” in every other NT passage. Third, if we argue that this word means “source” then we run into the problem that Paul is saying that source of Christ is God and that in turn would run us into some major theological problems.

When we note that the head of Christ is God we remember that Christ is the title that our Savior held and in His role as the incarnated anointed one (Christ) God indeed was the head of Chris in the sense that we find in Phil. 2:5-8. The Son in his economic role as the incarnate Christ was always about the doing of the Father’s will, thus demonstrating the Father’s headship over Christ in his economic subordination.

This submitting of Christ to the Father during his economic subordination serves as the model for man’s submission to Christ and the woman’s submission to man. Christ’s economic subordination reflects the divine order and harmony within the Godhead, providing a pattern for human relationships.

So, Aaron Mize, in his written words above is in contradiction to the clear revelation of Scripture. Further, the OPC Ordained Servant inasmuch as it published this tripe is also in contradiction to the clear revelation of Scripture. Heads need to roll over this contradiction of Scripture.

What Mize and the OPC Ordained servant has given us with the opening quote is the affirmation of egalitarianism in its worst expression. Not only does Rev. Mize (we say “Rev.” only by way of courtesy) desire to jettison patriarchy, he even insists that hierarchy must be evacuated. Mize desires to give us a “new humanity,” as only envisioned by Albigensians, Cathars, Bogomils, Anabaptists, and Marxists.

By all that is Holy has the Conservative Reformed church fallen so far that it is now putting people in the pulpit, and further publishing them in denominational magazines wherein what is promoted is the very antithesis of Biblical Christianity?

Keep in mind dear reader, that what Mize has promoted here with the right hand in the Reformed Church is perfectly consistent with what is being promoted with the left hand in the Reformed Church as it continues its witch hunt to stamp out white Kinism. (Ironically enough, the Reformed church seems perfectly fine with Black, Korean, and Hmong Kinism.) The egalitarianism required to advance the bilge that Rev. Mize is advancing above is the same egalitarianism that is being championed to drum godly ministers out of the putatively conservative Reformed Churches. I guess the cynic could say; “Well, at least they are being consistent.”

They tell me that the Rev. Aaron Mize article, “In Defense of Union Not Patriarchy,” has been pulled from the OPC Ordained Servant website. clearly this is due to the heat that the effeminate Mize’s article created.

However, this does not mean that the OPC is out of the woods here.

1.) Mize wrote the article and hasn’t himself recanted/repented.

2.) Editors and/or Publishers let this article be published. They need to recant (preferably repent in ashes and dust).

3.) There needs to be an apology written in the Ordained Servant.

4.) Actually, people need to be brought up on charges here — (Mize and those who made the decision to run the article) unless their is a full throated repentance.

5.) Without a full throated repentance you can count on the fact that this kind of bilge will be repeated.

This is how this agenda is advanced. First you push the envelope and then you retreat if needs be. However, if you retreat its always a temporary retreat with the intent to push forward again at some later date.

This is the practitioning of the Hegelian dialectic.

If the OPC doesn’t demand repentance … and if it doesn’t fire or bring up people on charges due to this article running, you can bet the farm that this article will return in some other form at a later date.

These people are not to be trusted.

Post-script

From Dan Brannan on the subject of this Mize article;

I think it was my session (in Idaho) that got the article pulled. Now people are mounting a case to have charges brought against Mize.

Nonetheless, I have told the session that …

It’s absurd that he wrote it, absurd that they printed it, absurd that it falls to laymen pitching a fit to redress it, and absurd that he holds a position above greeter.

The Return of Bojidar Marinov (Blowjidar Marxinov)

Bojidar comes back for a curtain call;

“McAtee’s ideology is not that we should love all but there is an order of love, his ideology that because we are commanded to love some, we are supposed to hate others.”

BLMc responds,

It is clear that we are to love those in Christ while hating those who oppose Christ. To have any other attitude is to deny the Reformed anti-thesis. However, Bojidar, sine you are not Reformed, you wouldn’t have any understanding concerning the Reformed Anti-thesis.

Bojidar writes,

The concept of “illegality” for certain people is exactly that: a judicial expression of hatred. No one declares a person “illegal” unless they hate that person. I may love my wife more than I love any other woman, but that doesn’t lead to asking the government to declare other women illegal. I love my children more than I love other people’s children, but I am not asking the government to declare other children illegal.

BLMc responds,

My dear Marxinov, “Illegality” means the state of not being legal. “Not being legal,” when applied to immigrants has certain implications such as not being allowed to occupy space wherein one does not have the authority to be present. It does not imply hate automatically. It merely means one’s dismissal from said space. So, as you can see, it is painfully obvious to those not diseased with afflictions that affect the ability to reason that “illegality is not a judicial expression of hatred.”

If I could I would have the government make laws that made other women who are wives of particular men to be illegal to men not their husbands in terms of sharing a bed, and the doing of that would not be hate to other women but would be love to wives. Certainly, you are not so dense that you can not see this.

I think here, I smell your controlling Libertarianism. You hate the idea that God has ordained particular nations, and peoples and prefer the New World Order where all colors bleed together as one.

Bojidar writes,

So this article is garbage. Contrary to the nonsense of this author, the moral logic behind “America First” is exactly hostility and hatred.

Bret responds,

You heard it here first folks. Blowjidar Marxinov believes the logic of “America First,” is exactly hostility and hatred. One can’t help but wonder if Blow would say that the logic of “Christ First,” is also exactly hostility and hatred? As a Libertarian Marxist, (See Max Stirner) Marxinov is convinced that it is not possible to have a unique love for one’s own people. All I can offer as evidence that I have no hatred for those not my own are my friendship with folks of other races, who, by the way, agree with Kinsim. They are my testimony that I have no inherent hate for other peoples. (Well, except possibly for Bulgarians. 😉 )

Blowidar Marxinov writes,

Otherwise there would be no declaration of someone “illegal” by the stroke of a pen, for the “crime” of trying to build a better life to themselves and their families. Ordered responsibility would simply involve rationing resources between helping different people. It would not involve spending resources to declare people “illegal” and then even more resources to hurt them.

BLMc responds,

Of course this is a denial of National particularism. Blow, cannot stand the idea of particular peoples, clans, and nations. Also notice, in Blow’s reasoning there is the thought of rationing resources. This is epic socialism. Biblical Christianity believes in making the economic pie bigger, so there is more for a particular people, living in a particular nation. It does not believe in rationing resources.

Blow, also misses the fact that God himself in Deuteronomy said that an expression of His judgment against a people is that the stranger and alien would climb higher than the native born. We are experiencing that here and Blow thinks that is just fine.

Blow speaks of resources used to hurt people and yet if the man could follow statistics he would learn that the people being hurt right now are not the stranger and the alien but the people being hurt right now most significantly is the straight young white male. But Blow, cares more about the stranger and the alien than he does the homeborn. That’s probably because Blowjidar himself is a stranger and alien to this nation.

Blow writes,

In conclusion, both McAtee and trumpism share the same religion: a religion of hatred against outsiders.

Bret response,

Blowijdar keeps saying this. I do not think hatred means what he thinks it means.

Blow writes,

They are not satisfied by just letting outsiders live. They have to vilify them, de-legalize them, hurt them, expel them, incarcerate them, put them in concentration camps, segregate them, and eventually murder them, all under the excuse of “we have a higher responsibility to our own.” It’s a religion of hatred and worship of power.

BLMc responds,

First, there is no necessity to de-legalize someone who is, by definition, illegal. Second, Blow is just a damnable liar when he says that I desire to see the stranger and alien murdered. But the man has always been unfamiliar with the truth.

Yes, it is usually the action of the sane to segregate those who are trying to harm your family. Given the fact that upwards to 80% of the illegal entering the West are young men in their thirties it is clear that this is an invasion force and not a “we’re just looking for jobs” force.

That does not mean hatred for those criminals who do not belong here. It means love and protection for one’s own wife, children, grandchildren, and people.

Blowjidar is giving us a religion that is a suicide cult. We must extirpate ourselves for the good of the stranger and the alien. Blow’s religion is the religion of Marxism … the religion that teaches egalitarianism. The religion that would have faulted God for having and blessing a particular people in the Old Testament. Blow has the religion that hates Christians who believe in the racial/familial dynamics inherent in covenant theology.

A Refutation Of Taking NAPARC Churches Seriously

“Many men calling themselves pastors and ministry leaders are rebels at heart. Some sidestep proper ordination and oversight by other leaders, setting up their own ministries devoid of any true accountability. Others refuse any type of correction when their teachings or actions call for it. In either situation, when attempts are made to address areas of concern in doctrine or life, instead of humbly receiving it, these men rail against correction, procedure, discipline, and the courts of the church. Further, they began attacking God‘s people and creating division. They have fallen under the spell of the evil ones’ lies and deception, under the witchcraft of rebellion.”

Barry York
President of Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary

Andy Webb then writes agreeing w/ York,

“The willingness of these men to dismiss the judgment of not just one denomination, but all of NAPARC, reminds me of a joke I once heard.”

Bret responds,

1.) There is no greater Institutional joke right now that is more funny than MAPARC (Marxist American Presbyterian And Reformed Churches).

2.) All accountability means anymore in NAPARC churches is the ability to shut men down who agree with the Church Fathers and Church history. Most if not all of NAPARC is now on record as opposing men like; J. Gresham Machen, R. L. Dabney, John Edwards Richards, and Morton H. Smith, and E. J. Young, etc. All of these men were race realists to one degree or another and all of them would be excommunicated in today’s NAPARC.

I mean … for Pete’s sake, am I really supposed to take seriously Reformed churches belonging to MAPARC who abominate their own founding fathers? Do you really expect anybody who knows how to read history and think for themselves to conclude that they have to be accountable to a bunch of doofuses who are ejecting clergy simply because those ejected clergy agree with the Church Fathers who themselves had the warrant of Scripture on their side?

3.) Face it, the only correction that has been coming down the pike from these NAPARC jokers is the correction against their founding fathers. Has MAPARC ever disciplined clergy for sending their children to government schools? Many NAPARC clergy are perfectly fine with side-B sodomites in their pulpits. NAPARC churches are known for either explicitly or implicitly allowing for female leadership. The only correction these jokers want to make is a the correction of the Biblical doctrine of Kinism.

4.) Finally, it is NAPARC clergy who have fallen under the sin of witchcraft (Rebellion). It is they who are rebelling against the Scripture and their Reformed Fathers. They are, exceptions notwithstanding, whitened sepulchers full of dead men’s bones. They are of their Father the Devil. Naturally, thus, they accuse faithful men who are no longer willing to put up with their sin of rebellion of being guilty of the sin of rebellion.

All of this is not going to work Barry and Andy. You might want to check out the Scripture that teaches about straining a gnat and swallowing a camel.

Bahnsen Picks Apart Thomism

“Disagreeing with the natural man’s interpretation of himself as the ultimate reference point, the reformed apologist must seek his point of contact with the natural man, and that which is beneath the threshold of his working consciousness, and the sense of deity which he seeks to suppress. And to do this, the reformed apologist must also seek a point of contact with the systems constructed by the natural man. But this point of contact must be in the nature of a head-on collision.”

Dr. Greg Bahnsen
Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith

1.) This succinctly explains why the Thomistic Natural Law fanboys and the Presuppositional Fanboys are never going to get along. The Thomistic chaps never challenge the natural man’s interpretation of himself as the ultimate reference point for what is and what is not true. Thomism leaves the natural man in his self relaxed repose continuing to think of himself as he who is the determiner of truth instead of realizing that the natural man must be converted so that he only sees himself as a reinterpreter of God’s interpretation of truth. This goes back to the maxim that man must be converted so that he can say with the Psalmist, “In thy light we see light.” The Thomist leaves the natural man in a place where even after a putative conversion he says instead, “In my light I see light.” Thomism leaves the natural man as an “I” that has not yet seen itself in submission in a “I-Thou” relationship to God. Conversion, must mean that the natural man is not the ultimate reference point in terms of determining the nature of reality. He must own God as His ultimate reference point. The Natural Laws chaps fail miserably in this regard and so must be challenged.

2.) The Natural Man does not want what is beneath the working threshold of his consciousness to be challenged. When the Christian apologist does this the Natural Man recoils because it necessarily means that his worldview furniture is going to be busted up. The Natural Man like his Worldview living room arrangements and he resents when the presuppositional apologists shows up to tear up the furniture of his self-centered thinking.  I suspect this accounts as a large reason why the Thomists yet today in the Reformed world are so aggravated by the presuppositionalists. We stand as a rebuke to their man-centered thinking.

3.) Van Til used to say that any God reasoned to via the means of natural theology was not the God of the Bible. In the same way, any God reasoned to by the Natural Man as not yet removed from his place of “the ultimate reference point” is not the God of the Bible. Now, I am willing to concede that a babe in Christ may indeed be converted without understanding this but someone who grows in Christ will at some point have to give themselves up as the ultimate reference point of reality and be consistent with their conversion. Many Thomists have yet to surrender this.

4.) Note Bahnsen’s reference to evangelism as worldview collision. This is in marked contrast to decades of Evangelicals being taught that Evangelism has to be a bridge building process where we approach the dead in sins sinner and say things like; “Now, see here, you believe in good and bad and I believe in good and bad and so we have this in common. Now all you need to do is to add Jesus and you will be converted.” Bahnsen, following Van Til here, says 1000 times “NO.” Evangelism is not a bridge building exercise. Evangelism is a head on collision and it is a head on collision because of the radically opposed starting points. It is a head on collision because the Natural Man starts with himself as his ultimate reference point while the Biblical Christian starts with God as his ultimate reference point. The differences cannot be anymore stark. The Natural Man proceeds from the authority of self. The Christian proceeds from the authority of not-self (God). Since that is so all that is possible is collision if each participant in the discussion is to be true to his or her starting point.

5.) This means that the discussion can only proceed along hypothetical lines. The Christ believer enters into the worldview of the Christ-hater for the sake of argument but only with the purpose of soon exposing the contradiction in their thinking. For example; “I see you say you believe in good and bad. That is very good. But tell me, what is the foundation or standard for your categories of ‘good,’ and ‘bad,’ except for your own authority if you do not believe in a transcendent ultimate reference point (God) beyond yourself? I may very well agree with you about what you label as good and bad I can account for my labeling of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ by appealing to God’s authority but your appeal to this idea of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is only on the basis of your own say so. So, I must ask you, what makes your say so about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ categories any more authoritative than the Marquis de Sade’s authority of what constituted ‘good’ and ‘bad?’ Don’t you see my friend, you need a firmer foundation than your own determination. Only God in Christ can give you that firmer foundation and only by owning your sin of, to this point, being your own God in your life (your own ultimate reference point) can you be delivered from your captivity to this sin and so be free for the first time to have a true authority of ‘good,’ and ‘bad.'”

My friend, John Leonetti recently did a brief youtube citing this quote with an arresting illustration of worldview collision. It’s only 3 minutes long. You should have yourself a giggle at John’s illustration.

Rev. Flyhart Dishing Out Alienist FlyShite

“The other thing I would say besides SSR and SPR is get rid of the adversative called ‘but,’ from your vocabulary when it comes to racism. I am so tired of talking to people about this issue and the first thing out of their mouths are, ‘but I am not a racist,’ Get rid of that. Or, ‘But have you seen the statistics.’ Ok, let’s just close our mouths white church and let’s learn, let’s listen let’s see life through a different set of eyes. I’m convinced as a white man who is 61 years old, that I have no idea what it is like to grow up as a person of color but I’m going to learn because my oldest son and his wife have adopted three biracial children. And it’s amazing. We are getting nailed by both sides. And I can’t wait (I’m sure it will involve some suffering) but to learn from these two (black) men (sitting behind me) and from all of their (black) congregations.”

PCA TE (Rev.) Bob Flayhart
Oak Mountain Presbyterian Church
Evangel Presbytery, Central Alabama
Said from the Pulpit during a church service

1.) These kinds of irrational outbursts are getting more and more common. This fact communicates that the Alienists are losing their grip. They see that the Marxist Overton window that has been in place for so long – a Marxist Overton Window that they have reinterpreted Christianity consistent with – is shifting against them and they are doing all they can to stop the Overton Window shift from moving in a historically Christian direction.

2.) All of Church history is against these clowns as the two 800 page Anthologies have demonstrated. (“Who Is My Neighbor” – 2nd edition & “A Survey Of Racialism In Christian Sacred Tradition.”)

3.) Realize what this logically vacuous 61 year old clergy is saying is that one should never, in response to his ridiculous assertions, ever respond with “but have you seen the evidence that reveals you’re saying painfully embarrassing things?” Further, you are not to respond by speaking things, in response to his dumb – really dumb colloquy, like “but according to God’s standard I am not a racist.” No, you are not to object at all when this 61 year old clergy comes to you slobbering out mindless tropes. You’re just supposed to mindlessly nod your head in agreement with this lobotomized outpatient.

4.) Christianity is a belief system of doctrines based upon the revelation of the triune God and His character as found in Holy Writ. If that belief system of doctrines is learned, owned, and constantly grown in, why do I have to know what it is like to grow up as a black person? Why would a black Christian ever have to know what it is like to grow up as a white person who has been, his whole life, had the bogus Marxist accusation of “racist” heaved at him? This whole idea that I can’t be an increasingly sanctified Biblical Christian unless I learn what it was like to grow up as a black person … or unless I appreciate what it is to struggle as an oppressed woman … or unless I know the struggles of growing up abused is just utter tripe born of the anti-Christ Marxist doctrine of intersectionality. Odds are that Rev. Bob Flyhart doesn’t even know what intersectionality is or that he is a practitioner of it.

5.) If the black men sitting behind him are Biblical Christians opposed to the flyshite coming out of Flyhart’s mouth, I can hope, along with Flyhart, that he has the capacity to learn from them also. However, I suspect that if they are at this church service sitting right in back of Flyhart as he speaks that they also are clueless as to what Biblical Christianity is.

6.) Oh, I’m sure Flyhart is going to learn. I suspect he is going to get his learning “good and hard.” I wonder if masochistic self-inflicted suffering contributes to sanctification?