Apologetics – Page 9

Ecclesiastical Condemnation On The Sin of Noticing

Something interesting happened this past season of Reformed denominational confabs. The something interesting is the ruling by the RPCNA, the ARP, and the PCA, together agreeing to issue forth an anathema against the sin of noticing. Each of them put their stamp approval of the following statement;

That the 221st General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church do on this solemn day condemn without distinction any theological or political teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics and does on this solemn evening call to repentance any who would promote or associate themselves with such teaching, either by commission or omission.

Leave it to the Reformed to try and sweep back the incoming tidal wave of racial realism with a document inspired by the Cultural Marxism of the 1930s and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. This riff of midwittery above was put forth by one Rev. Benjamin Glaser though there is rumor that the palsied hand of Rev. Andy Webb was involved as well. Any party to the creation of this document as well as any party who voted for this to be accepted deserves to have a pointy dunce hat put on them and be consigned to some ecclesiastical corner to mull over the error of their ways.

Below I provide a brief analysis of this Tom Foolery;

1.) What is not condemned here is any sociological or cultural anthropological teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity. Apparently, if one casts their teaching in sociological or cultural anthropological terms one is safe from this foolhardy Presbyterian condemnation.

2.) Here we find a condemnation approved by a Church body and yet this condemnation is not based upon any notification of which sin has been committed so has to have this condemnation uttered. Presumably, this condemnation is due to the fact that someone somewhere has violated at least one of the ten commandments. Yet, nowhere above to we find the sin committed that has earned this condemnation.

3.) In point of fact what this “church” condemnation abominates is the sin of noticing. In point of fact it might be the highest point yet for inveighing against the sin of noticing ever issued by a church body.

4.) One thing we can be thankful for with this Church condemnation is the fact that it is apparently the case now that race and ethnicity are being acknowledged as real realities and not merely social constructs. I mean this is an improvement on what we have previously gotten from Doug Wilson and Voddie Baucham on the issue of race. Wilson wants to insist that race is a social construct and Voddie wants to say that race is merely about melanin levels. At least the three NAPARC denominations are granting that race and ethnicity are real.

5.) If there can be no superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristic then by necessity there can be no inferiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristic. This means that when it comes to immutable human characteristics these conservative denominations are 100% egalitarian. It is not possible, per these esteemed clergy, that God has created the different races / ethnicities of men to be differentiated in their varying expressions of humanity.

6.) What would happen if someone arose within these NAPARC denominations insisted that while average Australian Aboriginal intelligence is inferior when compared to average East Asian intelligence but insisted this while admitting all this may be mutable over enough time? Would anyone in the NAPARC denominations even care? Would they care if the same person said at the same time that the average white European intelligence is, on average, two standard deviation points higher than sub-Saharan Blacks in the US as long as the person saying this conceded that it might not be immutable and that 1000 years later this might not be true? Would such a person who believed this not be condemned by these ultracrepidarian Presbyterians?

7.) If these chaps are serious about condemning someone who holds these views how is it, if they can’t substantiate from Scripture why it is necessary to agree with them, that they have not added to what it means to obey the Gospel? How have they not added to the Gospel and in so doing anathematized themselves by doing so?

8.) Think about the numerous church fathers from church history these clowns have condemned. Off the top of my head these clowns have condemned Calvin, Kuyper, Hodge, Dabney, Schaff, Solzhenitsyn, Francis Nigel Lee, John Edwards Richards, etc. It really is monstrous when one realizes the level of avarice to the end of popularity involved in this pronouncement.

9.) This whole thing is perfectly ended with the stated need for repentance on the part of anybody who would associate with the teaching – either by omission or commission – that is condemned. Presumably, this would mean that if someone attends a church who themselves are unsure on the ideas condemned and found themselves friends or associates of someone who does believe these condemned ideas said person would have to repent just for associating with these sinners.

10.) This official condemnation also gives tyrant Pastors the ability to just remove membership of a member of their church if that member was to say, for example, something like, “Well, I think that Michael Hunter has some interesting points to consider in his article on Natural vs. non-Natural communities.” Such a person would be required to repent and if they refused, per this anathema, they would have to be cast out of the body should these nekulturny clergy be consistent with their words.

Exposing the R2K Agenda of Dr. Kevin De Young’s In His Interpretation of the WCF

The duties required in the Second Commandment are…the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.

Westminster Larger Catechism 108

It seems pretty clear from the above that those clergy who subscribe to the WCF, are required to be adamantly opposed to a “principled pluralism” that allows for all the gods to be in the public square and yet Rev. Kevin DeYoung can write;

‘”Gone from WCF 23:3 in the American revision are any references to the civil magistrate’s role in suppressing heresies and blasphemies, in reforming the church, in maintaining a church establishment, and in calling and providing for synods…. In its place, the American revision lists four basic functions for the civil magistrate relative to the church…(4) protect all people so no one is injured or maligned based on his or her religion or lack of religion.”

With this quote above DeYoung puts the WCF in contradiction to itself. De Young would interpret WCF 23:3 as in direct contradiction to WLC 108, and while not trying to be too persnickety, Dr. Rev. De Young also, via his interpretation of the American revised WCF 23:3 put the Westminster Confession in contradiction with itself in WCF 19:4;

To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

WCF 19.4

19:4 teaches that a general equity relating to the judicial laws remain and further teaches that Christian Magistrates are required (obliged) to enforce that general equity where it remains. R2K chaps like Kevin De Young don’t like that idea because it doesn’t fit with their pursuit of a body politic devoted to principled pluralism (polytheism) with its god named “Natural Law,” as represented by the priesthood of government officials who interpret the will and Law-word of the god “Natural Law.”

That I am correct about this R2K Tom-foolery is seen in a quote from team R2K Reformed clergy member Dr. R. Scott Clark

“All orthodox Christians affirm that God’s moral law is enduring and binding to all people—to deny that is antinomianism. What is at stake here is the magistrate’s role in enforcing that moral law. The framers of the Statement (Statement On Christian Nationalism and the Gospel) have a plan, to which we have not yet arrived, but it entails some enforcement of the first table, and thus is theocratic.”

R. Scott Clark
Sub-Christian Nationalism? (Part 4)

Clark here is raising the horrors in the idea that the Magistrate might actually enforce the 1st table of God’s moral law. The danger he is bemoaning is “theocracy.” Like De Young, Dr. Clark desires a principled pluralism (polytheism) for the body politic with the god named “Natural Law” sitting as the God over all the gods. This god “Natural Law” has his word discovered and implemented by the governmental and bureaucratic priesthood who do his bidding.

DeYoung, along with Clark, and all the sycophants of R2K are insisting that the revised WCF now yields a required “principled pluralism,” and yet if DeYoung’s reading is correct on 23:3 then WLC 108 must be either revised or ignored. Note that WLC 108 explicitly says; “according to each one’s place and calling.” Clearly, Christian magistrates are being told that according to their place and calling they are to disapprove, detest, and oppose all false worship by removing said false worship and yet R2K in its pursuit of a non theocratic (principled pluralism / polytheism) theocracy (ruled by the god named Natural Law as interpreted by the governmental and bureaucratic priesthood) is denying their own confession with their errant theology.

DeYoung, wearing the uniform of team R2K is seeking to officially change the WCF from a Christian confession to a polytheistic confession. I say “officially,” because most Presbyterians already treat the WCF as a confession that requires the magistrate to rule over a polytheistic body-politic.

Refuting Rev. Chris Gordon’s “Babel Christianity”

This showed up in my newsfeed today as coming from Rev. Chris Gordon. I find it so interesting because both Gordon and his conversational partner here, Dr. Stephen Wolfe embrace Thomistic Natural Law thinking and yet they are vehemently disagreeing on the effects Christianity should have when landing among different social orders. So, they are both Thomists, philosophically, and yet they are at distinct loggerheads here.

A couple more things, first, Rev. Gordon teed this up by writing;

“Most important moment in my CN discussion with Stephen Wolfe:”

Chris clearly thinks he had Wolfe on the ropes here in this part of the interview.

Chis Gordon: Most people in CA are mocha, a mix of different ethnicities, do these people have a homeland?

Stephen Wolfe: California is unique though. If I stayed in CA…I don’t know. I bring this stuff up because of the importance of it…do you have a homeland? When I hear the stories of old CA…horseback riding in hills of Napa, 22 riffles…there is a sense of loss…

Bret Interjects:

1.) Gordon here clearly concedes that race and ethnicity are realities. After all, you can’t get to a “mocha, a mix of different ethnicities” without acknowledging that there were different ethnicities that existed that are now mixed.

2.) Second, I would say that if the decided majority of California was a thorough mix of different ethnicities than the homeland for those who were a thorough mix of different ethnicities would be California. It would be the homeland for those who had successfully embraced the Babel project that God judged in Genesis 11. California would be the homeland of the multicultural, multiracial and multi-faith people.

3.) Notice Wolfe’s response is to say that the previous people who occupied California have been run out by the new multicult crowd who now owns California, and that there is a certain sadness about that. I don’t know how anybody could disagree that it is sad when a particular people group is extinguished in favor of another people group whose bond is established by the fact that they have no bond except the bond of no bond.

Chris Gordon; The great message of the Christian gospel is I get to tell these people the church is the people and place, you have your soil, you have your place on the kingdom of God. Is this really the message that Christians want to give people, that previous generations lost all that was good with horses and guns, and that all of these many different “Johnny come lately” people groups really don’t belong with us? Is that our message, as Christians? Or might we seek to live in peace and harmony in this age together but with a distinctively Christian message that elevates us to a better salvific good, that God does give people a true homeland together in his kingdom, the church as Christ’s body, tearing down walls of hostility until we reach the heavenly land together of a multitude of nations worshipping God?

Bret responds,

1.) I’ll start at the end of Chris’ peroration here. One simply cannot have a multitude of nations worshipping God in the heavenly land if those nations have been bred out of existence, so that all that exists is a polyglot Babel stew in the land that is not yet heaven.

2.) As to this sentiment by Chris:

“The great message of the Christian gospel is I get to tell these people the church is the people and place, you have your soil, you have your place on the kingdom of God.”

All I can say is that it is contradictory to what John Calvin taught;

“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

John Calvin (Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3)

The Reformed faith does welcome all to “taste and see that the Lord is good.” It does not say that there is no grace for the mulatto, mestizo, or whasian. All men everywhere are commanded to repent and if they do repent they are members of the Kingdom of God. However, just as repenting doesn’t change one’s gender, so repenting doesn’t change one’s ethnicity or race. Differences remain and those differences should be acknowledged.

I have a friend who Pastors a church in a large urban area. This church is comprised of different ethnicities and races and yet this Pastor friend tells me that he repeatedly tells his flock, from the pulpit, that even though they are all one in Christ that when it comes to marriage they should not intermarry because race/ethnicity matters.

3.) As to this portion by Rev. Gordon;

Is this really the message that Christians want to give people … that all of these many different “Johnny come lately” people groups really don’t belong with us? Is that our message, as Christians?

I would say the answer to that question is, “yes, that is the Christian message.” Just as the stranger and alien could never own land in ancient Israel because they were not Hebrews so Christianity teaches that it is not ideal to give your nation as a homeland to those who do not belong to your nation by way of descent. Chris really need to consider reading James Hoffmeier’s book on immigration to understand that Christianity has never taught that “Johnny come lately” people groups belong with us. Until Chris does read Hoffmeier maybe he’ll consider this quote from Robert Putnam on the subject;

“Immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighborhoods residents of all races tend to `hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.”

Robert Putnam
E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century
The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture

I am of the conviction that what Gordon is giving us here is a Anabaptist paradigm. The Anabaptist were (and remain) the great levelers and what Rev. Gordon is calling for here is for leveling, whether he realizes it or not. Gordon is offering here a “All colors bleed into one” Christianity. He is, as Calvin describes above, a flighty and scatterbrained dreamer.” If Gordon gets his way the result will not be some Christian paradise composed of a Babel organized social order. If Gordon gets his way he will get a social order such as described by Putnam in the quote above.

Finally, note here that Gordon, who is R2K, is doing what R2K says should never be done by ministers. He is getting out of his lane talking about an issue that isn’t a “Gospel issue.” However, if Gordon wants to insist that this is a “Gospel issue” notice once again how liberal/progressive R2K is when it takes up social issues. R2K forever wants to present itself as uncommitted on political issues but here is Gordon being the raging liberal.

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.”