Andy Stanley Does His Best Taylor Swift Impersonation

Yesterday while listening to the radio the DJ said that a few years ago it was reported that the pop singer Taylor Swift said something mind-numbingly profound;

“Sometimes I think that Love Songs are just poetry put to music.”

Recently, Rev. Andy Stanley gave us a similar Brainiac type statement while speaking at the Dallas Theological Seminary when answering a question from an interviewer about the historicity of Adam and Eve.

“The foundation of our faith is not the Scripture. The foundation of our faith is not the infallibility of the Bible. The foundation of our faith is something that happened in history. The issue is always, Who is Jesus? That’s always the issue. The Scriptures are simply a collection of ancient documents that tell us that story so when we talk about the Scriptures and especially the reliability of the Scriptures I think that any time that we can tie the Old Testament especially back to Jesus we have done everybody, Christians and non-Christians alike, an incredible service by letting them know you know what you can believe that the Adam and Eve story is a creation myth, so what, who is Jesus? To get to your point, when I deal with Adam and Eve, I am quick to say, “Hey this is one of those odd stories” This is that story you heard growing up about two naked people running around in the garden, and who can believe that? There are many creation myths. But here is why I believe this actually happened, not because the Bible says so, but because of the Gospels, Jesus talks about Adam and Eve, and it appears to me that He believed that they were actually historical figures, and if He believed that they were historical then I believe that they were historical because anybody that can predict their own death and resurrection, and pull it off, I just believe anything they say. So what have I communicated, I have communicated that even if we talk about Genesis and the Garden of Eden, the issue is, “Who is Jesus? And I think any time that we can weave that small little apologetic in our teaching and preaching, it helps our high school students and it helps our college students understand the foundation of my faith is not an infallible Bible, but it is something that happened in history, Jesus came into the world, walked on the earth, represented God, was God, and rose from the dead. And that is a very, very important piece of, a very, very important part of our approach to the Scripture every single week.”

Bret responds,

Here Stanley tries to rip apart redemption from revelation. Sure, the foundation of our faith is something that happened in History (i.e. —  Redemption provided in Christ) but I could not know about Redemption apart from Revelation (Scripture). So Stanley introduces a false dichotomy between Redemption and Revelation suggesting that our foundation is the Redemptive act but denying the Revelation that communicates to us the reality of the Redemptive act and its meaning. It is the case that God not only acted in History in the person and work of Christ but also we have to understand that God also speaks (interprets) His acts in History through the Revelation that is in Scripture alone.

So, on one hand, we can say “yes” the “issue is always Jesus” but that issue can only be known to us by the fully inerrant, infallible, trustworthy Bible that has the quality of verbal plenary inspiration. For Andy Stanley to miss this simple truth either communicates that Stanley is a moron of epic proportions or that Stanley is epistemologically self-consciously pursuing an agenda that will leave him and his followers who embrace this thinking in Hell. Since I am a kind person who wants to think the best of people, I’ll conclude that Andy Stanley is a moron or epic proportions.

So, the foundation of our Faith is Jesus who can only be known by the Bible. The fact that Stanley desires to refer the Bible as “simply a collection of ancient documents” tells us all we need to know about Stanley as a trustworthy minister. There are all kinds of ancient documents laying around. Given Stanley’s statement why should the bible as being simply a collection of ancient documents, to be preferred above, say, the Bhagavad Gita which is also simply a collection of ancient documents?

Frankly, I find it amazing that such an idiotic statement by Stanley could fool anyone. But… such is the culture we live in.

I especially love this chestnut from the Stanley quote above;

“But here is why I believe this actually happened, not because the Bible says so, but because of the Gospels, Jesus talks about Adam and Eve, and it appears to me that He believed that they were actually historical figures, and if He believed that they were historical then I believe that they were historical because anybody that can predict their own death and resurrection, and pull it off, I just believe anything they say.”

1.) Which being interpreted means; (My interpretation is in the bold)

“But here is why I believe this actually happened, not because the Bible says so, but because (THE BIBLE SAYS SO IN THE) Gospels. In the Bible in the Gospels Jesus talks about Adam and Eve, and it appears to me that He believed that they were actually historical figures, and if He believed that they were historical then I believe that they were historical because anybody that can predict their own death and resurrection, and pull it off, I just believe anything they say.”

a.) Consider that Jesus learned about Adam and Eve IN THE BIBLE.
b.) Jesus talked about Adam and Eve because they were IN THE BIBLE.
c.) Jesus predicted his own death and resurrection as we learn IN THE BIBLE
d.) Other ancient documents have Jesus saying things that are not recorded in the Bible. Why doesn’t Andy believe those things that are not IN THE BIBLE?

Really, the stupidity here is so epic that one can hardly keep a straight face while typing these words. Andy Stanley has NOTHING on Taylor Swift. Indeed, I am now wondering if anybody has ever seen Andy Stanley and Taylor Swift together in the same room at the same time?

2.) Yes, all of Jesus life, death, resurrection, and ascension has happened in history but the only reason I know this is because “the B-I-B-L-E tells me so.”

Really the guy is a giant Moron masquerading as a Pastor. I can’t believe what has happened to our ministerial corps. It’s like being part of a Zombie regiment.

But not to worry Andy … if the ministry ever goes south for you Pop Music can always use another voice.

Does Gaffin Have A Point In His Critique of Postmill? Not So Much

“Nothing has been more characteristic of current post-millennialism than its emphasis on the kingship of the ascended Christ; nothing fires the Postmil vision more than that reality. Yet it is just this reality that post-millennialism affectively compromises and, in part, even denies. Postmils especially will no doubt find this last statement startling, maybe even outrageous, so let me explain.

Nothing is more distinctive to the postmil vision than its expectation of promised “victory” for the church, a future “golden age,” before Christ’s return. That golden era is variously conceived; in its reconstructionist versions, for example, it is to be a period of global supremacy and control by Christians in every area of life. But all postmil constructions—past and present, and all of them marked (as postmil) in distinction from other eschatological viewpoints—have in common that the millennial “gold”/”victory” (1) is expected before Christ’s return and (2) up to the present time in the church’s history, apart from occasional anticipations, has remained entirely in the future.

Here, then, is where a problem—from the vantage point of New Testament teaching, a fundamental structural difficulty—begins to emerge. Emphasis on the golden era as being entirely future leaves the unmistakable impression that the church’s present (and past) is something other than golden and that, so far in its history, the church has been less than victorious. This impression is only reinforced when, typically in my experience, the anticipated glorious future is pictured just by contrasting it with what is alleged to be the churches presently dismal state (the angle of vision seldom seems to include much beyond the church scene in the United States!), usually with the added suggestion that those who do not embrace the postmil vision are “defeatists” and contribute at least to perpetuating the sad and unpromising status quo.

The New Testament, however, will not tolerate such a construction. If anything is basic (and I’m inclined to say, clear) in its eschatology, it is that the eschatological kingship of Christ begins already at his first coming culminating at his resurrection and ascension. “God has placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church” (Eph 1:22; cf. v. 20).

…In other terms, for the New Testament, the entire interadventual period, not just a closing episode, is the “golden age” of the church; that period and what transpires in it, as a whole, embodies the churches millennial “success” and ” victory.”

RICHARD B. GAFFIN, JR.| “Theonomy and Eschatology: Reflections On Postmillennialism” in William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey, ed. Theonomy: A Reformed Critique (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 202–03.

1.) It is true that Post-mills find Gaffin’s statement startling and outrageous, as well as humorous, but then we find most statements by Amillennialists to be startling, outrageous and strange. We find that to be the case because none of what Gaffin says represents our position. The above is a case of building a straw man and then proceeding to demolish what nobody believes.

2.) Gaffin affirms that Postmillennialism champions the Kingship of Christ but only does so while denying that Kingship at the same time. The problem with Gaffin’s observation here (and a problem, that Gaffin of all people should not make) is that Postmillennialism understands the hermeneutical dynamic in Scripture of the “already/now/not yet.” Postmills emphasize, as Gaffin rightly acknowledges the “kingship of the ascended Christ. Further, Gaffin is correct that “nothing fires the Postmil vision more than that reality.” This truth represents the reality that Christ has indeed already taken up His office of King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The Postmill understands that Christ has been inaugurated as the King of the Cosmos. This is the “already” and “now” of our eschatology. Unlike the Amillennialist Gaffin, the Postmil believes that this Kingship is not merely a spiritual Kingship but the Postmil believes that this Kingship is a reign that rules over every area of life.

However, the Postmil also understands that with the passage of time the already and now inaugurated Kingship of Jesus Christ is going from increasing consummation unto  increasing consummation which each passing day. We understand, unlike the Amills, that the Kingship of Jesus Christ while already present has a “not yet” quality that takes time to demonstrate. Has Gaffin forgot the Kingdom parables?

  “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32 Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.”

And that,

 “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into about sixty pounds[b] of flour until it worked all through the dough.”

Matthew 13

Gaffin desires to indict the Postmillennialists because we understand this principle and he apparently does not?

3.) So, Gaffin is just in error when he says that for the Postmil the Kingship of Christ is entirely future. It is because we believe in the Present Kingship of Jesus Christ that we expect the future of that already present Kingship to be more and more glorious. However, for the Amillennialists, like Gaffin, the Kingship of Christ is a pretend/fantasy Kingship. The Kingship of Christ is exercised only in the Church realm. We can only see and can only expect to ever see the Kingship of Christ with spiritual eyes that see spiritual realities. In just such a manner the Amillennialist can retire from contending for the crown rights of Jesus Christ in every area of life, satisfying himself with the ability of his “spiritual” eyes to see “spiritual” realities that more often than not are not really there, except so as to satisfy the militant A-millennialists retreatist, defeatest, pietistic, and quietistic cowardice.

3.) So, the Postmil, contra Gaffin’s assertion is quite content in seeing the Kingdom present and growing now, while retaining the expectation that the full flowering of the already present Kingdom will go from fuller flowering unto fuller flowering. We Postmils, of course rejoice in the truth that even now;

“God has placed all things under his (Christ’s) feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church” (Eph 1:22; cf. v. 20).

And because we believe that is true the Postmils operate from that truth. Because Eph. 1:22 is true we work from the confidence of that truth unto seeing that truth progressively demonstrate its already current truthfulness. Because we believe the King currently reigns we lean into life living as if the King reigns. It is why we keep praying, apparently unlike the Amills, “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done.” Or has Gaffin dispensationalized that prayer since, in his world, the King and the Kingdom has already come and therefore we need not pray that any longer. Is Gaffin suggesting that that prayer was for them and not for us?

4.) As a Postmil, I have no problem affirming with Richard that;

the New Testament, the entire interadventual period, not just a closing episode, is the “golden age” of the church; that period and what transpires in it, as a whole, embodies the churches millennial “success” and ” victory.”

Postmils affirm that we are going from victory unto victory and success unto success. It’s just that Postmils don’t spiritualize the Kingdom so that it is always invisible and non-corporeal all of the time everywhere. Postmils, understand, unlike Amils that since the King now reigns there is work to be done in seeing that every knee bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of the Father.

Postmils see that happening in time and space (consider B. B. Warfield’s Eschatological Universalism) as the Holy Spirit makes it so the knowledge of the Lord covers the earth as the waters cover the sea whereas Amils like Gaffin, treasuring defeat and surrender, see this only happening with the cataclysmic event that is the return of Jesus Christ.

As a codicil here I will offer that there are many Amillennialists who call themselves “Optimistic Amillennialists.” I call these chaps my friends even if I can’t figure out how they get there. It is the militant Amillennialists who never met a Postmil they didn’t want to pulverize and mock that find my hackles getting raised.

 

Jon Harris On Transgenderism … McAtee Corrects Harris

Jon Harris is one of the guys in a white hat. Typically his material is quite good. However, Jon remains a Baptist and here his Baptist hackles were apparently raised by something Carl Trueman wrote. Jon tries to correct Trueman but fails miserably as I intend to demonstrate.

Jon Harris opined,

“People who think they’re trans don’t think they’re trans because they chose to be trans. On the contrary, they believe it was not their choice. They think its who they actually are independent of any choice they made. They believe gender is a social construct. So they root their identity in social interactions. (i.e. how they “experience” the world). This is why it is so important for them to receive social affirmation. People must experience them as their trans identity if gender is a social construct. Carl Trueman hinging this all on “radical individualism” is causing Christians to make basic mistakes. Mistakes like thinking Baptist theology leads to transgenderism because it supposedly bases Christian identity on choice. Mistakes like mocking people who think they’re trans by saying “if I chose to be a cat would I be?” It’s not about choice. It’s about experience. We need to clearly say, “You do not experience life as a trans person.” Often I hear Christians giving up the entire argument by saying things like, “That may be your experience, but what is true?” What is true is that they experience the world according to the way they were designed. Let’s stop reinforcing delusion.”

1.) Of course people who are trans don’t admit that they chose to be trans and so don’t think they chose to be trans. Just as sodomites don’t admit that they chose to be sodomite and so don’t think they chose to be sodomite. Very few people admit to choosing a lifestyle that is an abomination (Deuteronomy 22:5, Leviticus 18:22). So that people who think they’re trans refuse to say they consciously chose to be trans doesn’t mean that they didn’t consciously choose to be trans. Of course they chose to be Trans. Unless one is going to buy into the idea that they were genetically coded to be trans there is no other choice except that for whatever reason based possibly on whatever trauma in their lives they chose to be Trans.

2.) Of course they wouldn’t say that it was their choice. Now, I grant that it is possible that they didn’t even fully realize that they were making a choice when they made the choice and I grant that something horrific may well have entered into their life that moved them to make that choice, but for whatever reason, consciously made or silently acquiesced to, at some point it was decided that being trans was preferable to living in harmony with the way God made them.

3.) Of course they think being trans is who they actually are independent of any choice they made. What else would they say? If they admit that they made a choice then the whole “this is just the way I am” argument goes right out the door. That “this is just the way I am argument” is key because without it their perversion can’t gain traction. Without that argument then the abnormality of it all has to be admitted.

4.) Jon offers that Trans people root their identity in the way they experience the world suggesting that this “way they experience the world” is different from making a choice to be Trans. However, Jon, at this point has given us a false dichotomy when he wants to make a significant distinction Trans people being the way they are because they chose to be that way and Trans people being the way they are because that is the way they experience the world. At this point we have to ask … “Did not the Trans person choose to experience the world in the way in which they experience the world?” Jon’s false dichotomy gives his argument no traction.

5.) I have my issues with Carl Trueman but in this case Trueman is correct when he observes that all of this grows out of a radical atomistic individualism that has swamped the West. On this score Trueman has not made any mistakes.

6.) Whether Harris likes it or not Baptist Baptism “theology” and transgenderism “ideology” do indeed have a point of contact and that point of contact is the denial that God does designate a person’s identity. Baptists deny God designating a baby’s identity as “covenant member” requiring the individual to choose for themselves and Tranny’s deny God designating a person’s gender as male or female, allowing the individual to decide for themselves. For both the Baptist and Transgender identity at a pivotal point is a social construct. For Baptist being in the covenant or not in the covenant is a social construct to be determined by the sovereign individual. As such they will not give Baptism to a child until that child determines their own social construct by choosing Jesus. For the Tranny being male or female is a social construct to be determined by the sovereign individual, and there are parents that are so buying into this that they are refusing to tell their child what gender they are so that the child can choose the social construct themselves.

Maybe we should refer to such parents as “Gender Baptists?”

Naturally enough, Jon doesn’t like this linkage because it hits too close to his Baptist home.

7.) I must agree with Jon about not using the “If I think I’m a cat does that make me a cat” argument with the Trans person because it is clearly the case that we are at a point that their replying with “yes” is not going to make very many people blink.

8.) And I agree that we must quit reinforcing delusion. However, Jon’s apologetic that we must tell the Trans person that they have to stop experiencing the world as Trans requires them to make a choice to do so, and at that point we see, once again, that Jon is involved in a false dichotomy.

But he has to reach for this false dichotomy because otherwise he may have to give up his Baptist radical atomistic individualism.

R. Scott Clark Praises the Kinist J. Gresham Machen

Today R. Scott Clark, obviously having no sense of irony posted the following post on the Hiedleblog praising J. Gresham Machen, just a day after lambasting me for being allegedly guilty of the very same thing that he elsewhere exonerates Machen for being;

Machen Was Worth a Hundred of His Fellows

“We have lost a man whom our times can ill spare, a man who had convictions which were real to him and who fought for those convictions and held to them through every change in time and human thought. There was power in him which was positive in its very negations. He was worth a hundred of his fellows who, as princes of the church, occupy easy places and play their church politics and trim their sails to every wind, who in their smug observance of the convictions of life and religion offend all honest and searching spirits. No forthright mind can live among them, neither the honest skeptic nor the honest dogmatist. I wish Dr. Machen had lived to go on fighting them.’

Such was the tribute of novelist and former liberal missionary Pearl S. Buck who won both the Nobel and Pulitzer prizes. J. Gresham Machen was a critic of much of what she represented.”

BRAD ISBELL | “Some of Machen’s ‘enemies’ admired him” | March 21, 2023

Here is another quote from the Machen that Clark is affirming praise for;

“It is true some of them are ‘sticklers’ for the civil rights for negroes — it always makes me intensely angry to hear people talking glibly about equal civil rights for negroes when in many parts of the South those equal rights would mean that every legislator and every judge would be a savage of a type and white men would be more unsafe in parts of this country than in most parts of the world where at least protection of his home government is to some extent with him.”

J. Gresham Machen
Letter to his Mother

R. Scott Clark is a magnificent hypocrite because he has on his blog a whole entry defending the orthodoxy of J. Gresham Machen, despite what Clark considers to be a racist letter to his mother, while at the same time casting modern day Machen Kinists into hell by referring to them as heretics.

Machen’s Letter To His Mother Or What To Do With Dead Sinners?

Obviously, Clark would never step up to the microphone and declare that on the basis of Machen’s social order beliefs that Machen, who was a 20th century Kinist, was a “heretic.” And yet that is exactly what the arch-heretic R. Scott Clark has done with 21st century Kinists. So Clark condemns 21st century Kinists as heretics but begs for understanding for 20th century Kinists like Machen. Bottom line Scotty is that either Machen was a heretic for believing what he believed or I am and all modern Kinists are not heretics for believing the very same types of things that Machen believed. You can not have it both ways. Either we are all in hell (like Machen per Clarkian reasoning) or on the way to hell (like living Kinists) for being heretics.

After all Scott, no heretic ever made it into heaven. Now, lots of people who were in error on this or that issue are in heaven but no heretic is in heaven.

Hey Scott … does Machen’s letter above disqualify him from heaven?

The War Heats Up; Road Runner McAtee Correct Wile E. Coyote R. Scott Clark Part V

R. Scott Clark (RSC) writes,

“They (The Kinists) not only ignore the plain teaching of Colossians 3 and Galatians 3.”

Bret responds,

Galatians 3:26f & The Indiscriminate Nature of the Gospel AND the Foolishness of Social Egalitarianism

Galatians 3:28 & Egalitarianism

RSC writes,

“They (Kinists) also ignore the plain teaching of Acts 10:15, where our Lord told Peter in a vision, “What God has made clean, do not call common” (ESV).”

Bret responds,

Except Kinists don’t call other races “common.”

This statement also implies that the 9th commandment challenged R. Scott Clark doesn’t realize that Kinists come in all hues. I have black friends who are kinist, yellow friends who are kinist, brown friends who are kinists, and on and on. So, once again, Scott is dissimulating about what Kinists believe.

RSC writes,

The next thing we read in Luke’s narrative is that Cornelius, a Roman centurion, wants to speak with Peter. Ordinarily, this would not be a good thing. A Roman centurion had a lot of authority and could have made Peter’s life not only uncomfortable but uncomfortably short. Peter explained to him, “God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean. So, when I was sent for, I came without objection. I ask then why you sent for me” (Acts 10:28b–29; ESV). The point of the vision was really about how Christians are to relate to one another across ethnic barriers. Kinism defies and denies the unequivocal teaching of God’s Word about the history of redemption and our new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17).

Bret responds,

That whole paragraph is SKUBALA. It is just not true.

RSC writes citing the CRC,

At Synod, in 2019, the Christian Reformed Church considered overture 7 (pp. 485–505) regarding Kinism. It adopted the following declarations regarding Kinism:

A. Declare that this is a grievous deviation from sound doctrine, a heresy: the Kinist teaching that interracial marriage is sinful, and the theological reasoning supporting this teaching.

Bret responds,

1.) At least as it pertains to me, which is the person the CRC was pointing at in all this, I have never ever said that “interracial marriage is sinful,” though I have said repeatedly that it is “normatively unwise.” I have also said repeatedly that once a inter-racial marriage is contracted that the local church should do all it can to support such a marriage if such a marriage exists in their congregation while at the same time reminding the congregation that the children of the congregation should not marry along inter-racial lines. To encourage such marriages would be to adopt Marxist principles for God’s covenant seed.

RSC citing the CRC,

B. Declare that this is a grievous deviation from sound doctrine, a heresy: the Kinist teaching that God has ordained separation in a religio-ethnostate, and the theological reasoning supporting this teaching.

Bret Responds,

See

http://www.thedailygenevan.com/blog/2022/11/17/naturalvsnonnatural?fbclid=IwAR0ly5u8bXFPlA-SWWztH1PbARSnLwaAwW-rflGjL3v5152ct66dz8c6eRg

RSC writes citing the CRC,

C. Declare that any office bearer who teaches or promotes Kinist theology is worthy of special discipline in accordance with Church Order Article 83.

Bret responds,

Now, the CRC may someday do this in the future but they did not do so with me.

RSC citing the CRC

D. Instruct the executive director to create, through the appropriate agencies, opportunities for education, instruction, and discussion so that church leaders and lay members can recognize and refute the heresy of Kinism in various social contexts where they may encounter it.

Bret responds,

I am looking forward to the day when someone trained by the CRC tries to refute Kinism, because it has not been done to date. R. Scott Clark certainly has not done so in is laughable and ridiculous two part series.

RSC citing the CRC writes,

According to article 74 of the Acts of Synod (pp. 818–20) for 2019, the Synod adopted those for declarations on this ground:

Ground: Kinist theology and practice is neither biblical nor Reformed. Rather, Kinism is a twisting of Reformed doctrine. The Bible makes clear that God’s ideal is a family of every tribe and nation being considered equal in every way. Kinist principles and praxis distort this truth.

Bret responds,

1.) As we have seen from the countless of quotes I have given in this series, Kinism in theology and practice is both biblical and Reformed. It is the Alienism (Marxism as applied to social orders) of R. Scott Clark and the CRC which is neither Biblical, nor Reformed, nor historical.

2.) “Equal in every way?”

Surely the CRC can’t be serious. This is pure hard egalitarianism. Surely all peoples are ontologically equal. Certainly no peoples are made of better dirt than other peoples, and so in that sense are equal. Certainly, all men are equal before God’s law. But to say that all peoples are equal in every way is just French Revolution lunacy. Superiorities and inferiorities run through all races, peoples, tribes, and nations and to suggest that all races, peoples, tribes, and nations are equal is the kind of denial of reality that is in the same league as saying girls can be boys and boys can be girls because they are equal in every way.

RSC citing the CRC,

Synod also adopted the following motion:

That synod, given the recent history of Kinist teaching in a particular church of the CRCNA, admonish councils and classes to promote confessional fidelity and mutually to pursue special discipline of an office bearer who is found to hold views contrary to our standards.

Bret responds,

1.) LOL … the CRC calls for special discipline of any office bearer who is found to be a kinist and yet when they could have tried to do that to me they passed. Is this their subtle admission that I was never an office bearer and so they had no jurisdiction over me?

or

2.) Is it an admission that they did not go after me because they knew they could not prove their case and exoneration would have been something that the Dutch Mafia who runs the CRC would have found mortifying?

RSC citing the CRC.,

Grounds:

a. The pastor who was teaching Kinist views was able to do so for several years without special discipline being successful.

Bret responds,

1.) I was never a Pastor in the CRC, though I did Pastor a CRC Church

2.) Special discipline was never successful because special discipline was never attempted. There were delegates at Synod 2019 who were asking why I was released instead of being disciplined. So far as I know they never got an answer to that question.

3.) And keep in mind that;

a.) When I was released from the CRC (though I was never in to be released) that the governing Church’s Pastor of the Church I served recommended and argued vehemently that I should be released with a “honorable release” as opposed to the “Dismissed” that released me.

b.) The Church that I Pastored unanimously voted to leave the CRC due to the CRC’s heretical stands, knowing full well who I am after ministering among  them for a quarter of a century.

RSC writes citing the CRC

b. By admonishing councils and classes to encourage confessional fidelity and special discipline when applicable, it sends a strong message from the broadest body of our denomination that Kinist teaching will not be tolerated in our churches.

Bret responds,

The CRC has no worries about Kinism in their midst. They are safely Marxist. I was the proverbial “One in a Million.”

RSC citing the CRC,

Synod adopted another overture offered from the floor:

That synod acknowledge, with lament, the historic tolerance and indifference within our Reformed theological tradition to perpetual hateful racial prejudice and the theological error of Kinism as well as the need to act as a prophetic voice on these matters in the present and future.

Bret responds,

AH… here we see the slight glimmer of admission that Kinism, or something very much like it as been part of the Reformed theological tradition. Naturally, quite to the contrary of what is written above, the kinism I’ve read of in Church history (See Achord and Dow’s Anthology, “Who Is My Neighbor; An Anthology in Natural Relations”) has never resembled hateful racial prejudice.

Maybe there has been “hateful racial prejudice” in the Reformed tradition but if it existed it would be hard to top the “hateful racial prejudice” that is being exhibited towards Kinists who are not Marxists.

RSC writes,

Make of the last clause what you will, Synod was clearly embarrassed by the existence of Kinism within the CRC for a decade and wanted to send a clear message that the CRC repudiates Kinism.

Bret responds,

1.) And yet, the CRC had every opportunity to bring charges against me and so run me through their Kangaroo court system. If the CRC really had wanted to send a clear message of their embarrassment regarding Kinism THAT is what they would have done. But they didn’t. Instead they merely dismissed me upon my request. (A strange action considering that I had never been ordained by the CRC.)

2.) Is it interesting that the “Conservative” R. Scott Clark is making common cause in these two articles not only with his arch-enemy Doug Wilson but also with a denomination that he excoriates; the uber-Liberal CRC. It seems that “Conservative” Wilson, “Confessional” Clark, and the uber-liberal CRC have all in common the desire to libel, slander, and rid the planet of Historic Christianity, which is, in the end, all Kinism is.

This has been proven exhaustively by Achord & Dow’s book “Who is My Neighbor.” It is also nicely set forth in the article linked above titled  “Natural and Non-Natural communities.”

RSC writes,

It is certainly a gross error, schismatic (as it separates what Christ has united), it is ugly and unbefitting of a Christian profession. Let no man cast asunder what Christ has joined together.

Bret responds,

Quite to the contrary it is the Alienism that condemns all the Church Fathers who were Kinist just by their virtue of being Christian. By abandoning the idea and truth of Kinism Clark and the rest of his ideological brood of vipers is abandoning the Christian faith. It is they who are vile and ugly beyond all recognition. It is they who are in gross error (and in Clark’s case not only on this count but also on the count of his heretical R2K). It is they who are the schismatics dividing the Church from its Christian past. It is they who are touting beliefs that are not befitting Christian men. It is they who have cast asunder what Christ joined together opting for some red stew because they were tired from hunting acceptance of the world.

And keep in mind this all started merely because R. Scott Clark wanted to smear my book, “Saved to be Warriors; Exposing the Errors of Radical Two Kingdom Theology.”