Iron Ink

From The Mailbag – Pastor, Where Are We Supposed To Attend On The Lord’s Day?

Dear Pastor,

You’ve made it clear that NAPARC, CREC, the “Ogden Boys,” and Apologia, among others, are “over the falls” as you recently put it (besides the last one being Baptists). The question I put to you is what would you have the people in the pews actually do, who do not and cannot live in Charlotte, Michigan? Where are they supposed to go on the Lord’s Day?

Lancelot

Hello Lancelot,

First, on this score, let us cite the Belgic Confession of Faith;

Article XXIX. The Marks of the True Church, and Wherein
it Differs from the False Church

We believe that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern
from the Word of God which is the true Church, since all sects which
are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. But
we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with
the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally in it; but we
say that the body and communion of the true Church must be
distinguished from all sects that call themselves the Church.

The marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure
doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it maintains the pure
administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church
discipline is exercised in chastening of sin; in short, if all things are
managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary
thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of
the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from
which no man has a right to separate himself.

My problem with the modern reformed “church” is that I am certain that where it is denouncing Kinism, and embracing egalitarianism it is at that point that the “pure doctrine of the gospel is not being preached therein.” No one would ever say that the Gnostics preached the pure doctrine of the Gospel, yet that is exactly what Egalitarianism is an expression. The current church, which disembodies man in regeneration/conversion by saying that God ordained distinctions are taken away in the Church is Gnostic. Ironically enough, it is also Marxist since the Marxists have forever been saying that their intent is to flatten all the distinctions among the nations. Is it possible for Gnostics and Marxists to give the pure doctrine of the gospel in the preaching and teaching?

Second, these denominations have anathematized themselves by anathematizing the race-realists. They have hurled their fatwas, Papal bulls, and anathemas repeatedly at the Biblical Christians. Should they expect that we who have been on the receiving end of their blasphemies now conclude anything else except that they are not true churches?

So, that sets the context for the question you ask and for the answer.

First, as to answering your question, if I were in the position of other folks around the country I would try to operate thusly,

1.) I would realize that not all congregations are equally bad. I would further realize that there might be yet congregations in these denominations that are positively good. If I were considering membership of a positively good one I would find out if that good congregation was sending money to the bad denomination and if that good congregation was sending money, I would attend there but I would not financially support the local congregation until it quit supporting the bad denomination. These denominations need to either repent or have their money source dried up.

2.) If there was a congregation that were not intolerable and if I had children, I might attend but I would not let the children go to Sunday School and I would make sure to debrief the children every week, as needs be, by asking them, in a kind of catechetical way, “So, what did we hear today from the pulpit that is not true?” Believe me, you could write hefty tomes’ on what is being said today by clergy that is not true.

3.) If there are no churches in your area that are at least tolerable (and I get phone calls from these people quite frequently) then I would start a home bible study and find good material. I would also, during that time together on the Lord’s Day, listen to one good sermon. (There are scads of them on line.) I would also designate my tithes and offerings to churches that are seeking to be faithful in a very difficult climate. Failing that, I would send tithes and offerings to para-Church organizations that you know and trust.

As a result of your home bible-study, it may be that God would be pleased to start a little church. If that is the direction that matters were heading I would find solid Elders in another church who could serve as kind of an umbrella for you in getting off the ground.

4.) What I would not do is continue to attend and support a ministry and church that is decidedly in opposition to my undoubted catholic Christian faith and worldview. These are not churches but are only referred to as churches by way of habit or courtesy.

Finally, please realize that in all this I doubtless have fault. My paradigm is likely tied too tightly and I see things and the implications of those things that will come to pass if what I see is not corrected. Seeing things that many others perhaps do not see probably tends to make me overly-critical. I like to tell myself in my more optimistic moments that the church in the West is probably not as bumfuzzled as I tend to think it is.

There remain good churches and clergy out there. I am friends/acquaintances with more than a few. A few actually serve in NAPARC and CREC churches for now. So, all is not lost.

I am deeply sorry that you are in this situation. I daily pray for repentance for the church in the West. I daily remind myself that though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet.

And I know that it is true of me as St. Paul said;

“This is a trustworthy saying, worthy of full acceptance, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners – of whom I am chief.”

Religion, Culture, & The One True Christian Faith

If one looks into the etymological origin of the word “religion” one finds great disputation, which is kind of odd given all the heat that the word creates today.

Some will insist that the etymological origins of the word “religion” comes from the noun “religio.” The ancient philosopher Cicero linked religio to the Latin verb “relegere” which means “to go through or over again in reading, speech, or thought.” This introduces the idea of repetition into religion which, for those from Liturgical Churches, makes a certain sense since Liturgical Churches do demonstrate in their worship going through or over again in reading, speech, or thought. Consider the Book of Common Prayer.

Others, following later ancients such as Servius, Lactantius, Augustine will insist that the word “religion” comes from the Latin word, “religare” which means, “to bind fast.” This would find the purpose of religion being one of societal epoxy – the means by which people are bound together. If this is an accurate etymology then it becomes clear that religion is an inescapable concept since a culture comprised, as it is, of institutional infrastructure can’t exist without the societal epoxy that is religion. If this is accurate then there is the closest possible relationship between religion and culture. If culture is defined as the outward expression of a particular people groups religious/theological beliefs then culture and religion, by necessity imply one another. Where you see culture, there you see religion and when you see religion you see the manifestation of that religion in the culture.

If we go back to religion being defined from the Latin verb “relegere” which means “to go through or over again in reading, speech, or thought,” we may not be that far away from religion defined as “religare,” (to bind), due to the fact that “to go through or over again in reading, speech, or thought,” results in whatever is being gone over again being bound upon the person who is repeating the reading, speech, or thought.

If religion is indeed defined as “to bind,” and if it is proper to see religion as being the societal glue that binds a culture together then what must be observed next is the question of the legitimacy of non-Christian religions. Certainly, we would agree that the religions of different infidel peoples would serve to bind their infidel cultures. However, the binding that false religion brings to pagan cultures, will always be a religion that is to that society what foot-binding was to Oriental women. As the footbinding of Oriental women indeed worked but at the cost of the health of the women, so false religions work to bind cultures together but at the cost of the flourishing of the peoples where they obtain.

Scripture refers to these infidel cultures bound together by pagan religions;

For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your forefathers… (I Peter 1:18)

The “empty way of life” is easily enough understood as the pagan culture created by infidel religion and participated in by individuals. All infidel religions create pagan cultures but those pagan cultures are characterized as a “empty way of life.” When the power of the one true religion brought by Christ envelopes a people group the result is the culture changes because that which binds the culture (religion) has changed.

One consequence of the changing out of false religion for the one true religion is that the binding is no longer coercive. False religions, being false, can only bind by way of coercion. Individuals are forced, by the binding power of false religion, to move in terms of the false religion. Women are forced to wear the Hijab. Westerners are forced to use insane pretend pronouns. Oriental women were forced to have their feet bound. NWO types are forced to embrace pedophilia, etc. etc. etc.

Christianity sets individuals free to gladly and willingly obey. The power of the Gospel is the power to set us free from slavery to sin to be slaves of Christ. When Christianity sweeps through a people group coercion is only visited upon those who would throw off the Christian religion in favor of some other previous empty way of life. Biblical Christianity though, has historically always brought greater liberty for individuals since Christianity as a religion alone introduces “self-control” as the primary control mechanism in a Christian culture. Other cultures driven by infidel religions must find controls in a more top down fashion since false religions are never characterized by “self-control.” False religions always leave the problem of the self in place and so must implement top town control mechanisms to reinforce their religion.

A Reading List On Covenant Theology

A friend wrote asking for a list of books I’ve read touching Covenant theology. He thought given the current controversy on identifying the Israel of God (who Israel has become in NT theology) that it would be a profitable list. All of these books will make clear that OT Israel was the cocoon that was shuffled off when it became the butterfly that is the Church, and so there are no further promises left to the Israel after the flesh.

So, I offer this list, as I randomly have recalled my reading over the decades;

1.) Cornelius Venema – Christ And Covenant Theology: Essays on Election, Republication

Deals with issues surrounding the rise of covenant theology in relation to R2K theology.

2.) Stephen Myers – God to Us: Covenant Theology in Scripture

Is intended as something of a primer in Reformed covenant theology

3.) O. Palmer Robertson – Christ of the Covenants

Traces Christ through the unfolding of the one covenant of grace.

4.) Charles D.Provan – The Church is Israel Now: The Transfer of Conditional Privilege

Demonstrating, from Scripture that it is Dispensationalists who practice replacement theology by replacing the Church with unbelieving Israel

5.) David Howeldra – Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two?

Argues that the promises to OT Israel are fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

6.) O. T. Allis – Prophecy & The Church

Absolutely destroys Dispensationalism’s teaching that promises remain to physical Israel. Best book I’ve ever read unraveling Dispensationalism’s errant views of covenant theology.

7.) O Palmer Robertson – The Israel of God

Robertson examines the OT prophecies related to land, God’s people, the coming Kingdom and other topics and shows how Christ and his church fulfill those prophecies today.

8.) Francis Roberts – God’s Covenants: The Mystery and Marrow of the Bible

Five volumes. I’ve only made it through Vol. 1. Exhaustive explanation of the covenant of Grace as understood in the classical “Covenant of Works,” “Covenant of Grace” paradigm.

9.) Rowland Ward – God and Adam

A handy volume giving a birds eye view of various explanations of the mechanics of covenant theology. Very helpful.

10.) Geerhardus Vos – Biblical Theology: Old and New Testament

Vos was an absolute genius. I’ve read everything I have been able to find by him. You will not understand Covenant theology until you have read Vos. Unfortunately Vos was Amil so read discerningly on that score.

11.) G. K. Beale – A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New

Beale argues that every major concept of the New Testament is a development of a concept from the Old and is to be understood as a facet of the inauguration of the latter-day new creation and kingdom. The emphasis is on the continuity between OT and NT which only covenant theology can provide. Beale is another genius who has greatly helped me. Again … he is Amill.

12.) Jonathan Gerstner – Wrongly Dividing the Truth

An needed attack on Dispensationalism that presupposes Covenant theology.

13,) Geerhardus Vos, ‘The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology’ in Richard B. Gaffin (ed.), Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: the Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos

14.) J. D. Hall & Joel Webbon – The Hyphenated Heresy: Judeo-Christianity

Though not strictly a book on covenant theology this book does demonstrate repeatedly that the Church is the inheritor of all the promises to Israel and is today the “Israel of God.” Clearly teaches that OT physical Israel has been replaced (fulfilled) by the Church.

14.) See also the appropriate sections of Systematic Theologies

Robert Letham
Louis Berkhof
Charles H. Hodge
Herman Bavinck
Robert Reymond
Francis Turretin
R. L. Dabney
John Calvin (Institutes 2: 9-11)
Herman Hoeksema

HH offers a decidedly different view of the covenants seeing more continuity between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace than what might be termed “classical Reformed” theology. However, HH makes some interesting points that are worthy of consideration.

These are what I remember reading off the top of my head. If I recall more I will edit and add them at a later date.

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.