Matthew Poole; “The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church Are Infidels”

Here is the ARP defining Kinism which they inveigh against and condemn;

“The belief that God has not ordained the existence of distinct ethnic and racial groups and that these groups should not be preserved and protected . . . It is the conviction that the love of one’s own kind is not a natural and biblical duty, and that the modern drive for ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘universalism’ is not a rebellion against the created order.”

By the way here is Matthew Poole on 1 Tim. 5:8 insisting that the ARP clergy are idiots. Perhaps someone has denied the gospel, but it is not the Kinists by the definition the ARP provided.

“‘But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.’

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house: here is a manifest distinction between his own, idiwn, and his own household, oikeiwn, they are distinguished by terms in the Greek, and as to the care which men and women ought to extend to them. By his own he means his relations, all of a man’s family or stock; by his own household, he seemeth to mean those who cohabit with him. The apostle saith that he who is careless of providing for the former, (so far as he is able), but especially for the latter, hath denied the Christian faith, that is, in the practice of it, though in words he professeth it; he liveth not up to the rule of the gospel, which directeth other things. And is worse than an infidel; and is worse than a heathen, that believeth not; because many good-natured heathens do this by the light of nature, and those who do it not, yet are more excusable, being strangers to the obligation of the revealed law of God in the case.”

Matthew Poole

Any fair reading of Poole finds Poole insisting that the ARP clergy and elders who drafted the Kinist document are worse than infidels.

You might belong to the ARP if….

1.) You think an assertion is the same as an argument.
2.) You think the Ordo Amoris is a kind of salad dressing.
3.) You think that Drew Poplin is a heavyweight intellectual.
4.) You think that the church in the US needs more Brits like Andy Webb.
5.) You want your grandchildren to look like foreigners.
6.) It bothers you that Jesus had to be born of the tribe of Judah.
7.) You have never lived around or had to work with minorities.
8.) You’ve a poster in your study that reads “We be all the same.”
9.) John Lennon’s “Imagine” is you’re all time favorite song.
10.) You spend every night thinking, “If only I’d married outside my race.”
11.) Antonio Gramsci, Max Horkheimer, and Marcuse are your beau idéal.
12.) You spell “Exegesis” as “E – I – S – G – E – S – I – S.”
13.) You refuse to deal with Church history.
14.) You refuse to read the books “Who is My Neighbor,” and “A Survey of Racialism In The Sacred Christian Tradition,” for fear it will convict you.
15.) You think “Jacobin” is a brand name of blue-jeans
16.) You willfully misinterpret and twist what your conversation partner says.
17.) You think “Nuh-Uh” provides a serious rebuttal to a reasoned argument.
18.) Erskine Seminary is the only one that would accept your application.
19.) You assign sinister motives to people you disagree with … after all, they must be wicked if they disagree with you.
20.) You think you’re smarter than nearly all the Church fathers who preceded you.

ARP Gives Nothing but Bare Assertions on Kinism … Where’s the Beef?

“Kinism is backwards theology; it is man trying to justify his own prejudices with the Bible, rather than letting his prejudices be transformed by it.”

2026 ARP Study Committee Report

1.) Note, there is no definition of Kinism in this report that a Kinist would recognize as Kinist since the definition originally given is contradicted later in the study. Therefore what is being reported against is a straw man, since the report embraces the contrary contradiction from the original statement as the definition they are working from.

2.) If Kinism is a backwards theology then all our fathers were backwards theologians since, as the anthologies, “Who Is My Neighbor,” and “A Survey of Racialism in Sacred History,” both demonstrate with quote after quote from the centuries of the Christian faith that Kinism is what the church has believed in all times and in all places where it has been orthodox. The ARP and other NAPARC churches are seeking to overturn the Christian faith in the name of Cultural Marxis egalitarianism

3.) Kinism has demonstrated that it is in keeping w/ the prejudices of the Bible. In point of fact, to be anti=Kinist is to be worse than an infidel we are told by Scripture.

4.) Only someone with prejudices against what the Bible teaches on Kinism could conclude that men who teach what is consistent with the Bible on Kinism are men “trying to justify their own prejudices with the Bible, rather than letting their prejudices be transformed by it.”

5.) Men who say what the ARP has said are Anathematizing the Christian faith and are serving the interests of Cultural Marxist egalitarianism.

Dr. Stephen Wolfe on How Nations Change … McAtee Critiques Wolfe

“Nations change by elites via institutions, not by reforming everyday life or ‘focusing on the family’ or reforming the church or ‘gospel-changed hearts.’ We should do all that. But it isn’t sufficient. Nations change by elites via institutions.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

1.) This is a Pelagian assertion because it suggests that it is the Institutional environment that creates the elites who in turn create the Institutional environment, who alone can change the Institutional environment.

2.) Why would the elites change institutions unless they first experience a “gospel-changed heart?”

3,) Wolfe wants to place the emphasis on elites but elites are not going to change Institutions unless those elites are first visited with the Gospel.

4.) Wolfe’s message here is that it is NOT individuals that are the problem but the institutions. This is Pelagianism with its teaching that it is the environment that is the problem. Change the environment, so Pelagianism goes, and you will change the individuals. Wolfe is teaching Pelagianism. If Wolfe really believes all this Wolfe is a Pelagian and not Reformed.

5.) Wolfe is giving a top-down explanation of how a culture is changed and this explanation is completely devoid of a bottom up dynamic. The simple truth is that cultural change is both a bottom up and top-down movement that includes from the inside out (change hearts) and that unless all this happens simultaneously cultural change is not possible.

6.) Wolfe’s approach guarantees top-down tyranny forcing change on a population that will bring substantive push-back.

7.) For the Pelagian Wolfe the only thing that must happen is elites changing the environment but how will elites do that apart from being raised in Christian families, Reformed Churches, and the reforming of everyday life. Per Wolfe only changed Institutions by elites is sufficient for change.

8.) Note, that the disagreement here isn’t that elites must change Institutions. The disagreement here is that elites do so apart from Christian families, changed hearts, and Reformed churches.

9.)  If elites are not changed via “by the reforming of everyday life” or by a ‘focusing on the family’ somewhere along the line or by the reforming of the church or by ‘gospel-changed hearts,’ then elites won’t be changing Institutions and if there is an insistence that elites still can change Institutions which will change nations without what Wolfe decries above then Wolfe is advancing Pelagianism.

Natural Law thinking is inherently infected with humanism and this post by Wolfe demonstrates that truth yet again.

Rev. J. D. Greear & The Fear of Christian Government

“At the same time, Greear warned against movements that seek to use government authority to enforce Christianity itself.”

Neil Shenvi X Post

1.) Why doesn’t Rev. J. D. Greear warn against movements that seek to use government authority to enforce humanism itself?

2.) Since there is no such thing as religious neutrality, all governments seek to use the government authority to enforce some specific religion. As such, why shouldn’t Christian government be used to enforce Christianity itself?

3.) All governments legislate, adjudicate and execute laws for a people. All law is based on some morality, and all morality is based on some religion. Because the above is true all governments routinely and inescapably enforce specific religion(s). Greear is not a wise man to suggest that a Christian people should not advocate for Christian government that enforces Christianity.

4.) Because the “reasoning” of men like Rev. J. D. Greear is so common in the clergy the laity must realize that the clergy is not a trustworthy place to gain wisdom.