The attacks against the biblical doctrine of Kinism continue and it is past apparent that people (Alienists) are getting desperate. We saw that previously in some of the really inane things Rev. Toby Sumpter said that we interacted with on Iron Ink. Not to be outdone by Rev. Sumpter a new contestant steps forward to see if he can out stupid Rev. Sumpter in his claims. Frankly, we have now arrived at the point where Kinists don’t have any need to refute the things that are being written because the depth of torpidity that the Alienists are reaching are making such large craters of stupidity that the Kinists can just point and roll their eyes. Indeed, there is a old political principle that states that if your opponent is blowing himself up, shut up and get out of the way.

However, having said that, as a Kinist, I have to understand that many people might look at an argument and have a instinct that there is something wrong while not being able to put their finger exactly on the problem. So, with that in mind we turn to a recent column by one Samuel Sey. I don’t know much about Sey except he is some kind of African married to a white woman and I only know that because Sey goes out of his way to tell everyone that in his column, which can be found here;

Why Some Evangelicals Are Embracing Racism

We are not going to look at all Sey says, choosing instead to point out the really really dumb stuff;

Samuel Sey writes (hereinafter SS)

“Kinism is an ideology within some Reformed circles that teaches that a person’s so-called race makes them “kins” or related to people within their racial group. According to Kinists, all white people have a shared ethnicity and culture that should be preserved. Therefore they support racial segregation in communities and families. Meaning, they’re especially opposed to immigration (not just illegal immigration) and “interracial” marriage.”

Bret responds,

1.) Well, yes, if one traces the descent of the sons of Europe back far enough they will find that they are descendants of a common father, just as when one traces the descent of the sons of Africa back far enough will discover that they are descendants of a different common father. As such, they are indeed “kin.”

2.)  Kinists believe, not only that white people should be preserved but also that all races should be preserved. However, since it is the white race that is being pursued that it might be replaced, white Kinists perhaps spend a wee bit more of time saying, “excuse me, but I quite desire my people to continue as a people. I mean, I don’t want to be pushy or anything like that, but I’d prefer very much if my people did not experience genocide.”

That genocide is on the table can be seen from quotes like this;

“My concern is doing away with Whiteness. Whiteness is a form of racial oppression. Sure the suggestion is that is somehow possible to separate Whiteness from oppression and it is not. There can be no White Race without the phenomena of the White supremacies. In the same way if you abolish racial oppression you do away with Whiteness. Treason to Whiteness is loyalty to humanity. The task is to bring these minorities together in such a way that it makes it impossible for the legacy of Whiteness to reproduce itself.”

Noel Ignatiev
Harvard Professor

3.) It is true that Kinists believe that white should have communities that uniquely belong to them, just as Israel belongs to the Jews, just as China belong to the Han people, just as Zimbabwe belongs largely to the Shona people. So, color Kinists guilty that we desire our own Christian communities, with our own Christian cultures, speaking our own language, having our own Christian history, customs and habits.

4.) From this it naturally follows that Kinists are not excited by a immigration policy that has as its core goal, to change the community. This is the goal of the current so called US immigration policy.

5.) Finally, it is true that Kinists oppose inter-racial marriage as a general rule because Kinists realize that if inter-racial marriage is pursued as a matter of policy the results is genocide of white people. Did I mention that Kinists are opposed to experiencing genocide?

6.) Another reason that Kinists oppose inter-racial marriage is because Kinists understand that strong marriages, like strong communities, are begun and maintained when the people entering into marriages have as much in common as possible and since Kinists understand that there is, normatively speaking, a strong continuity between race and culture, therefore Kinists, desiring that marriages be strong, discourage inter-racial marriage due to the differences that the prospective bride and groom will bring into the marriage. Kinists perfectly understand that some inter-racial marriages will exist and we will do our best to support these marriages, however we will not encourage them for our children. None of this is controversial in the least as our Christian Fathers understood this principle and we simply agree with our Fathers as against the current Babel zeitgeist;

Causes of Separation in 1973 (PCA separates from PCUS);

The Socialist, who declares all men are equal.  Therefore there must be a great leveling of humanity and oneness of privilege and possession.

The Racial Amalgamationist, who preaches that the various races should be merged into one race and differences erased in oneness.

The Communist, who would have one mass of humanity coerced into oneness by a totalitarian state and guided exclusively by Marxist philosophy.

The Internationalist, who insists on co-existence between all peoples and nations that they be as one regardless of ideology or history.

Dr. John Edwards Richards
One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

“No human can measure the anguish of personality that goes on within the children of miscegenation… Let those who would erase the racial diversity of God’s creation beware lest the consequence of their evil be visited upon their children.”

Dr. John Edwards Richards
One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

“The vast majority of good thinking people prefer to associate with, and intermarry with, people of their respective race; this is part of the God-given inclination to honor and uphold the distinctiveness of separate races. But there are many false prophets of oneness, and many shallow stooges, who seek to force the amalgamation of the races.” 

Dr. John E. Richards

So, Kinists do think that inter-racial is almost always unwise and even often sin and we are not ashamed in the least to stake out that position, since in staking out such a position has the felicitous outcome of perhaps saving people from getting into a unhappy marriage.

SS writes,

 However, their soft form of Kinism isn’t any less destructive than a soft form of critical race theory. 

Bret responds,

Actually, this is not a point that is in SS’s interest to push lest soft Kinists conclude that if their weak (soft) Kinism isn’t any less destructive than a soft form of CRT then they might as well go ahead and become hard Kinists.

SS writes,

These Kinists are significantly smaller in number and influence than professing Christians who’ve embraced critical race theory. However, they’re less uncommon than you might think. 

Bret responds,

Be afraid SS. Be very afraid because our numbers are growing and momentum is on our side.

SS writes accusing Dr. Stephen Wolfe of Kinism, (if only)

“While intermarriage is not itself wrong (as an individual matter), groups have a collective duty to be separate and marry among themselves…there is a difference between something being sinful absolutely and something being sinful relatively. Interethnic marriage can be sinful relatively and absolutely.”

“People of different ethnic groups can exercise respect for difference, conduct some routine business with each other, join in inter-ethnic alliances for mutual good, and exercise common humanity (e.g., the good Samaritan), but they cannot have a life together that goes beyond mutual alliance…What I am saying is that in-group solidarity and right of difference along ethnic lines are necessary for the complete good for each and all.”

In the book, he also positively quotes white nationalist Sam Francis. If you’re unfamiliar with him, American Renaissance (a white supremacist website) said “Francis was the premier philosopher of white racial consciousness of our time.”

Sey now quotes Andrew Torba,

“God created different ethnic groups. To preserve them is to preserve God’s creation and is therefore an inherent good.”

Bret responds,

I like those quotes SS. Keep them coming.

SS writes,

Like all racists, Kinists are fundamentally foolish. God ordains ethnicity, but he didn’t create all ethnicities in the Garden of Eden. Meaning, my Akan ethnicity or Fanti tribe didn’t exist in the Garden. My race existed in Adam and Eve, but my ethnicity didn’t. Humanity—the human race—was created in the Garden, but our ethnicities were ordained by God over time.

Bret responds,

1.) Given how dumb SS is, I take it as a badge of honor to be called fundamentally foolish. Thank you Samuel.

2.) If God has ordained races/ethnicities our knowing how it happened doesn’t matter. The fact that God ordained races/ethnicities is all I need. Thanks SS for making that point.

3.) Not to state the obvious SS, but you do realize that what you are promoting is precisely what was being promoted at the Tower of Babel right?

SS writes,

Therefore, since our ethnicities didn’t exist at some point in the past—we shouldn’t attempt to preserve them in the future. The purpose of ethnicity isn’t to preserve our image, it’s to preserve the image of God. He will do whatever he wants with our ethnicities for his glory (Rev. 5:9-10)

Bret responds,

1.) I think that first sentence above was cribbed by SS from Nimrod as he sought to build Babel.

2.) Unless, SS thinks that the Kinists thought world will lead to the extinction of the human race, I’m pretty sure that the image of God is going to be preserved in the Kinist world.

3.) Revelation 5 is completely irrelevant to this argument as Kinists believe that people from every tribe, tongue, and nation, in their tribes, tongues, and nations will be present in the new Jerusalem.

4.) It is true that God will do whatever he desires with our races/ethnicities. But as God made His mind known about this project to sink the world into one latte colored world where raceS/ethnicitieS don’t exist, Kinists are on solid ground in rejecting this aspect of the New World Order agenda that SS is pursuing.

SS writes,

So although I want my pre-born son to look just like me, just like the average Akan or Fanti person—I want him to look more like Christ. That’s why I married a godly woman, though she has a different ethnicity so that we can raise a godly son.

Bret responds,

Non-sequitur.

1.) Presumably godly women existed among the Akan and Fanti people that SS could have married, thus not contributing to the “Christian” version of the New World Order agenda.

2.)   Is SS arguing that a mixed-race child is automatically going to look more like Christ than a child from the union of two Akan/Fanti people?

3.) Is SS arguing that the issue of godly white women is more likely to be godly than the issue of godly Fanti/Akan women?

4.) Does SS realize that he could have had a son who would have looked both like him and like Christ? He did not have to decide between the two.

5.) Understand that there is a confusion of categories going on here. When we look like our parents that is genetic coding. When we look like Christ that is being transformed by the Holy Spirit.

SS quote Sam Francis,

“At a time when anti-white racial and ethnic groups define themselves in explicitly racial terms, only our own unity and identity as a race will be able to meet their challenge.”

Bret responds,

I agree 100%. If we do not embrace what Francis offers above we will at best experience replacement and at worse we will experience genocide. Only the insane use arguments putatively drawn from Scripture to support their replacement or genocide.

SS writes,

But we’re not called to repay evil for evil, racism for racism, Kinism for critical race theory.

Bret responds,

The evil is NOT found in racial/ethnic unity as that is shaped and influenced by Biblical Christianity. That kind of racial/ethnic unity will understand that there is a need to do good to the whole household of faith regardless of race/ethnicity.

The evil found in racial/ethnic unity is found when it is shaped and influenced by  CRT, Cultural Marxist categories. So, the unity that Christian whites have to find, per Francis, is a unity that is founded upon Christ having as its primary purpose to thoroughly crush the WOKE agenda that the minority community has been, unfortunately, sucked into supporting. The very same agenda that Sey is supporting, with some kind of “Christian” patina covering the same agenda.

Let me say it plainly… Sey, is doing the devil’s work, perhaps with the best of intentions, by being an advocate of the WOKE agenda.

SS says,

Sin is sin, on the right or the left. Kinism is just as evil as critical race theory. So Kinists are not our allies. They’re just as opposed to Biblical views on race as critical race theorists.

Bret responds,

As we have seen, “I don’t think so.”

SS writes,

Brothers and sisters, our primary goal as Christians isn’t to destroy woke ideology. No, our primary goal is to destroy every argument and every lofty opinion against the knowledge of God—from conservatives or leftists (2 Corinthians 3-6). 

 Therefore our primary goal isn’t to win elections, our primary goal is to win souls. We can’t be faithful to God by embracing or tolerating any form of racism.

Bret responds,

1.) Yet, another really dumb statement. Our primary goal as Christians is glorifying God by destroying every argument and every lofty opinion against the knowledge of God, which both CRT, and Samuel Sey’s opinions are.

2.) Since Kinists are racists in the way that God requires, then we can not be both Christian and tolerate the utter torpidity of one Samuel Sey.

3.) Our primary goal is not to win souls. Our primary goal is to speak the truth and let God worry about what souls are or are not saved in that context.

Note — Torba is NOT a Pastor. I confused him w/ his right hand man, Rev. Andrew Isker.

 

 

If you remember in Part I we started analyzing this exchange between a high profile Pastor in the CREC, one Rev. Toby Sumpter, and Rev. Andrew Torba.

You may also remember that this exchange finds me as exacerbated as one can possibly imagine. I am gnawing down my fingers in an act of discipline to keep me from writing what I really think about Sumpter’s a-historical, unbiblical, and yes even asinine “reasoning.”

Honestly, I hope these birds like Sumpter and Fakin’ Owen Strachan keep getting out on these limbs because I am going to take maniacal delight in sawing off every branch upon which these stool pigeons, dodo birds, and crows are perched.

Anyway, as you recall the conversation between Torba and Sumpter went like this;

Rev. Andrew Torba wrote;

“God created different ethnic groups. To preserve them is to preserve God’s creation and is therefore an inherent good.”

Rev. Sumpter responded;

“At best this is half-baked primitivism, and at worst it’s a form of incestuous Judaizing and radically misunderstands the Cultural Mandate and Great Commission.

This is like saying God created different kinds of food. To preserve them in their original state is to preserve God’s creation & therefore an inherent good. 

So wine and cheese and tacos are out y’all. Also, no mining, no fossil fuels, no building anything, no medicine — no changing or mixing anything that God made. Leave it raw and untouched just like it was when God said it was good. No fruitful dominion for you.

Despite the idolatry of statist multiculturalism, Christians must do better.”

And now we begin Part II with the second full paragraph dropping from the pen of the genius Rev. Sumpter;

1.) First, there in this matter the consideration of Scripture;

  “Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled. Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together. Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together.” 

Dt. 22:9-11

“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.

Leviticus 19:19

Now my point in citing this passage is not to suggest that it proves that the bible forbids cheese, wine and tacos. I cite the passage to demonstrates that God did have an opinion about adulterating, mixing and hybridizing. The point of these passages seems to be that God desired purity among His people and so there is to be no mixture between things that did not belong together. We note this because in the Deut. passage the broader context teaches that God’s people were not to blend what was to stay separate.

Now, I would list these laws as being among the ceremonial laws that were fulfilled with the coming of Christ and so no longer in force. However, I do hold that the commandment given to men themselves not to adulterate (7th Word) remains in force. God’s people are told that they are not to adulterate and to adulterate something is to diminish the purity of that something. Inter-racial marriage is an adulteration of both husband and wife and so when Rev. Torba advocates that ethnic groups be preserved he is giving counsel that is in keeping with the 7th commandment.

2.) Why Rev. Sumpter chose wine, cheese, and tacos is beyond me. It is obviously a non-sequitur. I mean maybe tacos fit since one has to mix lettuce, tomatoes, cheese, sour cream, olives, and hamburger to come up with a taco. If that is where Rev. Sumpter was going, do I have to really spend any time refuting his comparison of apples with lug nuts? Even with tacos though the lettuce remains lettuce and the tomatoes remain tomatoes…etc. When races are mixed nothing remains what it was prior to the adulteration.

3.) However, I’ll make a deal with Rev. Sumpter. If old Toby will give up advocating race-mixing I’ll give up cheese, wine and tacos. What do you say Tobe? Is it a deal?

(Since people in the CREC are demonstrating lately that they have no sense of humor allow me to say on #3 that I am joking. I will never give up wine, cheese, and tacos.)

4.) That Scripture and reason teach that race/ethnicities should be preserved it does not mean that peanut butter and chocolate cannot be mixed or that it is a sin to have a PB&J sandwich. Old Toby’s  attempt at a reductio ad absurdum here was, shall we say, absurd?  I mean by Toby’s reasoning because God forbids adulterating therefore married men and women should not be intimate because that requires a unholy mixing.

5.) Finally Old Toby insists that Christians must do better than Rev. Torba’s statement.

And here I am still waiting for someone to do better because Old Toby sure didn’t rise to the occasion.

“Dude, You Just Went Full Retard.”

 Character Kirk Lazarus 
 2008 comedy film Tropic Thunder 

I have somehow entered an alternate universe as discovered by Dr. Stephen Strange when exploring the multiverse. In this universe there is absolutely no correlation between the usage of language and logic. Almost anything can be said that leaves the inhabitants of this alternate universe completely unphased. It’s like they all speak a different language each having their own decoder headset.

Below is a conversation I stumbled across between Rev. Andrew Torba and Rev. Toby Sumpter. Torba is a good man fighting on the side of the angels. Sumpter is an idiot as seen in this exchange below.

I am told that Sumpter is something of Doug Wilson’s right hand man these days. I have to wonder if when Doug sees exchanges like this if he doesn’t go all “double face palm.” Does Doug experience “cringe” at conversations like what we find below? Does Doug start looking around to see if Stephen Sittler or Alfred E. Newman (he of MAD MAGAZINE fame) might be able to replace Sumpter?

This is sooooooooo bad.

Rev. Andrew Torba writes;

“God created different ethnic groups. To preserve them is to preserve God’s creation and is therefore an inherent good.”

Bret interjects;

Now before we turn to Rev. Sumpter’s response to Rev. Torba let us take just a second to realize that what Rev. Torba has said above has been the position of the church for 2000 years. This is clearly and unequivocally proven by Achord and Dow’s anthology; “Who is my Neighbor; An Anthology of Natural Relations.” (Have I mentioned lately that to date nobody has refuted this book and only one CREC clergy nincompoop has even tried and what a goulash he made of that attempt.

Anyway, after Rev. Torba made that comment above Rev. Toby Sumpter weighed in and I think this response deserves as wide as publication as possible. Sumpter replied;

“At best this is half-baked primitivism, and at worst it’s a form of incestuous Judaizing and radically misunderstands the Cultural Mandate and Great Commission.

This is like saying God created different kinds of food. To preserve them in their original state is to preserve God’s creation & therefore an inherent good. 

So wine and cheese and tacos are out y’all. Also, no mining, no fossil fuels, no building anything, no medicine — no changing or mixing anything that God made. Leave it raw and untouched just like it was when God said it was good. No fruitful dominion for you.

Despite the idolatry of statist multiculturalism, Christians must do better.”

Just when I think I’ve found the bottom of CREC stupidity, Toby Sumpter steps up to the plate to tell me that I believe that Cheese, Wine, and Tacos must be out of bounds because I am a Kinist.

1.) Maintaining and preserving ethnic distinctions is incestuous Judaism?

Well, I guess Rev. Sumpter must conclude that St. Cyprian was guilty of incestuous Judaism;

“If it is a source of joy and glory to men to have children like unto themselves — and it is more agreeable to have begotten an offspring then when the remaining progeny responds to the parent with like lineaments — how much greater is the gladness of God the Father, when any one is so spiritually born that in his acts and praises the divine eminence of race [genus] is announced!”

Dow and Achord note about this quote, “Cyprian’s argument presupposes that it is proper and fitting for men to take such joy, and hence that it is improper and unfitting for men to neglect the value of lineal similitude or, worse, to positively value dissimilitude.”

And according to Rev. Sumpter, St. Augustine is a practitioner of incestuous Judaism;

“Difference of race or condition of sex is indeed taken away by the unity of the faith, but it remains imbedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule.”

St. Augustine
Epistle to Galatians (3:28-29)

And Aquinas guilty of incestuous Judaism?

“God holds first place, for He is supremely excellent, and is for us the first principle of being and government. In the second place, the principles of our being and government are our parents and country, that have given us birth and nourishment. Consequently, man is debtor chiefly to his parents and country, after God. Wherefore, just as it belongs to religion to give worship to one’s parents and one’s country [i.e. — one’s people]. The worship due to our parents includes the worship given to all our kindred, since our kinfolk are those who descend from the same parents.”

Summa Theologica
Vol. III, Part II, Second Section

John Calvin guilty of incestuous Judaizing?

You betcha;

“Delightful to every one is his native soil, and it is also delightful to dwell among one’s own people… all his relatives and the nation from which he sprang.”

Commentary on Jeremiah 9:2

Puritan Thomas Wilson? Yep… he was a incestuous Judaizer;

“What do ye call natural affections?

Such as be among them of one blood and kindred, as between parents and children, husbands and wives, kindred, country, heathens, yea Christians also voice of these.

How does it differ from human and Christian affection?

Human affection is that whereby we embrace all men; natural affection is that where by we embrace them which are nearer unto us by blood; Christian affection is that whereby we love good men because they belong to Christ.”

A Commentary on the Most Divine Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans
3rd Edition. 1653, Chapter 1, page 54

I have pages and pages of quotes like this. I can demonstrate that per Toby Sumpter that the following men were guilty of incestuous Judaism.

Edwards
Winthrop
Althusius
Knox

By crackey, it would be easier to tell you who in church history has not been an incestuous Judaizer. At best this accusation is ignorant on stilts. At worse Sumpter was born with a birth defect in his ability to reason. You decide for yourself.

Let’s round off with one of my favorite from A. W. Tozer;

Next our brilliant Sumpter steps up to the mic and tells us that Rev. Torba radically misunderstands the Great Commission and the Cultural Mandate. Indeed his brilliance is so effulgent I can barely read his words for the brightness of their glory;

Here we go again…

Did N.T. scholar Martin Wyngaarden misunderstand the Great Commission and the Cultural Mandate when he offered:

“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, though each nationality remains distinct.”

“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance.” 19:25.

Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria, and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Martin Wyngaarden
The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture — pp. 101-102.

How about Dr. Geerhardus Vos? Did he also misunderstand the Great Commission and the Cultural Mandate?

“Nationalism, within proper limits, has the divine sanction; an imperialism that would, in the interest of one people, obliterate all lines of distinction is everywhere condemned as contrary to the divine will. Later prophecy raises its voice against the attempt at world-power, and that not only, as is sometimes assumed, because it threatens Israel, but for the far more principal reason, that the whole idea is pagan and immoral.

Now it is through maintaining the national diversities, as these express themselves in the difference of language, and are in turn upheld by this difference, that God prevents realization of the attempted scheme… [In this] was a positive intent that concerned the natural life of humanity. Under the providence of God each race or nation has a positive purpose to serve, fulfillment of which depends on relative seclusion from others.”

-Geerhardus Vos,
Biblical Theology

Again, in the words of Captain Steve Rogers, “I can do this all day.”

Next the genius Sumpter comes up with analogy;

“This is like saying God created different kinds of food. To preserve them in their original state is to preserve God’s creation & therefore an inherent good.”

We will pick that up in part II.