Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
https://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/radio-show-hour-1-2025-05-17/
The Episcopal Church made headlines this week for refusing to resettle white Afrikaner refugees. Pastor Bret McAtee returns to the radio program to offer his response. How should Christians address the concept of white guilt? Pastor McAtee provides a decisive answer.
First, I really would encourage people to take a look here on Iron Ink where I have stored more than a few of the quotes from our theological fathers throughout Church history.
What I am trying to say to Pelton is not unique to me. It has been the position of the Church in all times and in all places until about 1960 or so when the Post War and Civil Rights consensus began to take hold in the West. These two historical realities were themselves just the final flowering of the Enlightenment period, which itself find its roots back to the Renaissance and before that to the ancient pagan world and before that to the Garden of Eden.
I give the whole exchange with Pelton because I don’t want anybody accusing me of misrepresenting his view. Here they are in total.
Pelton writes,
In the previous post I did not say that biology was the cause of sin. I said that when desires and lusts occur the reality of our biology in those desires and lusts can’t be cast aside. So, I think we agree that biology alone is not the cause of sin. However, Scripture clearly teaches that our biology is far more influential then your Gnostic type reasoning is allowing for;
Rom 7:21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. Rom 7:22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, Rom 7:23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?1Co 9:26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; 1Co 9:27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.
2Co 4:7a But we have this treasure in earthen vessels
In terms of our Lord Christ, the fact that He did not have a sin nature surely means something in this whole discussion. Calvin touches on this in his commentary;
“Thus he (Jesus) not only really became a man, but he also assumed all the qualities of human nature. There is, however, a limitation added, without sin; for we must ever remember this difference between Christ’s feelings or affections and ours, that his feelings were always regulated according to the strict rule of justice, while ours flow from a turbid fountain, and always partake of the nature of their source, for they are turbulent and unbridled.”
Because our biological impulses are intertwined with a sin nature Jesus didn’t have they are far more influential than you are allowing for, as seen in the Scriptures I noted above.
Pelton writes,
To say “biology influences behavior” is not to say “biology causes sin.” Influence is not determinism.
BLMc responds,
As long as we agree with the passages I posted above (Rom. 7, I Cor. 9, II Cor. 4) we can move on from this.
Pelton writes;
Yes, God created nations and families. That’s good. But sin didn’t enter through creational order—it entered through Adam’s disobedience.
Bret responds,
And Adam was part of the creational order… right?
Pelton writes,
The Bible doesn’t say we sin because we’re in this or that biological group. It says we sin because we’re in Adam (Romans 5:12–19). Saying “grace restores nature” is true— Saying “grace blesses sin-influenced nature” is false.
Bret responds,
Yes, we sin because we are in Adam but that truth doesn’t negate the idea that patterns of sin can’t run in familial lines. For an overview of this idea see,
https://biblehub.com/topical/g/generational_patterns_of_sin.htm
And I wonder, could you please point out to me where I ever said, “grace blesses sin-influenced nature?” I have no idea where from where that is coming.
James Pelton writes,
Traducianism holds that the soul is inherited, not that sin is encoded in DNA. It means we inherit a spiritual nature, not a physical mutation. Even if genetics predispose someone to a temper, the moral choice to act in anger is sin. Otherwise, you’ve collapsed moral agency into determinism—which Scripture does not allow.
BLMc responds,
There you go again… divorcing the spiritual from the corporeal. That’s Gnostic James. Since man can resist the devil knowing he will flee we know that determinism isn’t true as you falsely accuse me of. However, the genetic predisposition proves my point as Scripture does in Romans 7, I Cor. 9. and II Cor. 4 as I posted above.
James Pelton writes,
You talk about Jesus being a “supernatural exception.” But that proves my point. If sin were genetic, God would have to stop the genetics for Jesus to be sinless. Instead, Scripture teaches that Jesus shared in our humanity (Hebrews 2:14) without sin. That shows sin is not transmitted through DNA.
Bret responds,
Have you never heard of generational sins James? This primer might help you out here. Give it a read. There is much more on the subject out there. As I said, this link is only a primer. It demonstrates again, that you are Gnostic.
https://biblehub.com/topical/g/generational_patterns_of_sin.htm
You keep referring to our Lord Jesus Christ but you do realize that he was born without a sin nature right? This means that like Adam, He had no predisposition to sin. That is not true of us James, since we do have a sin nature and since that sin nature is expresses itself as Paul states above.
I think, if I am reading you right James, that you would say “yes” to the question, “Was it possible for Jesus to sin?” On the other hand I would answer that question “no” since He was predestined not to sin and since He had no sin nature. On the other hand we have a sin nature and that “law of sin is in our members.”
You see, James, I am not Gnostic like you. I understand man is spiritual and corporeal. I also understand that man’s spirituality and corporeality are intertwined and can’t be divorced like you are doing. Man’s sin nature is coded in man genetically though that sin nature is not restricted to man’s genetics. When I receive my glorified body I will be the same me but without the encoded sin in my genetics and without the sin nature. It just strikes me James that without some understanding like what I am communicating you are left with Gnosticism…. you are left isolating and divorcing the corporeal from the spiritual realities that comprise man.
James Peloton writes,
I’m not denying the body or downplaying the goodness of creation. I’m simply affirming: •Sin is spiritual and moral •Salvation is spiritual transformation •Identity in Christ transcends but doesn’t erase earthly distinctions That is classic, biblical orthodoxy—not Gnosticism. “The body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.” — 1 Corinthians 6:13
BLMc responds,
Yes you are. Your most certainly are. I hope I have demonstrated that above. Sin is indeed spiritual and moral but that does not mean that it isn’t biological as well.
Rom 7:23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Rom 7:24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Regeneration, is indeed, spiritual transformation, but that transformation doesn’t mean that we quit contending with and against sin in this life. Greed, lust, deceit, gluttony, sloth … we continue to war against these sins in this life and partly because our very real corporeality urges us in sinful directions. We await our full transformed bodies … our glorified bodies, where all these sinful bodily biological desires, as well as our sin nature, will be done. To deny what I’ve said is Gnostic James. It is a denial of our the sin that is part and parcel of our corporeality.
James Peloton writes,
I’m not dividing body and spirit. im distinguishing them, like Scripture does. Calvin also affirms that: •In Christ, we are spiritually equal •Our creational identity is not the source of sin •Grace doesn’t validate the fallen expressions of our nature, but heals them Calvin would never say different ethnic groups have lingering, God-ordained spiritual deficiencies that salvation “restores.”
BLMc responds;
Really… Calvin would never say that? Well, let’s go to the well and consider a wee bit what Calvin said on this subject;
“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”
John Calvin (Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3)
“The inhabitants of Crete, of whom he speaks with such sharpness were undoubtedly very wicked. The Apostle, who is wont to reprove mildly those who deserved to be treated with extreme severity, would never have spoken so harshly of the Cretans, if he had not been moved by very strong reasons. What term more reproachful than these opprobrious epithets can be imagined; that they were “lazy, devoted to the belly, destitute of truth, evil beasts?” Nor are these vices charged against one or a few persons, but he condemns the whole nation.”
John Calvin (Commentary on Titus 1:12)
“Let us perceive that their are wicked nations; let us examine their vices in order to keep ourselves from (learning) them. The French, for example, are more corrupt in their attire than other nations. Why? Because they have always had the folly of having to dress the body now this way, or the neck now that way – there is no style they have not seen fit to try, and God has condemned them and had them in derision, because of this mad curiosity which they have always had. And it is more today than ever.
Thus it is true, that all the world must be completely corrupt, and everything topsy turvy now. Yet, be that as it may, we must still take note of the particular vices of the nations, so that we know how to keep ourselves from them.” John Calvin (Sermon on I Cor. 11:11-16)
“All are not created on equal terms … This God has testified, not only in the case of single individuals; He has also given a specimen of it in the whole posterity of Abraham, to make it plain that the future condition of each nation was entirely at His disposal.”
John Calvin (Institutes Vol. 3, ch. 21, section 5)
Now, I’m sure Jame you will insist that Calvin does not say what he is clearly saying here about this subject but that is par for the course for people who don’t want the greats saying what they say because it contradicts their errant views.
I’ll leave you with one more quote from a distinguished Reformed theologian of the 20th century who wrote on this subject;
“We would maintain that all the necessary chromosomes required for the later development of the various racial strains now extant were already present in the perfect seed within the body of the unfallen Adam, even though his body and his chromosomes too must also have been adversely affected later as the result of his sin.”
Francis Nigel Lee
James Peloton writes,
That’s not Reformed theology—it’s ethnonationalism in theological garb. “The nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light…” — Revelation 21:24 That doesn’t prove ethnic traits are spiritually significant in the new creation—it shows that the diversity of the nations is redeemed to glorify God.
BLMc responds,
But ethno-nationalism (a tautology if there ever was one) is what Reformed theology teaches. Doubt me? Purchase a copy of “Who Is My Neighbor” and go to the Reformed / Presbyterian / Puritan section and see what all these chaps said in favor of ethno-nationalism. You just don’t know what you’re talking about James and you’re talking out of your hat.
If ethnic traits are not spiritually significant in the new creation then what are the nations doing there in their nations?
James, the nations are diverse precisely because they are diverse in their ethnic traits. Clearly, God delights in these diverse ethnic traits in the New Jerusalem because those traits remain as glorified.
Keep in mind James if Christianity does not teach ethno-nationalism the only option left is for it to teach either Gnosticism or some variant of Marxism, which has always pushed the same thing your pushing and that is the elimination of the ethnic distinctiveness of the nations.
James Peloton writes,
It (Revelation 21) doesn’t say “and their generational curses or weaknesses are retained and celebrated.”
BLMc responds,
I don’t know why you are repeating this canard — especially given the fact that I never said anything close to that. Clearly, as existing in the New Jerusalem the nations are glorified so that all generational curses and all sinful weaknesses removed.
James Peloton writes,
It actually more supports the point I am trying to make “Cultural Marxism” is about tearing down institutions and eliminating distinctions. I’m not doing that. I affirm God created us male and female, and made nations. But Scripture is clear: in Christ, we are one body (Eph. 2:14–16), and our old selves have died (Col. 3:3).
BLMc Responds,
Let me quote a distinguished Reformed theologian that remains alive;
“Scripture, as I read it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially. Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God’s grace into one body. They were expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers inthe faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups.”
John Frame,
“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”
Spiritually, we are one body but the creational distinctions remain James. This is seen even in the Church where because of the creational distinctions women are not allowed to rule over men. If they were spiritually one the way you are Gnostically trying to argue women would be allowed to rule over men. Creational distinctions remain James. Because of creational distinctions we celebrate the presence of Korean churches and Hmong churches in our midst. If creational distinctions disappeared once people are in Christ, as you suggest, then denominations would demand that these Korean, and Hmong churches be eliminated.
James Peloton writes,
That’s not Marxist—that’s gospel transformation. Ironically, saying that certain peoples carry unchangeable spiritual traits rooted in biology is much closer to Darwinian racial theory than biblical Christianity. Scripture teaches that all have sinned, all can be redeemed, and in Christ there is one new man (Eph. 2:15). Grace doesn’t reinforce fallen nature—it transforms it.
BLMc Responds,
Yeah … it is Cultural Marxism… though you can’t see it … yet.
And I don’t deny that God has people in every tribe, tongue and nation as in their tribes, tongues, and nations.
Oh… you accuse me of Darwinian racial theory. Allow me to accuse you of Boasian racial theory. Look him up. Probably one of the most influential men of the 20th century that very few have heard of.
James Pelton writes,”
Sin is a moral, spiritual rebellion against God—not a biological condition.
“Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.”
— James 1:14, ESV
Bret responds,
And you’re saying desire is completely unrelated to our biology? When a man lusts for a woman is there nothing about biology in that?
So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Gen. 3:6
Are you saying there was no biology in those desires? Come on James … this is a sign that you are Gnostic.
You are divorcing things that cannot be divorced. They can be distinguished but not divorced.
James Pelton writes,
Can anger issues run in families? Yes—but that’s temperament or learned behavior, not guilt for sin. A quick temper might be genetic. But sinning in anger is a choice, not an inheritance.
Romans 5:12 says sin entered through Adam, and all die because all sinned—not because they got the “sin gene.”
Bret responds,
Certainly anger can be a learned behavior but it can also be a genetic trait and finally it can be both. Do you think everything is nurture holding that nature doesn’t exist? If you do that is Gnostic. Gnosticism eliminates the corporeal reality of existence and makes those realities unimportant. That’s what I see you doing by denying that creationally God has put us in particular peoples — with all their strengths and weaknesses. Those creational categories (nature) are restored (made what they were always intended to be in their best expression) by grace. Anger for example, can become resolve.
James Pelton writes,
Traducianism is the view that the soul is generated along with the body from the parents—not specially created by God at each conception. It explains how we inherit a sin nature, but not that sin is in our DNA.
Bret responds,
Was David’s lust for Bathsheba a lust that existed without cooperation from his DNA?
James Pelton writes
I would affirm:
-Sin is a spiritual problem
-We are responsible for our own sin
Genetics may influence behavior, but they don’t cause sin
Bret responds,
If genetics is influencing your behavior, then it is causal in sin. Now, of course our spiritual sin nature is moving our biological desires but one can’t say that genetics influence behavior and as the same time say it is not causal in the least.
You chaps want to make this vast divide between the spiritual and the corporeal. However, God made us as whole beings. Distinctions can be made but you chaps are divorcing the spiritual from the corporeal. That, James, is Gnostic like.
James Pelton really reaches,
Otherwise, you’d be saying Jesus would’ve inherited sin through Mary’s genetics—which Scripture and the early church reject.
Bret responds,
That would only be the case if one didn’t believe that God supernaturally worked so as Jesus did not inherit a sin nature. God, Scripture records, does the miraculous.
James Pelton writes,
When someone gets saved, they remain biologically male or female, Jew or Gentile, black or white. Your body and ethnicity don’t vanish.
But Scripture is clear that in Christ, those categories are no longer ultimate.
Bret responds,
There the Gnosticism is again.
Here is John Calvin on that subject;
“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”
John Calvin (Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3)
Are you a flighty scatterbrained dreamer James?
James Pelton wrote,
“You have put off the old self… and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Here there is not Greek and Jew… but Christ is all, and in all.”
— Colossians 3:9–11, ESV
This isn’t Gnosticism, this is orthodox
Bret responds,
But the new self that is being put on is consistent with who God creationally made me to be. Grace restores nature James.
You are Cultural Marxist orthodox. You are not Biblically orthodox.
Rev. 21:22 But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23 The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine [l]in it, for the [m]glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. 24 And the nations [n]of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor [o]into it.
James Edwards: Please inform our readers about your educational background and provide some details about the church you pastor.
Pastor Bret McAtee:
My educational background is undergrad work @ Indiana Wesleyan University. When I attended there it was called “Marion College.” I graduated with a BS in Political-Science, Religion-Philosophy, and History. While there I did a great deal of work in Worldview thinking and presuppositionalism under the guidance of Dr. Glenn Martin, who was himself a worldwide leader in Worldview thinking and presuppositionalism at the time.
After that I attended Seminary in Columbia, South Carolina at Columbia Biblical Seminary. I received my M.Div there with an emphasis on Cross Cultural ministry which was a natural fit with what I had learned in undergrad in terms of Worldview thinking and presuppositionalism.
Finally, I did Ph. D. work at Whitfield Theological Seminary though I never finished that degree. However, the reading I did there likewise supported the trajectory that I had already pursued.
At each step of the way I was reading tons of theology, history, political theology, economics, comparative religions, Worldview thinking and presuppositonalism.
The Church I ministering at currently is an Independent Reformed Church. We left connected denominationalism six years ago. I have been here 30 years. We are a small but vibrant congregation. The Church itself has existed just over 60 years. We abide by the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession of Faith, and the Canons of Dort believing that they are accurate summaries of the basics of Scripture. We are a bit of a throwback compared to most contemporary Reformed Churches. We are decidedly Reformed in our theology. We are postmillennial in our eschatology, Christian Nationalist and familialistic in our social order understanding, we strongly emphasize the means of grace (Word & Sacrament) and we adhere to a rich covenant theology.
Edwards: The Southern Poverty Law Center, a widely criticized organization, publicly targeted you and your church a few years ago, resulting in significant media attention. Can you share your experience during that ordeal and how you responded to the attacks?
Pastor Bret McAtee:
First of all I have always found it to be hilarious that the #1 hate group in American (the SPLC) has gotten away with being known as that organization that identifies and labels extremist groups in America. It is pretty well known now that man who was the leader of that organization for years himself was tossed because of various unseemly actions on his part towards female employees and minorities as reported by various news outlets.
I would like to say that I handled the attacks with no problem but that wouldn’t be the truth. It was a very difficult time because not only was the SPLC lambasting us but also the Michigan media was splashing our name everywhere with their false and slanderous accusations. So my experience was one of despair at the time. I thought for sure that those people were going to bring myself, my family, and the families in the Church to ruin. That was definitely their intent. As a result of their libelous “reporting” I received multiple death threats. There was also slight vandalism to our church building. I also found myself denounced publicly in the local press by more than a few clergy members in the city in which I live. These clergy members were seeking to burnish their reputations by slandering me. It is interesting that not one of these local ministers ever reached out to me to ask me about the truthfulness of what was being reported. They just believed the constantly repeated errant reports from radio, television, and newspapers.
The way I responded was two fold …
1.) I refused to talk to Journalist, despite the numerous requests for interviews. Those people are never interested in the truth. They are only interested in spinning things to support the false narrative that they are seeking to weave.
2.) I took down my public online activity for a few months until the storm passed. I did that because the media had already been quoting my work completely out of context and I knew that if I left it up during the storm that they would continue with their libelous reporting where they cut and paste what one has written in such a way to make it say what one was not saying.
Edwards: Mel Gibson’s father, Hutton, once told me during an interview on my radio program that, “Tolerance is the last virtue of a depraved society. When an immoral society has blatantly and proudly violated all the commandments, it insists upon one last virtue: tolerance for its immorality. It will not tolerate condemnation of its perversions. It creates a whole new world in which only the intolerant critic of intolerable evil is evil.” What do you think?
Pastor Bret McAtee:
I think that tolerance is the battle cry for the person who uses the idea of freedom as a cover for licentiousness. So, on this point I think Hutton Gibson is correct. Freedom, or liberty, is only as good as that standard by which it is hemmed in and defined. Absolute unrestricted freedom is the kind of thing that the French Revolution era sexual pervert “the Marquis de Sade” advocated for, dreamt about, and practiced. A tolerance for absolute freedom or liberty without any guardrails to define that freedom is a illustrated by a railroad train that is free to travel without railroad tracks, or a goldfish who is free to swim without his goldfish bowl.
This reminds me of what I often say to the people I serve in the Church I pastor. I tell them that the only Taboo that is now left in the west is the Taboo against all Taboos. That is true because of what Hutton observed about where we are at with the issue of tolerance.
Another reality that fits in here is that because of the ascendancy of tolerance we are repeatedly told over and over again that we are not to judge, and of course the reason people insist that we shouldn’t judge is because judging shows a lack of tolerance. Yet, Jesus Himself did say;
“Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”
And elsewhere the Holy Spirit tells us;
Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!
We see thus that Scripture does not teach this idea of tolerance as some kind of supreme virtue. Now Christianity has always taught there are areas of adiaphora — or issues regarding this or that which are indifferent or permissible that not everyone will agree on but not everything is adiaphora.
In the end when you come right down to it, the worship of tolerance is consistent with the central Satanic doctrine of “Thelema” crafted by that most famous warlock of the 20th century, “Aleister Crowley” which explicitly teaches, “Do what thou wilt.“
Edwards: During the madness of the COVID era, you once again consistently demonstrated your pastoral leadership. What was the position of your church during the height of that hysteria?
Pastor Bret McAtee:
We kept our doors open and never closed. We did try to be careful with our seating and the way we distributed the Eucharist. We decided to keep our doors open because I had a pretty good friend who is a statistics guy. It is what he does for a living. Michael was telling me and others that statistically speaking what was being reported as occurring was not statistically possible. Now, I know next to nothing about statistics but I knew that Michael was a man who could be trusted. Second, I caught a long piece by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya online. Bhattacharya, who is now head of the National Institute of Health — and who Fauci, Collins and company tried to destroy during the scamdemic — was clearly communicating that something was significantly off with what was being reported on the scamdemic. So, I combined these two pieces of information with my long established distrust of anything and everything that the Federal Government says and I along with the Elders decided to keep our doors open.
Edwards: Switching gears to a current issue, when asked by a reporter why Afrikaners are getting fast-tracked into the United States, President Trump replied, “Because they’re being killed…it’s a genocide…they happen to be white.” However, a recent NPR headline states, “The Episcopal Church will not settle white Afrikaners, citing moral opposition.” How do you respond to this issue?
Pastor Bret McAtee:
First, I would say that I don’t take the Episcopal Church to be a genuine Church. I have no doubt there are likely Christians in their fellowship but Institutionally the Church long ago left the Christian faith exchanging the truth of Christianity for the doctrines of demons.
Second, President Trump is exactly correct on this matter. What is being done to white farmers in South Africa matches the New World Order’s desire to treat all white people (especially Christians) in all the Western nations in the same fashion. Rev. R. L. Dabney said over 150 years ago that the intent of the New World Order types was to subjugate the Christian white man so there would no longer be any need for the New World Order types “to tremble before the righteous resistance of … freemen.”
Third, I think this also teaches us, what many of us knew back in the 1980s when Apartheid was an issue, and that is that the Apartheid that was practiced in South Africa (which was of a more benign variety than that which is currently practiced in Israel with the Palestinians) was a necessity in order to provide functional social order in that nation. If your readers have any doubt about this have them read Iliana Mercer’s, “Into The Cannibal’s Pot.”
Finally, the Episcopalian Church’s “moral opposition” proves a couple truths. It proves that the Episcopal Church’s morality is the morality of the Marxists. What do I care about the moral opposition of a Marxist organization? Second, it proves that what is called “replacement conspiracy” is not a conspiracy. Clearly, there is a global wide attempt to replace white people.
We should note here that this attempt to destroy white people is, in point of fact, a proxy war on the Kingship and authority of Jesus Christ. The NWO – of which many if not most Church denominations are in league with (even “conservative” denominations) – is going after white people because, historically speaking, white people have been the carriers of civilizational Christianity. Because the NWO so hates Christ, they are seeking to genocide that race which has, by God’s favor alone, been the race to build Christian civilization. Ultimately this is a religious war against Christianity and so penultimately a racial war on whites since whites have uniquely been that race to build Christian civilization across the globe.
Edwards: What is your general stance on immigration, and the alleged sins of “racism” and “xenophobia”?
Pastor Bret McAtee:
At this point in history I am completely against all immigration – legal and illegal. History teaches me that these united States were formed to be a Christian white nation. The kind of immigration that we have taken up since the Hart-Cellar immigration act of 1965 has clearly been destructive of the nation in which I grew up. When I was a boy these united States were populated with 88% of the folks identifying as white. Today that number, is somewhere in the 61% area. The result — especially seen in our cities — is an increasing balkanization of America into tribal fiefdoms. In Michigan, for example, the Muslim Arabs basically own Dearborn and the surrounding area. In some Minnesota cities the Somalia community is overwhelming. The same is true of Lewiston – Auburn Maine. This kind of balkanization – both of race and religion – is a recipe for complete social order breakdown. I am convinced this is intended to the purpose of strengthening the position of a tyrant state. If civil unrest is a constant, the tyrant state believes that it is the only entity that can pretend to bring order. So, all this ridiculous immigration is purposeful and the purpose is ultimately to build a New World Order where nations as defined as, a particular people descended from the same ancestor, are eliminated. From a minister’s perspective that looks a great deal like a revised attempt to rebuild the wicked tower of Babel (Genesis 11). Our New World Order enemies want to build a “United States of the World.” It is just pure globalism.
As to the alleged sins of “racism” and “xenophobia,” as those words are commonly defined and tossed around today, I would say that they are not sins I find in the Scripture. The whole idea of “racism” was popularized by a Marxist (Leon Trotsky) in order to villainize the Slavs for wanting to maintain their distinct culture. The word serves the same kind of purpose today. Secondly, the phoniness of “racism” is also seen in the fact that only white people can be “racists.” If “racism” was really a thing then nobody would have a problem attaching the same label to some non-white person. I mean, it’s not like there aren’t tons of minorities who hate white people.
Racism is conveniently now defined as prejudice plus power. If that is the definition of “racism” then I don’t have any problem being a “racist.” Let me explain. I have a prejudice towards my wife, children and grandchildren. I also have the power to do for them before I do for other people’s wives, children, and grandchildren. I have power plus prejudice and I use that for the good and health of my family. Now if that makes me a “racist” then that is a good thing to be. However, all because I prioritize my people doesn’t mean I hate everybody else. It merely means that since I am a finite being with finite resources I have to prioritize where my resources are to be used. We see this idea taught in the Bible where it says “the man who does not provide for his own household is worse than an infidel.”
In the same way my love for my family, and people doesn’t mean I am xenophobic towards the stranger and the alien. It merely means, to quote Kipling,
The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control–
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.
The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.
By the way, all of this is Biblical. If people want to read more on the Biblical justification for what I’ve written here on Immigration I suggest they read; James K. Hoffmeier’s; “The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible.”
Edwards: In a recent sermon, you spoke about so-called white guilt. What is it about this phenomenon that you think people should know?
Pastor Bret McAtee:,
White Americans as a people are increasingly turning away from the God who called us and blessed us. For Christians this means that increasingly as we rebel against God we are a sinful and guilty people. The only way that sin and guilt can be removed is by looking to Jesus Christ and trusting His death on the Cross as the just payment for our sin and the removal of our guilt. If we refuse to trust Jesus Christ’s death on the cross as the satisfaction in our place for our sin and guilt then that means we continue to carry that sin and guilt.
Now if we don’t bow to Jesus Christ this means that we will forever be seeking to do what only He can do and that is to seek to get rid of the sin and guilt that we know that we are riddled with. In the attempt to rid ourselves of our own sin and guilt we only have two options if we will not place our sins on Jesus Christ. We can either try to carry our sin and guilt ourselves (which is a form of masochism) or we can try to push off our sin and guilt on other people (which is a form of sadism). Now, along come the race pimps and they bombard us with the allegation that the white man is guilty of “racism.” Now, of course that is not true generally speaking, but as the white man is already guilt ridden because he has not owned Christ as his deliverer from sin and guilt he masochistically owns that false guilt pushed on him by the manipulative race pimp and tries to pay for it himself by voting for black people, or by falling all over himself apologizing for whatever it is the race pimps want to blame white folks for. If the white man would trust Christ again, there would be no ability for the race pimps to shove off on the white man all this false guilt. However, since the white man has abandoned Jesus Christ, and as such is indeed carrying true moral sin and guilt it is easy for the white man to masochistically just accept whatever false guilt is thrown his way by the race pimps and then to accept whatever solution to that false guilt that the current race pimps want to lay at their door. By accepting this false guilt, and the race pimp’s solution to false guilt the white man thinks that he can atone for his own sin instead of trusting Jesus Christ as the only means by which true sin and guilt can be removed and forgiveness discovered.
If you’re reading this and you have not trusted Jesus Christ as your alone savior then you will forever being carrying around sin and guilt and you will forever either try to pay for it yourself or you will forever try to pawn off your sin and guilt on someone else. The former leads to self-destructive behavior. The latter explains the incredible increase that we have seen in narcissistic behavior in recent years.
But for the sake of argument let us posit that the white man really is uniquely guilty and sinful as to the black man. (I don’t believe this but this is all for the sake of the argument.) Well, in the Christian world that would be solved by restitution. In the Christian world when one sins against another restitution between people is provided. However, even here the white man has no guilt because the restitution that has been provided for the black man with welfare programs, quota legislation, set asides, and other egalitarian legislation which has more than made up for any restitution that might have ever been required by Scripture.
Edwards: Many churches today are dying because they alienate men, who are the natural spiritual leaders of families. Such churches, with their inconsistent positions on race and immigration, demand that the saving grace of Christ comes attached at the hip with feminized leadership. The famed Southern Presbyterian theologian R. L. Dabney essentially warned in his time that a reasonable person would reject such a ridiculous practice of religion out of hand, meaning the very best people would be alienated from Christianity. Does this even qualify as a gospel, when any sane person must reject the suicidal package offered by these churches?
Pastor Bret McAtee:
No… there is very little Christianity in most of our Churches in the West today. I am thankful that there remain a handful of faithful ministers but to be honest the Church is in sad shape today because the clergy is so brain dead. There is little ability to take the abstractions of the Christian faith and translate them into concrete application and action. R. L. Dabney’s book “Secular Discussions” is worth its weight in gold because of how practical that book makes the Christian faith. R. J. Rushdoony was also another chap who had the ability to show how the abstractions of the Christian faith could be translated into concrete situations. I highly recommend both authors as well as Herman Bavinck who also had this ability.
We do have a problem today with more than a few white folks giving up on the Christian faith because they have witnessed what you describe in the opening question. They look at that and say; “If that is Christianity, I want nothing to do with it.” Frankly, I can’t blame them for looking elsewhere. However, the truth is, is that much of what is currently presented as Christianity is Anti-Christ. I would have nothing to do with a church that has pastorettes or female Elders. I would have nothing to do with a church that diminishes the importance of patriarchy. I would have nothing to do with a church that pushes egalitarianism in any way. I would have nothing to do with a church that hates prioritizing love of family (Ordo Amoris) over love of the stranger and alien. I would have nothing to do with a church that is purposefully trying to push interracial marriages. I would have nothing to do with them because I don’t think they are churches, or if they are churches they are churches that belong to Antichrists.
You would not believe all the phone calls I get from around the US and around the world from people lamenting that they can’t find a church to attend because of these kinds of issues. It breaks my heart as a Pastor. It breaks my heart even more as one who loves Jesus Christ. Why should His church be in such a sad shape? Yet, God has His reasons and our orders are not to despair but our orders are to fight.
Edwards: Rev. A. W. Tozer may have put it best when he wrote, “Religion today is not transforming people; rather, it is being transformed by the people. It is not raising the moral level of society; it is descending to society’s own level and congratulating itself that it has scored a victory because society is smilingly accepting its surrender.” Can believers return to a muscular brand of Christianity that served the West well for so long?
Bret responds,
I love Tozer. I read everything he wrote when I was in my 20s. One quote I love by him is; “God raises the prophet up, and the Church mows him down.” Oh, and by the way, Tozer was a Kinist. I have the quotes to prove it.
Being optimistic in my eschatology (I am postmillennial) I do believe that believers can return to a muscular brand of Christianity that made the Christian West the greatest civilization that has ever existed in the history of mankind. On this we have to consider;
.
1.) Scripture teaches that “All those who hate Wisdom (Christ) love death.” I conclude from that, that those fighting Biblical Christianity as thus fighting for death and as death is never a proposition that can ultimately win, since dying means losing, therefore Christianity, which is the only faith upon which a non-death civilization can be built — will be restored.
2.) Scripture teaches that Christ must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. This teaches me that a day will come, before the return of Jesus Christ in His final advent, when the all the nations will be vassal states to the current Dominion of Jesus Christ. This is why the OT Psalm 2 teaches that the Kings must kiss the Son lest they perish in the way.
3.) Further the Scripture teaches us to pray, “Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” I am persuaded that our Lord Jesus would not have taught the disciples to pray something that would never come true. Now combine that with Jesus own statement that the gates of Hell would not prevail over an attack Church army and I know with certainty that muscular Christianity will one day be hegemonic once again. Maybe not in my lifetime but before Christ returns.
One thing we have to keep in mind is that we must not despair. Our orders are to occupy until He returns. In that line one of my favorite poems has become;
My Orders are to fight
Then if I win
Or bravely fail
What matters it?
Only God doth prevail
The Servant craveth nought
Except to serve with might
I was not told to win
Or Lose
My Orders are to fight
Edwards: If readers are struggling to find a faithful congregation in their community that has not surrendered to the “woke” agenda, how can they enjoy your Sunday messages, whether in person or online?
McAtee:
Well, live we meet Sunday mornings @ 10:00 am at 421 State Street, Charlotte., Michigan. We also have Worldview meetings on every other Friday evening and we teach covenant classes to the children on every other Thursday. This year is winding down but through this month we have a class on The American War of Independence and another class on Civics/US Constitution and my wife teaches a third class on herbs.
They can watch live on Sundays online at
https://ironsermons.org/
They can also access us through Sermonaudio.com and there are youtube.com sermons online.
I also run and operate both IronInk.com where I give analysis on all kinds of different issues. Finally there is Iron Rhetoric podcasts which can be found on both Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
This is from some Baptist Minister in Houston Texas serving at a Mega Church. Like most mega Churches the ministers are long on feel goods and short on doctrine. His name is Rev. L. David Fairchild.
Fairchild writes;
“The fatal flaw in paedobaptism is that it treats the New Covenant like the Old. A mixed bag. Some believe, some do not. But that is not how the Bible describes it. Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 are clear. The New Covenant is made with those who know God. Who have been forgiven. Who have the Spirit. That is not a crowd you get into by birth. That is a regenerate people.
BLMc responds,
This would be true if it were not the case that the Old Covenant is like the New Covenant. The only difference is that the Old Covenant is the New Covenant not yet come to full flower. The Old Covenant is the not yet mature New Covenant.
That the New Covenant is like the Old Covenant in that both covenant are a mixed bad is seen in the fact that in the Old Covenant not all of Israel was of Israel as the Holy Spirit says in Romans 9. Some of Israel belonged to the outward administration of the covenant without having the essence of the covenant. In the same way the New Covenant is a mixed bag. We see this for example in Jesus warnings in Revelation to the seven churches that He would take their lampstands away if they were not faithful. We see this in the book of Hebrews with the warnings against falling away. We see this when John says of unregenerate people of the Church;
“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.” I John 2:19
Then there is the Wheat and Tares parable that many a theologian has seen being about the Church having in it both wheat and tares.
So Fairchild’s idea that the New Covenant is comprised only of regenerate people is just a Baptist assumption with no foundation. Now, it is true that the essence of the New Covenant, who is Jesus the Christ, is only occupied by the regenerate but there are many people who are in the administrative outskirts of the New Covenant who do not have the essence of the New Covenant who will say on that day …
22 Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 7
So, clearly it is a Baptist interpretive mistake to say that only regenerate people are in the boundaries of the New Covenant. It has always been the case, both in the Old Covenant and the New Covenant that not all of Israel is of Israel.
In terms of Fairchild’s appeal to the language of Jeremiah and Hebrews Calvin easily dismisses Fairchild’s mis-interpretative ravings on this score;
“It may be asked, whether there was under the Law (Old Covenant) a sure and certain promise of salvation, whether the fathers had the gift of the Spirit, whether they enjoyed God’s paternal favor through the remission of sins? Yes, it is evident that they worshipped God with a sincere heart and a pure conscience, and that they walked in his commandments, and this could not have been the case except they had been inwardly taught by the Spirit; and it is also evident, that whenever they thought of their sins, they were raised up by the assurance of a gratuitous pardon. And yet the Apostle, by referring the prophecy of Jeremiah to the coming of Christ, seems to rob them of these blessings. To this I reply, that he does not expressly deny that God formerly wrote his Law on their hearts and pardoned their sins, but he makes a comparison between the less and the greater. As then the Father has put forth more fully the power of his Spirit under the kingdom of Christ, and has poured forth more abundantly his mercy on mankind, this exuberance renders insignificant the small portion of grace which he had been pleased to bestow on the fathers. We also see that the promises were then obscure and intricate, so that they shone only like the moon and stars in comparison with the clear light of the Gospel which shines brightly on us.”
Calvin’s Commentary
Hebrews 8
L. David Fairchild writes,
“So baptizing someone with no faith, no regeneration, and no profession, like an infant, just does not fit. It breaks the meaning of baptism from the inside out.”
BLMc responds,
In point of fact since regeneration & justification are all God’s work with man contributing nothing baptizing infants is a perfect picture of God doing all the doing in saving helpless man. What Fairchild has done here is what all Baptists do. Fairchild has turned man’s faith into a work that he has to exchange as a work to trade in for salvation. This is justification by faith as a work alone. It is not a particularly Christian doctrine but really does lead back to some kind of pelagian arrangement. Of course it is the Baptist who breaks the meaning of Baptism from the inside out and turns the grace of God into something that is only gracious upon man’s trading up faith for grace.
L. David Fairchild;
I know the argument. Circumcision was the sign of the Old, baptism is the sign of the New. But that logic only works if the covenant structure stays the same. And it doesn’t. The Old Covenant was temporary. Shadows and types. The New Covenant is the real thing. It is better. It doesn’t just get a new sign. It has new membership. Baptism isn’t a repackaged circumcision. It’s the sign of a new creation.
BLMc responds,
1.) This reveals the Baptist propensity to assume discontinuity between the covenants. The Reformed, on the other hand, are disposed to seeing continuity between Old and New Covenant unless explicitly told of discontinuity such as the end of the sacrificial system and the ceremonial law.
2.) To deny that there is sameness between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant suggests that
a.) God isn’t immutable but changes between Old Covenant and New Covenant. This is a serious theological problem. If there is as much change between Old Covenant and New Covenant such as Baptists like Fairchild is positing then we really have a different God in the OT then we have in the NT. This is a problem.
b.) the Old Testament believers were not saved by grace alone just as the New Testament believers are saved. This Baptist thinking posits that the OT saints if saved were saved by a different kind of salvation then the salvation by which the saints are saved by with the coming of the magnificent Jesus Christ.
c.) The reason there is a new sign for the new and better covenant is because the Lord Christ fulfills all the blood shedding required in the old covenant and so the water of Baptism is given as a sign of forgiveness. However, Baptism signifies just what circumcision signified in the Old Covenant. This explains why it is St. Paul seems to mix his circumcision and baptism metaphors in Colossians 2;
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body [h]of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
The New Covenant has come with Christ and so circumcision is no longer the sign of the covenant as was the case when the Messiah was only anticipated. The reality is that the Old Covenant promised is now realized with the coming of Christ and so the covenant sign that was both anticipatory and yet at the same time proleptic is set aside for the sign (Baptism) that the reality has come. However, inasmuch as the old covenant was a unfolding and growing reality serving as a proleptic harbinger of the new covenant the new covenant remains related to what the old covenant anticipated.
Fairchild writes,
The pattern in the New Testament is painfully obvious. Hear the gospel. Believe. Repent. Then be baptized. That’s it. Over and over. There isn’t one clear example of an infant being baptized. Not one command to do it. Every baptism you can point to involves someone responding to Christ in faith.
BLM responds,
1.) The problem here is what St. Peter himself says in that Pentecost sermon;
“38 Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the [k]remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.’”
Now, there is no way in Hades that a 1st century Jew would’ve heard these words and thought … “I can’t bring my children to be baptized.” It is just ridiculous to contend otherwise.
2.) We know from the NT record that the Jews howled and howled about the Gentiles coming in to the covenant and yet we are to believe that the Jews did not raise a peep about their children being excluded from the “new and better covenant.”
3.) There is an abundance of household baptisms in the NT. This gives us conclusive evidence that children should be given the sign of the covenant because household baptisms as practiced in the NT scream at us that if children had been present they would have been baptized since that was the very nature of NT Household baptisms.
4.) There also isn’t one clear command or example of women taking the Eucharist. Does that therefore mean that women today shouldn’t receive the Eucharist?
Baptist logic is so jejune.
Fairchild writes,
When you baptize someone who hasn’t believed, you confuse everything. You blur the line between the visible and invisible church. You give false assurance. You end up with churches full of people who think they’re Christian because water touched their forehead decades ago. That is not the gospel.
BLMc responds,
1.) Whenever Fairchild baptizes anybody he does not know they believe. I bet more Baptists have been baptized who never believed than Reformed Babies have been baptized who never believed.
2.) Who says that a baby can’t believe? John is recorded as leaping his mother’s womb for joy thus signifying his recognition of Jesus. The Psalmist (22) writes even;
9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.
10 From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
3.) How can Fairchild even talk about a distinction between the visible and invisible church when he has said that he holds that all in the church are regenerate. The whole distinction between visible and invisible church rests upon the reality that not all members who say they are regenerate are indeed regenerate.
4.) The whole idea that paedo-baptist churches give false assurance is just Baptist bloviating. As paedo-baptist churches routinely preach to their people the 1st use of the law there is no false assurance going on.
5.) If Baptists want to talk about false assurance being given they should worry about the false assurance that comes with telling their membership that they are all regenerate.
Fairchild writes,
If you baptize someone who cannot believe, then you either have to say baptism doesn’t mean what Scripture says it does, or that it does something magical without faith. That’s precisely how you slide into baptismal regeneration, whether you admit it or not.
BLMC responds
1.) Scripture does not teach that infants can’t believe. See above.
2.) No paedo-Baptist teaches the Roman Catholic/Lutheran doctrine of Baptismal regeneration. Fairchild writing this just demonstrates the man’s ignorance on the subject once again.