Continuing to Disassemble the ARP’s Foppery on Kinism

AI Produced Special Moderator’s Committee on Kinism
and Race Realism

Westminster: Does Kinism align with the Westminster Standards?

No: It is first and primarily a violation of the communion of the saints (WCF Chapter 26). For Christians to intentionally segregate from other Christians based on ethnicity–in Sunday worship, marriage, schools, etc.–would be to not extend the kind of communion described below to those in Christ to whom that communion rightfully belongs:

Before we look at the butchery done to the WCF by AI and the ARP let’s first consider Dr. John Frame’s take on this matter. Frame has been a member of the PCA and so has himself subscribed to the WCF.

“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”

Here is the AI ARP document quoting WCF 26;

“All saints, that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by his Spirit, and by faith, have fellowship with him in his graces, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory: and, being united to one another in love, they have communion in each other’s gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man. (WCF 26:1)

Saints by profession are bound to maintain and (sic) holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification; as also in relieving each other in outward things, according to their several abilities and necessities. Which communion, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who, in every place, call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.” (WCF 26.2)

Bret responds,

1.) Typos – Note that in the original ARP document both 26:1 and 26:2 are filed as 26:1. Also note the word “and” being used where the word “an” belong. I only note this to reinforce the truth that a sophomore in High School would be held to a higher standard for a final paper than these clowns.

2.) To suggest that the 17th century Westminster divines had in mind here issues surrounding Kinism is just lunacy on the part of the ARP.

3.) Kinists have no problem plighting their allegiance to the above statement. Black Kinists, White Kinists, Brown Kinists, Yellow Kinists, etc. all would insist that they hold to WCF 26:1 and 26:2.

3.) If the ARP is going to be consistent, based on their understanding of WCF 26 they would have to break up their current Korean ARP churches. Will they do that?

4.) Note the phrase in WCF 26, “as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man. “ Kinists would merely offer that the kind of race relations that Kinists promote is the very definition of what conduces to the mutual good, both in the inward and outward man, of all peoples considered, meanwhile contending that it is the Alienists such as we find infesting the ARP who are advocating a policy wherein the mutual good of the saints, both in the inward and outward man, is not being pursued.

In short the WCF 26:1-2 no more disproves Kinism than it disproves that Christians should be involved in building skyscrapers or submarines.

The AI produced ARP document continues,

It is also a violation of Westminster’s allowances of marriage. Westminster allows for inter-racial marriages as shown in WCF 24.3:

It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And therefore, such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry
with infidels, Papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.

Bret responds,

We will start off here with a quote by Calvin to demonstrate how utterly idiotic it is to try and leverage the WCF to be the final word on interracial marriage,

“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)

1.) Clearly, if Calvin were alive today and writing about “some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers” he would have the ARP in mind.

2.) Again, we would note that the WCF is written in the homogeneous British Isles by a homogeneous people. The idea that we can take this document and force it to speak to our multicultural NWO moment in time is hermeneutically irresponsible. Does one really believe that the Westminster Divines would have had no problem with English male member of the nobility marrying a Hottentot peasant female? It’s just ludicrous to imagine.

3.) Given the ARP’s interpretation of WCF 24-3 there is nothing that would forbid a 85 year old female from marrying a 16 year old male or vice-versa as long as they were both Christian. Similarly, given the ARP interpretation it would be perfectly fine for a Christian brother and Christian sister to marry since that would likewise not be a unequal yoking.

People without common sense should not be allowed to get near a pulpit.

4.) I will say this much… WCF 24-3 forbids any orthodox Reformed Christian from marrying someone in the ARP given this phrase,

“neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as… maintain damnable heresies.”

This is due to the fact that Alienism is damnable heresy.

ARP document,

These violations mean that those who hold to Kinism or Race Realism violate their ministerial oaths, officer oaths, and membership vows.

Bret responds,

This AI ARP produced document means that people with low IQ should be avoided at all costs.

Trueman, Wilson, Alberry, & McAtee on Acceptable and Unacceptable Perversions

“A truly marvelous book. Sam (Alberry) writes as a pastor who himself struggles w/ same-sex attraction. Sam’s humanity shines through every page; his understanding of weakness under-girds the whole. A compassionate and compelling resources for pastors and elders to keep on hand, as this is an issue which will become more, not less, important.”

Carl R. Trueman

“Sam’s story is one of God’s goodness in the midst of same sex attraction, and is a powerful testimony for those needing encouragement in the face of this temptation.”

Doug Wilson

These words of praise for Alberry came out before it was found out that Sam wasn’t so successful in resisting temptation for other guys. These words of support and recommendation were written when some book by Alberry was released.

But what I want to point out here (again) is how all this normalized sodomite longings. Try to imagine a Carl R. Trueman or a Doug Wilson coming out with blurbs supporting some Christian Pastor who admitted to having “little boy attraction,” or maybe, “farm animal attraction.” You can’t imagine that because those perversions are so beyond the pale that no Pastor would dare either admit that they were attracted to little boys or to farm animals and no Pastor would dare come out in support of such a Pastor admitting such a thing who insisted he could still remain in the role as Pastor.

No, the only reason these blurbs were originally written or were once seen as being sane, is because sodomy has now been seen as acceptable. Because being sodomite has been accepted in the Christian conservative church it is the case that Pastors can serve as Pastors while at the same time admitting their sexual attraction is aimed at other men while other Pastors (Trueman and Wilson to name only two) could praise the Pastor with putatively controlled sodomite longings as somehow being estimable.

Somehow, it is now seen as being noble, sensitive, and caring to write things like Trueman and Wilson wrote above in support of a Pastor who admitted publicly that “I like other guys.” However, guys like Trueman and Wilson would never write the same thing about ministers coming out admitting that they are attracted to little boys or to farm animals. The only difference is, is that the former perversion is now seen as an acceptable perversion which we are now required to say, “Sam is a pervert but since he has his perversion under control, it’s all good.” Speaking this way demonstrated how noble, sensitive, and caring, Trueman and Wilson were. Trueman and Wilson would never speak the same way about a pretend Pastor Noberry writing a book admitting how the Holy Spirit had given him control over his continuing sexual attraction to little boys or farm animals.

And…. all I have written would remain true even if Alberry hadn’t decided to give in to his particular perversion.

The Reformed Church is dead. Long live the Reformed church.

Alienism is a Return to the OT Shadows

In the old and worse covenant if one desired to be part of the people of God one was required to have some kind of attachment to Israel. To have the one true religion meant being in some way attached to the one people of God. Women, in some few instances, could join Israel via marriage. Even this was an exception to the norm. Men could eventually come into the sanctuary of Israel but they could never own land since the land belonged to the blood Hebrews.

In the NT though, and the new and better covenant, members do not have to leave their people in order to attach themselves to the one true God. Instead, as all nations are discipled, all nations in their peculiar expression as a particular people can now be a Christian people serving the one true God.

The Alienists, in their insistence that once one is regenerated, one loses all their previous national attachment and so is free to disregard their ethnic identity because they are now Christian, are returning to a OT ethos where in order to belong to God one must be attached to a singular one people. In the OT that one people was the Hebrew tribe. In the Alienist worldview that one people is the Christian tribe. In making this one for one correspondence the Alienists have lost the NT theme that the Gospel goes to the nations and the nations in their particularity, all will become to God what Israel was alone to God in the OT.

The Alienists have thus errantly imported an OT shadow into the NT fulfillment. The Alienist desires to collect all converts into a New Christian World Order uni hybrid people. The Alienists lose the theme that the nations, in their unique national identities all stream to the mountain of the Lord (Isaiah 2:2 and Micah 4:1). The Alienist loses this same theme fulfilled as witnessed in Revelation 21 where we see the nations entering into the new Jerusalem nation by nation.

In the Alienist vision that is so promoted today in the NAPARC churches the nations lose their identities as particular nations because for the current Alienist (unlike their Kinist Christian forebears) conversion/regeneration means that all colors are allowed to bleed into one. This is the vision long held by the Marxists/Cultural Marxist. Now, it may not be the intent of the Alienists to have fallen into this Marxist paradigm. It may be the case that they have the best of intentions but the bottom line is that they are going back to the OT shadows when the NT teaches that the church is no longer a uni-polar people as it was in the OT but now is a multi-polar people with all the distinctness that necessitates.

Insisting that belonging to the Church means that your God given particularity of ethnos/race is given up and now can be bred out via inter-racial marriage is the same error that was pursued at Babel. It may be even a worse error since at least at Babel they were not pretending that such behavior was God pleasing.

Judas’ Replacement Demonstrating Covenantal Transition

Acts 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus…. 21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us

There is a great deal of discussion whether or not the promises to OT Israel remain to be fulfilled or, rather, if the promises to OT Israel have been fulfilled in how Israel flowered into the Church as God’s people. This is one passage that is overlooked in that debate.

With this passage we see the Apostle’s convinced that there is a necessity that Judas be replaced. The explanation for this absolute necessity is that this moment of redemptive history marks the beginning of the fulfillment of the Spirit prophesied intentions for the new and better “Israel of God.” Israel in its OT infancy is being replaced by Israel in its NT maturity and so as there were twelve patriarchs who anchored the origin of God’s Israel in infancy, so the Israel of the new and better covenant is to have a twelve apostolic anchor serving as the foundation for the Israel of God in its maturity. The old has passed the new has come.

The Gospel of Luke underscores this interpretation wherein Jesus says in 22:30 to the new Apostolic patriarchs that they would “sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”  This statement coupled with the action of replacing the traitor Judas underscores a pivotal transition in redemptive history away from OT Israel toward the NT “Israel of God — The Church.” Here we see both continuity and discontinuity. The continuity is found in the necessity to retain a twelve-man patriarchy. The discontinuity is found inasmuch as the patriarchy ruling over the “the kingdom of God has now been taken from OT Israel and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it (Mt. 21:43).”

Peter’s insistence cited in Acts 1 concerning the need for a replacement for Judas, consistent with OT prophecy, is another flag indicating that the redemptive historical moment has occurred wherein the old covenant is eclipsed for the new covenant. God is done with the old covenant Israel and is establishing the new Israel of God. The replacement of Judas is just one indicator of old and worse covenant now being fulfilled in the new and better covenant. There are no promises left for OT Israel.

God is done with them as a nation state, though individuals may certainly enter into the Kingdom of God.

 

A Short Treatise on the Unbelief of Bonhoeffer & His Neo-orthodoxy

Wishing and hoping and
thinking and praying,
planning and dreaming
each night of his charms
that won’t get you into his arms…

Dusty Springfield

I continue to expose the falsity of neo-orthodox/Barthian theology by exposing the non-Christian writing on Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer, like all of the neo-orthodox do theology by way of contradiction. They do so by the usage of the Hegelian dialectic where two opposite statements or thesis are posited (thesis vs. anti-thesis) only to be resolved by a third statement (the synthesis) allegedly reconciling the two statements into a new thesis statement.

Because chaps like Barth, Bonhoeffer, Pannenberg, and Moltmann excelled at this neo-orthodox methodology they can be easily misunderstood. Because they write purposefully with the confusing dialectical theology method their writings more often than not become a bit of a Rorschach test that ends up telling us more about the reader than it does about the theology of the writer. The reader, because of the ubiquitous contradictions will end up interpreting the particular neo-orthodox theologian in light of their own presuppositions. This usually means that the interpretation is completely botched. Those who are orthodox, who do not understand the Hegelian dialectic will tend to be mesmerized by the “profundity” of the neo-orthodox writers when in point of fact those chaps are writing gibberish.

Bonhoeffer serves as a prime example. Consider this quote on the incarnation;

“Mighty God” (Isa. 9:6) is the name of this child. The child in the manger is none other than God himself. Nothing greater can be said: God became a child. In the Jesus child of Mary lives the almighty God. Wait a minute! Don’t speak; stop thinking! Stand still before this statement! God became a child!

“No priest, no theologian stood at the manger of Bethlehem. And yet all Christian theology has its origin in the wonder of all wonders: that God became human. Holy theology arises from knees bent before the mystery of the divine child in the stable. Without the holy night, there is no theology. “God is revealed in flesh,” the God-human Jesus Christ — that is the holy mystery that theology came into being to protect and preserve.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer 
God Is in the Manger: Reflection on Advent and Christmas

This sounds wonderfully orthodox until one keeps reading Bonhoeffer. Here Bonhoffer has only given one half of his dialectic. Elsewhere he can write,

“The question, ‘How?’, for example, underlies the hypothesis of the virgin birth. Both historically and dogmatically it can be questioned. The biblical witness is ambiguous. If the biblical witness gave clear evidence of the fact, then the dogmatic obscurity might not have been so important. The doctrine of the virgin birth is meant to express the incarnation of God, not only the fact of the incarnate one. But does it not fail at the decisive point of the incarnation, namely that in it Jesus has not become man just like us? The question remains open, as and because it is already open in the Bible.”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Christ the Center – p. 105

Here the virgin birth is only a “hypothesis.’ Here the virgin birth is both historically and dogmatically questioned. Here the biblical witness is ambiguous. Here the incarnation fails at the decisive point that Jesus had become a man just like us. Finally, the question of Jesus incarnation remains open as and because it is already an open question in the Bible. It is not God’s revelation that authorizes the incarnation. It is, as we shall see, some kind of mystical encounter with the idea of an incarnation that scripture does not have a final word on the validity of said incarnation.

Here we have the other side of the Hegelian dialectic – the other side of the purposeful contradiction. This is classic “theology by contradiction.” This is classic Hegelianism. This is not orthodox historic Christian theology. This is anti-Christ theology because the Scriptures are set aside as questionable and because the miracle is explained in neo-orthodox theology as myth and myth by definition strips the historical supernatural events of the scripture of both their historicity and their supernatural reality.

Neo-orthodoxy does not believe that the supernatural is possible in the sense of an event demonstrably happening in space and time. However, Neo-orthodoxy saves the impact of the miraculous by insisting that even though the miraculous didn’t occur in space and time history, it did occur in the sense of being part of the belief paradigm of the disciples and the early church. The event, be it incarnation, resurrection, or ascension are not events that actually occurred but were necessary myths that carried the church forward.

With that in mind we understand that Bonhoeffer, like all neo-orthodox theologians are talking out of both sides of their Hegelian mouths. These men believe in a closed universe where the supernatural can’t literally transpire. However, they also understand that an outside word is needed in a fallen world and so they take that which is subjective (the beliefs of the early church that the miracles really happened) and objectify the subjective beliefs of the disciples and the early church so that the result is a subjective objective. The miracles didn’t really occur but the subjective (non-true) beliefs of the disciples regarding the miracles and supernatural, which are recorded in a non-supernatural scripture, end up serving in the stead of the miraculous and the supernatural. Further, the subjective of the early church which has become the objective outside word for the continuing church cannot be really objective until any future convert encounters these same subjective objectives in their own lives, in some kind of mystical personal and private encounter, thus turning the early church’s subjective objectives into their own subjective objective.

What needs to be seen is that there is no objective objective in all this. All there is subjectivity pretending to provide an objective outside word. What happens here is that personal experience is blown up like a helium balloon and that helium balloon subjective experience replaces any notion of an objective Word that genuinely comes from outside of us that is the inspired Word of God.

So, while Bonhoeffer can talk in flowery tones about the incarnation the fact of the matter is that the man does not believe that it actually happened in space and time history. Nor does he believe that Holy Scripture gives a objectively true word regarding the incarnation. However, Bonhoeffer does believe in the incarnation in the sense that it is true for him and for all those who have had a personal and experiential encounter which serves to give the objectively true status of the incarnation.

However, where the neophyte reads Bonhoeffer they can come away being overawed by his piety and feigned humility.

So, having noted all this where is the hegelian dialectic in Bonhoeffer’s writing on the incarnation?

Thesis: The incarnation of Jesus is dubious and scripture certainly does not warrant belief in the fact that Jesus became a man just like us.  The biblical witness does not give clear evidence of the incarnation.

Anti-thesis — God became a child. In the Jesus child of Mary lives the almighty God. God is revealed in the flesh.

Synthesis – Christian theology finds its origin not in the revelation of Scripture but in the subjective “wonder of all wonders.” Theology finds its origins not in the revelation of God but in the subjective “holy mystery.” Note the incarnation is acknowledged but it is acknowledged as unwitnessed by theologians and this despite the presence of the theologians Mary & Joseph who the inspired historian Luke gives record. The emphasis in Bonhoeffer’s wonder lies not in the revelation of Scripture but in the Holy Mystery of it all.

In giving us this dialectic the emphasis falls on the personal encounter and experience of the sovereign individual resting on that same experience and not on the objective inspired Word of God. The incarnation is a myth that becomes true only when someone has a mystical encounter that amounts to putting faith in faith and not faith in God’s revelation.

In this Hegelian dialectic the objective reality of the incarnation (and all miracles) as recorded in Holy Writ fades into the non-reality and is replaced with faith in an event (myth) that we have no objective certainty actually transpired in real space and time.

Neo-orthodoxy is heretical and Bonhoeffer was no Christian.