Once upon a time on a Narnian like planet there were three breeds of dogs. There were the Beagle breed, the Yorkie breed and the Pitbull breed. Now, everyone agreed that these were all dogs but at the same time everyone agreed that they were not all the same kinds of dogs. Only a very few people insisted that the idea of Yorkie, Pitbull and Beagle were social constructs, though those people did exist and lobbied very diligently to force the rest of the world to agree with them that breed really made very little difference since all dogs were the same. These folks were do-gooders and very often Christians who couldn’t imagine that God would create dog breeds to be different. They couldn’t imagine that God would delight in dog breed diversity. They refused to countenance that the Yorkie, the Beagle, and the Pitbull were very different kinds of dogs even if they were all dogs.
Now, the Pitbull over the course of their existence was understood by countless numbers of people to be a mean, aggressive and vicious animal. That was its nature. It is the way God created it. There were even studies done that statistically demonstrated that the Pitbull breed was demonstrably different in its nature than the Yorkie or the Beagle. Despite what was evident to the eye and what was objectively proven via measuring Pitbull crime stats and IQ ability, there were people who insisted that the Pitbull was the same as the Yorke and the Beagle. They insisted that a dog is a dog is a dog is a dog.
These folks also insist when it comes to sanctification for dogs that the sanctifier has an affirmative action program for Pitbulls since they start out further behind in acceptable behavior than the Yorkie or the Beagle before conversion. The sanctifier thus gooses the factor level of sanctification for the Pitbulls knowing that they need a little bit more sanctification juice in order to become equal (the same) with the Yorkie and the Pitbull.
Now, a strange thing happened to some of the individual Pitbulls in the Pitbull breed in this alternate Narnian like universe in which all this took place. In this Narnian like universe all dog breeds could possibly experience ongoing progressive sanctification. For those people who insisted that all dog breeds are the same they concluded that because Pitbulls, Yorkies, and Beagles could be sanctified that therefore the effect of sanctification on Pitbulls, Yorkies, and Beagles would have the same even impact across all breeds so that sanctified Christian Pitbulls, sanctified Christian Yorkies and sanctified Christian Beagles would become indecipherable in terms of disposition and behavior. Many people started taking their sanctified Christian Pitbulls out to hunt rabbits along with the Beagles while at the same time insisting that Pitbulls were just as cute as Yorkies.
For these people the grace in sanctification destroyed the nature of all three Breeds so that they no longer were distinguishable. These believers in egalitarian sanctification thought that the Holy Spirit could sanctify a Pitbull so as to result in a Pitbull being sanctified so as to be the same as a sanctified Beagle or sanctified Yorkie. As it turned out in our Narnian like Universe many of the clergy recited loudly as a chorus of Rev. Dufflepods, “Nature goes away with Grace,” and “sanctification takes away innate dispositions,” and “A Beagle is a Yorkie is a Pitbull not only before sanctification but especially after sanctification.” Rev. Wilson Dufflepod and Rev. White Dufflepod were the most excitable of all the clergy dufflepods in singing;
Imagine there’s no breeds
It’s easy if you try
No innate dispositions in us
Genetics can be liquified
Imagine all the dog breeds bein’ all the same
Ah, ah, ah-ah
Imagine a sanctification
That makes a Pitbull coo
A Beagel’s now a bird-dog
And Yokies, hunt them too
Imagine all the doggies being all the same
Yoo, hoo, oo-oo
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
Pushing a sanctification that’s this much fun
Imagine no innate behavior
I wonder if you can
Everything is malleable
Nothing fixed upon to stand
Imagine all the species becoming now all one
Yoo, hoo, oo-oo
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
Pushing a sanctification that’s this much fun
There were a handful of people who stood up and insisted that there was a boatload of “The Emperor Has No Clothes” reasoning going on as among the egalitarian “all dogs breeds are the same after sanctification” crowd. These folks understood that while Pitbulls could be sanctified they would never be sanctified so as to become the same breed with the same disposition as the Yorkie or Beagle. Sanctification might well make a Pitbull the best Pitbull he could be but it would never make a Pitbull to be a Yorkie or a Beagle. The Pitbull breed, the Beagle breed, and the Yorkie breed would all have to be satisfied that God in His infinite wisdom causes breeds to differ and causes some breeds to have ten talents, while other breeds only have five talents or one talent.
And that’s a good thing since God loves diversity… even after sanctification.
Always remember that “equality” is, at the end of the day, just a pretty euphemism for “interchangeability.” And understood in that sense, equality is a truly nihilistic ideal. Like a man who thinks all women are “equal” in the sense of being interchangeable, can drop the mother of his children and take up a new woman who better suits his taste. Or like a nasty employer who insults his workers, shouting at them, “I could hire the first bums off the street to replace you!” Because the workers are interchangeable to him. Et cetera, et cetera.
And of course, the ultimate theological import of egalitarianism is materialistic pantheism where EVERYTHING is just the same interchangeable sordid stuff, God and man, spirit and matter being mixed up together:
https://x.com/augureust/status/1736601240216240232
“Monism is metaphysical Communism. In it there is no real or essential difference between entities, and thus all hierarchy, distance and distinction is illusory. You are one with all sewerage and all sewerage is one with you.”
The funny thing here is that if a man takes up a new woman or an Employer take up a new group of employees they still will not get satisfaction since it is the case that the new woman or the new batch of employees are going to the same as the previous woman and the previous batch of employees since all are the same.
“They are ALL THE SAME!” (women, men, politicians, pastors, etc.) is the cynical, misanthropic mantra our fallen hearts are easily tempted to believe in the moments of blackpilling despair. But this notion is an “egalitarian” mental reflex, when you think about it – thinking things are all interchangeable in the end.
“I said in my haste, “All men are liars.”” (Ps. 116:11)
This concept of interchangeability also explains why soulless capitalism is ready to support globalism, as Noam Chomsky explained:
https://books.google.fi/books?id=huNjDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&hl=fi&pg=PA89#v=onepage&q&f=false
“See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist – it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn’t built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist – just because it’s anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic – there’s no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that’s produced – that’s their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance.”
Viisaus,
I usually loathe Chomsky but this quote is quite good.
My Mahler/White debate recap over whether or not God has an “affirmative action” policy for Black sanctification. (Is it just me, or is this a bizarre debate topic?)
White took the positive position—yes, God has an “affirmative action” policy for Black sanctification. Mahler took the negative—God treats all believers equally, he doesn’t have any “affirmative action” policy that would sanctify Black believers, on average, more than White believers (so that equal average outcomes here on Earth are achieved).
Mahler’s position seems more likely to me. James White seems to be advocating for blatant, post-WW2 consensus “Christianity.”
Anyway, here’s the recap:
—-
Neither Mahler nor White presented any Scriptural evidence about sanctification here on Earth, and both agreed immediately that justification and “final” sanctification—after you die—were available to all Christians on an equal basis.
So the debate was about a single question: does the Spirit sanctify Blacks, on average, more than Whites here on Earth? White says “yes,” Mahler says “no, God is constrained by creation.” Neither presented any verses about this—there are none. Mahler pointed to nature to determine what the Spirit has done over the last 6,000 years; White basically claimed that God intended to make all Christians equal, and that included here on Earth, not just in eternity—again, no Scripture was provided.
Mahler’s position is that God sanctifies all Christians, on average, equally (in the sense of “% improvement from where you start”). So if we group Christians by populations (Cretins, Jews, Blacks, Whites, etc.) we can measure their current, pre-conversion average level of sanctification. The argument for different, average “ending sanctification” here on Earth is trivial: Mahler believes every Christian has “the same” sanctifying work of the Spirit here on Earth (i.e. the same “% improvement”), and thus different pre-conversion sanctification results in different post-conversion sanctification as well. This is just math.
White believes that God sanctifies some Christian populations more than others–he shows favoritism, if you will, towards Blacks. Specifically, he gives Blacks a larger “% increase” than Whites—because they are less sanctified than Whites pre-conversion, God gives Blacks additional sanctification that he does not provide to White people. The result is that, on average, the two populations have identical levels of sanctification here on Earth, post-conversion. God is doing a form of sanctification “affirmative action” for Black believers.
Since neither has any scripture to back any of this up, I guess a Christian could believe whatever they want–Mahler’s “God sanctifies all Christians equally” or White’s “God sanctifies Black Christians much more than White Christians.” The evidence since Christ walked the Earth seems to support Mahler in practice—something White conceded during the debate—but on the question of “CAN God treat Christians unequally”, White’s claim that God can show favoritism to Blacks is just as possible as Mahler’s claim that God cannot (and does not) show favoritism, because he follows the rules of his creation and treats all believers—White and Black—equally with respect to sanctification.
Ultimately, Scripture does not say if God has instituted a sanctification “affirmative action” policy for Black believers, as White teaches. Maybe God has, maybe he hasn’t. Scripture does not say, but history appears to indicate that He has not.
Maybe all governance systems and philosophies are the same too. At least that would be a reasonable explanation for why my pastor never has anything to say about communism or freedom. I don’t think he’d care if Whitmer got elected President and we became a commie country like England or Canada. He’d be upset about the life issue, but tell us that it’s all small potatoes and we should focus on love and gratitude and unity. That would be true if he believes a pit bull is a beagle is a commie is a patriot and to think otherwise is a lack of understanding of how big God is.
I think your Pastor is part of the problem in the Reformed church. Like so many other clergy he just is not a wise man.
This essay was a superb brief explanation of racial distinctions withing Christianity. The only problem is that few will read it other than people who are already Kinists. How to get the message to the masses? I wish I knew.
Joe,
I am with you. I wish I knew.
Brilliant!
Many thanks.
Super! I took it in sips, couldn’t gulp that truth-shot down.
I didn’t watch the debate, and based on comments, I’m glad I haven’t. Your post is more edifying than what I imagine the debate would be.
I couldn’t follow Wilson Dufflepod’s subsequent blog post – he said CM wasn’t saved but that conclusion didn’t follow obviously enough for me, from what he wrote. Is he saying CM says CM falsely think he’s being saved because he’s German and CM thinks that’s what is a saving power, similar to stiff-necked Jews thinking they were saved because of their heritage?
Kurt,
I want to be careful not aligning myself too close to Mahler since I prefer phrasing these matters according to my uniqueness. Mahler often times says things I would never say. For example, I think it was a major stupid thing to say that Germans would have never built a golden-calf like the Jews did. That kind of statement just invites misunderstanding. Maybe he should have immediately added after saying that Germans would never make a golden calf to worship “but they would have put Moses in a concentration camp,” it would have still made his point without coming across the way he did. Also Mahler is a deep in the Bone Lutheran and I am a deep in the bone Calvinists and historically deep in the bone Lutherans and Calvinists have not been fans of one another.
However, where CM is right he is right and all men ought to support him when he is right just as all Calvinists ought to oppose him when he starts spouting nonsense Lutheran theology.
“For example, I think it was a major stupid thing to say that Germans would have never built a golden-calf like the Jews did.”
Careless statement indeed. The partnership between Marx, the member of a “Marrano” family that received Lutheran baptism due to the decision of his father, for blatantly worldly reasons, and Engels, the rebellious scion of a devout German Calvinist industrialist family, is like a symbol of how Christ-rejecting Jews and gentiles can find each other in the mutual business of mischief-making.
And significantly, young Marx and Engels originally found their common radical-humanist identity in the blatantly self-deifying Hegelian philosophy that was all the rage in the 1830s and 1840s – it was not the literal Golden Calf, but otherwise German infidel philosophy of that era was producing very blatant idolatry, as this contemporary conservative Christian observer noted:
https://books.google.fi/books?id=9PViAAAAcAAJ&hl=fi&pg=PA68#v=onepage&q&f=false
“Kant is wholly out of date: Hegel, the perfecter of Spinoza, is in the ascendent. His doctrine is a mighty stride of devilry in advance. It is the first German system that promises to work; for it is a philosophy which tallies with principles in the breasts of all classes. But its work will be one of ruin; for the principles which it evokes are those of Antichrist. Its advocates are of various shades—half, whole, and ultra; and there are many who, in spite of its infection, preserve or have recovered a measure of faith and truth, although a far smaller one than they imagine. But in itself, it is unmixed Anthropotheism, not the exaltation of a creature to the place of God, but the assertion that a creature is the sole and essential God. It is the nearest approach yet made to the preparation of Christendom for receiving the Man of Sin.”