J. Ligon Duncan & John Piper … Typical of Modern Reformed Leadership

“In conservative evangelical circles, oftentimes there’ll be a real concern about immigration, and especially, what? Illegal immigration…But here’s the thing. What if that is God’s plan to reverse secularization in the United States?”

Ligon Duncan
Chancellor & CEO — Reformed Theological Seminary 

1.) Illegal Immigration has been a problem for over 20 years now Lig. For 20 years they’ve been coming here illegally hand over fist. Where is the reversal of secularization, you idiot? Let me guess … we have to have even more illegal immigration before we can get to the point of the end of secularization.

2.) There is also a possibility that it is God’s plan to use invading Christian Martian troops in order to reverse the secularization in the USA.

Duncan wants to talk about ‘ifs.” You know … (this is a true story) my Grandpa used to often tell me that if Grandma had balls she wouldn’t be Grandma. It was his way of saying that living by “if” wasn’t a very wise way to live.

3.) Does Duncan really believe that pagans (assorted Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, syncretized Catholicism from the Hispanic world) and as from the third world are going to come here and reverse secularization?

Seriously folks … only a mental retard would believe such a thing.

Dear God deliver us from such fools being called leaders.

Elsewhere John Piper pipes up;

The King’s sons are not obliged to pay taxes to institutions created by their Father. They are obliged to obey their Father, not man. Therefore, when they pay the tax, they do so to honor their Father because he gave them the resources and the command: “Take that and give it to them” (Matthew 17:27).

Bret responds,

And yet John forgets that the Father says, “Render therefore to all their dues: taxes to whom taxes are due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.” Romans 13:7. God does not say render to all whatever they say they are due. He says, “render therefore to all their due.” If it is not due to them then we are not to render it to them even if they insist to the contrary.

Piper is using this verse to justify Christians deciding to get quaxxed (vaccinated) since like taxes owed being paid, quaxxs demanded should be submitted to per the pied piper. Piper is using the requirement to pay taxes to suggest that Christians should take the quaxx since by doing so they show their freedom by submission to the FEDS. (Hey …. it’s his argument. Not mine.) Does Piper really believe that God would have His people submit to an ordinance by the Government held by some of the brightest medical experts to be an ordinance that leads to death?

This is yet another example of turning Christianity into a death cult.

Like so many of the Church leaders today John Piper is an idiot and listening to what this man says on societal issues is going to get you killed.

John Piper is not done though,

“When people respond to this increasingly clear reality that non-quaxxed people are the ones dying by pointing to untrustworthy and disreputable government and medical leaders, I respond, “That’s a non sequitur.”

Bret reponds,

Let me get this straight. It is a non-sequitur to point out that disreputable people are producing untrustworthy statistics in order to deny the untrustworthy statistics that you Piper are giving as evidence that we should be quaxxed if we don’t want to die?

Who listens to these people? Our Christian population must be retarded to find this kind of “reasoning” to be compelling.

The Leadership of Evangelical Inc.

Whether Duke Kwon or James White
Whether Ron Burns or Sean Lucas
All these dunces are feeding us
Egalitarian mucus

Maybe it’s Ligon Duncan or John Piper
Maybe it’s Doug Wilson or Tim Keller
All these clowns are giving us
Theology from Heller

Do you prefer Al Mohler or David Platt
Or perhaps Jonathan Leeman or Mark Dever
Any way you slice their teachings
You’re listening to deceivers

Mike Horton, Scott Clark, or Jesuit Van Drunnen?
Fesko, or Gordon or Tuininga or D. G. Hart?
Their theology smells of rotten eggs and sulfur
And exquisitely baked bean farts

Diogenes continues his search for truth-tellers
For someone, not influenced by our Marxist zeitgeist
For any clergy without their head up their arse
For anyone willing to just proclaim Christ

Priesthood of All Believers

Reformation Sunday is three weeks away. I thought I would spend a little time looking at the great motifs of the Reformation in the run-up to Reformation Sunday. These Motifs constituted the faith of the Reformers and in constituting their faith these motifs made what might be called “the New Protestant man.” The embracing of these motifs created a different Christian and man from what had existed as the norm previously in the Roman Catholic world.

Because of these motifs, we will be looking at all of Europe was set on its head. This Reformed faith created a whole new understanding of reality and this new understanding of reality conquered the world.

Of course, this is always the way that worldview faith convictions work. What a people believe gets worked out in their personal lives, their family lives, and their communal lives. These motifs will give us examples of that as we explore them.

The first one we want to consider this morning is the idea of the Priesthood of all believers. Peter tells his readers that they are a royal Priesthood. The Reformers took this idea and worked out the implications of it so that a new understanding of the Christian and the Christian faith arose.

What Peter begins here in Chapter 2 is to inform the recipients of his letter of their identity as the Church of Jesus Christ. He is contrasting who they are with who unbelievers are. Peter can say;

I Peter 2:But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.

Of course Peter is reaching back here to

Exodus 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.”

The Priests of God

A. The Israelites Are the Priests of God

Exodus 19:6

B. Disobedient Israelites Are Not the Priests of God

1 Samuel 2:28, 30/Lamentations 4:13,16/Ezekiel 44:10, 13/Hosea 4:6/Malachi 2:2, 4,

8, 9

C. The Christians Are the Priests of God

1 Peter 2:5, 9/Revelation 1:6/Revelation 5:10

The other appellations that Peter applies to the Church here you will also find in the OT as describers of Israel. Both the Peterine passage and the Exodus passage refer to God’s people being “Peculiar.”

I could spend quite a bit of time here drawing your attention to the corollary descriptors that are used both of Israel and then later applied to the Church of Jesus Christ. That will have to be another sermon because it isn’t really what I am going after this morning.

However, I have already given you enough to see that Peter by using the same descriptors for the Church as was used for Israel in the OT – Descriptors like a Royal Priesthood, and God’s peculiar possession – we are learning that the Church is a continuation of Israel. Unlike Baptists we don’t see the Church as a new thing in the New Testament. We see the Church as a continuation of what God began with His people in the OT.

This is important to note because there are those who will accuse the Reformed of practicing what is called a “Replacement theology.” By that they mean that the Reformed believe the Church has replaced Israel. We do not believe that the Church has replaced Israel but rather we believe that the Church is the fulfillment of all that Israel was intended to be. The Church is Israel come into maturity. And we believe this because of the kind of language that Peter uses in 2:9 when he describes the Church in the same exact way as God described Israel in the OT. Those who are forever complaining about the evils of replacement theology (Supersessionism) are those who believe that fleshly Israel is still prophetically and eschatologically significant as opposed to understanding that it is only the Israel of God – The Church – that is significant to God.

Next we want to consider this idea of the royal priesthood as understood by the Reformers in contrast with Medieval Rome. This came to be known as the doctrine of the Preisthood of all believers.

The Reformers understood the idea that the Church was a royal Priesthood to mean that each believer was themselves a small p Priest under the Christ as our great High Priest. Those in Christ share in Christ’s royal Priesthood.

As Priests under sovereign God, this meant that each believer had the same access to the Father through Jesus Christ. Of course this in turn meant that there existed no set aside elite class of people who alone can mediate forgiveness for the non-elite class of non-priests.

You can see how this idea alone shook all of Europe. Up until this time if forgiveness was to be had it had to be sought via the Priest. The Medieval Catholic Priest mediated the presence of God, the knowledge of God, and the forgiveness of God. Without the Priest, there could be no Christianity.

You see in the Medieval era – and still today really – the Priests rode in the front of the ecclesiastical bus and everyone else rode in the back of the bus. Martin Luther came along and said that all believers could have their Rosa Parks moment by each and all being Priests under sovereign God. Not only that but this idea of the Priesthood of all believers meant that all Christians have the authority and duty to read and understand the Scripture for themselves, There was no longer a need for the Church and the Priest class to tell everyone else what God said in the Word.

Luther offered,

There is no true, basic difference between laymen and priests . . . between religious and secular, except for the sake of office and work, but not for the sake of status. They are all of the spiritual estate, all are truly priests, bishops, and popes. But they do not all have the same work to do.”

The Reformation thus changed the view of the Clergy. Whereas prior to the Priesthood of all believers it was thought that the Priest was ontologically superior to the non-Priest the Reformers insisted that the clergy while functionally distinct from the laymen they were not ontologically superior. The clergy had an assigned task to be under-Shepherds of Christ in order to minister to the Saints but unlike Rome’s Preistcraft they were not automatically closer to God so that they alone could mediate the presence, knowledge, and forgiveness of God.

Well, this alone shook Rome. The Priest was no longer seen as necessary for salvation. All believers are prophets, priests, and kings under sovereign God. But what other implications were there and are there to this doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers?

Well, another implication is that this set free the laity to act towards one another as priests. We see that in the NT. With the Roman view of Priesthood, we confess our sins to the Priest but in the NT we are told to confess our faults one to another. You see … under Christ we bear one another’s burdens and we remind one another of the forgiveness we have in our alone Priest who represents us before the Father.

So, you see, the Reformation with this Doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers served as a decentralizing impulse in terms of how man viewed reality. Heretofore the Roman church was the great centralizing reality and all had to come into the Church or under the Church to be holy. But with the Doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers, the believer is a priest under sovereign God and now all he touches can be offered up as a pleasing sacrifice to God. Protestants, thus historically, have been people who are offended by centralization and centralizing Institutions. They remember – those that know their history – that centralization goes hand in glove with a denial of the Priesthood of all believers.

What a glorious doctrine this doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers. It expanded the place and scope of the layman. They no longer were in the position being acted up by some human priest but instead were actors under Christ in opening scripture themselves, in going directly to Christ for forgiveness, in seeing that their vocations were not secondary to the really important vocation of the Priesthood.

Now, I just interjected something new there. Did you catch it? I just introduced and connected the idea of vocation – calling – the work of believers with the Priesthood of all believers. How did I get there?

Well, let’s begin by noting that Luther denied that there existed a spiritual divide between priests and laity, insisting instead there is only one estate to which all baptized believers belong.

It was this view of two worlds, two realms, two estates that Luther considered unscriptural. The priesthood of all believers meant that there could only be one world, one realm, one spiritual estate—all of which belonged to God. Luther maintained (quoting):

It is pure invention that pope, bishops, priests and monks are to be called the “spiritual estate;” princes, lords, artisans, and farmers the “temporal estate.” [On the contrary] . . . all Christians are truly of the “spiritual estate,” and there is among them no difference at all but that of office.

Luther maintained that there is no spiritual divide between priests and laity; there is simply “one estate” to which all baptized believers belong. And if all baptized believers belong to this one estate then all the good works offered up by this royal priesthood is received by God as pleasing to him. At this point calling was given a jolt as each man in their callings were working as Priest unto sovereign God.

This is in part why we speak about a Protestant work ethic. The idea of the Priesthood of all believers made each man the equivalent of the Medieval Priest doing His Holy work as unto God. Each and all were offering up themselves and their works as sacrifices unto God. This meant bringing the very best. And the craftsmanship and quality of that which the Reformed produced became legendary, and it was legendary because they believed the doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers.

This doctrine was sorely in need of being re-captured because over the course of time a gap had been created between the ordained and the non-ordained. By the time of the 16th century, this gap was Rocky Mountain wide. The effect of this gap was to create a holy vs. non-holy realm. The Church was the holy realm and everything else was the non-holy realm with the result that the spiritual realm was exalted over the temporal realm.

That this is so is seen in how the Church operated. The Church was opened 24-7 for Matins, Lauds, and vespers as well as Terce, sext, and none. One thing the Reformation did is it shut the Church doors. People could be holy in their vocations. They did not have to be at the Church praying in order to be holy.

Well, as I have said the doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers taught that all who are united to Christ by faith share in His Priesthood. As noted, as priests we pray for one another and offer up our spiritual sacrifices to God which are our works of obedience. And those works of obedience are the obedience as pursued by us as children, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, church members, business owners, accountants, farmers, citizens – whatever vocation God has called us to.

Well, we have talked about the Priesthood of all believers. We have seen the implications of this,

A.) The end of Priestcraft
B.) The end of a Centralized Church
C.) The lifting up of vocation
D.) The eliminating of the Spiritual vs. Temporal realm
E.) The privilege of being able to minister Christ one to another as priest under sovereign God.

Let’s talk about another … the effect of the Doctrine of the Priesthood of all believes upon the family. And we will do so by quoting from Bavinck,

Christianity did exclude the woman from ecclesiastical office and did not elevate her to the rank of Priestess, but it did introduce a universal priesthood of believers in which the woman shared as well, and did so in no small measure. The significance that the woman acquired in the church affected her position in society. Whereas in the Roman world she was gradually denigrated to the position of slave or an instrument of pleasure for the man, now with Christianity she again became a unique, independent personality with her own mind and will. She remained man’s helpmeet, but along with him inherited the same grace. In the Christian faith, husband and wife were restored to one another, and various sins of harlotry and unchastity, adultery and divorce, had to give way to the love that bound both of them together anew. Christianity sanctified marriage liberated it from various evils, and once again established it on the foundation of the divine commandment.

Herman Bavinck

The Christian Family — pg. 48, 50

This doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers thus impacted the Christian home. It raised the status of the weaker vessel from subjugation to co-heirs in the enterprise of expanding the Kingdom of God.

Let’s round off with some warnings about mishandling this doctrine.

The anabaptists desired to eliminate all distinctions between the clergy and the laity. They forgot that while there was no longer an Ontological distinction between clergy and laity there remained a distinction of function between Clergy and laity. The clergy have a high and holy calling to minister Christ to the saints. To break the word open. To dispense the sacraments. This is a holy occupation just as other occupations are holy and just as you don’t want a software expert performing surgery on you so you should not desire someone who is not trained to be clergy to be clergy. We must remember that God has said that Christ gave the Church ministers as gifts.

So, the doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers is not a leveling doctrine per the Anabaptist but it is a doctrine that eliminates the chain of being ontological status between clergy and laity.

Another warning would be to somehow conclude that because of this doctrine we don’t need the Institutional Church. After all, if all believers are Priests, the reasoning might go, then why do we need the Church. The church is the armory of God. It is here we are equipped to think God’s thoughts after Him and make plans together to be instruments in God’s expansion of His Kingdom. The Church is the hospital of God. It is here where we receive the medicine of forgiveness and the proclamation of eternal life. The Church is the temple of God. It is here that we gather to glorify Christ together in our Worship. grows.

Let us together thank God for this stout Reformed doctrine of the Priesthood of all believers and let us seek to learn to once again be shaped in our characters by this doctrine.

Is Polygamy Still Sanctioned By God? (An Examination. For Joshua)

Did God change his mind regarding Marriage laws?

We would have to say “yes,” since we know that brother and sister marriages would have occurred before the giving of the Mosaic law. Indeed, Abraham rightly claims more than once that Sarah (his wife) was his sister. And yet God later forbids the marriage between brothers and sisters and half-siblings in Leviticus 18:9.

“‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.”

We see therefore that marriage laws are not eternal and immutable but can and were changed by God over the course of time. This points to the reality that polygamy likewise, once allowed, is now forbidden and we gather that from the words of Christ as He appeals to the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman;

Matthew 19:4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Here Jesus is quoting from the monogamy description between Adam & Eve recorded in Genesis,

Then the man said, “This, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. Genesis 2:23-25

The teaching of Christ here thus is irrefutable evidence that just as there was a change in marriage laws as applied to siblings so with the words of Christ there is a change against OT polygamous marriage in the NT. This is especially so when Christ’s words are coupled with Paul’s injunction that Church officers are to be the husband of one wife.

Finally, the Scripture suggests that God’s law touching marriage will be altered yet again in the age to come.

29Jesus answered, “You are mistaken because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 In the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven.”

So, all this put together teaches that God has the right to change His law fitting to His desire. Of course, God’s law only changes upon God’s authority but where we find God’s authority for a change in the law there we are obliged to own that change in the law.

Scripture clearly demarcates changes in marriage laws that Christians are bound to honor. As such we can say again that polygamy is against God’s Law. This is also the testimony of the Church as seen from countless men of God through history.

[Question] Did God merely permit polygamy in the Old Testament times or was that required?


[Rushdoony] The norm we have in Leviticus 18: I believe its verse 18, yes, Leviticus 18:18: neither shalt thou take a wife, or if you look at your marginal notes if you have a reference, it literally is a wife to another, rather than a wife to her sister, in other words take more than one wife to vex her and so on. Now, what this does is to forbid polygamy but God’s law at the same time regulates polygamy because it recognizes that the sin of men is such that he is going to do certain things, the norm is (monogamous) marriage.

“The question is about the polygamy of the patriarchs in the old testament. Now first of all, lets look at the whole subject from the biblical perspective. From the perspective of the bible, the family is the basic institution of mankind. The family. Therefore, the bible looks at the family as against everything that is hostile to the family, therefore any kind of promiscuity, adultery, anything that is hostile to the family is regarded with total enmity. Now from the beginning, the bible recognizes monogamy as the standard from the garden of Eden. The Mosaic law makes it clear that this is the true path. These other forms are regarded as inferior, defective and more or less sinful forms of the family. But, not as bad anything that is anti-family, thus in our culture today for example, we look on polygamy with horror. ”



Imagination vs. History Lecture

“Polygamy is seen by God as an inferior form of marriage. The law forbids it but also imposes regulations on those who practice it.”



Exodus Commentary — pg. 292

Calvin on Polygamy,


When he soon afterwards adds, that God created them male and female, he commends to us that conjugal bond by which the society of mankind is cherished. For this form of speaking, God created man, male and female created he them, is of the same force as if he had said, that the man himself was incomplete.94 Under these circumstances, the woman was added to him as a companion that they both might be one, as he more clearly expresses it in the second chapter. Malachi also means the same thing when he relates, (Genesis 2:15,) that one man was created by God, whilst, nevertheless, he possessed the fullness of the Spirit.95 For he there treats of conjugal fidelity, which the Jews were violating by their polygamy. For the purpose of correcting this fault, he calls that pair, consisting of man and woman, which God in the beginning had joined together, one man, in order that every one might learn to be content with his own wife.

Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis 2:24


They shall be one flesh.”

Although the ancient Latin interpreter has translated the passage ‘in one flesh,’ yet the Greek interpreters have expressed it more forcibly: ‘They two shall be into one flesh,’ and thus Christ cites the place in Matthew 19:5. But though here no mention is made of two, yet there is no ambiguity in the sense; for Moses had not said that God has assigned many wives, but only one to one man; and in the general direction given, he had put the wife in the singular number. It remains, therefore, that the conjugal bond subsists between two persons only, whence it easily appears, that nothing is less accordant with the divine institution than polygamy. Now, when Christ, in censuring the voluntary divorces of the Jews, adduces as his reason for doing it, that ‘it was not so in the beginning,’ (Matthew 19:5,) he certainly commands this institution to be observed as a perpetual rule of conduct. To the same point also Malachi recalls the Jews of his own time:

Did he not make them one from the beginning? and yet the Spirit was abounding in him.’153 (Malachi 2:15.)

Wherefore, there is no doubt that polygamy is a corruption of legitimate marriage.

The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown commentary states, quoting verse 18 from the Authorized Version: “Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her”:

“The marginal construction involves an express prohibition of polygamy; and, indeed, there can be no doubt that the practice of having more wives than one is directly contrary to the divine will. It was prohibited by the original law of marriage, and no evidence of its lawfulness under the Levitical code can be discovered, although Moses—from ‘the hardness of their hearts’ [Mt 19:8; Mr 10:5]—tolerated it…”


“[I]f Christianity is not to control the laws of the country, then as monogamy is a purely Christian institution, we can have no laws against polygamy, arbitrary divorce, or ‘free love.'”


— Charles Hodge

Note, Polygamy, or the marriage of more persons than one, as well as adultery, must be a breach of marriage-covenants, and a violation of the partner’s rights.

Matthew Henry

Commentary — I Corinthians 7

Because god has joined them together (v. 15): Did not he make one, one Eve for one Adam, that Adam might never take another to her to vex her (Lev. xviii. 18), nor put her away to make room for another? It is great wickedness to complain of the law of marriage as a confinement, when Adam in innocency, in honour, in Eden, in the garden of pleasure, was confined to one. Yet God had the residue of the Spirit; he could have made another Eve, as amiable as that he did make, but, designing Adam a help meet for him, he made him one wife; had he made him more, he would not have had a meet help. And wherefore did he make but one woman for one man? It was that he might seek a godly seeda seed of God (so the word is), a seed that should bear the image of God, be employed in the service of God, and be devoted to his glory and honour,—that every man having his own wife, and but one, according to the law, (1 Cor. vii. 2), they might live in chaste and holy love, under the directions and restraints of the divine law, and not, as brute beasts, under the dominion of lust, and thus might propagate the nature of man in such a way as might make it most likely to participate of a divine nature,—that the children, being born in holy matrimony, which is an ordinance of God, and by which the inclinations of nature are kept under the regulations of God’s command, might thus be made a seed to serve him, and be bred, as they are born, under his direction and dominion.

Matthew Henry
Commentary Malachi

Note from Reformed Study Bible for the account of Lamech in Gen. 4:19-24


19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

Lamech represents both a progressive hardening in sin with his defiant embrace of polygamy.

Here’s how the original Geneva Bible phrased it:

The lawful institution of marriage, which is, that two should be one flesh, was first corrupted in the house of Cain by Lamech.

We will end with Scripture again

Deuteronomy 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away;

The addition of wives, Scripture teaches, leads to men’s hearts being turned away from God. This is as true for men who are not kings as for men who are kings (the context of Deut. 17:17).

And we see that as the record of the OT where polygamy is never mentioned without there being a strife and conflict in the home where it was practiced.

Having pointed all this out we would have to conclude that those who continue to insist on the continued validity of polygamy are practicing antinomians on this subject and have need to repent and bow to God’s revelation.

Ligonier and Mid America Seminary are Dead as Evidenced by this Article by Dr. Eric Watkins

As a result of this article run by Ligonier’s Table-Talk

Christianity or Critical Theory?

my very little influence will be used to encourage people to withdraw their support of all things Ligonier including Reformation Bible College as well as Mid America Seminary where Dr. Eric Watkins is employed.

I encourage people to read the article for themselves. I will be critiquing the highlights (lowlights) of the above-linked piece here but people should read the piece themselves to determine if they think that I have treated Dr. Watkins fairly.


Let me say at the outset that the tone of the article is all wrong.  The tone we as Christians should be taking against Critical Race Theory and Cultural Marxism should be less like some scholar wearing a tweed jacket, smoking a pipe while sitting in an overstuffed armchair by a toasty fire, and more like a Phineas driving a spear on a two for Tuesday special. We no longer have time to be “irenic” and “fair” with the enemy. “Irenic,” and “judicious” are not what one goes for when one is being scalped. Christians should be seeking to decapitate CRT and Cultural Marxism with all the violence they can muster and what Eric Watkins gives us is “Little House on the Prairie” analysis.

Now on to the picking apart of this scab of an article.

“At its core, critical theory perpetually challenges the notion of institutional authority and the idea that true freedom can be identified with any one system of thought—whether that be a particular religion, a stream of political thought, or an overarching view of the world.”

Eric Watkins

Ligonier Article

BLM Responds,

However, CRT also gives one system of thought that they insist must be followed in order to have true freedom. CRT does not escape what it accuses its intellectual and philosophical opponents of. CRT criticizes the idea that any particular religion can give true freedom all the while offering itself as a particular religion that can give true freedom. CRT is thus self-referentially self-contradicting.



“The overlapping timelines of Nazi ideology and the Frankfurt school are important to note, as the latter sat in stark contrast with the former. One was an ideology of oppression through totalitarianism; the other sought liberation for the oppressed through philosophical reflection on power structures and how change comes about. Both movements were highly political and were a threat to one another in different ways.”


Ligonier Article

BLMc responds,

Here we find a major mistake in EW’s analysis. Watkins asserts that Nazism was an ideology of oppression through totalitarianism while asserting that Cultural Marxism seeks liberation for the oppressed. Nothing could be further from the truth. Cultural Marxism is thoroughly totalitarian and is demonstrating that it is all about oppression. Both Nazism and Cultural Marxism were and are totalitarian movements stemming from ideologies of oppression. Watkins is correct that the two movements were a threat to one another but they were a threat to one another precisely because they were each a totalitarian movement desiring to go all totalitarian on those holding contrasting totalitarian ideologies to the totalitarian ideology they each espoused.

For Watkins to believe that the Frankfurt School was really about liberation demonstrates that Watkins should not be writing on this subject matter. Cultural Marxism engaged in philosophical reflection on power structures precisely because they wanted to eliminate the current totalitarian power structures so that they could set up their own totalitarian power structure.

And what of Cultural Marxism identification of “power structures?” Are God, family, nation, and ethnos power structures that are totalitarian that men need to be freed from? Cultural Marxism says “yes,” and assiduously works to free men from these oppressive realities. Biblical Christians say “no.”

Watkins also uses the phrased “Judeo-Christian” in his piece thus demonstrating that he is not epistemologically self-conscious in general. Judaism (Talmudism) and Christianity have absolutely zero in common and for Watkins to slam these two words together is ignorance on stilts. Watkins also talks about secular and sacred as if secular thought is thinking that is not beholden to apriori religious commitments. This is also a major mistake in analysis.


“At the same time, critical theorists saw in Marxism yet another system of thought that proved unsuccessful in its attempt to bring equity to the world.”

Eric Watkins
Ligonier Article

BLMc responds,

Right… so they (CRT) became yet another variant of Marxism. CRT rejected one variant of Marxism but that does not mean, sans Watkins, that CRT isn’t thoroughly Marxist.

Once again, we witness proof that if professors are ignorant of Trotskyism and its influence, then Ph.D.’s are ignorant of the workings of Marxist tyranny, period. And the Frankfurt School was Trotskyism personified.  Does Watkins understand that CRT and Cultural Marxism are just expressions of Trotsky’s desire for perpetual non-ceasing revolution?

Again Watkins here seems to fail to realize that CRT is itself yet another system of thought that is seeking to bring equity to the world.

We should also challenge the notion that equity is something that any Christian should desire. Equity (as well as its predecessor — equality) in this  Marxist-CRT context are both Marxist concepts. Christians do not want to see CRT succeed in achieving equity.



Its (CRT’s) goal is human autonomy from any objective authority whatsoever.”

Eric Watkins

Ligonier Article

BLMc responds,

Not really. That may be what it says its goal is but its goal is human submission to the subjective authority of Critical Race theory. Watkins seems not to understand that CRT is a means to an end: the disruption and dismantling of whatever little is yet left of the Christian influence on Western civilization. CRT’s goal is the diminution of the White Christian man since the White Christian man is the one who by God’s grace alone has been the carrier of Christian civilization. Again, Watkins, by not seeing this fuller picture demonstrates that the man is out of his depth.



“At the same time, some critics of critical theory are able to agree with some of its tenants. This isn’t surprising, since “all truth is God’s truth.” Neil Shenvi, an evangelical critic of the movement, is one who finds some truth in critical theory. For example, he notes, “Critical race theorists affirm that race—as it has been defined historically and legally—is a social construct and not a concept legitimately rooted in human nature or human biology.”11 The Bible recognizes only one race—the human race. While we might distinguish between ethnicities, it is a misnomer to distinguish between races.12 If critical theory’s view of humanity stopped there, it would be easier to find more with which we could agree.”

Eric Watkins

Ligonier Article

BLMc responds,

Here Watkins demonstrates that somewhere along the way he has been drinking from the well of the Anthropologist Franz Boas who first insisted that race was not a stable category. Boas was not advocating that position from a Christian position.

The idea that race is not rooted in biology or human nature is just plain bull scat. To say this is an example of gaslighting at its best is to be far too generous. Pharmaceutical companies as well as forensic scientists as well as Doctors who do bone marrow transplants will all tell you that the statement that race is a social construct is a social construct. Watkins is just denying reality at this point and has entered into groupie gaslighting.

Social Construct?


Second if “race is a social construct” then the idea that there is only one human race likewise must be a social construct. Race can’t be a social construct unless every usage of it is a social construct.

Third, my Bible recognizes race when the prophet Jeremiah asks if the Ethiopian can change his skin. But, maybe Professor Watkins also believes that the spots on a leopard are also a social construct?  (See Jeremiah 13:23)



This has birthed new terms such as “whiteness,” “white privilege,” and “white fragility” and has ultimately led to an entirely secular reconstruction of the way in which conversations about racism are now being framed.15

Eric Watkins

Ligonier Magazine

BLMc responds,


It has not led to an entirely secular reconstruction. The conversations are being framed not by secular reconstruction but by a competing religious reconstruction that is hostile to Biblical Christianity. Watkins keeps using the word “secular.” I do not think that word means what he thinks it means.



“The church is thus a colony of heaven.27 It is where the faithful are gathered from every nation, tribe, and tongue and the earthly things that divide (race, gender, and class) are set aside as our identity and unity are ultimately found in Christ (Col. 3:11).”

Eric Watkins
Ligonier Article


Now, wait a ding-dong minute. Earlier in this article, Watkins insisted that race does not exist but now in his conclusion Watkins is saying that because of the Gospel race need not divide.

Which is it, Eric?

Secondly, here, note that Watkins goes all Gnostic here. It is true that ultimately our unity and identity are in Christ. However, that does not mean our creaturely identities as assigned to us by the creator go into eclipse.

Even after conversion, we remain male and/or female. Even after conversion, we remain yellow and/or black. Even after conversion, we remain in our various classes. Conversion does not make these realities go away nor does God require conversion to work so that our creaturely identities disappear.

I will agree though that the Church is a colony – an outpost of heaven and as a colony of heaven it should be geared up to fight the enemies of heaven — enemies like CRT and Cultural Marxism which have zero to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ or the whole of Biblical Christianity.

Where have all the Christian warriors gone? You are sure as hell are not going to find them at Ligonier or Mid-America Seminary if they are offering this poisonous bilge to the laity rank and file.



“The church should be the safest place on earth for the oppressed and the victimized as the mercy and compassion of God are tangibly expressed.”

Eric Watkins

Ligonier Article


Currently, those who are insisting that they are the chief of the oppressed include the pervert class of the LGBTQ community. Is Eric telling us that the Church should be the safest place in the world for the pervert “victimized?”

Do we think the pervert victims are going to declare the Church safe when the Church out of love for God and this putative “victim class” speaks of the coming wrath of God against sodomy, trannie-ism, and Lesbianism?

The mercy and compassion of God to the pervert class as expressed from the pulpit in the Church is the giving of God’s law. Somehow I doubt that Eric would agree with this.


Allow me to interject here that God does not have a special love for the oppressed who are enemies of God. Quite to the contrary, God’s opposition and wrath are foursquare upon those who are the enemies of God even when they are oppressed.

Q. Does God permit such disobedience and rebellion to go unpunished?

A. Certainly not. God is terribly angry with the sin we are born with as well as the sins we personally commit.

As a just judge, God will punish them both now and in eternity,1 having declared: “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law.”

The oppressed who are outside of Christ can only find one way to find relief from God’s just judgment of the oppression against them they may be experiencing and that is to flee to Christ.

The injunctions in the bible to protect the oppressed are to protect the oppressed who are in Christ. The antithesis in Scripture is not oppressed vs. oppressor but is between the elect and the reprobate.



In his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, delivered on August 23, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. envisioned a world beyond racism in which people, including his own children, would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.23 It is ironic that his hope for a colorblind, post-racial humanity has come under such serious criticism by critical theorists who suggest it has been co-opted in a way that encourages racism.24 MLK knew that his dream could not be accomplished by human effort alone, just as revolutions and riots can neither eradicate sin nor create peace. It was for this reason that MLK self-consciously distanced himself from the violent instigations of Marxism.25 God would have to “make a way . . . where there is no way.”

Eric Watkins

Ligonier Article

Once again we find this hagiographic lionizing of a great enemy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The dulcet hints of praise for MLK are grotesque in light of the following facts concerning MLK.

On page 62 of the 01/19/98 Newsweek magazine, we find the truth about MLK that Dr. Watkins is hopefully ignorant of;

January 6, 1964, was a long day for Martin Luther King Jr. He spent the morning seated in the reserved section of the Supreme Court, listening as lawyers argued New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a landmark case rising out of King’s crusade against segregation in Alabama. The minister was something of an honored guest: Justice Arthur Goldberg quietly sent down a copy of Kings account of the Montgomery bus boycott, “Stride Toward Freedom,” asking for an autograph. That night King retired to his room at the Willard Hotel. There FBI bugs reportedly picked up 14 hours of party chatter, the clinking of glasses and the sounds of illicit sex–including King’s cries of “I’m f–ing for God” and “I’m not a Negro tonight!”

Note: What is not mentioned in this article is that Martin Luther King was having sex with three White women, one of whom he brutally beat while screaming the above-mentioned quotes. Much of the public information on King’s use of church money to hire prostitutes and his beating them came from King’s close personal friend, Rev. Ralph Abernathy, in his 1989 book, “And the walls came tumbling down.”

Not only this but it has been proven beyond a doubt that MLK was a plagiarizer. He plagiarized much of his Ph.D. thesis. He plagiarized his “I have a dream speech.” He plagiarized his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.”


Then there is the fact that MLK was Christian the same way that Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer were Christians. This means that they denied cardinal tenets of the Gospel.

MLK was a loathsome man propped up by his Marxist handlers. Watkins is either ignorant or is lying.


The visible Church is in a Babylonian captivity that makes Luther’s era look like child’s play. The current visible Church in the West — regardless of denominational flavor — is every bit as dead as was the Romish Medieval Church. The visible church is dead. Today’s clergy are every bit as pitiful as was the Roman Catholic clergy of the Medieval era. Long live the Church.