Is God Sovereign or Not? A Response to Molinism

Molinism insists that if God is exhaustively sovereign therefore man isn’t responsible at all for his behavior since, “God causatively determined it all.” Molinism suggests that man can’t be adjudicated guilty if God’s decree and providence governs all. Molinism is trying to rescue God, in their thinking, from being responsible for evil (though He remains despite their efforts just as evil in their thinking) while at the same time pinning the responsibility of evil upon man. However, God remains the ultimate causation of all things.
 
I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create evil;
I, the Lord, do all these things.’ — Is. 45:7

If a ram’s horn sounds in a city, do the people not tremble? If evil comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it? Amos 3:6

 H7451 (Word Study) ra‛, רָעָה  —

rā‛āh: An adjective meaning bad, evil. The basic meaning of this word displays ten or more various shades of the meaning of evil according to its contextual usage. It means bad in a moral and ethical sense and is used to describe, along with good, the entire spectrum of good and evil; hence, it depicts evil in an absolute, negative sense, as when it describes the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 
God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. God was the ultimate causative agent in the treatment of Joseph by His brothers (Gen. 50:20). It was God who gave permission to Lucifer to pummel Job (Job 1:12). God sends an evil spirit to deceive kings (I Kings 22:22-23). It was God’s determined purpose to crucify the Messiah. (Isaiah 53:10, Acts 2:23). God sends a spirit of delusion that people may believe a lie (II Thes. 2). God is the ultimate cause of all things. If God is not the ultimate cause of all things then God is not God.
 
Now, this does not deny secondary proximate causes but those proximate causes are what they are because God is the ultimate cause. Secondary causation spins out of primary causation. People, may ask at this point; “How can man be responsible if God is the ultimate cause of all things,” and the answer includes observations like “this is what wicked men wanted to do,” and “having a sin nature this is but the outcome of that sin nature,” and those things are true but ultimately the answer to why men are responsible for their evil deeds if God is the ultimate cause is simply, “Because God says they are responsible.” God needs no other reason to hold men responsible except to say that they are responsible. Likewise, we have no other reason to hold men responsible then God tells us that they are to be held responsible when they violate God’s law(s).
 
In terms of the Molinist trying to deliver God from being accused of being evil the answer here is that the law of what constitutes evil and good is for the creature. It is enough for us to know that the Word of God insists that God is good. He was good when Joseph was thrown into the pit by His brothers, when accused of rape by Potipher’s wife, when thrown into a vermin infested jail in Egypt, and when Joseph was forgotten in that jail. God was good when He hardened Pharaoh’s heart before Pharaoh hardened his own heart. God was good when He created Lucifer. God was good when it pleased Him to bruise the Son. No matter what He does God never ceases to be good. That is a truth we have to take by faith because we don’t always see it in this veil of tears. This is the truth that Job teaches as Job learned this lesson from the whirlwind that was God’s presence.
 
Something else that needs to be observed here is that to be the ultimate metaphysical cause of evil is not the same thing as morally committing evil. To metaphysically cause evil deals with the how of its occurrence. Evil occurs because God has created it (Amos 3:6, Isaiah 45:7,)
 
Hosea 6:1 Come, let us return to the LORD. For He has torn us to pieces, but He will heal us; He has wounded us, but He will bind up our wounds.
Deuteronomy 32:39 See now that I am He; there is no God besides Me. I bring death and I give life; I wound and I heal, and there is no one who can deliver from My hand.
 
We admit this every time we attend a graveside service;
 
“The Lord giveth. The Lord taketh. Blessed be the name of the Lord.”
 

On the other hand on the issue of morally committing evil comes under the rubric of God Himself declaring by His law for creatures what constitutes good and evil. If God has not declared that it is evil for Him to be the ultimate cause of all things, including what we call evil, then who art thou O man to question God? Shall the clay rise up against the Potter and say why have you ordained reality this way? In brief, if God has done it, we would do well to learn with Brother Job to keep our mouths shut and to repent in dust and ashes.

If we embrace any other way of thinking we immediately run into some form of dualism with its Ying and Yang giving good and evil as equipoised perfectly against one another. This was the ancient religion of the Manicheans who believed the push-me, pull-you of good and evil would never be resolved. Augustine, by God’s grace, was delivered from this errant religion.

Now of course, that God is the ultimate metaphysical cause of all things does not mean that man can say in a twisted impersonation of Flip Wilson,

“The deity made me do it.”

Man must remember that though God is the ultimate cause of all things that we remain responsible to God for our lusts and sin and as we don’t know what God hath ordained for any of us (Christians) we would do well to believe that God has ordained for us (Christians) righteousness as opposed to believing that God has ordained for us to follow our wicked lusts. So, we must continue to resist the Devil (God’s agent — see Job) and flee to God. We must be convinced that in His providence God is going to keep us from being sifted by the evil one (His agent).

Scary Kinism Defined & Examples Given (Part VI — Final)

Mr. Mickey Henry wrote the original paragraphs answering the question “What is Kinism.” That can be found over at Tribal Theocrat. What I have been doing in this series is merely providing some commentary on what Mr. Henry originally penned.

XXI.) That atonement is an inescapable category for man. That if the true atonement of Christ is rejected, a substitute atonement will be sought elsewhere. That masochistic activity is often a false substitute means of self-atonement. That burden-bearing is one such masochistic activity. That transracial adoption is one common form of burden-bearing in the post-Christian church. That sacrificing one’s family to become a foreign missionary is another common form.

This is something that I have written on more than once on Iron Ink. See the below entries for commentary on point XXI

False Guilt, Atonement, & Modern Man

Consequences of Sin, and Guilt, as not Quenched in God’s Atonement

The idea of burden-bearing is the idea that once burdened with false guilt we somehow think we are responsible to save the world by ourselves bearing burdens we cannot bear thinking that by doing so we will both rid ourselves of false guilt while saving the world at the same time. One way this expresses itself commonly in the modern evangelical church is by the impulse to adopt transracially (across racial borders). Often when transracial adoptions occur they will sometimes be accompanied by a smugness that suggests because couple A has pursued this kind of adoption that they are automatically superior in some way to couples who have not pursued this kind of questionable activity. Trans-racial adoptions are not normative for the same reasons that polyglot marriages are not normative. They all seek to bring together what God hath separated. If we are not to separate what God hath joined together neither should we normatively seek to join what God has separated apart. Families, like marriages, are going to be stronger and more resilient the more they share a common heritage. Similarly, the more dissonance that is introduced into a family the more conflict that is apt to arise within the family. Certainly we would agree that if a solid black family adopted children from a troubled Chinese family that such a combination could well be promissory of a difficult adjustment period for the polyglot family as well as creating confusion in those Chinese children raised in a loving black home.

The other example Mr. Henry gives is one of the foreign missionary sacrificing their families for the sake of the mission field. Now, clearly every family that becomes missionary does not sacrifice their family to do so. However, that families have been sacrificed in the name of doing missions cannot be doubted. God never called anyone to send their children hundreds if not thousands of miles away to missionary schools for children for extended periods so that they could be free “to do the Lord’s work.” Parents are responsible to rear their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord and that can’t be done by absent parents who are “sacrificing for Jesus.”

XXII.) That adoption should be a rare event, and that orphans should always be cared for by the relationally-nearest family member willing to do so. That if no natural family is willing to care for the orphan, only then may a foster family be sought. That a foster family should only care for another’s child as a means of making the best of a bad situation, after the woman is beyond her child-bearing years and all natural children have left the home. That transracial or international adoptions should not occur.

The old proverb of “keeping it in the family” applies here.

Of course it should be everyone’s desire that adoption be as rare as possible if only because adoption means that somewhere along the line something has gone terribly wrong.  That orphans in an ideal world would be raised by next of kin only makes sense in light of the fact that families operate best when they share the most in common. The further one gets away from the nearest family ties the less likely adoptees are going to be able to fit in and work in the context of their adopted families.

The logic in only adopting after all the natural children have left the home and the wife being past child bearing years is found in the reality that a home where there can be no competition between adopted children and natural children for the parent’s affection is obviously the best possible situation for adoption.

XXIII.) That besides treating all men in accordance to God’s Law, our only universal responsibility to others is to share the Gospel with them. That this responsibility is not borne by every individual, but collectively by the Church. That the social gospel is not the Gospel, and that relief efforts, as well as educational and medical missions, are often destructive of the spread of Christianity to foreign cultures. That our responsibility consists only of sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ. That the most effective missionaries are native missionaries, and that foreign missionaries should only be considered if no natives are available. That a foreign missionary should be single, or married but childless.

That the social Gospel is not the Gospel and that relief efforts as well as educational and medical missions are often destructive of the spread of Christianity is seen in the reality of the phenomenon called “rice Christians.” Rice Christians occurred in China and in other countries where the material benefits coming from Christian “conversion” gave incentives to the native born to make profession of Christ out of a desire for food and other material gain as opposed to doing so out of sincerity to know God and make Him known. Such “conversions” were destructive because they were never sincere and so melted away when the least hardships fell.

Another reason that social gospel missions is harmful is that it communicates that the blessings of the Gospel can come to a people apart from their obedience to God’s precepts. If Christian organizations go into deprived countries to build social-order infrastructure the lesson taught is that God’s blessings can be had apart from bowing the knee to God. This is not an argument for ignoring the wicked in their plight. It is an argument that Christians need to be careful that we don’t communicate that social-order sin has no social-order consequences.

In the book,Missionary Methods, StPaul’s or Ours: A Study of the Church in the Four Provinces” Missionary and author Roland Allen explicitly notes that St. Paul’s missionary methodology was to establish a beach head for the Church. Spend at most 6 months training the new Elders and then leaving to go elsewhere turning over the newly planted church to the Elders. Whereupon Paul would keep up correspondence  in order to counsel the new Elders. This supports the idea that missionary should be temporary. The fact that missionaries should be comprised by men who are as close to as possible ethnically and culturally speaking to where the Church plant is taking place is again a matter of common sense. Men who have a more natural connection to potential church plants are going to be more successful in dealing with all that might arise in a new plant situation. This is no different than assigning ethnic Hellenist Jews to wait on tables in Acts 6 when Hellenist Jewish widows (speaking Greek) raised a complaint that they were being shorted vis-à-vis the Hebrew Jewish widows (speaking Aramean). Greek Jewish deacons were chosen to solve a Greek Jewish widow problem. In the same way planting churches should be done by those who are as close as possible ethnically and culturally to those among whom the church is being planted.

That foreign missionaries should be single men or married but childless couples is seen in the little book “Color me Green.” This book, written by children of Missionaries, tells the story of how missionary children struggle with a sense of belonging because they belong to too many places. They are blue because of their parents country of origin. They are yellow because of the country they were raised in. They feel at home in neither their home country nor the country raised in and so they are “green.” Children ought not to grow up divided against themselves.

I would add one disagreement here. I am convinced that it is the responsibility of each individual as members collectively of the whole Church to indiscriminately spread the Gospel whenever and wherever opportunity arises. One certainly does not have to go overseas to the mission field to do that.

All of the above is important to kinists because we hold that missions should happen, first, as much as possible in the context of natural affinity groups. Second, that the natural affinity group that is the family should not be sacrificed for the sake of missions when missions can be done without breaking up the family unit.

XIV.) That dispossession, barrenness, population decline, wealth transfer, mental blindness, and widespread self-destructive behavior are clear external signs of God’s judgment. That the proper response to this is not to bare our necks to His chosen instruments of castigation, but to reassert the crown rights of King Jesus, and our lawful claims under His kingship.

The first sentence above is substantiated by a reading of Deuteronomy 28:15-68. There we find a list of what God’s curses look like for his people’s disobedience.

The second sentence above refers to those who insist that God’s cursing upon us should be just accepted by the channels God uses to curse us. Rev. Doug Wilson has advanced this kind of position when he has written in the past;

“In the brewing culture wars, we ought not to stand with those seeking to ban same-sex marriage (or with those seeking to impose it).” “So we openly accept homosexual marriage in the civil realm as God’s means of undermining that civil realm, and we accept that He has done this in judgment for wicked fathering within the Church.”

Doug Wilson

Here the culture was on the brink of a full-on Luciferian assault against God, country, and family and Doug steps up to the mic and before God in heaven and man on earth instructs God’s people to openly accept homosexual marriage in the civil realm because like the prophets of old Doug has a pipeline to God and so knows that to resist same-sex marriage would be a mistake because Doug knows that God has visited us with the scourge of sodomite marriage because of wicked fathering within the Church.

Now, every minister can say that whatever comes into the lives of a people is providentially from the hand of God but no minister should suggest that he knows why God is providentially doing X, Y, or Z because of reasons A, B, C. No minister can crawl into God’s filing cabinet to get a definitive “this is that” reason. I don’t disagree that there is wicked fathering in the Church. I protest that Doug can make macro pronouncements about the mind of God concerning God’s providence — I protest Doug’s assumption to be a kind of Christian version of the Oracle of Delphi. Maybe instead God, in His providence, visited us with the scourge of sodomite marriage in order to punish us for hammerhead ministers making wild arse guesses about why God does this or that.

And to say that “we openly accept sodomite marriage?” What was the man smoking that day? Maybe God intended, contra Saint Doug, for Christians to rise up and resist magistrates who want to foist upon us the acceptance of sodomite marriage instead of just accepting it?

And now Trannyism is upon us. I can just hear the Oracle of Moscow now;

“In the brewing culture wars, we ought not to stand with those seeking to ban  men in our women-folk bathrooms (or with those seeking to impose it).” “So we openly accept Trannys in the civil realm as God’s means of undermining that civil realm, and we accept that He has done this in judgment for not enough Christians agreeing with me about not resisting sodomite marriage.”

I can’t wait for Doug’s next “from on high” pronouncement on the coming pedophilia outbreak, not to mention, what God tells Doug about how Christians should resist the routine bedding of farm animals in the civil realm.

White vs. Stratton vs. McAtee Debate … Molinism vs. Calvinism

In the Calvinist (James White) vs Molinist (Tim Stratton) the Molinist creates a scenario that is supposed to show how wicked the God of the Calvinist is. He says (paraphrasing), “Pretend a regenerate man gives into temptation and rapes a little girl. Now according to your theology God caused this. Do you believe God caused this?”
 
I think James White dropped the ball here as White decided to take the all “I’m outraged that you would even ask such a question” route. White never answers the question.
 
First I would have quoted from Acts 2
 
 
22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;
 

Then I would have said…

“Here we see the greatest evil crime ever perpetrated. A crime that is exponentially far greater than a child being raped. Here you have the innocent and righteous son of God being crucified by evil men. Yet, the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture teaches the Messiah was delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God. This same thought is articulated again in Acts 4 speaking of the Father’s assignation in Jesus going to the Cross,

 
28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done
 
In both these cases God is said to have determined and with purposed foreknowledge that Christ would be crucified and yet at the same time wicked men are held responsible by the Holy Spirit for doing exactly what they desired to do according to their sinful nature as seen in their rebellion against God’s annonited one.
 
So, the answer to your question about child rape is, ‘Yes, just as God determined that the greater crime against His Son would come to pass so God determined the lesser crime against that child would come to pass as the ultimate cause. However, God still holds the rapist responsible for the lesser crime of child rape just as He holds the crucifiers of Jesus responsible for the greater crime of Deicide and that because they were proximate causes that are responsible for their crimes in a way God could never be responsible. God is not responsible as the ultimate cause the way those guilty of child rape and deicide are guilty because, as Joseph says in Genesis 50 God, as the ultimate cause intended the evil for good but they as proximate causes intended their evil for evil.
 

Now, what the Holy Spirit has to say to you who are obviously railing against God … ‘Who are you O man to question God?'”

Now, the funny thing here Mr. Molinist is that your beliefs don’t deliver you from your charge of God being evil because your god Mr. Molinist creates this middle knowledge world with full knowledge that in this created middle knowledge world full of men with libertarian free will that it would, with certainty, be the case that your little girl would be raped by a regenerate man who had libertarian free will and yet your god Mr. Molinist went ahead and created that world anyway. Your god, per your worldview, is not only a monster (given that He created such a world full knowing what would happen) but he is also a wussie because he couldn’t do anything to stop it.

In the end Mr. Stratton your theodicy sucks bricks and as Richard Muller pointed out some time ago is just warmed over Medevial semi-pelagianism.

“Arminian/Molinist theology is little more than the recrudescence of the late medieval semi-Pelagianism against which the Reformers struggled. Its tenets are inimical to the Pauline and Augustinian foundation of Reformed Protestantism.

(In Molinism we find a) God who antecedently wills the salvation of all knowingly provides a pattern of salvation that is suitable only to the salvation of some. This doctrinal juxtaposition of an antecedent, and never effectuated, divine will to save all and a consequent, effectuated, divine will to save some on the foreknown condition of their acceptance of faith, reflects the problem of scientia media. The foreknowledge of God, consists in part in a knowledge of contingent events that lie outside of God’s willing and, in the case of the divine foreknowledge, of the rejection of grace by some, of contingent events that not only thwart the antecedent divine will to save all, but also are capable of thwarting it because of the divinely foreknown resistibility of the gift of grace. In other words, God is locked into the inconsistency of genuinely willing to save all people while at the same time binding himself to a plan of salvation that he foreknows with certainty cannot effectuate his will. This divine inability results from the necessity of those events that lie within the divine foreknowledge but outside of the divine willing remaining outside of the effective will of God. This theology posits the ultimate contradiction that God’s antecedent will genuinely wills what he foreknows cannot come to pass and that his consequent will effects something other than his ultimate intention. God, in short, is either ineffectual or self-contradictory. Reformed doctrine on the other hand, respects the ultimate mystery of the infinite will of God, affirms the sovereignty and efficacy of God, and teaches the soteriological consistency of the divine intention and will with its effects.”

Was Jesus A Jew … A Disambiguation and Clarification

At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day. II Kings 16:6

This is a translation the King James Bible gets wrong. Most other translations properly label the people that Rezin “drave” as Judahites. In this war where Syria and the Northern tribes were aligned against the Southern Kingdom Rezin drove out a gathering of men from the tribe of Judah out of Elath. Those who were driven out were not Jews. They were Judahites. In the Bible the designation of “Jew” has to do with what religion one was a practitioner of and did not have to do with where one was from.

The Hebrew word mistakenly translated in II Kings 16:6 as “Jew” is the Hebrew word “Yehudi,” which literally means a Judahite or a descendant of Judah. The word is used in the bible in at least five ways;

1.) A person(s) from the tribe of Judah

2.) The Kingdom of Judah

3.) The land of Judea

4.) The nation of Judah

5.) The house of Judah

So, in II Kings 16, we are being told that it was men from the tribe, kingdom, land, nation or house of Judah who were driven from Elath.

Now when we come to the NT the Greek word is Ioudaias which means Judean — the sense of “from the country of, or from the land of Judea.” Just as those who lived in Samaria were Samaritans so those living in the land of Judea were Judeans or Judahites.

What we do today is this. When the word “Jew” is used today it is not used to refer to someone who is from the House of Judah, or the land of Judah, kingdom of Judah, or the nation of Judah When we use the word today we redefine it to mean someone who practices the religion of Judaism.

Consider, as an example, Galatians 1. This is one of the few times you will see the Greek word “Jew” refer to the religion of Judaism. Most other times it refers to someone from the land, house, nation, kingdom of Judah.

13For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how severely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

Now the Jewish religion or Judaism was antagonistic to and contrary to the Christian faith. It was Judaism, under the parties of the Pharisees and Saducees, who constantly opposed Christ the Judahite. Paul who would later write Galatians was before conversion a Benjamite who practiced the Jewish religion. At that time Paul was not a Jew who practiced the Christian religion. When Paul converted he was a Benjamite who practiced the Christian religion in defiance of his former Jewish religion. When Paul converted he went from being a Benjamite who practiced the Jewish religion to being a Benjamite who practiced the Christian religion.

Because of all of the above we are not now, nor were we ever properly labeled “Judeo-Christians.” Nor are we part of some group called the “Judeo-Christian” faith. One can not more combine these two radically different faiths than we could combine Monogamous-adulterers. Those who are practitioners of the Jewish faith have no more in common with those who practice the Christian faith than cannibals have in common with debutantes who graduated from the finest finishing schools. Every time we use the phrase “Judeo-Christian” we dishonor Christ who was the Lion of the Tribe of Judah but who was no Jew as is seen in the NT by the fact that Jesus was always attacking the Jewish religion. Jesus the Judahite had no greater enemy than the Jews and the Jews plotted to kill Jesus the Judahite.

When Pilate hangs that sign over Jesus saying “King of the Jews” he did not order that sign hung there because he understood that indeed that was what Jesus really was. Pilate hung that sign there to anger the Jews. And it worked.

When Paul the Benjamite boasts of having once been a Pharisee he is boasting of who he was in His former religion. He is not boasting of where he hailed from. Notice the way Paul puts it. He says he was, “of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin. A Hebrew of Hebrews.” With that He gives his nationality and blood line. When it comes to matters of religion though he says, “as touching the law, a Pharisee.” He could have as easily said, “as touching the law, a Jew.”

Now we gladly concede that the religion of today’s self styled Jews was and is commonly Judaism but it is possible to be an Israelite and not be a Jew, just as was true of St. Paul after he was converted.

We need to quit with the phrase “Judeo-Christian,” if only because the phrase causes us to let our guard down against those who are members of a religion who often remain the enemies of Christ just as members of all non-Christian religions are enemies of Christ.

These distinctions above are important because of the confusing way “Jew” can be used. For example, former Prime Minister of Israel David Ben-Gurion was, for a time, a Buddhist by way of religion but of course never quit being thought of as a Jew by way of birth. Similarly, theoretically a China-man or African can embrace Judaism and so, in terms of religion become “Jewish.”

So, we have seen in the above, that by way of religion Jesus was never a Jew. Indeed the religious Jews were his greatest enemies and that is because the religious Jews had abandoned the faith of the Hebrews to embrace Babylonian Talmudism. In the NT Babylonian Talmudism was referred to as “the tradition of the Elders.” That Jesus was practicing a different religion from the religious Jews (Pharisees/Saducees) of His day is stamped all over scripture;

Matthew 15 Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” 3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— 6 then he need not honor his father [a]or mother.’ Thus you have made the [b]commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:

8 ‘These people [c]draw near to Me with their mouth,

And honor Me with their lips,

But their heart is far from Me.

9 And in vain they worship Me,

Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”

Note the religious conflict here. The Babylonian Talmudists have one religion referred to as “the tradition of the Elders,” while Jesus is operating under the ancient Hebrew religion called “the commandment of God.” They are two different religions.

To underscore all this the late Rabbi Stephen Wise wrote;

“The return from Babylon and the adoption of the Babylonian Talmud marks the end of Hebrew-ism and the beginning of Judaism.”

That the religious Jews of Jesus time understood what Rabbi Wise centuries later explicitly said is testified to again in John’s Gospel,

5:46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

The point here is that those who owned a different religion than Jesus owned did not believe Him because they did not believe the Biblical Moses preferring instead to believe a Moses made to their own Babylonian Talmudic liking. They owned a different religion.

The point to take away here is that the entire ministry of Jesus served to expose the fact that the religious Jews were practitioners of an entirely different religion than the one found in the Old Testament. Jesus was not a Jew, religiously speaking.

Now as to Jesus. Was Jesus a Jew in terms of stock?

The answer is resoundingly no! Just as Paul identified himself not as a Jew but as a Israelite so Paul can say of Jesus,

3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my [a]countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

Now, certainly Jesus was a Jew in the sense of coming from a land, kingdom, and nation that was predominated by the religious Jews but Jesus was the Lion from the tribe of Judah and so no Jew, either physically, or religiously.

Now, there is one application we should take from this that is monumental. Keep in mind that both Jesus and the Jews, though having different religions, both appealed to Moses and the prophets as their Holy book providing their texts from which they found warrant for their beliefs. And yet from those same texts they were practicing two completely different religions that had absolutely nothing in common with one another except for the formal text. They shared a text that yielded two different religions that hated one another.

Much the same is happening in what remains in modern Christendom. We have different religions all appealing to the same Scriptures and yet they really have nothing in common save the formal text. For example, I have nothing in common with epistemologically self-conscious Roman Catholics, Radical Two Kingdom Practitioners, Arminians, Eastern Orthodox types, Amyraldians, etc. Luther understood the idea I’m getting at when he told Zwingli at the Marburg colloquy, “Your spirit and our spirit cannot go together. Indeed, it is quite obvious that we do not have the same spirit.” Both Luther and Zwingli were reading the same Bible but so different were their interpretations that they did not share the same faith.

It was the same with Jesus, the Judahite and the Jews. They were reading the same Law and the Prophets but they were not practicing the same religion and for that reason Jesus was not a Jew.

Peeking at the Word “Racist”

 ‘Racist’… A word made up by Leon Trotsky, a revolutionary communist so extreme in his views that his fellow communists murdered him! That’s right, our politicians/rulers/leaders speak the language of revolutionary communists. Did you know that the word ‘Racist’ was popularized by Marxist Leon Trotsky in 1927? It was used to cudgel and bully ordinary Russians into accepting the horrible practices of the Communists. It has been used in Britain by the ruling class for the last 25 years to diminish the way of life of the indigenous British people, to frighten them against any protest against the drive toward a multi-racial Marxist totalitarian state, and will ultimately rob you and your children of your way of life and your homeland.
 
 
Peter Hammond
Slide presentation on Racism

Being called a “racist” by those who hurl that epithet is like being called a “fundamentalist” by a WOKE Liberal. It is like Chef Boy-R-Dee calling Gordon Ramsey a cuisine hack. It is like the ugly girl in the class calling the prom Queen, “Homely.” It’s like being called a homophobe by a raging flamer.

The accusation tells me more about the person casting the epithet than it tells me about the person upon whom the epithet has been cast.

In the end, all “a racist is, is a man who honors his race, reveres his ancestry, prefers — like virtually everyone — to be with his own kind, and believes that his genetic inheritance is worth preserving in the same way that liberals believe that the spotted owl, snail darter, American Indians, and Australian aborigines are worth preserving.”  (John Bryant)

 

As we consider the pejorative “racist,” or “racism” all can concede that if racism was hating someone solely based upon the color of their skin that would be hatred and sin.

However, in the current cultural milieu where the words “racism” and “racist” have gained so much traction, we do not find that simple of a definition. Instead what we get in terms of definition of racism is “prejudice plus power.” This is why many people insist that it is not possible for minorities to be “racists” or to practice “racism” because, so the argument goes, minorities, while perhaps having “prejudice” certainly do not have “power.” Hence it is impossible, so the argument goes, for minorities to be “racist” or to practice “racism.”

The irony of a definition of “racist” or “racism” that has as its substance, “prejudice plus power,” is inherently ironic because in such a definition the only people who can be guilty of practicing “racism” or of being “racist” are white people since, as the argument goes, only white people have prejudice as combined with power. So, we see, the cultural Marxist definition of racism is racist. Not only is the charge “racism” or “racist” racist it is a tautology.

Just as “bald people have no hair” is redundancy so “White people are racist” is a redundancy. In Cultural Marxist speak, it goes something like this,

Q.) Who are the racists?

A.) White people.

Q.)Who are white people?
A.) They are the racists.

Hard baked into the word “racist” or “racism,” as used by the modern cultural Marxist and churchmen (is there any difference?) is the presuppositional reality that the accuser himself, is the racist. He has a prejudice against white people and the use of the word itself is a power play. Prejudice plus power. The usage of that word against somebody else involves the one using the word in a contradiction of the most startling sort.

But hey … who cares about being in contradiction anymore? After all, rationality is so over-rated.