https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube.com+charlie+kirk+critical+race+theory+will+destroy+america&docid=13891749625347&mid=F87A552C1DEB1D3B5B3AF87A552C1DEB1D3B5B3A&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

Above some chap named Charlie Kirk gives a really smooth but troubling explanation of what Critical Race theory is. Kirk’s main fault seems to be that he views the Enlightenment as the good old days. Remember it was the Enlightenment that gave us the anti-Christ postulates.

1.) Man is basically good
2.) Progress is inevitable
3.) Autonomous Reason is how we know what we know
4.) Time + Chance + Circumstance accounts for our cosmological beginnings
5.) Man is the measure of all things.

What Kirk seems to be saying is that the modernity of the Enlightenment is to be favored over post-modernity. This is like saying that Stalin is to be preferred to Mao. Neither one of these epochs are favorable to the Christian faith.

Below are some comments on Kirk’s words in the video’s above. If you view the 7 minute video the comments below are linear to what Kirk is presenting in the video.

1.) Kirk says the Critical theory started with the Frankfurt School. The truth of the matter is that Critical theory started with Marx approximately 100 years prior to the Frankfurt School. Marx called it Critical Philosophy. We see this in this snippet from a letter from Marx to one Arnold Ruge in Dresden.

“In fact the internal obstacles seem almost greater than the external difficulties. For even though the question ‘where from?’ presents no problems, the question ‘where to?’ is a rich source of confusion. Not only has universal anarchy broken out among the reformers, but also every individual must admit to himself that he has no precise idea about what ought to happen. However, this very defect turns to the advantage of the new movement, for it means that we do not anticipate the world with our dogmas but instead attempt to discover the new world through the critique of the old. We are therefore in a position to sum up our journal in a single word: the self-clarification [critical philosophy] of the struggles and wishes of the age. This is the task for the world and for us.”


2.) Kirk mentions that the Frankfurt school scholars became expatriates to these united State. Just to fill that out a bit we would say that they were expatriates to this country thanks to the fact that as Jews their work on Internationalism Marxism was not welcome in Germany. Also on this score the reason that the Frankfurt “scholars” ended up here in the States was due to the work of the Fabian Socialists at Columbia University. Columbia University ended up infecting our whole University system w/ Cultural Marxism.

3.) Kirk mentions Herbert Marcuse. Keep in mind that Marcuse wrote “The Authoritarian Personality” which was monumental in removing this country from a Christian presuppositional base.

4.) As noted earlier Kirk seemingly melds the Enlightenment with Christendom. This is not well reasoned. Christianity is every bit as opposed to the Enlightenment project as it is the postmodernity project where Critical Race theory finds a home.

5.) He also misinterprets Gal. 3:28. If Critical Race theory wants to errantly reduce everything to what group (race – ethnicity) one belongs to Kirk makes the Enlightenment mistake of reducing man to the atomistic individual. As Christians we must say that both man in his identity of belonging to a family grouping and man as the individual are truths that need to be kept together.

6.) Kirk seems to suggest that Martin Luther King was on the side of the Angels because King spoke about the content of one’s character being the determining agent of analysis. However, Martin Luther King was using Marxian Dialectics when he talked about not caring about the color of one’s skin. That was said to assuage the rightful fears of the White Community that the black Marxists of King’s ilk desired to use Civil Rights as the Communist camel’s nose under the Western tent.

Also, on this score if the content of one’s character really was King’s own benchmark then Kirk should reject King for his excessive whoring, and plagiarizing.

7.) Kirk talks about “racism.” Just a reminder, that “racism” for these people is power plus privilege. Only White people thus can be racist. It is not possible for minorities or perverts or feminists to be racist. The “racism” card is the perfect tool to overthrow Western Christian civilization because Western Christian Civilization was built by the White Christian.

8.) Kirk needs to be very careful because when he says that Critical Race theorists do not believe in dialectics he couldn’t be more errant. Now, it is true that they don’t believe in conversation (dialogue) but they are practitioners extraordinaire of the Hegelian Dialectic. So, on this point Kirk’s statement is grossly misleading.

9.) Kirk is high as a kite to suggest that it was the Enlightenment that gave us the realities that he ticked off in the video. It was Christianity that gave us those realities. It is clear by now that this man (Kirk) is part of the problem and not part of the equation.

Kirk is really errant on the Enlightenment. Some have rightly noted that where we are at now is just the Enlightenment on steroids. Postmodernism is modernism (Enlightenment) on speed. There is some truth to that observation. (Also some misleading to that observation.)

10.) At the end Kirk says that “Christ did Aristotle better than anyone else?” Say what? Christ was Aristotelian?

This guy is smooth but dangerous.

We continue with this series overturning the attempt by a Brit to unravel Kinism.

In the last installment I provided a few quotes demonstrating that the Church Fathers, throughout history have been kinists or proto-kinists or maybe we should refer to them as racial-realists. I have many similar quotes from many other Church Fathers I will post before this series is through. However, I thought I might open this entry by giving a Whitman’s sampler of quotes that demonstrate that the position that Steve and all Alienists sympathetic to Steve’s “reasoning” support is the very position that throughout history has been supported by Marxists. Now, in light of these quotes, either the Alienists have to declare that the Marxists got it right in this area or that they themselves need to rethink the matter.

“The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and end all national isolation; not only to bring the nations closer together, but to merge them….”

Vladimir Lenin
The Rights of Nations to Self Determination — pg. 76

“… Just as mankind can achieve the abolition of classes only by passing through the dictatorship of the proletariat, so mankind can achieve the inevitable merging of nations only by passing through the transition period of complete liberation of all oppressed nations, i.e., their right to secede. “

Vladimir Lenin
The Rights of Nations to Self Determination

National liberation then was a transitory factor. It was a prelude to a working class movement within the nation, and its ultimate aim was socialism and so the amalgamation of all nations into one.

“All advocacy of the segregation of workers of one nation from another, all attacks on Marxist assimilation … is bourgeois nationalism, against which it is essential to wage a ruthless struggle.

The theory and program of ‘cultural-national autonomy [is] petty bourgeois, for it converts bourgeois nationalism into an absolute category, exalts it as the acme of perfection, and purges it of violence, injustice, etc.

Marxism cannot be reconciled with Nationalism, be it even of the ‘most just,’ ‘purest,’ most refined and civilized brand. In place of all forms of nationalism, Marxism advances internationalism, the amalgamation of all nations into a higher unity, a unity that is growing before our eyes…

The proletariat … welcomes every kind of assimilation of nations, except that which is founded on force or privilege.

The proletariat cannot support any consecration of nationalism: on the contrary, it supports everything that helps to obliterate national distinctions and remove national barriers; it supports everything that makes the ties between nationalities closer and closer, or tends to merge nations.”

Vladimir Lenin
Critical Remarks on the National Question

What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?

The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and hereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”

~ Frederick Engels in “The Principles of Communism”, 1847

5.) “Even the natural differences within species, like racial differences…, can and must be done away with historically.”

 K. Marx’s Collected Works V:103,As cited in S.F. Bloom’s The World of Nations: A Study of the National Implications in the Work of Karl Marx, Columbia University Press, New York, 1941, pp. 11 & 15-19:

Keep in mind I have more of these same types of quotes from Marxists where these came from. I just don’t want to overwhelm people. So, again, what we see here is that modern Christians who want to deny the reality and significance of race and ethnicity end up being fellow travelers in the same boat of the Marxists. As such, when I repudiate these men who insist that they are Christian I am repudiating Marxism. This ought to leave people scratching their heads.

Now, on to what Steve has to offer today,

SL writes,

Millenial Glory

God’s purpose throughout history has been to reverse the effects of the Edenic curse. In Isaiah 65:17f we read that in Earth’s future

… 17 “For behold, I create (AF)new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind. 18 But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; For behold, I create Jerusalem as a rejoicing, And her people a joy. 19 (AG) I will rejoice in Jerusalem, And joy in My people; The (AH) voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her, Nor the voice of crying. 20 “No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days; For the child shall die one hundred years old, (AI)But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed. 21 (AJ)They shall build houses and inhabit them; They shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. 22 They shall not build and another inhabit; They shall not plant and (AK)another eat; For (AL)as the days of a tree, so shall be the days of My people, And (AM)My elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. 23 They shall not labour in vain, (AN)Nor bring forth children for trouble; For (AO) they shall be the descendants of the blessed of the Lord, And their offspring with them.

This passage promises that God will so successfully overturn the Edenic curse & cause grace to sanctify the created order that godly citizens will recover a significant measure of longevity – perhaps in the twilight years of earth history when…. He shall judge between the nations, And rebuke many people; They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, And their spears into pruning hooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, Neither shall they learn war anymore. (Is 2:4)

BLMc responds,

1.) There really is nothing to disagree with here and SL’s observations here have no bearing on the issue at hand. All Kinists and postmillennialists agree with these observations.

Maybe Steve could clarify for us here what, if anything, these passages he cites above has to do with race – ethnicity?

SL writes,

Nationalism

Evidently, the Babel incident effectively triggered the population of the post Flood world to divide up into various distinct groups establishing the different nationalities (tribes, peoples & tongues, etc) throughout the world. But the important thing to notice is: this was God’s judgement upon the humanistic, rebellious culture of Babel. How were they sinning? What was their specific folly? They were indicted for refusing to fulfil the creation ordinance (Gen 1:28) of building civilisation to the glory of God. Instead, they thought to build a city for the glory of man. Their man-centred way of thinking which exalted the creature (Rom 1:18ff) and suppressed the truth of the Creator so accentuated the effect of sin in their culture that it needed a significant counterblow. The establishment of national identities and smaller people groups meant that future governments in which the ‘laws of man’ are exercised would be kept back from developing into full-blown tyrannies, etc. Limited government was the principled lesson future generations of earthly citizens would need to learn from Babel. ‘Power corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. The present human condition is one that warrants this mitigating influence of God’s Spirit commending nationalistic, local identity. God has furnished our hearts with a deep-rooted sense of identification with our local familial groupings. My own experience is that I’ll always feel like a Yorkshire man. Moreover, I want Britain to stand on its own two feet as a distinct nation, pro-Brexit!

BLMc responds,

1.) This judgment at Babel that Steve references was also a blessing of God for mankind. Steve misses that commonly throughout Scripture judgment and salvation walk hand in hand. So, while God’s confusing of the tongues at Babel certainly was judgment it was salvation at the same time. It was mankind’s salvation inasmuch as the judgment at Babel led to what God had originally commanded and that was to disperse and fill the earth. In this case God’s judgment was an absolute good for mankind — it chastened them unto obedience.

2.) We should note at this point that the judgment of God against Babel is never un-done. With Babel God forever ordained the dispersion and concretization of the races and nations. They would develop each in their own place, each in their own way. They would become distinct peoples never to have God’s sanction to be an amalgamated, mixed, and confused people. Not even at Pentecost, where God’s judgment on Babel is sanctified by God, is there a hint of God’s desire to conflate the races and nations. At Pentecost each people hear the Gospel in their own tongue thus signifying that God loves distinct nations and intends for them to remain distinct. And that is what we find when we get to the book of Revelation. The nations as nations come into the New Jerusalem. There remains then, per God’s social order intent and design, a definite un-naturalness to the conflating of peoples. Our fathers understood this.

“Love imagines that it can overleap the barriers of race and blood and religion, and in the enthusiasm and ecstasy of choice these obstacles appear insignificant. But the facts of experience are against such an idea. Mixed marriages are rarely happy. Observation and experiences demonstrate that the marriage of a Gentile and Jew, a Protestant and a Catholic, an American and a Foreigner has less chance of a happy result than a marriage where the man and woman are of the same race and religion….”

Dr. Clarence McCartney
Early 20th Century Presbyterian Minister

“The vast majority of good thinking people prefer to associate with, and intermarry with, people of their respective race; this is part of the God-given inclination to honor and uphold the distinctiveness of separate races. But there are many false prophets of oneness, and many shallow stooges, who seek to force the amalgamation of the races.”

Dr. John Edwards Richards
One of the Founders of the PCA

SL writes,

Regeneration & Mount Zion

But, I must not let that natural, temporary reflex displace a more noble realisation wrought in me by God’s own regenerating grace. St Paul tells me that I am now a citizen of heaven! Moreover, that wall of separation established temporarily by God between the offspring of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob and the rest of the world (Gentiles) has, in Christ, been broken down and set aside. NT Scriptures abound to this effect: 22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of (AF) the firstborn (AG)who are registered in heaven, to God (AH) the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men (AI)made perfect, 24 to Jesus (AJ) the Mediator of the new covenant, and to (AK) the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things (AL) than that of Abel. (Heb 12:22ff) Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called (U) the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. (Eph 2:11ff) 26 For you (AK)are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For (AL)as many of you as were baptized into Christ (AM)have put on Christ. 28 (AN)There is neither Jew nor Greek, (AO) there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all (AP)one in Christ Jesus. 29 And (AQ) if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s (AR) seed, and (AS)heirs according to the promise. (Gal 326ff)

The main point is this: whereas under the Old Covenant, identification with God’s regenerate Church was closely associated with national Israel, under the New Covenant, that association has been abolished. In its place God has established His new spiritual Bride as the universal Church of Jesus Christ. It is, in Christ alone that we now enjoy the fulness of God’s ancient promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Indeed, possession and inclusion in God’s covenant community was only always through faith in Him expressed in obedience to God’s covenant promise, etc. That is the burden of Paul’s letter to the Roman Church. But now, that distinction which St Paul explains in 9:6-8: For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

BLMc responds,

1.) The wall of separation has indeed been set aside. Praise God. However, the fact that all the peoples have salvific access to the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ does not mean that who God has created us to be in our creaturely categories goes away or is undone. We see that from Paul himself when inspired by the Holy Spirit he speaks of his special and unique love for his own people,

Romans 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.

I am one in Christ with other Christians of all races and ethnicities. We all have access to the Father through the Son by the Spirit. This oneness in Christ allows us to have fellowship and gives us the ability to rise above previous racial and ethnic hatreds that perhaps existed previously. However, this oneness in Christ does not erase who we are in our gender, or in our race – ethnicity. Distinctions remain that should be honored. Just as we see a war between the sexes that will be resolved by men and women turning to Christ — and that without men becoming women or women becoming men — so the conflict between races and ethnicities can be resolved by different people groups turning to Christ, yet without those very real racial-ethnic distinctions disappearing.

Current theologian John Frame echoes these sentiments above when he wrote,

“Scripture, as I read it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially. Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God’s grace into one body. They were expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers inthe faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups.”

Dr. John Frame
“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”

In brief, our mutual spiritual citizenry in heaven doesn’t negate the creaturely distinctions that God deigned for us in our creaturely status.

2.) It is true that in the New Covenant one doesn’t need to become attached to Israel to be part of the people of God. Further, it is true, spiritually speaking, that Church becomes the new Christian nation. However, all of that does not mean that God no longer calls nations covenantally. It is still possible, by God’s grace alone, to be a part of a distinctly Christian ethno-nation. This is what Dr. Gerhards Vos was getting at when he wrote,

Romans 11:17, 19, with its “branches broken off” metaphor has frequently been viewed as proof of the relativity and changeability of election, and it is pointed out that at the end of vs. 23, the Gentile Christians are threatened with being cut off in case they do not continue in the kindness of God. But wrongly. Already this image of engrafting should have restrained such an explanation. This image is nowhere and never used of the implanting of an individual Christian, into the mystical body of Christ by regeneration. Rather, it signifies the reception of a racial line or national line into the dispensation of the covenant or their exclusion from it. This reception of course occurs by faith in the preached word, and to that extent, with this engrafting of a race or a nation, there is also connected the implanting of individuals into the body of Christ. The cutting off, of course, occurs by unbelief; not, however, by the unbelief of person who first believed, but solely by the remaining in unbelief of those who, by virtue of their belonging to the racial line, should have believed and were reckoned as believers. So, a rejection ( = multiple rejections) of an elect race is possible, without it being connected to a reprobation of elect believers. Certainly, however, the rejection of a race or nation involves at the same time the personal reprobation of a sequence of people. Nearly all the Israelites who are born and die between the rejection of Israel as a nation and the reception of Israel at the end times appear to belong to those reprobated. And the thread of Romans 11:22 (of being broken off) is not directed to the Gentile Christians as individual believers but to them considered racially.”

Geerhardus Vos
Dogmatic Theology Vol. 1 — pg. 118

So you see Steve is just in error regarding his conclusion that somehow in the New Covenant we can or should no longer be identified with who God has created us racially-ethnically to be. Now, to be sure that familial identity can not and must not supersede our identity in Christ. We are not to make an idol of our race-ethnos. Christ must be supreme in all things. However, neither are we, as Christians, to ignore who God has created us corporeally to be in order to fit into some kind of Gnostic Christianity where “all colors bleed into one.”

God is the God of racial and ethnic distinctions and those distinctions don’t go away and should continue to be honored especially after we have been grafted into Christ.

Over here

https://heidelblog.net/2020/09/a-useful-distinction-regarding-church-and-state-in-our-covid-19-controversy/?fbclid=IwAR0Pb_9xqB7H-nmrF-fNq-M49Yxt-RRUaA5wSg_5pUenshRaR4d24fL-z-A

R2K Scott Clark demonstrates why I want little to do with the visible Reformed Church as a denominational Institution. This stuff is just horrid. Below I interact with some of it. Read the whole thing so you know I’m not misrepresenting the good Doctor.

R2K Scott Clark writes,

“It would help the evangelical discussion regrading church and state in the controversy over how to respond to regulations (e.g., masks, distancing, not meeting indoors etc.) to distinguish between the state’s interest in regulating things around worship, which are common to all gatherings, and regulating the substance of worship. My argument is that the state properly has an interest in the former and no business touching the latter.”

BLMc

Here R2K Clark introduces the distinctions between the accidents of worship and the essentials of worship into the State’s ability to regulate worship such as are those same distinctions are made in the Regulative worship argument.

The problem is that R2K Clark is comparing apples to deodorants.

These “ministers” will try to leverage contrived distinctions till the cows come home. I’m pretty sure when the State is telling the Church it can’t gather that at that point the State is regulating the essentials of worship.

What R2K Clark will argue is that a State mandating masks in worship are a accident to worship and not a worship essential but let’s keep in mind that Gov. Newsome of California is seeking much more in California than merely insisting on masks in worship.

R2K Clark

“We all recognize (or we did before Covid-19) that the community, as represented by civil government, has a proper interest in the general welfare of the community. Thus, I am unaware of any church that has refused to allow the fire department or the health department to perform inspections. How many churches now certify that their youth and nursery workers are not sexual offenders? How many have made mandatory staff training to prevent sexual abuse at church? Our church buildings must be built to local safety and fire codes. No one reasonably objects to such civil regulations. These are regulations around worship that are common to all associations in a decently governed society.”


BLMc

This paragraph now argues that because we have allowed the State Camel’s nose under the tent with all their onerous regulations that therefore we should allow the whole State Camel to run everything the Church does.

How about if we just kick the whole damn camel, nose and all, out of our Tent? How about if we were to say that the State, in a free country, should have no control over several of the examples that R2K Clark uses to “prove” that we all agree that the State should have interest. Some of us don’t think it is the state’s business how many people should be in buildings we own or should have any input into who we do and do not hire, or should have any input into what training employers do or do not give. Some of us think that adults, have, quite apart from the State’s input, enough sense to determine these matters for themselves.

R2K Clark’s whole article presupposes a kind of Statist worldview mindset.

Secondly, on this point, what R2K Clark is calling “regulations around worship” is really a misnomer to serve his purposes. Those examples that R2K Clark give as “regulations around worship” are not really regulations that have anything to do with either the accidentals or the essentials of worship but rather should be labeled as “regulations around buildings,” or “regulations around hiring practices,” or “regulations around food servicing.” These regulations have nothing whatsoever to do with Worship proper. They don’t even have anything whatsoever to do with the accidents of Worship. At best they have to do with the accidents of the accidents of Worship. R2K Clark is really stretching here.

R2K Clark

When an easily communicated virus breaks out, the community at large has an interest in how other members act. Church congregations are no more immune from the virus than any other gathering. Tribal arguments for a favored group (e.g., protestors or congregations) are special pleading and thus specious no matter who, whether public health officers or pastors.

BLMc

First here, we don’t know that this is an easily communicated virus. R2K Clark assumes what is yet to be proven. The whole nature of this virus is heatedly disagreed upon in the epidemiology community.

Secondly, when R2K Clark says “the community at large,” understand he means the tyrant State.

Thirdly, this paragraph completely fails to take into account that the State has no Constitutional authority to shut down Churches. Clark presupposes that when the State says “jump” people (Including the Church) must take to their pogo sticks.

Read what the California State Constitution says,

(c) California must uphold the protection of religious freedom enshrined in the United States Constitution for all of its people, and the state has a moral obligation to protect its citizens from religious persecution.

Instead what the state of California is doing is pursuing religious persecution.

R2K Clark writes,

He (Paul) says that Nero has been installed by God and we have to submit to him. 1 Peter 2:17 says “honor the emperor.” Does the cheering congregation at GCC (or anywhere else for that matter) fit that description? Are they gathering together reverently, soberly, doing all that they can to meet the concerns of the civil magistrate to the best of their abilities?

BLMc responds,

So, here R2K Clark absolutizes Nero. R2K Clark makes a hatchet job of Romans 13. That has been established over and over again here on Iron Ink. It has been established by books written by puritan co-woker with John Knox, Christopher Goodman titled,

How Superior Powers Ought To Be Obeyed By Their Subjects And Wherein They May Lawfully By God’s Word Be Disobeyed And Resisted

In this book Goodman exegetes Romans 13 and shuts the mouth of people like R2K Clark who mangle God’s Word here. James Wilson does the same in his book, “Establishments and Limits of Civil Government. Wilson argues much the same way that Goodman does in exegeting Romans 13. It’s just irresponsible of Clark to constantly be appealing to his butchering of Romans 13 as being “God’s Word.”

R2K Clark fails to recognize that we only have to submit to Nero as Nero submits to God. We have no responsibility to submit to a Nero who is flouting and overturning God’s law which is what the State is doing at this time.

R2K Clark writes,

“Wearing masks, whatever one’s opinion of their efficacy, is not a demand that we sin.”

BLMc responds,

This proves that Clark is unfamiliar with the Westminster Confession where we find that wearing a mask is a sin against the 6th and 9th commandment. This has been convincingly argued and proven in previous Iron Ink entries.

R2K Clark writes,

“Further, I am concerned about the witness to the watching pagan world that this controversy gives.”

BLMc responds,

It’s all good because I’m just as concerned about the witness to the watching pagan world that R2K Clark’s “reasoning” routinely gives.

R2K Clark writes,

“As Christians we may not allow our political and cultural views to swamp our fidelity to the Word of God.”

BLMc responds

So, we are allowed to have political and cultural views that are contrary to God’s Word?

Once again we see the common R2K trait that believe that our we may have views of politics and culture that are contrary to the Word of God that are perfectly acceptable as long as they don’t swamp our fidelity to the Word of God. This statement is a contradiction on stilts dressed in drag.

As we continue in this series, let us pause a moment to emphasize again that no Biblical theologian that I can find prior to 1950 or so ever challenged the idea of the reality and significance of race / ethnicity, or tried to dismiss it as merely a matter of melanin. I offer just a smattering of quotes that sustain that claim. I’ve posted these quotes and countless others like them over and over and have yet to receive a rebuttal to the impact of these quotes on the alienist (Steve’s) position.

Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains imbedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected, and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule.

St. Augustine
On Galatians 3:28

1200 years later Calvin takes up this Augustinian rift by preaching,

“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

John Calvin
Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3

The Puritans were like-minded on this issue as this quote from Samuel Davies reveals. Davies is roughly a couple centuries after Calvin.

“We now reply to the question, Can we know the sense of the prophetic law of Noah [Gen. 9:24-27; 10:1-32] with absolute certainty ? We answer most unequivocally, Yes. How, then, is it to be known? By the perfect conformity of the fulfillment of the law to its legitimate interpretation. Has such fulfillment occurred? Most unquestionably. “Where is it seen? In all quarters of the globe since the flood, but most sublimely in America. It is obvious in a universal and permanent trinity of races; in their political inequality of condition; in the Christianization of all the Japhetic nations, and of no others; in the occupation of the Shemitic wilderness of America by Japheth; and in the service of Plain to Japheth in the Southern States, in the islands, and in South America … (p.18) A perfect coincidence of events with any legitimate interpretation of prophecy is infallibly a fulfillment; and such fulfillment inevitably coincides with the Divine meaning of the text — God being his own interpreter. Fulfillment is to prophetic law what usage is to statute law. Usage specifies the meaning of statutes by a uniform manner of applying them; and fulfillment is but the usage of the Almighty.”

Rev. Samuel Davie
Dominion or, the Unity and Trinity of the Human Race, p.20

300 hundred years after Calvin and a century after Davies Dr. Charles Hodge gets in on the fun by writing,

” [The] differences between the Caucasian, Mongolian, and Negro races, which is known to have been as distinctly marked two or three thousand years before Christ as it is now. . . . [T]hese varieties of race are not the effect of the blind operation of physical causes, but by those cause as intelligently guided by God for the accomplishment of some wise purpose. . . . God fashions the different races of men in their peculiarities to suit them to the regions which they inhabit.”

Charles Hodge (1797-1878)
Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Chapter 1, Section 3 (1872–73)


Now these are just three quotes from hundreds of quotes I could choose from that find the greatest Theologians affirming that race and ethnicity are real God ordained realities and are significant.

On the other side of this I have numerous quotes also from Marxists who are arguing like Steve and who want to deny the reality of race / ethnicity. So, in light of these quotes who am I supposed to believe… Steve and his fellow alienists / Marxists or the theological giants who have everywhere in every place, prior to 1950, spoken with a single voice on this issue? Honestly, I must say it gets frustrating for people like Steve (not Steve himself) to be constantly screaming at me that I’m a hell bound racist because I believe only what the Church at all times and all places has believed where it was orthodox. Not only that, I am opposed to that system of thought (Marxism) that has been trying to kill Christ since its inception – that very system of thought that desires to destroy the racial and ethnic distinctions that God created as the Marxists themselves have admitted in their own writings.

Turning now to interact with Steve. Steve writes,

The Fall

With the Fall, sin entered the world & corrupted the whole scene; Cain, Abel & Seth necessarily married their sisters. The gene pool at that primordial stage in human history was very pure. But contention & warring factions multiplied; through laziness & rebellion the dominion mandate (Gen 1:28) was neglected. Genetic purity was lost and longevity – a symptom of genetic health – began to decline. Methuselah was 969 years old when he died! Noah was 950. After the flood, patriarchal ages reduced until, with the Abrahamic family they had collapsed to 175 years.

BLMc responds,

1.) I have read other conjectures (So far most of what Steve has wrote has been conjecture) on why the life span was diminished. Those other conjectures had nothing to do with the gene pool purity being lost.

2.) This has absolutely zero do to with race – ethnicity.

SL writes,

Babel

God’s judgement of Babel is the most significant event we must consider. Quite suddenly, through the immediate generation of, let’s say two dozen different language groups, humanity was induced to spread out across the world and find settled accommodation away from their native homeland. The consequential inter-marriage of clans and families gave rise to the various ‘ethnic’ groupings which we are familiar with today.

BLMc responds,

1.) Steve doesn’t have any idea of how many language groups came into being. More speculation.

2.) Steve doesn’t know if inter-marriage of clans and families is what gave rise to various ethnic groups. This is all conjecture. It might have happened that way but the text does not tell us that it happened that way. Frankly, we just don’t know for sure how it is that God created the different racial – ethnic groups. However, not knowing how it is that God created those differing racial and ethnic groups doesn’t mean that those racial – ethnic groups don’t exist.

SL presses on,


Covenantal Redemption

Next, we must reckon with God’s redemptive plan ‘to destroy the works of the devil’ (1Jn 3:8) and ‘fill the earth with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea’ (Is 11; Hab 2:14). God singled out Abraham to be ‘the father of many nations’ (Gen 17:5). His fatherhood, however, was not to be ethnic, based on blood lineage, but rather it was covenantal – based on the presence of ‘Godward’ faith within the heart (Rom 4:3). True faith potentially enjoys the covenantal blessing of God down through generations (Ex 20:6). Notice then, covenantal blessings are, in Scripture, enjoyed PRIMARILY through faith exercised by individuals. But, because God they spill over and may be transmitted down through generations, it may appear that there is a ‘blood-lineage’ aspect to them also. Scripture is however as loud as thunder in this regard: God’s covenantal blessings are to be sought and secured by faith. Indeed, so prevalent is the spurious attitude that they are granted on the basis of blood/ancestry that whole books are included in the cannon that refute that hypothesis (e.g. Ephesians, Galatians, Hosea, and vast portions of Isaiah, etc)BLMc responds,

BLMc responds,

1.) If Abraham’s fatherhood was not to be ethnic, based on blood lineage could someone please explain to me those genealogies used by Matthew and Luke to prove that Jesus, the Christ, was of the blood lineage line of David, Abraham, and Adam?

If genealogy isn’t important then why does Paul say,

Romans 1:3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,

If genealogy isn’t important then why does Peter say,

29 “Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, [i]according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,

The idea that Abraham’s fatherhood was not to be ethnic is just ridiculous. Now, to be sure, not all of Israel was of Israel and God could raise stones up to be sons of Abraham but those realities don’t negate the covenantal promises which implied that salvation, while not based on race, nevertheless is a blessing that was visited upon genetic lines by God’s grace alone. Why else would God have talked about being God to us and to our children for a thousand generations (Psalm 105:8)? If the covenantal promises don’t typically run, by God’s grace alone, in genetic lines then why bother bringing our children to the baptismal font to receive God’s promises?

2.) No one denies that Israel was in sin for presuming that faith was not needed due to their covenantal relationship with the God of the Bible. However, to suggest that because Israel was in sin for wrongly presuming on God’s grace just because of their genetic connection to Israel doesn’t mean that God’s promises to work in familial covenantal lines is negated. My Children had to combine the promises with faith. So will my grandchildren. However, God has always remained faithful to be God to His people in their generations. To deny that God is faithful to His people in their generations plays havoc with the character of God.

Some chap who is a Brit and whom I don’t know recently decided to try and disprove Kinism. This Steve Layfield wrote a paper titled “Kinist Contentions.” This paper is about seven pages long. I will be rebutting some significant portion of it for the next few days. This will start slow but hopefully will build as the series continues.

SL starts,

Good Creation

First, God created the world & it was very good. The UNFALLEN progeny of Adam & Eve would have spread out across the globe and built civilization to the glory of God. There would have been distinct family heritage all the way back to Adam but no necessity for successive generations to remain closely bound among their near blood relatives.

BLM responds,

There is obviously no absolute necessity now for successive generations to remain closely bound among their near blood relatives and yet they do. SL merely offers an assertion without any proof. How does he know that blood relatives would not have remained closely bound to their blood relatives if the fall had not occurred? He doesn’t know this. It’s a mere assertion on his part.

SL writes,

Mutations most likely would not have occurred (?) but a simple, providential shuffling of genes & chromosomes would have taken place allowing for a diversity of progeny with differing physical, mental and perhaps even emotional/psychological characteristics. Geographical and environmental locations might have impacted the visible differences also – e.g. melanin + sunlight intensity generating various shades of skin colour.

BLMc responds

This is just more cursory speculation on Steve’s part about what life would have been like if the fall had not happened. But the fall did happen and this is all merely empty assertions and guessing. Anybody can guess.

Notice here also the subtle suggestion on SL’s part that race can be reduced to melanin.

SL writes,

But, there would have been no moral basis for restricting marriage across families. Rather, due to the rich diversity of genetic material and the inherent potential for various genotypes to express themselves in a multitude of different phenotypes, a host of amazing talents, abilities and aptitudes would have emerged!

BLMc responds

There also was no moral basis for not marrying your sister before the fall either but after the fall there came a point where there was a moral basis for not marrying your sister. What is Steve’s point here?