This morning we continue with our examination of what is called the Doctrines of Grace. You’ll notice it is not “are the Doctrines of Grace” but “is the Doctrines of Grace.” This communicates though there is a plurality of Doctrines that plurality of Doctrines makes for one Doctrine of Grace. This goes to what we said last week, and that is the Doctrines of Grace rise and fall together. One simply cannot, without burdened with contradiction and weighted down with inconsistency hold to any one of these doctrines of Grace w/o hold to all of these Doctrines of Grace. One cannot w/o gross contradiction and stiff-necked inconsistency say of themselves, “I hold to three of the Doctrines of grace but not two others, or, I hold to four of the Doctrines of Grace but not one other.”

Now having said that, we should note again, that a high percentage of people do actually hold that very idea. A high percentage of clergy hold that very position. They hold some of the Doctrines of Grace and not others and then they have the moxie to tell me that my problem and fault is that Calvinists are using human logic. When I respond to that by asking if God is more pleased with the human illogicality and irrationality that is required for them to embrace contradiction I usually am met with the deer in the headlight stare.

With all the compassion and diplomat speak I can muster I have to warn people against the kind of Doublethink that is required to hold to some but not all of the Doctrines of Grace. Engaging in that kind of systematic contradictory thinking is not good for one’s mental health.

You will remember that this Double-think that must be engaged in order to be a 3 point, 4 point or 4.5 Calvinist is a concept teased out in Orwell’s novel, 1984. Double-think was the ability whereby a person is expected to simultaneously accept mutually contradictory ideas as true at the same time in contravention to the maxim that both a and non a cannot both be true at the time in the same sense.

Calvinists don’t do double-think. We don’t embrace the contradiction. We don’t talk much about paradoxes, antinomies, or enigmas. We see God’s Word as non-contradictory. We admit there are theological truths – aspects of Scripture — we can’t get to the bottom of but even then we refuse to list them as contradictions. We believe that 2^nd person of the Trinity being the incarnated Logic forbids us from doing double-think. And further we are convinced that doing double-think is damaging to one’s soul since a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.

So, we consider this morning the “L” in our TULIP acrostic. We have considered “Total Depravity,” and “Unconditional Election” in previous weeks. This week we look at Limited Atonement. This will take us two or three weeks to navigate.

First we will offer up some definitions and then we will go to the Scripture to see how the definition is drawn from the Word of God.

When we first consider just the idea of Atonement we note that Scripture teaches that Atonement is the state of being returned to being “at one” – reconciled – to God. Atonement presupposes the prior condition of hostility between God and man and man and God. Atonement is the legal means by which that hostility is overcome. As such we see that Atonement in Scripture denotes the end effect which flows for the death of Christ.

The Theologian Leon Morris said of Atonement

“it means a making of one, and points to a process of bringing those who are estranged into a unity… Its use in theology is to denote the work of Christ in dealing with the problem posed by the sin of man, and in bringing sinners into a right relation with God.”

Already, we are beginning to see something that I have mentioned in previous weeks but is really going to come to the fore when we deal with Atonement and that is the idea that Biblical Christianity is a faith that is juridical at its core. It is premised and based upon legal categories and cannot be understood apart from these legal categories that we now call “doctrines.”

You see this being expressed in this idea of Atonement. Man has ruined himself in sin. How shall fallen man be restored? Well, the answer to that is man must meet the legal requirement somehow which declares that the soul that sinneth shall surely die. Death is the legal judicial penalty for all sin and any sin. There it is… that legal penalty must be met. Atonement begins to tell us what the legal remedy is whereby fallen man can both meet the requirements of the legal penalty of sin (Death) by means of a legal process.

Atonement and the constellation or words surrounding Atonement

Reconcilliation Propitiation Expiation Ransom Redemption Sacrifice Substitution Justice Satisfaction Surety Forgiveness Salvation

Are each and all words that can only be understood in a Judicial legal context. This teaches us that before Christianity is about relationship it is about the Judicial legal grounds upon which that relationship is established. Too many Christians want the relationship apart from understanding God’s judicial work of Atonement.

So, already we see here that Atonement is a HUGE subject. We could easily spend 45 minutes every Lord’s Day exposing the meaning of the constellation of all the words that are implied in the idea of Atonement.

Now that we have limned out a beginning definition of Atonement we now go on to consider the textual evidence from which this is drawn. Interestingly enough we say right out of the gate that this is a case where the English word “Atonement’ doesn’t have a one for one correspondence etymologically with any particular Hebrew or Greek word. As such, no mere word study alone can determine the Biblical teaching concerning Atonement.

We see the Greek word Kattalege translated sometimes as Atonement in Romans 5:11

“We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.”

Many of your translations will give you the word “reconciliation” where the KJV gives the word atonement, thus suggesting that there is in the idea of Atonement something of “reconciliation.”

If we back up though and consider conceptually the idea of Atonement from the OT we stumble upon the Hebrew word “Kipper” which also informs us regarding the idea of Atonement.

Exodus 30:10, Lev. 4:20

10 And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the Lord.

20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

The Hebrew word here translated “Atonement” means to cover, propitiate, to atone for sin. The concept here is describing the effect of the sacrifices at the consecration of the high priest and the altar and the annual sacrifices – especially as on the Day of Atonement.

Citing Morris again… “Kipper (atonement) carries with it the implication of a turning away of the divine wrath by an appropriate offering.”

Romans 5 taught us there was something about Atonement that included the idea of “Reconciliation.” Here we see in the word Kipper we see that there is something in the idea of Atonement that includes the idea to cover, propitiate, to atone for sin.

Now add to that, that Atonement in the NT is part of the Greek Hilaskomai word group which points to propitiation.

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Some versions will have “sacrifice of atonement” instead of the word propitiation.

So, again we see the word “Atonement” is a river that has many etymological streams flowing into it. Atonement has to do with reconciliation, has to do with propitiation, has to do with covering, has to do with penalty paid. The NT writers use many modes of description for the work of Christ which we refer to as the Atonement.

We have seen enough so far, to be able to say that if the Cross is at the heart of the Christian faith then Atonement is at the heart of the Cross. There is no understanding of Christianity apart from an expansive understanding of the Cross and there is no understanding the Cross apart from an expansive understanding of atonement. When we gaze at the Cross, those with eyes to see are seeing God’s atonement – an atonement that includes reconciliation, propitiation, expiation, covering, substitution, penalty paid, Redemption, Ransom, and much more. And when we probe into Atonement we begin to get lost in wonder, love and praise. When we probe into the Atonement we begin to learn that God did it all. Via the provided for Atonement God rescued fallen sinners. Via the provided Atonement Christ satisfied the legal debt that was absolutely required to be paid.

Let us talk about the Atonement. We already noted that in the Hebrew Word Kipper there is the idea of propitiation.

Hebrews 4:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

The sacrifices propitiated God… which is to say Atonement includes the idea of the Atonement sacrifice turning away the just wrath of God against sinners for having violated His Law.

There is that legal process idea again. A law was broken. The Lawgiver is justly wrathful against His law being broken. A price must be paid to satisfy law and lawgiver. That price paid is the Atonement because without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22). Christ’s Atonement is a legal transaction wherein by His Cross Work He satisfies our legal debt owed to God and in satisfying that legal sin debt God is propitiated …. His wrath is turned away and so we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1).

Note the magnificence in all this. In the Atonement God provides Himself in the 2^nd person of the Trinity – the Incarnate Christ – and then lays upon Himself the penalty of our and my sin so that His just character might not be questioned and so He may express the infinite supply of His mercy to people such as us. God does it all. Does all the penalty bearing. Does all the dying. Does all the saving. God does it all. Oh Saints how can we not be lost in eternal gratitude. How can we not therefore as a result of all this mercy not be a people who are zealous for good works? How can we not therefore as a result of all this grace not be a people who are angered when the name and Character of our Great God is diminished and set at naught? How can we not therefore contend at every turn for the crown rights of our benevolent Lord Jesus Christ?

To not rise up to contend for His cause is an insult to His great favor and mercy found in the Atonement.

We have been Atoned for and so are clear of sin, guilt and misery that characterizes uniformly those outside of Christ. We are no longer twisted by the weight of guilt nor can we be guilt manipulated because we have been atoned for. The guilt has been borne in our stead. Because we are atoned for we can be the most clear thinking on two legs because the damaging work of guilt can no longer twist our minds.

Scripture list

Now this is a very brief idea of Atonement. A Pastor could only hope that it whets your appetite to pursue it more. Let me say here that we and our children as Christians should have a basic handle on this. If someone asks you “what is Atonement” we ought to be able to answer that in some simple way such as,

“Atonement refers to the work of Christ on the cross where He met God’s just and legal demands by paying for the penalty of sin by spilling His blood in sacrifice thereby providing reconciliation by ending the previous sin wrought hostility that existed between God and man and man and God by means of propitiation.”

Now… all that was a brief tutorial on Atonement. Now, let’s limn out where we are going next week when we add the word “Limited” to the word “Atonement.”

When we add the word “Limited” to the word “Atonement” we are saying that the Atonement is not universal… it was never intended for all men. The Atonement has been limited by God to those He marked out from eternity past as unconditionally elect. It is the unconditionally elect alone who Christ atoned for.

Now, this idea … this “L” in our TULIP Acrostic is reputed to be the Doctrine of Grace that most people stumble over. If people are to give up any petal of TULIP it is usually the “L.” Most commonly when someone says that they are a “Four point Calvinist” it is the “L” that they have thrown overboard. People are troubled by Limited Atonement.

But let’s pause here to say a couple things.

First, every Christian you meet, unless they are a Universalist and believe all people, no matter what, go to heaven believes in Limited Atonement. The person who denies the “L” in “Limited Atonement” believes in Limited Atonement.

Why do I say that? Because, as I said, unless someone is a Universalist all Christians recognize that the Atonement has been limited by somebody or something. If there are people in Hell, then the Atonement was limited. It didn’t save everybody.

So… what is the problem?

Here is the problem. In our “L” in Limited Atonement we teach that God is the one doing the limiting. He determined to choose the Elect. In the Limited Atonement of those who don’t like our Limited Atonement it is fallen man who determines the limiting of Atonement. So, the problem with Limited Atonement is that we are all good with God limiting Atonement and our opposition insists that man gets to limit atonement.

BUT wait … you say. (And rightly so)

If man is really Totally depraved like our “T” teaches us then man can’t do anything but decide to be the one who limits the atonement if you deny or “L.” So, if you combine the “T” of TULIP and deny the “L” of TULIP so that man is the one who limits the atonement then the result is a reverse universalism wherein all people spend eternity in Hell.

Unquestioning belief in the Holocaust has become the new religion of the last 50 years. This despite that in the 1992 Auschwitz itself reduced the number of Jewish deaths in Auschwitz by half.

Jewish and Polish scholars of the Holocaust now agree that the Auschwitz death toll was less than half the four million cited here for four decades. The actual number was probably between 1.1 million and 1.5 million-and at least 90 percent of the victims were Jews.

Despite this recognition scholars in Europe still go to prison for merely questioning aspects of the Holocaust. As such, belief in the Holocaust has become a matter of faith and so has been ensconced as a religion.

In this Holocuastianity religion the theological matrix is as follows,

Original Sin = Questioning aspects of the holocaust
Sacrificial lamb = The Jewish people themselves are the lamb of God as slain by the Nazis
Places of Worship = Holocaust Museums
High Priests = Eli Weisel, Simon Wisenthal, Deborah Lipstadt
Places of Pilgrimages = Yad Vashem
Holocaust Saints = Anne Frank, Edith Stein
Prophets = Holocaust “survivors”
Scriptures = Written Testimony of inmates
Inquisition = Global Major Media watching out for denials
Excommunications = David Irving, Ernst Zundel, Richard Williamson
Laity = All who snap attention at recitation of the golem number
Calvary / Golgotha = Bergen-Belsen, Majdanek, Chelmno, Auschwitz
Cross = Gas Chambers
The Suffering Redeemer = Inmates
Holocaust = Sacrificial Offering

Any questioning or inquiry into any aspect of this event immediately is a violation of the new faith and requires excommunication. Any questioning or inquiry into any aspect of this event means that the inquiring person is a racist and anti-Semite and desires to send everybody not like him to be gassed.

This idea of sacred ideologies being turned into non-falsifiable religions is not an unusual phenomenon. Much of that which is unreal positing as reality is in point of fact a religion that is not falsifiable and so has all the marks of religion.

Here are a couple other examples. The Religion is Intersectionality / Critical Race theory. The theological matrix is as follows,

Original sin = White cis-gendered Male believing in patriarchy
Regeneration = WOKE
Sanctification = Anti-Racism / Never Trump Activism / Anti-fa
Saints = Martin Luther King, Rodney King, George Floyd
Inquisition = SJW cancel culture
Scripture = Works of James Cone / Gustavo Gutiérrez / Jeremiah Wright
Prophets = Ron Burns, Russel Moore, Matt Hall, Albert Mohler, Duke Kwan
Places of Worship = Any PCA, SBC, OPC, Episcopal, Roman church of your choosing.

The Religion is Climate Change. The theological matrix is,

Original Sin = Climate change denial
Priestess = Alexandria Occasio Cortez, Greta Thunberg
Heaven = Elimination of all Carbon gasses
Hell = The proliferation of the gas engine
Catechism = Agenda 2030
Places of Worship = Nature
Prophets = Al Gore, Michael Moore
Salvation = The New Green Deal

One key point in all this is that the theological categories of Christianity are inescapable realities. One may deny Christianity and Christ. One may deny the God of the Bible. However, whatever new system is arrived at will be a system that includes all the categories of Biblical Christianity. This teaches that God’s reality never goes away and reminds us if we want to think consistent with real reality we must think in terms of Biblical Christianity (Calvinism) categories. Reality never goes away. Reality is like the bumps in the old Bugs Bunny cartoon that Bugs would give to Daffy Duck. Daffy might push one of those bumps in only to find that bump come out on another spot on his noggin. People might push in the bumps (categories) of Christianity to try and make them go away but that bump always comes out someplace else.

Men can’t make God’s reality go away.

“The migration tsunami signifies the resolute, brutal and compelling commencement of the globalization of the world, which has been predicted for some time. It does not begin with the creation of a one world government, or the creation of a one world economic system or a unified global financial system (all of this is secondary), but with race mixing, the crossbreeding of races. Herein we see the confirmation of our thesis that the main objective of the globalists is not only wealth and power, but they also wish to change mankind, as a species, beyond recognition.”

Gennadi Bondarev
The Migration Tsunami

And it is not possible to succeed to change mankind via the cross-breeding of the races without at the same time also having to cross-breed all the religions. The great new mulatto man will worship a great new mulatto God via a great new mulatto religion living in a great new mulatto culture. As we have said on Iron Ink many times before one can not successfully pursue multiculturalism without at the same time pursuing multi-racialism and multi-faithism. This is so because of how closely intertwined race, culture, and faith are with one another. To pursue the cross-breeding of any one of them requires the cross-breeding of all of them in order to be successful in achieving the desired homogeneity.

Now, we have arrived at a time where this is not a thing to be observed in polite company. Infused with the anesthetic of egalitarianism these truths are not to be observed, never mind baldly stated. However, a disciple of Christ realizes that the undoubted catholic Christian faith is at stake here. If the globalist NWO elite agenda of “racial diversity” is achieved a religious godless pagan homogeneity will be achieved. In the same way, if the globalist NWO elite agenda of “cultural diversity” is achieved a religious godless pagan homogeneity will likewise be achieved.

All of this is primarily the same attack that was waged on God in Genesis 11. All of this is in pursuit of a NWO Tower of Babel existence where the new NWO mulatto man exists as some kind of Orc to serve the ends of their elite masters.

Doubt me? Just read what some of the members of the NWO elite are saying,

“Diversity is perceived as a threat in many parts of Europe. Diversity brings challenges. But diversity is the fate of humanity. In future, not even in the remotest places on the planet will there be a nation without diversity. That is where humanity is headed.”

Frans Timmermans
Dutch Foreign Minister — 2012-2014
First VP European Commission European Commissioner for the portfolio of better regulation

The EU should “do its best to undermine” the ‘homogeneity; of its member states,’ the UN’s special representation of migration has said… Peter Sutherland told peers ‘the future of prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural… He told the House of Lords committee migration was a ‘crucial dynamic for economic growth’ in some EU nations ‘however difficult it mat be to explain this to the citizens of the states.’ … He told the committee, ‘The USA or Australia and New Zealand are migrant societies and therefore they accommodate more readily those from other backgrounds than we do ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others. And that’s precisely what the EU, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine.’

Andreas Thierry — Politische Verfolgung in Osterreich

This is all part of a top down control agenda that has long been pursued by the NWO globalist elite;

I had followed the catastrophic stages of contracts [meaning the European Union (EU) treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice, and Lisbon], of which the citizens know almost nothing about, and it was decided on the drawing board that the nations within Europe would no longer have borders so as to facilitate a smoother ‘passenger and weight transport’ service. I was a witness to with what doggedness and lack of respect for democracy these contracts were signed. The government and heads of state failed to inform the public about their content; they had satisfied themselves with some superficial information that only served to cover up the nature of the agreements…. Now I understand at last: here there were forces and motives at work of which I was unaware…. Why were the nations almost completely unaware of that the European institutions were doing? Why had the European Parliament, the only institution whose members could choose all citizens, virtually no legislative powers and was therefore a fiction with a false name? Why are the majority of decisions that have been based on agreements, of which the citizens were ignorant, are controlling exactly those citizens? The systematic recording of all fingerprints in a central European-American file; the biometric registration of citizens; creating a European police; the abolition of all military police units in the EU member states such as the Carabinieri in Italy; the introduction of stringent and destructive censorship of thought; and the compulsion to use ‘politically correct’ language? One thing was clear: it targeted not only the absolute control of all citizens, but their physical properties and their behavior also were registered by body scanners, the imminent implantation of microchip, biometric registration, ubiquitous video surveillance and the eventual phasing out of cash and the forced use of credit cards. But the main goal was to dominate them and to ‘humble’ them, even if not all were aware of this humiliation, to inculcate them with a submissive attitude so that they obeyed every command without questioning those in power…. It was all planned in advance. The author of the gigantic crime had hoped that, among the hundreds of millions of people who attended this spectacle, there would not be a single Poirot and if someone did rise up to explain the game to the public, no one would believe him.”

Ida Magli
Italian Born Anthropologist
The European Dictatorship — p. 99-102

The hour is late. It is long past time that Biblical Christians realize that there is an agenda here that is pushing for the mulatto man and that agenda is the destruction of all distinctions in pursuit of a homogenized, gender blender, dystopian world where mankind is turned into a living breathing expression of the Mao suit serving the god-state.

It is, in the end, an attempt to roll the God of the Bible off His throne.

Well I stood up first in Longtown, on down Dixie way
Not realizing where I was standing
But resolved just the same
Resolved just the same

With authority on my mantle
Which said I was learned
Voices in my boxes said
That was yet earned
That was yet to be earned

I had long heard the whispers and felt the thunder
Seen the lightning and knew the wonder
But now it was me standing in that place
Standing in that place

The man who called me took my ticket
Said, “Confess what you believe”
Cause that’s how you’ll be remembered
When it’s time for you to leave
When it’s time for you to leave

They who came before me
Standing in that same space
Were cautious and gentle
And too wild to face
Too wild to face

They came as well bred men
They came with a rough hewn edge
They all came as under His spell
And committed to their pledge
Committed to their pledge

Time’s string of fearless hearts, standing in that space
It’s the same old desk, just in a different place
Just in a different place

They lifted their voice in joy, lifted them in grief
They’ve been heralds of His Word
In war time and in peace
In war time and in peace


From the portals of Heaven, to disaster at the door
It won’t matter where you speak it
Cause it’s been told before
Yes, it’s been told before

They have come from the backwaters
From the suburbs and the plains
Heralds in rags and suits
Heralds too wild to tame

Time’s string of fearless hearts, standing in that space
It’s the same old desk, just in a different place
Just in a different place

All were but treasures in earthen jars of clay
Each new generation serving in their day
Serving in their day

Our tribe go on forever, it’s ours to give the proof
As long as men walk this earth
We’re here to speak the truth
Here to speak the truth

They came from the neon cities
The farms and the towns
From Old Princeton to Dallas
They’ve stood on holy ground

Time’s string of fearless hearts, standing in that space
It’s the same old desk, just in a different place
Just in a different place
Just in a different place

Same old desk, just in a different place
Just in a different place

Over at the OPC website, we find this gem.

https://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=523

I don’t know long ago this was written, though I think somewhere around 2013. I don’t know who wrote it. I do know that I can provide quotes from Presbyterians in the last 50 years which will prove that whoever wrote this dreck should’ve stuck to his Church growth textbooks and not decided to delve into theology.

Begin OPC article,

Question and Answer

Is interracial marriage sinful?

Question:

I have noticed a recent influx of online discussions in supposedly reformed groups saying that interracial marriages are a sin. I believe they consider themselves “kinists.” What is the history of this doctrine? Would the OPC consider it heresy, or just bad theology?

Answer:

Kinism appears to be one of those odd systems which pop up from time to time among those with a tendency toward conspiracy theories, an over-inflated sense of entitlement, and an unhealthy victim mentality. It being about as fringey as fringe can be,…

BLMc responds,

Odd system? The Presbyterian Dr. Rev. Francis Nigel Lee didn’t think so.

Dr. Nigel Lee (1934–2011)

I don’t believe [racial integration] is what the Bible teaches. Even though we may have transgressed the boundaries of nationhood and of peoplehood, it seems to me that God did create man of one blood in order that he may dwell as different nations throughout the world. But after the fall, when sinful man cosmopolitanly – meaning by that, with a desire to obliterate separate nationhood, with a desire to build a sort of United Nations organization under the Tower of Babel…attempted to resist developing peoplehood…[God confused the tongues of men]…because men had said, ‘Let us build a city and a tower which will stretch up to heaven lest we be scattered’… Pentecost sanctified the legitimacy of separate nationality rather than saying this is something we should outgrow… In fact, even in the new earth to come, after the Second Coming of Christ, we are told that the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of the heavenly Jerusalem, and the kings of the earth shall bring the glory and the honor—the cultural treasures—of the nations into it… But nowhere in Scripture are any indications to be found that such peoples should ever be amalgamated into one huge nation.

“In another fourteen years, the future looks bleak for White Christians everywhere. In 1900, Europe possessed two-thirds of the world’s Christians. By 2025, that number will fall below 20% — with most Christians living in the Third World of Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Then, nearly 75% of the world’s Catholics will be Non-Western Mestizos or Black Africans. Right now, Nigeria has the world’s largest Catholic Theological School. India has more Christians than most Western nations. And Jesus is more and more being portrayed with a dark skin. By 2050, more than 80% of Catholics in the U.S. will be of Non-Western origins. Only a fraction of Anglicans will be English. Lutherans, Presbyterians and other mainstream denominations will find their chief centers of growth in Africa, Asia and Latin America — often syncretistically absorbing large quantities of Pre-Christian Paganism as revived Voodooism and increasing ancestor-worship. This “Christianity” rapidly degenerates into an immigrationistic, prolific and socialistic jungle-religion.”

Dr. F.N. Lee circa 2011

Christian-Afrikaners pg. 87

OPC Questions and Answers

“A central tenet of kinism seems to be that God wants people to keep themselves within strict ethnic groupings.”

BLMc responds.

WOW … how weird is the idea that Presbyterians might believe that God wants people to keep themselves within strict ethnic groupings?

However, there are those well known Presbyterians John Rice Edwards, Morton Smith, and Charles McCartney who believed just that.

John Rice Edwards, one of the founders of the PCA, listed as two reasons of several for why there was a need for the PCA to separate from the PCUSA in 1973

1.) The Racial Amalgamationist, who preaches that the various races should be merged into one race and differences erased in oneness.

2.) The Communist, who would have one mass of humanity coerced into oneness by a totalitarian state and guided exclusively by Marxist philosophy.

Elsewhwere Edwards offered,

“No human can measure the anguish of personality that goes on within the children of miscegenation… Let those who would erase the racial diversity of God’s creation beware lest the consequence of their evil be visited upon their children.”

Dr. Rev. Morton Smith also wrote about the weird idea of God wanting people to keep within strict ethnic groupings,

“If we may conclude that ethnic pluriformity is the revealed will of God for the human race in its present situation, it is highly questionable whether the Christian can have part in any program that would seek to erase all ethnic distinctions. That such distinctions may be crossed over by individuals may be granted, but it is at least questionable whether a program designed to wipe out such differences on a mass scale should be endorsed by the Christian. It is this line of argument that the average Christian segregationist uses to back his view. He fears that the real goal of the integrationist is the intermarriage of the races, and therefore the breakdown of the distinctions between them. Many who would be willing to integrate at various lesser levels refuse to do so, simply because they feel that such will inevitably lead to intermarriage of the races, which they consider to be morally wrong. . . .

The mass mixing of the races with the intent to erase racial boundaries he does consider to be wrong, and on the basis of this, he would oppose the mixing of the two races in this way. Let it be acknowledged that a sin in this area against the Negro race has been perpetrated by godless white men, both past and present, but this does not justify the adoption of a policy of mass mixing of the races. Rather, the Bible seems to teach that God has established and thus revealed his will for the human race now to be that of ethnic pluriformity, and thus any scheme of mass integration leading to mass mixing of the races is decidedly unscriptural.

Dr. Morton H. Smith (1923-2017)

(For more see: Dr. Morton H. Smith on Christianity, Race, and Segregation)

And then there is Dr. Clarence McArtney, a Presbyterian who also seemed to support the frigney idea that God desires people to stay within strict ethnic groupings,

“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 MacCartney – Presbyterian Minister

Sure looks like these Presbyterians just cited had no problem with the notion “that God wants people to keep themselves within strict ethnic groupings.”

OPC Questions and Answers writes,

Were this (ethnic distinctiveness) so, (important) one would expect the Lord to have mentioned this some place in the Scriptures. Not only is there no such mention, but the Bible explicitly teaches that ethnic and tribal identity are utterly beside the point when it comes to one’s relationship to God.

BLMc responds,

First off, no Kinist believes that ethnic and tribal identity necessarily forbids one from a relationship with the God of the Bible, That statement is utterly beside the point and so is ridiculous. It does however demonstrate how Kinists are constantly attacked by the straw man fallacy. It demonstrates how feeble minded the Reformed clergy are so that seemingly nobody actually has yet dealt with the issue of Kinism in a way that actually reflects what kinist’s believe. Thirdly, it also demonstrates that if these idiot clergy really believe what they are saying about the evils of Kinism then they should quit esteeming men like Calvin, Rutherford, Morton Smith, Clarence MacCartney, Machen, etc. because all those men and countless others were, at the very least, proto-kinists.

Next, Scripture is not silent on ethnic distinctiveness. See,

Yes, Jesus was a Racist

Is God A Racist?

Orthodox Presbyterian Questions and Answers

What kinist scriptural arguments I have found are classic examples of eisegesis: that is, reading an existing belief into a Bible verse which does not in fact teach that doctrine. I won’t quote Romans 4:1–12 here, but you will note that faith in Christ’s work makes one righteous before God and a child of Abraham. Paul argues very strenuously that Jews (“the circumcised”) are not truly descendants of Abraham in God’s eyes unless they share his faith. If the Lord Christ has no place for gene pool considerations within his church, why would he be concerned with them among the nations which exist only to provide members for the church?

BLMc responds,

Again… no kinist has affirmed the idea that “the Lord Christ has a place for gene pool considerations” within His Church in terms of who and who cannot be saved. That garbage accusation, like this whole column is a violation of the 9th commandment. What Kinists do affirm is that all gene pools comprise the Redeemed Church of Jesus Christ and that normatively as those gene pools exist as gene pools.

We see the OPC practicing this very thing in Westminster California where they have a Vietnamese Church (Resurrection Church). Should the OPC be telling their Vietnamese church that they have formed themselves on the basis of bad Eisegesis?

But let’s let the Presbyterians in Church history speak on why we should be concerned with gene pool considerations in the Church. Calvin wasn’t a Presbyterian but I doubt if even the OPC will mind if I include him here in a quote,

“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)

Here is the Presbyterian John Frame on the issue of gene pool considerations in the Church,

“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 in the faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups.”

John Frame,

“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”

Here is Presbyterian John Edwards Richards, Professor of Theology. Presumably Edwards would have held this conviction about gene pool considerations in the Church.

“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 E. Richards

So, what we see from the Minister who inked that OPC article is the practice of eisegesis, violation of the 9th commandment and the usual irrational ratiocination that we have come to expect from simpleton clergy in the Reformed world.

OPC Question and Answer article,

However, the kinist websites I looked at contained any number of deliberately insulting and demeaning racial epithets. A member of the OPC who engaged in such behavior would be seriously disturbing the peace, purity, and unity of the church, and could very well be brought to trial. Thus, while kinism may not be a gross heresy, it certainly is a schismatic (divisive) movement, one which any sane Christian should give a very wide berth.

I hope you, as I do, find kinism not only personally distasteful and morally repugnant, but fundamentally at odds with the Gospel itself. Because God has reconciled sinners to himself through the Cross, all sinners must be reconciled to one another. If kinism, with its offensive regard for the flesh, is true, the Apostle Paul is wrong.

BLMc responds,

First, as a Kinist I have to admit that too often Kinists can be over the top with their language. I’ve tried to do my bit in reigning that in a wee bit. So, while I am hardly a spokesmen for Kinists (a fiercly independent group if there ever was one) I apologize where we and I have gotten carried away with our insulting and demeaning language. However, we must recognized that just as I don’t dismiss Christianity because the author of this OPC article has cast in the teeth insulting and demeaning language at Kinists, and just because the author of this piece has printed slander regarding Kinists, on that basis I do not reject the truthfulness of Biblical Christianity. Just so, Kinism can not be rationally refused because some Kinists use over the top language at times.

Similarly I would say that the author of this article is seriously disturbing the peace, purity, and unity of the Church and in a sane church world would be brought up on charges. So, while the alienism of this Minister author, I hope the readers of this response will find as I do the OPC Questions and Answers column personally distasteful and morally repugnant as well as being fundamentally at odds with the Gospel. People like this “minister” are being schismatic. His alienism is something any sane Christian should give a very wide berth.

We will end with smashing the author’s ludicrous statement implying that the Apostle Paul didn’t teach Kinism type doctrines.

Romans 9:3 For I could pray that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,