God Names & Exegetes Himself

18 And he (Moses) said, “Please, show me Your glory.”
19 Then He said, “I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” 20 But He said, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.” 21 And the Lord said, “Here is a place by Me, and you shall stand on the rock. 22 So it shall be, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by. 23 Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen….”

Exodus 34:5 Now the Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord. 6 And the Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, 7 keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.” “The meaning of the divine name and thus the very person of God are revealed in the two texts. The first one exposes what God will do when he discloses His name to Moses on the mountain, and the second one exegetes the content of that meaning.
The first text anticipates the second. Moses wishes to see the divine glory and God permits him to see the divine goodness — tantamount to proclaiming the divine name in his hearing.”

Stephen G. Dempster
Dominion and Dynasty; A theology of the Hebrew Bible — pg. 105-106

What must not be missed here, if Dempster is correct, is that God binds up His name and the exegesis of His name not only with the idea of His graciousness, mercy, longsuffering, goodness, truth, justice and forgiveness but also with the idea of divine freedom, or as Calvinists prefer, divine sovereignty. God’s very name is and means His ability to have compassion and to not have compassion on whom He sovereignly chooses and refuses to choose.

Of course, legion are the name of the Evangelicals who refuse to accept this proposition. Per, the expansive Arminian camp inside Evangelicalism it is absolutely denied that this is the character of God’s name. God’s name is not “divine freedom,” but “divine lack of freedom.”

If God says is divine freedom is the very essence of who He is, doesn’t it teeter on the denial of God to deny God’s freedom? Of course this divine freedom operates in the context of grace, mercy, forgiveness, long-suffering and goodness but as Pharaoh discovered it also operates in the context of justice and wrath.

To deny God His essence by denying Him is divine freedom is to create an idol instead of God. Hard Arminians, never mind Open Theists have taken to themselves a God who is not the God as God names and exegetes Himself in Exodus 33 & 34.

There’s A New Proletariat Kid In Town

In Classical Marxism the enemy is the Bourgeoisie because owning the means of production they are the oppressor class to the oppressed proletariat. As such the workers of the world must unite to throw off the economically forged chains of the bourgeoisie. Said action, if successful, brings in Utopia where all are economically equal.

In Gramscian Marxism (Cultural Marxism) the enemy is not only the bourgeoisie but is also inclusive of those who are cultural creators or gatekeepers as together they own not only the means of production but also they have the hegemonic power to create and sustain the narrative that keeps the oppressed, oppressed. In Gramscian Marxism the proletariat is comprised of all those who, not only are deprived the means of production, but also of all those who are in rebellion to the narrative that the oppressors use to oppress them in their defiance. We might style this new proletariat as “the grievance class.” These are those who have comprised the counter-cultural flotsam and jetsam who have lived in defiance of the culture created by the largely (though not exhaustively) Christian, White, Patriarchal, and morally traditional, cultural creators and gatekeepers.

Classical Marxism and Gramscian Marxism both attacked the foundation of Christianity as the cornerstone problem they believed they needed to rid themselves of. Classical Marxism focused on economic Christianity as its enemy. Gramscian Marxism’s assault was and is much broader, much more inclusive compared to the much narrower proletariat in Classical Marxism, and much more comprehensive in terms of all it stands opposed.

This give explanatory power then to who comprises the new proletariat. The new proletariat is comprised of minorities who have been convinced that the white man, uniquely, oppressed them in their origins, the pervert who has been convinced that sexuality is not a matter of the structure of the Cosmos, the female who has been convinced likewise that gender is not a matter of the structure of the Cosmos, together with the remaining Classical Marxist economic proletariat. Throw in the guilt ridden white man and woman conditioned by the cultural zeitgeist, Academia which seems to believe that there is forgiveness to be found for a largely misinterpreted past in fanning the flames of envy, the contemporary church which is reinterpreting Christianity in light of Gramscian Marxism, and now Corporate America which sees dollar weight shifting in favor of the triumph of Gramscian Marxism and one discovers that the new proletariat is both the voting base of the Democratic party and the roll call for the modern clergy

Sheol and Egalitarianism

The Hebrew word “sheol” occurs 66 times in the OT, 58 times in poetry. The frequent prepositions with it show that it refers to the grave. The biblical poets use rich and varied figures to depict it. Sheol has a mouth (Ps. 141:7) that “enlarges” (Is. 5:14), and it is “never satisfied” (Prov. 27:20, 30:16). It is so powerful that no one escapes its grip (Ps. 89:48 [49]; Song 8:6). It is like a prison with “cords” (II Sam. 22:6) and a land that has “gates” (Isa. 38:10) with “bars” (Job 17:16). Here corruption is “the father,” and the worm “the mother and sister (Job 17:13-14). It is “a land” of no return to this life (Job 7:9), an abode where all social and religious distinctions cease. Rich and poor (Job 3:18-19), righteous and wicked (Job 3:17, Ps. 49:10) lie together. It is a land of silence (Ps. 94:17), darkness (Ps. 13:3 [4]), weakness and oblivion (Ps. 88:11-18 [12-19]). The destructive nature of this realm is intensified by “Abbadon” (Job 28:22; Parov. 15:11; 27:20; Gk. Apollyon, from apoleia, “destruction” [Rev. 19:11]. Pity Job — he finds the prospect of the grave better than life! (Job 10:18-22)

Bruce Waltke
An Old Testament Theology — pg. 965

Note especially, concerning Sheol

“… an abode where all social and religious distinctions cease. Rich and poor (Job 3:18-19), righteous and wicked (Job 3:17, Ps. 49:10) lie together.”

Sheol is where egalitarian utopia is finally fully implemented. Those who advocate for Egalitarianism are the advocates for Sheol (the grave) and the only thing Egalitarianism can produce is a grave social order. In Sheol we find perfect equality and the perfect equality that the Cultural Marxists (both “Christians” and non Christians) are aiming for will yield a grave like existence.

And the ironic thing is that the egalitarianism that is being pursued isn’t even serious. Egalitarianism is a smoke screen to put a global Elite into ascendancy over all the rest of the cattle mankind.

The Myth Of The ‘Secular’

1.) The idea of a naked “secular” posits an impersonal world, with an impersonal deity concept that requires a personalism that is autonomously created by man’s fiat will. If “secular” means that God’s Law-Word does not govern the secular realm, then the secular realm is both impersonal in terms of divine presence and autonomous. Secularism thus slides easily into the absolutizing of fallen man over the Secular realm and by necessity yields humanism.

2.) The idea of ‘the Secular’ radically (can you say R2K?) separates public and private, and secular and sacred, as a transitional move towards the secular swallowing whole the putative sacred realm into a single unitary realm ruled by man’s experience (Existentialism), emotion (Romanticism), or autonomous reason (Rationalism). This is done by the ever expanding work of the “secular” realm eating up the “sacred” realm. The “Secular” realm of secularism gets larger and larger at the expense of the ever shrinking sacred realm. So, Secularism starts as dualistic but only as a feint to the end of creating a Unitarian reality that finds the Christian sacred completely eclipsed. (For example, when is the last time you’ve heard a sermon on Scriptures teaching on the right to keep and bear arms? You haven’t. Why? because that topic does not belong in the sacred realm.)

3.) Secularism cleverly denies its own religious essence and does so as a means of controlling the public square. By the means of its disguised religious assumptions it destroys the religious givens of all other religious competitors. Secularism thus creates a solely political religion, due to the putative absence of a Theological Word, and so creates a totalitarian impulse to the end of creating Utopia.

4.) Secularism then co-opts all religious competitors by forcing those former competitors to reinterpret their religion in light of the religion of Secularism. This accounts for the rise of R2K in the Reformed World. It accounts for the vicious return of the Baptist doctrine of “soul freedom” in Baptists “churches.” It accounts for the complete sell out to the Holiness movement and an ever increasing number of Reformed Churches to Cultural Marxist categories.

5.) There is no way in which to create a society that is not pinioned upon some faith, worldview, or religious foundation. Even the denial of all religion is a deeply religious tenet and faith commitment. Secularism is a faith commitment that sells itself as neutral regarding faiths.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s Racism

“Let me give a specific example, and that is student loan debt. Right now in America, African-Americans are more likely to borrow money to go to college, borrow more money while they’re in college, and have a harder time paying that debt off after they get out. Today in America, a new study came out, 20 years out, whites who borrowed money, 94 percent of them have paid off their student loan debt, 5 percent of African-Americans have paid it off.

I believe that means everyone on this stage should be embracing student loan debt forgiveness. It will help close the black-white wealth gap. Let’s do something tangible and real to make change in this country.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren
20 November 2019 Democratic Presidential Debate

1.) If George Wallace or Lester Maddox aficionados had said this these words would have been adduced as absolute proof of their racism. Warren has told us here, by way of some study she does not name, that student blacks, unlike student whites, don’t pay off their debts. Sen. Fauxohontas portrayed blacks, at least when it comes to student loans, as irresponsible deadbeats who are more likely to borrow money and less likely to pay it back. This is called the sin of noticing and this is more than enough to be labeled a “racist.”  Yet, because Sen. Fauxohontas desires to redistribute wealth to the minority community, Sen. Fauxohontas gets a pass.

2.) Were the debt on the loans forgiven as Warren desires this would be tantamount to a form of “reparations.” Yet, it is doubtful that it would be recognized as such and even if Warren were to implement this the chant and demand for reparations would be louder than ever.

3.) In a sane world, with statistics like this, blacks would be required to provide more collateral for student loans, or, failing that, would be turned down more often for student loans, since the statistics reveal that loaning money for student loans to black “would be” students is a bad investment. This, of course, would mean, fewer black college students and fewer (unqualified) black professionals. Because of the diminution of blacks in colleges and the white collar professions loaning agencies will NEVER quit giving out loans to black “would be” students even though the loaning agencies know, by why of the statistical input, that those loans will never be repaid. It is better to make bad investments then to be thought of as “racist.”


Maybe Sen. Warren will release the unnamed statistics which she anonymously cites.