I talk about Blankslatism quite frequently. I note that the overwhelming majority of American Christians believe in blankslatism, including most of those in the Christian Manosphere. Whenever I bring it up, there is some skepticism about how true this could be. I get it, you don’t trust me. So here is some more evidence of that fact:
My Friend and Brother in Christ, Pastor Benjamin Glaser just made the following motion at the Associate Reformed Presbyterian (ARP) Synod, which was adopted with zero opposition:
He then followed it up with a motion to “Make it the ARP position statement and put it on the website.” This also passed without opposition.
To God be the glory!
Falsehoods do not glorify God.
The resolution claims that ethnic identities cannot have differing immutable human characteristics. Examples of such things would be height and intelligence. As a matter of theology, such differences are not permitted to actually exist. For example, even though almost every single top 100 long-distance runner of all time in the Olympics traces his ancestry to within the same few-hundred mile radius in Africa, you are now forced to act as if there is no inherent superiority on the basis of their race or ethnicity.
There was zero opposition. None at all. Despite being a conservative Christian group, not a single person was willing to take a stand against the secular leftist blankslatist doctrine. It was embraced wholeheartedly by these conservative Christians, as it would be in probably would every other conservative church in America. Like the Manosphere, the churches in America don’t even know and cannot comprehend that there is a problem, so ingrained is the blankslatist religion in American Christianity. They are completely certain that they are doing the Lord’s work.
(Try asking your pastor or priest if he agrees with it!)
So, in a move that would surprise no one, the next month the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)—the conservative branch of Presbyterianism in America—voted to adopt the resolution as well.
If you are a member of the ARP, RPCNA, or PCA—around 400,000 people—you are more-or-less excommunicated if you refuse to believe in the secular blankslatist religion that your conservative denomination has adopted. In short, if you refuse to embrace a lie, you stand condemned by your own church.
I guess nearly half a million people have never read Jesus’ or Paul’s Jealousy Narrative where they explicitly compare the inferiority of being an Jew with the superiority of being an Samaritan or Gentile solely on the basis of being differentiated by their ethnic identity. Nor, perhaps, have they ever read Titus:
One of them, one of their own prophets, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. For this reason, reprove them sharply so that they come to be sound in the faith instead of paying attention to Jewish myths or the commandments of people who turn away from the truth.
To achieve the maximum emotional effect for the modern audience, just replace “Cretans” with some modern racial or ethnic group. For example:
Which one offends you the most? Under the resolution, you are not allowed to make such statements about another race or ethnic group anymore under penalty of condemnation. You most certainly can’t affirm that the testimony is true!
Does this make you uncomfortable? Would you be embarrassed if a friend or coworker asked you why the Bible was racist? In light of the resolution, explain to me in the comment section why it is okay for the Bible to include this racist statement and call it a true testimony.
In any case, per the terms of the resolution, you are not allowed to associate with me because I have the sheer audacity to acknowledge the simple and obvious reality that immutable human characteristics actually exist. You better condemn me in the comment section, just in case one of your church members notices that you are here!
The talk of immutability makes no sense, really. We don’t ask whether an alcoholic’s alcoholism is an immutable characteristic at an AA meeting, even though we know for a fact that some will lose the battle with alcohol. Attributes vary on a gradient from immutable to completely flexible, with most being somewhere in between. Even those this resolution was written to oppose don’t think all traits are 100% immutable.
They also do not even distinguish between nature vs nurture. They just assume that everyone is perfectly malleable, the perfect blank slate regardless of the cause. I suppose they must think that a person with Cerebral Palsy or Down’s Syndrome—truly immutable characteristics that are mostly non-heritable and largely caused by non-genetic environmental factors—can just magically will their biological condition away.
As I’ve pointed out many times in the past, whether an ethnic group’s “immutable” characteristics are nature, nuture, or more likely a combination makes no difference. What matters is that those differences are real and denying them is immoral:
“It is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, once revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality.”
— A.W.F. Edwards, Lewontin’s Fallacy, 2003
Each man—and each ethnic group—should ultimately be judged not by their potential, or “what might have been,” but by what they actually do. Those immutable characteristics exist and they provide objective advantages and disadvantages (or some might choose to say, superiority and inferiority).
Blankslatists have created a situation where everyone must premise moral equality on biological similarity. That assumption of biological similarity—whether driven by nature or nurture—leads to a denial of the relevance of race and ethnicity. But of course races and ethnicity are real. This puts blankslatists in a bind because races and ethnicities do exist and they have meaningfully different characteristics: faster, smarter, stronger. Their own view logically implies superiority and inferiority of races, and thus moral inequality. They’ve been shot by their own gun.
The backdrop of this resolution is “White” Christian Nationalism. Obviously, as an Anabaptist, I oppose bringing back Magisterial Christianity, so I’m not sympathetic to the Christian Nationalists. Where I diverge from the resolution is this: I believe that Christian Nationalism is the natural result of blankslatism. It is, as Edwards warned, one of those arguments for moral inequality. The only difference between the Presbyterians and the Christian Nationalists is that the former is still in denial about biological dissimilarities. Both share the same underlying ethic:
…which is rooted in the unspoken heart of blankslatism:
In simple terms, they premise that there are no meaningful biological differences between people. Everyone is similar, despite the illusion of difference. Everyone is a blank slate. They can say, do, or be anything they want to be and no one has an inherent advantage over anyone else.
That’s why this resolution passed. Rather than reject blankslatism and make the rational choice, they have tried to rule, by fiat, that their own logically contradictory beliefs are now a matter of doctrine. If you can’t solve the problem that you created, just rule that the “solution” is a matter of blind faith. In other words, kick those out who follow your own teachings to their logical conclusion.
Underlying blankslatism is the modern American’s false belief in complete free will—and equality of agency—with respect to moral issues. This is why the average blankslatist can accept that height is heritable but criminality isn’t, even though these are more-or-less equally heritable.
The likelihood that a person will make an immoral choice to commit a violent crime has the same heritability as his height. This makes modern Christians deeply uncomfortable. But such truths wouldn’t have even phased the “racist” writers of the New Testament.
Of course the irony is that women almost universally view taller men as superior to shorter men. Most of the men who voted for those resolutions are taller than their wives and probably think nothing of the fact that these immutable human characteristics factored in to their decision to pair. Their wives viewed them as superior because of their immutable human characteristic: height.
Should their wives be thrown out of the church? Should the wives’ husbands be thrown out too for associating with them? If men are going to condemn other men for judging a man for his heritable criminality, then to be logically consistent, yes they should excommunicate their wives (and themselves) for judging a man for his heritable height. And, I wonder, how they are going to repent of marrying someone of a particular height and race?
Zlolzzzlzlzolzlolzlzlz you know, elsewhere today you’re being accused of being a Blankslatist yourself? By a guy i’ve known about for some 8-9 years?
”He’s not alone in this type of behavior. Over the years, I’ve seen many men online who seem to be unaware they’ve been blessed with wives, jobs, opportunities, etc. far beyond what is commensurate to their own abilities and efforts. They somehow manage to believe that their situation is achievable by everyone else if they would just improve their skills and increase their efforts sufficiently. While I understand and accept that almost everyone can become better, there’s still a lot of random chance involved. I also will acknowledge that God can bless as He chooses. Which also leaves the possibility that He may not bless us in all ways possible.”
So please, Derek, stop thinking
NOT everyone is as fortunate as yourself Mister Ramsey!
Also, some advice for you from a guy i’ve known for 13 and a half years.
”Everything works in theory. And if you’re fortunate.
You can do everything right and still lose.
You can be completely unaware of your good fortune and still enjoy the benefits of that good fortune.”
Conclusion? Please give up your blankslatism, Derek, and stop projecting it onto, like the above good MEN of the Christian Manosphere huhzlolzlolzzzlzlz?
LOL!
How can anyone read what I’ve written and conclude that I think that every man has an equal chance? In article after article, I have been quite explicit that such things are not universally achievable. I’ve argued that disparate outcomes are the expected result and that equality of outcome is an absurd expectation. I’ve even suggested that men with low or very high IQs should not try to marry if they cannot stomach the divorce risk.
Oof. Tell me what you really think!
The funniest thing about blankslatism is that is should lead to each man being able to choose his own destiny. It should lead to widespread diversity, as each man builds his own unique path for himself. But, this does not happen.
Blankslatism leads to be belief that people are interchangeable cogs. If one man has a successful marriage, it is “far beyond” what is reasonably expected, not anything special about the man himself. Thus, if one man could have been replaced by another, the outcomes would have remain the same. That’s blankslatism.
Blankslatism teaches that disparate outcomes are driven by arbitrary external “random” environmental forces. Nothing is, or can be innate. The very idea of inherent skills and abilities is a threatening concept. Either everyone has the same potential, or nobody does.
That’s why the Manosphere can never look at a good marriage and say that “it’s because of the man’s innate skills and abilities.” It’s also why it can’t look at a bad marriage and say “it’s because of the man’s innate skills and abilities.” If good and bad marriages were the result of the man himself, then, to quote Edwards, this “becomes an argument for moral inequality.”
An example of such an argument is the implication that a failed marriage is proof that such a man is inferior to one who does not have a failed marriage. The blankslatist Manosphere furiously rejects this “man up” fallacy.
There are only two ways to get around this problem of implied moral inequality. The first is to dogmatically insist that everyone is a blank slate and that any differences are the largely the result of random chance instead of inherent skills or abilities (i.e. embracing blankslatism). The second is to not, as Edward says, “premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity” (i.e. rejecting blankslatism).
PREACH IT BROTHER DEREK!😉
THAT’S WHAT’S TERMED ”NATURAL GAME”!😉
As i said in my first full-blown” GBFM is back” comment(that one ”genius” didn’t know what this ”getting girls attention” part meant, even though i said what it meant”I have what you call natural GAME!How I know that!?NO.1!First gf at 7 years old! ” that’s hard for a ”genius” to figure out?
”I have what you call natural GAME!How I know that!?NO.1!First gf at 7 years old!How many guys(WITHOUT FAME!) you know had 3 girls chasing after them before puberity?I of course was the tallest boy in every class until 5th grade taller than ever girl until then too!Blond hair too with natural pint-size football player look, when my elemetary school had a feild day.”
TIP: MOST WOMEN PREFER BLOND GUYS, ESPECIALLY WITH ”natural football player look!”
BONUS TIP: WOMEN LIKE THIS SONG FOR IT’S TENDERNESS:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KNuZrEVB70&list=RD9KNuZrEVB70&start_radio=1
Tender Is the Night
Jackson Browne
Oh yeah, i don’t think anyone who lives these Weird AL lyrics in RL is a ”genius”(either)!
”We’ve been together for so very long
But now things are changing, oh I wonder what’s wrong?
Seems you don’t want me around
The passion is gone and the flame’s died down
I guess I lost a little bit of self-esteem
That time that you made it with the whole hockey team
You used to think I was nice
Now you tell all your friends that I’m the Antichrist
Oh, why did you disconnect the brakes on my car?
That kind of thing is hard to ignore
Got a funny feeling you don’t love me anymore
I knew that we were having problems when
You put those piranhas in my bathtub again
You’re still the light of my life
Oh darling, I’m begging
Won’t you put down that knife?
You know, I even think it’s kinda cute the way
You poison my coffee just a little each day
I still remember the way that you laughed
When you pushed me down the elevator shaft
Oh, if you don’t mind me asking, what’s this poisonous cobra
Doing in my underwear drawer?
Sometimes I get to thinking you don’t love me anymore
You slammed my face down on the barbecue grill
Now my scars are all healing, but my heart never will
You set my house on fire
You pulled out my chest hairs with an old pair of pliers
Oh, you think I’m ugly and you say I’m cheap
You shaved off my eyebrows while I was asleep
You drilled a hole in my head
Then you dumped me in a drainage ditch and left me for dead
Oh, you know this really isn’t like you at all
You never acted this way before
Honey, something tells me you don’t love me anymore
Oh no no
Got a funny feeling you don’t love me anymore”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWD5gdpt4Dw&list=RDkWD5gdpt4Dw&start_radio=1
“Weird Al” Yankovic – You Don’t Love Me Anymore (Official Video)
The supposed ”genius” read ArtisinialToad’s ”complicated” on orders of magnitude comments at DAL’S or at Toad’s own hall site and decided that made them a ”genius”!After not understanding cause and effect and second-order effects like AL above?YEAH A RELZ ”GENIUS”!
Its pretty hilarious that Presbyterians (i.e. Calvinists) would say this. The elect and reprobate are born as blank slates?
Calvinists don’t believe they are born with immutable characteristics that differentiate them?
I know, it makes no sense at all as a theology. It only makes sense as an intrusion of secular liberal political ideology in place of theology. The funny thing, to me, is that Dr. James White—who is as doctrinally Calvinist as it comes—approves of the resolution.
Of course they would likely just deny that the resolution implies blankslatism.
Also interesting, they would call Blankslatism “Pelagianism” but Pelagius didn’t say that all races are the same. He believed everyone has the capacity to believe in Christ and that everyone technically has the capacity to obey the 10 commandments at least theoretically, but did he say everyone has the same ability to the same extent to do so and that its not harder for some than others? I don’t see him say that anywhere.
Eric,
To wit:
Original sin holds that because Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that they became fallen creatures and that the fallen nature, that inclination towards evil was passed on to all of humanity that would flow from them ever afterwards. That all of us (of course with the exception of Jesus who was conceived of the Holy Spirit) that all of us are born in sin, we were conceived in unrighteousness, that the imaginations of our heart and minds are wicked from our youths, that we are sinners from the beginning. We are in fact slaves to sin.
Pelagius said, “nope, we are born like a blank slate, a tabula rasa. There is no impact of Adam and Eve’s sin upon us.” This means of course that we not only innately have the ability to embrace the work of Christ for us, but we have the innate ability to not need the work of Christ for us. Pelagius not only affirmed that we would come to faith in Christ out of an island of righteousness in ourselves, but he also affirmed that we don’t even need faith in Christ because faith in for Christ is for sinners and we can of our own goodness obey the will God.
Happily, Pelagius’ error was roundly condemned by the Early Church in an ecumenical council. The perspective of Augustine was affirmed and defended by the Church and became the doctrine of the Church at least until hundreds and hundreds of years later. In fact “Augustinianism,” even though it is a part of the history of the Roman Catholic Church, is rightly understood as another nickname for what we might call Calvinism or Reformed Theology. Indeed, if you read through the corpus of Calvin you find that Calvin quotes Augustine not only more than any other scholar, but he quotes Augustine more than all other authorities combined.
Now I see…
And now the Calvinists are denying immutable characteristics, arguing, obliquely, for the necessity of freewill and the blank slate. What has the world come to?
But it all kind of makes sense too:
This means of course that we not only innately have the ability to embrace the work of Christ for us, but we have the innate ability to not need the work of Christ for us.
To the modern blankslatist, treating everyone as a blank slate without any innate qualities means that everyone has a bunch of innate abilities. Madness.
What do you think?
Peace,
DR
Well, I think their workaround is that they would say no race has innate qualities because an elect could be from any race. Hence they make the elect a race, a spiritual race, with the innate quality of already having been saved before they were born, when Jesus said “It is finished.” So to them there are only two races, elect and non-elect, spiritual races only, and physical races aren’t real. Something like that. Basically a denial that physical matter is real, kind of like Buddhism, which also teaches “there is no self” which is a form of denying freewill.
R.C. Sproul tells several lies there. First, Pelagius didn’t actually say anything about a tabula rasa, and Sproul’s illiterate followers would think that was an exact quote. Secondly, Pelagius taught that you have to believe in Christ and be baptized to be saved (although he held a hypothetical that some Old Testament figures like Enoch and Job may have been sinless) so didn’t say we don’t need Christ at all. Third, “Happily, Pelagius’ error was roundly condemned by the Early Church in an ecumenical council” is false as he was condemned by Carthage, which was not an ecumenical but a regional council, North African, and which also imposed priestly celibacy in canons 3 and 4 (do Calvinists hold to that?) and also imposed acceptance of the dreaded Apocrypha (canon 24, so why would Calvinists accept this council?) and then again by a local council in France, the 2nd Council of Orange, which literally only had 13 bishops there and which also condemned double predestination (in the concluding paragraph, not an actual canon) AND condemned the Calvinist notion that we don’t have freewill by teaching that we are born without freewill sure enough but that in infant baptism freewill is restored (canon 13)! In fact that concluding paragraph basically anathematizes anyone who says infant baptism does not restore to people the ability to, well here I will quote it: “According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.” And Calvinists still bring this council up, “You semi-pelagian, the council of Orange condemns you.” No you. lol.
Guys like R.C. Sproul could spread this nonsense because Pelagius had not been translated when they began their careers. But in December of 2020 a full translation into English of Pelagius’ commentaries on the Pauline epistles was released. So these myths about Pelagius have a limited shelf-life at this point.
Where were they published?
It’s recently come to the forefront that I’ve done little no study of the early heresies, at least other than Gnosticism. It just had not been relevant at all to anything I’ve written or said or any of the interactions I’ve had on theological matters. Pelagianism, Arianism, Nestorianism, etc.
Every time I’ve looked at the heresies—with the exception, perhaps, of Gnosticism—I’ve run into the problem that the enemies of the heretics seem to misrepresent the views of the heretics. It’s not clear to me that the heretics are all, if any, actually heretics.
One of the bigger Presbyterian churches in Fresno when I lived there…..just *seemed* to be white. Upper middle class.
I was having coffee at a Starbucks in Fresno, this must have been ten years ago and the Rev of that church was there with a few of the men from that congregation (“The Leaders” of that church)
I listened in casually while on my computer. Didnt acknowledge them. They nticed me, at that time on my laptop screen was a bumper sticker that said “The Salvation Army / Doing The Most Good” (that is debabtable mind you)
Anyway, they were talking about attracting more MEN to their congregation. You see, they had too many “amazing, young, talented, smart, educated, beautiful women…and all wanted to be married!”
and “Gosh-darn-it, these women were filling the gap left by men” and they were discussing how to attract more young, COLLEGE EDUCATED professional young men to their congregation (ages 22-35 specifically) at that time
Was the Word of God mentioned? Not once. A scripture or verse? Prayer? No, if they had prayed, I would have joined in with them, in those days I was like that.
An uplifting or discussion of the men alredy there in the congrgation ??? Yes, but evidently most of the younger single men were “babies, immature, boys, not motivated, were not marriage material for these women (they were not attractive, lets be real here)
What WAS mentioned?
Advertising about their chuch in the Fresno Business Journal (a yuppie newspaper in that region, read mostly by professional men). Setting up a table / info booth at Fresno State esp at the engineering , business management departments. Wouldnt want an English Major coming to their church, or a theater major.
They talked about “we have to get the message out that education is what being a Presbyterian is all about”
Having a dinner / fundraiser for the local fire dept / station honoring the firefighters, and this might make a few want to join their church. Same for the police dept. “women love fire fighters” one man joked.
They talked about the kind of men they wanted. Educated. Fit. Handsome. Professional (ie, a good job)
They even mentioned starting a baseball or swim team / club to attract these men. One suggetsed working with a local gym to solicit at
These are Presbyterians today. So educated and full of their own sh*t its no wonder they dont sprout daisies!
Lastmod,
Your colorful stories are, as always, insightful. I’m sure you are not surprised that the church allowed its focus to shift like that, given what you witnessed a decade ago. Drift is expected when one deviates from scripture.
But what perplexes me is how James White got hooked by this. He’s not your run-of-the-mill pew-sitter. He’s prepared and knowledgeable. He cites scripture continuously. I can’t explain how he got captured.
I’m no Calvinist apologist, but to see Calvinists—of the doctrine of election—pushing so strongly against innate qualities is really, really weird.
From the link I cited in the OP:
According to the adopted overture, any person who would associate with me should be called to repentance.
Now, there has been no indictment against me, no due process, no trial, no final judgment, but merely a partial statement of about a dozen words that in essence puts me out of the Church because I hold a certain “political or theological view.” This is excommunication, not by trial, but by the adoption of a Statement.
The Statement says that I am condemned by “commission or omission.” In other words, if I speak about it publicly, then I am guilty. Also, if I remain quiet about it, I am guilty.
Here is what concerns me. The Statement says that I am not allowed to hold a view that “posits superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics.” Of course, I believe that all men and races are equal as being partakers of the image of God, that all men and races are to be treated equal under the law, and that all men and races are to be offered the gospel of Jesus Christ without distinction (Gal.3:28).
…
The Statement was adopted in haste at the last minute of the last session of the GA. The words are so generic and sloppy that I don’t think the commissioners of the GA had enough time to consider what they were doing.
The Statement uses the term “race” implying that races are still a reality in God’s world. With this I agree. The term “race” is not just a social construct.
Here is my problem. I believe that blacks are better athletes than whites. Whenever I go to an NCAA basketball game with my grandsons, I will often point out to them that blacks have more natural talent to play the game than whites. I recognize their identity by the color of their skin, and I believe they have athletic superiority as a race and this is due to their “immutable human characteristics.”
Of course, there are outliers—some whites are better than blacks, but considering the blacks as a race or ethnic group, I believe they are, as a whole, just quicker and faster on the basketball court than whites. Outliers don’t negate the general rule. There is a supremacy issue here among the races. And yes, it is a theological issue. God made the black race in his wisdom. All issues are theological.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
This is the viewpoint that I would expect if the church rejected blankslatism.
Peace,
DR