On Race and Races: A Debate

A few months back Linneaus reached out to me on Twitter, asking if we could have a formal debate on the topic of Race. I agreed, and our opening arguments are published here (and on his website oldluth.com).

The thesis under debate is: “There is only one race, the race of Adam.”

Opening arguments (3000 words, March 1, 2025):

Rebuttals (1000 words, April 1, 2025):

Follow-up questions and closing statements coming in May and June.

Feel free to comment on these arguments, but most of the fighting, I imagine, will be happening on X.

Okay, a quick take on the Linnaeus argument.

It purposely confuses the idea of “race.” The real Linnaeus, Carl Linnaeus (d. 1778), had four fixed races, Europaeus, Americanus, Asiaticus, Africanus. (Note, Linnaeus did not use the word “fixity”—the term was applied to him in following generations to describe what he taught, and in that way it is helpful, accurate shorthand.)

But Cosplay Linnaeus has how many fixed races? Going by what he gives us under the heading of “The Taxonomy of Man,” in ¶10 he has an elastic use of race, with no fixity (and, as mentioned, the fixity of race important in the classification of Carl Linnaeus). Cosplay Linnaeus is using race for Nation/Israel, and for Hebrew, and for Shemite. But not for human race. This is, at best, a fallacy of slight of hand. If, for instance, Corey Mahler tells me not to marry outside of my “race”, does this any longer have meaning? If an American wife came from presumably Prussian Germans (we might not know for sure, and most wouldn’t even care), and the American husband came, presumably, from Stuttgart region, did they marry each other outside of race? According to Carl Linnaeus, no. According to Cosplay Linnaeus, yes (for Stuttgart region and Prussian are not compatible according to his sometime use of race). But this is only if you use the word the way Cosplay Linnaeus uses it, for surely Cosplay Linnaeus would lose the continuity of his use of the word, and would then deny that his system would judge it to be wrong for a Stuttgart region guy to marry a Prussian German gal.

Earlier, in the short ¶ directly preceding the “The Taxonomy of Man” heading, Cosplay Linnaeus equates “Race’ with people group, saying that race is “modernity’s euphemism.” First, at least he admits we are dealing with categories of modernity here by using the terminology of race theory, but, second, he gets modernity wrong (if modernity is to have any meaning).

Around ¶ 4 under the “The Taxonomy of Man” heading—Cosplay Linnaeus gives the distinction of “morphological likeness” (which tracks with the Nazi practice of Phrenology), and ties it to heritable traits. But this is where the Wolfmueller analysis of finding family lineage according to family/clan/tribe, but not according to “race” is brilliantly helpful. As Wolfmueller rightly notes, race (as normally used) is immutable. I.e., it has a “fixity,” according to Carl Linnaeus-type categories (although he is not giving it as immutable, he does hold that it has a fixity over time—in other words, the real Linnaeus does not end up as malicious in his race theory as we see in Cosplay Linnaeus and Mahler).

So, what is Cosplay’s final definition for the word race? It would seem he insists on floating the word out there with no real anchor, so it can be used however he wants at a given need in the argument. More to the point, when Mahler/Stone Choir says I should not marry outside of my race (no interracial marriage), is this instruction for me not to marry a Prussian German (who would be, indeed, outside of my race if I am Stuttgart area German, for at least one of Cosplay Linnaeus’s definitions), or just instruction that I can’t marry a woman of the Americanus, Asiaticus, or Africanus races, according to the classifications of Carl Linnaeus? Can I marry a Russian girl? An English?

Since Stone Choir’s point about race hits most profoundly at the point of marriage, at the mandate given in the Garden of Eden, this is not a small point. Listening to Mahler, it would seem he defends himself by liberally using the classification of European. Why? Shouldn’t Germans marry Germans and Brits, Brits? Cosplay Linnaeus liberally uses the historical record of tribes marrying within, or close proximity, to tribes (which historically tends to be evident), but they are using this not as historical description, but as Divine prescription. If Divine prescription, then we need a definition of race which will let me know when I would be guilty of the so-called sin of interracial marriage. And that definition of race needs to be grounded in law (Divine law), not in historical observation of some sort of tribal tendency.

Ultimately, here is the problem, it seems to me, with dialoguing with such as Cosplay Linnaeus: His argument depends on a Definitional Dodge, what might be referred to as definitional obfuscation or conceptual obfuscation. When Wolfmueller uses the word race in this conversation, he is using it with reference to the way Stone Choir is using it when they say, No interracial marriage. This is not different than the way it is commonly used in our current culture( i.e., race means: white, black, Asian, or Native American). And this tracks with race theory, with Carl Linnaeus, Kant, etc. But when Cosplay Linnaeus uses the word “race,” we get these long explanations of family, tribe, clan, nations, etc., which is where we see his definitional obfuscation, and at the end of the day, this will not let me know if I can marry a Russian girl, or maybe a girl from North Africa but not one from central Africa, etc. Because, we never had a clean, defensible, definition of “race,” but only this floating word which could mean tribe, or clan, or family, or nation (nation in the post-Westphalia, post-Enlightenment sense, but not nation in the sense of Matthew 28?—it’s clearly not clear).

How to dialogue with this? Wolfmueller is helpful in pointing out real examples of marriage in Scripture (Rahab, Ruth, etc.) where biological race is unknown (or uninteresting), but race distinction (if we must use that modernistic word) is the distinction of the race of justification by faith vs. the race of justification by man (whether by works of man or biology of man). Which is the same distinction as Israel (those justified by Yahweh’s election) vs. Gentile (those justified by works). So, we will know Ruth’s “race” by her confession of faith. And this tracks with Wolfmueller’s profound point of biological race being immutable, while “race” meaning the people/nation of God is known by the spoken Word (spoken by God—“my people”—and confessed by those of the race of faith). Note: Ruth by biology was of Moabite “race” (remember, Cosplay Linnaues had listed “race” as denoting nation, or tribe, or clan), but by the declaration of the Word, she was Israelite; the Word here was spoken concerning her marriage (the Lord’s Word: the two become one flesh), and this was recognized by her redeemer, Boaz, who also had faith in the Word.

At the end of the day, when considering my neighbor, Cosplay Linnaeus wants to have me looking at my neighbor—i.e., my neighbor’s address on Earth (Europe or Africa, etc.) and my neighbor’s skin color compared to mine—and not have me look at the One who justifies my neighbor (behold the Lamb of God who bears the sin of the world”). Here the modernistic doctrine of race theory has replaced the doctrine of justification.

1 Comment

Warren Graff says:

March 27, 2025 at 6:16 pm

Okay, a quick take on the Linnaeus argument.

It purposely confuses the idea of “race.” The real Linnaeus, Carl Linnaeus (d. 1778), had four fixed races, Europaeus, Americanus, Asiaticus, Africanus. (Note, Linnaeus did not use the word “fixity”—the term was applied to him in following generations to describe what he taught, and in that way it is helpful, accurate shorthand.)

But Cosplay Linnaeus has how many fixed races? Going by what he gives us under the heading of “The Taxonomy of Man,” in ¶10 he has an elastic use of race, with no fixity (and, as mentioned, the fixity of race important in the classification of Carl Linnaeus). Cosplay Linnaeus is using race for Nation/Israel, and for Hebrew, and for Shemite. But not for human race. This is, at best, a fallacy of slight of hand. If, for instance, Corey Mahler tells me not to marry outside of my “race”, does this any longer have meaning? If an American wife came from presumably Prussian Germans (we might not know for sure, and most wouldn’t even care), and the American husband came, presumably, from Stuttgart region, did they marry each other outside of race? According to Carl Linnaeus, no. According to Cosplay Linnaeus, yes (for Stuttgart region and Prussian are not compatible according to his sometime use of race). But this is only if you use the word the way Cosplay Linnaeus uses it, for surely Cosplay Linnaeus would lose the continuity of his use of the word, and would then deny that his system would judge it to be wrong for a Stuttgart region guy to marry a Prussian German gal.

Earlier, in the short ¶ directly preceding the “The Taxonomy of Man” heading, Cosplay Linnaeus equates “Race’ with people group, saying that race is “modernity’s euphemism.” First, at least he admits we are dealing with categories of modernity here by using the terminology of race theory, but, second, he gets modernity wrong (if modernity is to have any meaning).

Around ¶ 4 under the “The Taxonomy of Man” heading—Cosplay Linnaeus gives the distinction of “morphological likeness” (which tracks with the Nazi practice of Phrenology), and ties it to heritable traits. But this is where the Wolfmueller analysis of finding family lineage according to family/clan/tribe, but not according to “race” is brilliantly helpful. As Wolfmueller rightly notes, race (as normally used) is immutable. I.e., it has a “fixity,” according to Carl Linnaeus-type categories (although he is not giving it as immutable, he does hold that it has a fixity over time—in other words, the real Linnaeus does not end up as malicious in his race theory as we see in Cosplay Linnaeus and Mahler).

So, what is Cosplay’s final definition for the word race? It would seem he insists on floating the word out there with no real anchor, so it can be used however he wants at a given need in the argument. More to the point, when Mahler/Stone Choir says I should not marry outside of my race (no interracial marriage), is this instruction for me not to marry a Prussian German (who would be, indeed, outside of my race if I am Stuttgart area German, for at least one of Cosplay Linnaeus’s definitions), or just instruction that I can’t marry a woman of the Americanus, Asiaticus, or Africanus races, according to the classifications of Carl Linnaeus? Can I marry a Russian girl? An English?

Since Stone Choir’s point about race hits most profoundly at the point of marriage, at the mandate given in the Garden of Eden, this is not a small point. Listening to Mahler, it would seem he defends himself by liberally using the classification of European. Why? Shouldn’t Germans marry Germans and Brits, Brits? Cosplay Linnaeus liberally uses the historical record of tribes marrying within, or close proximity, to tribes (which historically tends to be evident), but they are using this not as historical description, but as Divine prescription. If Divine prescription, then we need a definition of race which will let me know when I would be guilty of the so-called sin of interracial marriage. And that definition of race needs to be grounded in law (Divine law), not in historical observation of some sort of tribal tendency.

Ultimately, here is the problem, it seems to me, with dialoguing with such as Cosplay Linnaeus: His argument depends on a Definitional Dodge, what might be referred to as definitional obfuscation or conceptual obfuscation. When Wolfmueller uses the word race in this conversation, he is using it with reference to the way Stone Choir is using it when they say, No interracial marriage. This is not different than the way it is commonly used in our current culture( i.e., race means: white, black, Asian, or Native American). And this tracks with race theory, with Carl Linnaeus, Kant, etc. But when Cosplay Linnaeus uses the word “race,” we get these long explanations of family, tribe, clan, nations, etc., which is where we see his definitional obfuscation, and at the end of the day, this will not let me know if I can marry a Russian girl, or maybe a girl from North Africa but not one from central Africa, etc. Because, we never had a clean, defensible, definition of “race,” but only this floating word which could mean tribe, or clan, or family, or nation (nation in the post-Westphalia, post-Enlightenment sense, but not nation in the sense of Matthew 28?—it’s clearly not clear).

How to dialogue with this? Wolfmueller is helpful in pointing out real examples of marriage in Scripture (Rahab, Ruth, etc.) where biological race is unknown (or uninteresting), but race distinction (if we must use that modernistic word) is the distinction of the race of justification by faith vs. the race of justification by man (whether by works of man or biology of man). Which is the same distinction as Israel (those justified by Yahweh’s election) vs. Gentile (those justified by works). So, we will know Ruth’s “race” by her confession of faith. And this tracks with Wolfmueller’s profound point of biological race being immutable, while “race” meaning the people/nation of God is known by the spoken Word (spoken by God—“my people”—and confessed by those of the race of faith). Note: Ruth by biology was of Moabite “race” (remember, Cosplay Linnaues had listed “race” as denoting nation, or tribe, or clan), but by the declaration of the Word, she was Israelite; the Word here was spoken concerning her marriage (the Lord’s Word: the two become one flesh), and this was recognized by her redeemer, Boaz, who also had faith in the Word.

At the end of the day, when considering my neighbor, Cosplay Linnaeus wants to have me looking at my neighbor—i.e., my neighbor’s address on Earth (Europe or Africa, etc.) and my neighbor’s skin color compared to mine—and not have me look at the One who justifies my neighbor (behold the Lamb of God who bears the sin of the world”). Here the modernistic doctrine of race theory has replaced the doctrine of justification.

Comments are closed.

Share this:

You might also like

1 Comment