Why do you believe these guys when they say stuff? They are liars. Yeah, he “repudiated” it, but we have screen shots of him following and liking tweets from the account and being friends with the same account on Facebook. He’s obviously lying when he says he didn’t know who it was. He just got caught being in unacceptable proximity to Nazi stuff and now has to do damage control.
1 Like
id say this is representative of their theology …
Just as the Father and Son are equal in deity and are equal in all their attributes, but different in role, so husband and wife are equal in personhood and value, but are different in the roles that God has given them. Just as God the Son is eternally subject to the authority of God the Father, so God has planned that wives would be subject to the authority of their own husbands. (Wayne Grudem, Biblical Foundations of Manhood and Womanhood , pp. 48-49)
Maybe Wolfe, and DeYoung too. I have seen Wilson lied about by people claiming he is racist, when I don’t see it and have seen him deny it. I have also been lied about. So this stuff happens and there are liars and even child molesters on both sides.
The best we can do is to be biblical about how we handle accusations.
And we could also consider what the Bible has to say about ESS. There’s this one verse that really stands out that no matter how you look at it, that it was really the will of the Son not to count equality with God as a thing to be grasped.
The word ἁρπαγμὸν has been the subject of a lot of scholarship. I think the NIV and ESV have less than ideal translation because lots of people come away thinking “equality with God was out of Jesus’ reach.” But that’s not what it means, it means Jesus did not see his equality with God as something he needed to hold tightly to and keep. He made himself nothing. But he was equal with God. Go ahead and look at other translations, you get a very different sense. Minimally, people shouldn’t build entire theologies centered on one verse where the key word is hotly debated.
2 Likes
Adult Baptised into the Catholic faith but turned atheist then agnostic after a few experiences.
Therefore catholic agnostic.
I meant no disrespect but searching for god through evidence is the wrong way to go.
Hence the god and Jesus being unknowable and the self contracting nature of that passage lends me to believe a mistranslation from its original Greek. Protestant churches tend to use mis translated Bible’s i.e King James Bible or other approved Bible’s and are more likely to use and misread the meaning of the passages
It seems like you missed the implications of what DeYoung was saying. Basically, in 500 pages Wolfe insists he doesn’t have to defend himself against charges that he is racist, so he “leaves serious questions” about whether he is advocating separation of races “unanswered,” and it’s unclear if that is what he is arguing for or not, something that doesn’t look so good if you’re going to do interviews and quote approvingly of Samuel Francis, a white supremacist who was fired from a conservative newspaper for racist comments.
1 Like
The important thing to catch is that the will of the Son was being expressed in a way that was unique for his person. That’s really key.
Where exactly did Wolfe call for taking voting rights away from women and Blacks?
How about that, Dinesh D’Souza was who got Francis fired
On Twitter. I believe he said the 19th amendment and the ones before it should be repealed, though I can’t find a screenshot of that tweet, so there is a small chance that maybe I’m remembering wrong or confusing him with some other Twitter deplorable. The ones before the 19th include the one that abolished slavery and granted equal protection to Black Americans and gave the vote to all men, including Black men.
Here’s what I could find screenshots of:
https://twitter.com/ExaminingMoscow/status/1589009157033979904/photo/1
https://twitter.com/AlsoACarpenter/status/1581811101947154433/photo/1
https://twitter.com/kraywhiseheart/status/1593646190045802496/photo/3
https://twitter.com/kraywhiseheart/status/1593646293506985984
https://twitter.com/bsharbaugh/status/1581814267942424576/photo/1
I honestly don’t know what to think about that. Thank you for sending the screenshots. It’s now on my radar.
Believe it or not, I had a vivid dream where I was able to speak directly to Wilson about how reasonable people can disagree about the authority of the Bible. It’s getting to be ridiculous with these political theology types that don’t recognize this fundamental principle.
Around 2005, I got to speak with Dinesh D’Souza at a CPAC Q&A and took the atheist’s side of the debate in critiquing bad religion. Which is ironic I know given my support (or benefit of the doubt) with Wilson as a pastor.
I would add that Wolfe’s language and terms don’t help. Some might call it a dog whistle and some might call it intellectual egoism.
This is from another reviewer, the one DeYoung referred his readers to on ethnicity
This passage explicitly states that on Wolfe’s view “nations” (or “ethnicities” in Wolfe’s usage) can be multi-racial. However, just to be sure, I also asked him directly whether -say- a Japanese-American person whose parents immigrated here 80 years ago could still be part of his “nation.” He affirmed that they could and said “People of different ancestral origins can be a part of the same ethnicity” (quoted with permission).
However, even setting this issue to one side, we should still challenge his thinking about “ethnicity,” which is deeply flawed, especially in relation to the church.
Ah ok.
When we talk translation, i hope that i focus on the principle trying to find supporting writings in context from other biblical authors (obviously its Gods word).
I believe my safeguard if you like, is that in following the above principle, i might detect inconsistency in translation as well as interpretation.
One thing that worries me about catholicism…the idea that a priest interprets all scripture. I do not agree with that habit. Having said that, i do agree that when one is exposed to a particular view, it is difficult to make distinction between indoctrination and education. Some may argue they are one and the same culturally and religiously. I accept that is a fair criticism even of my religious views and that is why i try to cross reference and stick to overriding biblical themes
The clinic here is recommending that if anyone has the sniffles or a cough or just a sore throat they should wear a mask.
= - = =+ = - = † = - = + = - =
BTW, I had to look up “New Calvinism”. Since they still hold to the “five points” and their bad soteriology, I don’t see much difference.
“Traditional Christian political thought” – now there’s a contradiction in terms!
Jesus’ view on political power: don’t have it, don’t use it.
2 Likes
It’s a whole culture on top of the theology though. And lots of their churches are highly authoritarian and male-centric.
The Greek word for “know” there is ἐπιγινώσκω (eh-pee-gih-NO-sko) which in terms of relationships, which I think this qualifies as, carries the idea of “recognize”, “be familiar with”. That’s relational knowledge, whereas I think the idea that God cannot be known is more propositional. As for the East, they will say that unless you “recognize” and are “familiar with” God, you can’t do propositional truth about Him in the first place.
There’s a Greek Orthodox church about an hour and a third from me that is booming, going from a mere handful to being ready to buy property to build on in eight years, and overwhelmingly most of the congregation is former Protestants.
= - = + = - = † = - = + = - =
If you bother to wade through Roman dogma, it turns out that the bishops as a collective body are the ones who interpret scripture because the highest authority is the pope but he is only deemed infallible after consulting with the bishops and declaring officially what they decided.
Though that’s pretty thin since the pope appoints all bishops these days contrary to ancient tradition, so on big issues they’re a collection of “yes” men.
Like Calvin in Geneva.
This is not what I have understood about the doctrine of Papal infallibility as declared by Pope Pius IX and the First Vatican Council. Before Pius IX, the Popes needed to act together with the councils to declare additional doctrines but I understood that according to the dogma of Papal infallibility, when the Pope alone or with the college of bishops defines a doctrine concerning faith or moral to be held by the whole church, the Pope speaks ex cathedra and is infallible. Anyone who deliberately dissents is doomed outside of the Catholic Church. One such dogma (Munificentissumus Deus, declaring about Assumption of Mary) was attached with a warning “Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we [= Pope] have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith”.
It is interesting to compare the idea of Papal infallibility to what happens in some extreme churches or cults. If the leader of the cult is lifted to a position where he defines what others must believe, is unaccountable and silence questioning, that leader is the ‘Pope’ of the cult.
1 Like
One of the great ironies in the history of Christian doctrine is Calvin believed reasonable people can disagree about the authority of the Bible 