ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, October 16, 2015

SJWs in the Church of Scotland

Here we not only see the consequences of entryism, but further evidence in support of the truism: SJWs always lie. In which David Robertson learns that he should have read the book before debating a Scottish wolf in sheep's clothing:
At one level I was excited. Because the church was packed with over 250 people on a midweek evening to discuss theology; because I liked Scott when I had met him previously and believed that he genuinely wanted to have an open discussion about these vital issues; because it was a great opportunity to speak the good news in a different context. But I was also aware there was something else going on. I won’t go into details but I was under considerable pressure to back off and indeed even to give up and walk away. Even as I walked into the church I sensed not only the sense of anticipation but also the hostility from some, and also a strange sense that something was wrong.

This was made worse when I went into the vestry and met with Scott and Rev John Chalmers, the former Moderator who was there to replace the current Moderator, Rev Angus Morrison, who had called off because of a sore throat. John informed me at 7:25pm that the event would not be recorded. I was somewhat surprised at this because in setting up the event we had offered to film it and we were assured that there was no need to do so because the Church would do so and put it online.   This was an important aspect of the evening as this was a public discussion about subjects of vital importance to the whole church, and rather than rely on out of context quotes and sound bites reported on social media, it was important that people could hear and see the whole debate for themselves.(the interest and demand from people from people has been phenomenal). So I insisted that it be recorded and they agreed.

We went out, had the debate which went much as I had expected. Scott denied the Bible, called the atoning work of Christ on the cross barbaric (and Calvinist!) and at the end suggested that the future of the Church in Scotland rested on leadership styles like the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury as well as ‘mindfulness’.  I did my best to answer him in as biblical and gracious a way as possible. (I accept that I got some things wrong, said some things in a wrong way, wish I had said others,  and sometimes let my tongue run away with things-  God have mercy on me, a sinner).  My concern was for Scott and also for those who hear him preach, that he would turn away from his heresy and man-made gospel which is no gospel at all.   At this point I would normally suggest that you go to the video and judge for yourselves. Except even as I write, the video has been destroyed.... I was informed on the Thursday that the video would not be put online because I had hurt Scott’s feelings by suggesting that I would excommunicate him if he were a member of my church.   He also thought that it would not be a good witness, and he did not want that statement put online (ironically of course it was put on line immediately and tweeted all over the place by some of his supporters).  He informed me today, after further correspondence that he had instructed that the tapes be destroyed.

Why destroy the tapes? What was so incriminating on them?  It was not to preserve Scott’s hurt feelings. Nor was it because they are concerned about Christian witness.

This quote from the following letter I received from a life long Church of Scotland couple helps explain why: “We too were horrified to learn in March of Mr. McKenna’s denial of the atonement. We protested to Edinburgh Presbytery expecting disciplinary action. None was forthcoming and we felt made to feel wrong for mentioning this fundamental aspect of the faith. We fear that Mr. McKenna is not only risking God’s judgement on himself but also on his congregation and the rest of us for doing nothing.”

The unpalatable truth for evangelicals and traditional Presbyterians is that Scott McKenna is not on the eccentric fringes of the Church of Scotland. He is one of its mainstream leaders who I suspect is being lined up for higher office. To have such a man openly and publicly teach such heresy (which itself is against the standards and teachings of the C of S) would be the last straw for many such people. So in order to do damage limitation, and prevent more people joining the growing exodus from the C of S, they decided to try and bury the evidence.
This is why you ALWAYS record interviews and debates YOURSELF. ALWAYS. No exceptions. It won't prevent the media from cherry-picking any mistakes or controversies and making the most of them, but it will prevent them from lying about what you have said and hiding the mistakes and infelicities of their own side.

David Robertson made the mistake that most people make when dealing with SJWs. He fucked up; he trusted them. But SJWs always lie! You cannot trust them, you cannot trust one single thing they say.

The problem is that until recently, no one who has dealt with an SJW and been played for a fool has seen the pattern, much less explained it to anyone else. That's why it is important to understand the pattern and spread the word about it; SJWs are a civilization-wide menace as Western civilization is under massive assault by the servitors of social justice.

So that is a prime directive. ALWAYS RECORD ALL INTERACTIONS WITH SJWs. Because First Law of SJW. If the law requires their permission and they won't grant it, then don't talk to them. I've put this into practice myself, as whenever I get a request for an interview these days, I inform them that I will be recording it myself.

UPDATE: Fortunately, someone recorded the audio and provided a transcript. And it is no wonder that the SJWs in the Church of Scotland tried to erase Scott McKenna's words. They clearly demonstrate that he isn't a Christian and he should be excommunicated from the Church without any need for further discussion.
I was talking about penal substitutionary atonement which is the notion that, in order to satisfy the wrath, the anger of God who had been offended by the wrath of God, that Jesus had to die as a blood sacrifice to pay for this sin, in order to satisfy the wrath of God. Now I would be saying that I think this leaves us with a fairly despotic… despot of a god; a barbaric god who is vindictive and immoral. Now this is not unique to me. This is not radical theology. You will find this theology in numerous places including a number of evangelicals.
That may not be radical theology, but it also isn't Christian theology. And while some "evangelicals" do subscribe to it, they are not evangelical Christians, they are atheist evangelicals in the mode of Richard Dawkins.

Labels: ,

98 Comments:

Blogger Unknown October 16, 2015 5:03 AM  

Well, he did tell somebody to record the audio, so there's that. It has been fully transcribed already.

Blogger VD October 16, 2015 5:15 AM  

Updated, thanks.

Blogger Joseph Maroney October 16, 2015 5:33 AM  

Many of these people are Luciferians in disguise. They've thoroughly penetrated the church and society in general. They constantly attempt to undermine Jesus and His death on the cross.

Blogger Unknown October 16, 2015 5:41 AM  

Churches really are in a very bad state indeed.

The main evangelical church in Switzerland even has now qualsm with a (female) pastor proclaiming in public (interview in 2nd biggest swiss journal) that God is not a being, but rather an 'idea', the 'universe' itself that unites humanity. There was no outrage. It's normal for pastors to be able to speak like that without anyone standing up.

Blogger James Dixon October 16, 2015 5:44 AM  

Note that while normal SJW's that infiltrate other institutions can pretend to have good intentions, the SJW's that try have infiltrated the various churches cannot.

They don't believe in the resurrection, most don't actually believe in Christ, and in many cases ( Scott McKenna) they don't even believe in the Christian God. So why do they try to infiltrate the churches when it would be far easier to form their own organizations to achieve their stated goals?

Well there's only one entity that wants to "fundamentally transform" Christianity, so It's fairly obvious who they serve.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 October 16, 2015 5:53 AM  

And on the eighth day, SJW's pretended to remake God in their own image...

with entirely predictable results...

Blogger Noah B #120 October 16, 2015 6:09 AM  

There's great advantage in keeping a recording secret until it's needed to expose obvious lies. This isn't legal everywhere, of course.

Blogger James Dixon October 16, 2015 6:12 AM  

> This isn't legal everywhere, of course.

In this case they recorded the event themselves, so they obviously agreed to a recording.

Blogger Phillip George October 16, 2015 6:26 AM  

It took me ages to come to the conclusion that moral and cultural relativism is demeaning, patronizing and dehumanizing.
It goes like this: "It doesn't really matter exactly what you believe I'm enlightened and know better"
It's arrogant, condescending, un-teachable, presumptive, self righteousness and simply pig ignorant.
100 to 1 on this man believes in "science" "abiogenesis", a universe of "fundamental physical constants".
See Vox blinded by science, falsely so called, they declared themselves the ultimate fools.

but there's a bigger corollary. If you actually respect humanity, really love someone, the details of the crap they believe matter. The details in a Koran matter. The details in the mosques matter. The devils good with details. It always behooves one to be better.

Ultimately, and it is an ultimatum, Jesus called his friend Peter's mindset "of the devil" when Peter challenged a blanket fact Jesus laid down. Facts from the mouth of God, describe everyone's trajectory. cheers.

Blogger Phillip George October 16, 2015 6:30 AM  

Was that a 'smoked glass' house Emmanual? Smoked glasses and dim visions perhaps? Let's all go ice skating on the first day of winter, it'll be invigorating

Blogger Cataline Sergius October 16, 2015 6:31 AM  

at the end suggested that the future of the Church in Scotland rested on leadership styles like the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury

The current pope was the leader of a SJW cabal of cardinals who lead dying branches of the Catholic Church. It makes for fascinating reading.

The last Archbishop of Canterbury was a deranged Welsh druid. The current one is overseeing the dismemberment of his own church.

Blogger Cataline Sergius October 16, 2015 6:31 AM  

I thought SJWs were merely dangerously daffy, rather than the children of Lucifer himself.

My bad.

Blogger VD October 16, 2015 6:42 AM  

I am not the topic, Emmanuel Mateo-Morales. Nor are you the Christian theology police. I deleted your comments. Do it again and I will spam them.

OpenID basementhomebrewer October 16, 2015 6:54 AM  

"I was talking about penal substitutionary atonement which is the notion that, in order to satisfy the wrath, the anger of God who had been offended by the wrath of God, that Jesus had to die as a blood sacrifice to pay for this sin, in order to satisfy the wrath of God"

Note the projection. They can't see God being motivated by anything but anger and rage. The very scripture of the church they belong to explains that God can't abide being in the presence of sin. When it comes to judgement it is more God removing his protection than him actively casting you into hell. Satan is eager enough to do that on his own.

They also ignore the fact that God made the sacrifice for us. Not sure how you get vindictiveness out of that.

Blogger Cail Corishev October 16, 2015 6:59 AM  

The problem is that until recently, no one who has dealt with an SJW and been played for a fool has seen the pattern, much less explained it to anyone else.

Yep. I think most people run into a SJW and think it's a unique situation. That's understandable, since they tend to act like such oddballs, and are often demonstrably nuts, so it's easy to think, "This isn't part of some wider pattern, a manifestation of a particular ideology. This is just a sick person lashing out randomly." While they might defend themselves against that person, they wouldn't apply that lesson to others, or go on to try to fortify organizations against them.

And it probably is a sick person lashing out, but that doesn't mean it's random, and it is ideological. So thinking, "It wouldn't be fair to judge others by this one," just plays into their tactics.

Blogger Michael October 16, 2015 7:29 AM  

My wife and I are both Cradel presbyterians. We were married and a Presbyterian Church; and the Presbyterian marriage vows. We are both well acquainted with the Westminster confession of faith. Within a few years of our marriage, Presbyterian Church had an argument in the governing body about the deity of Jesus. In my 20s, I thought you have got to be S****** me. It's either totally true – about Jesus – or totally false. There is no in between! She and I walked away from the Presbyterian Church. The crazies got a hold of the governance. Last time I looked, they support abortion, woman priest, same-sex marriage, and they're moving towards euthanasia. Thank God Theold-school Presbyterians taught me well. I was able to save my soul and the soul of my family by walking away.

Blogger Edward Isaacs October 16, 2015 7:35 AM  

"Penal substitutionary atonement" is a technical theory of the Atonement. It is not of the essence of Christianity. C. S. Lewis did not accept it. It is merely one fruit of the Reformation. It is not a requirement of Christian theology.

Note how David Robertson describes it: "Penal substitutionary atonement is this. I don’t suffer from my sins and I don’t suffer the hell I deserve because Jesus Christ suffered it for me."

This is a problem. Jesus Christ did not suffer from "hell". The essence of Hell is to be cut off from God. How can God be cut off from God? Impossible. Even if you accept this view of the Atonement, surely you can see how other perfectly orthodox Christians would take exception to it.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler October 16, 2015 7:38 AM  

You cannot trust them, you cannot trust one single thing they say.

Trust is central to any society and community. No trust, no community.

St. Peter said to "Supplement the Faith with Virtue". Virtue teaches honesty and truth telling. Without that basic component, Virtue, no society/community can exist.

It's just sad. And Terrible. The whole state of things is that we live in sites where there is no trust at all. Can't. Liberals and SJWs are everywhere. We live in the Pre-Flood society.

Blogger Michael O'Duibhir October 16, 2015 7:42 AM  

"[He] at the end suggested that the future of the Church in Scotland rested on leadership styles like the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury"

Sounds like the Church of Scotland is now on the block. "Pope" Francis is the supposed leader of 1 billion souls who profess to be Catholics. So, what he says and does is significant.
For most non-Catholics, the 2000-year history of the Catholic Church is not of much interest, just as it is not of much interest for most of the (professed) Catholics. What should be of interest to all of us, however, is that which took place at the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). That council was nothing less that the usurping of Church leadership by SJW's who, for a century, had been increasingly infiltrating the seminaries of the Church. Many of them were sodomites (no surprise there). SJW's all, the 6 Vatican II "popes" have amply demonstrated--by their words and actions--which agenda they follow (consider the current claimant to the papacy, Francis). The endgame of the SJW's was (and still is) to gradually morph the Catholic Church into that which will blend seamlessly into a one-world fabric of dogma-less religion which will do the bidding of the powers of this world. The endgame is to remove that which is considered to be the one stumbling block which stands in the way of the novus seclorum--i.e., the 2000 year old Catholic religion.
From the looks of things, they have succeeded.

Blogger The Rev October 16, 2015 7:49 AM  

@17

"How can God be cut off from God? "

Ya know, I remember Jesus asking a similar question: "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"

Blogger Michael Maier October 16, 2015 8:05 AM  

We fear that Mr. McKenna is not only risking God’s judgement on himself but also on his congregation and the rest of us for doing nothing.”

This nearly brings me to tears and I'm not sure why.

But how could anyone believe that and NOT act?

Blogger Jew613 October 16, 2015 8:06 AM  

I have a practical question for anyone in the C of S or who is knowledgeable about their inner workings. How does the C of S go about excommunicating heretics? Is there any way for the layman to get a vicar excommunicated?

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler October 16, 2015 8:10 AM  

17. Edward Isaacs

I disagree Mr. Isaacs. Jesus did go to Hell. It says so in our Nicene Creed. "...and He descended into Hell".

I see the power of Jesus not at the Cross but when He did descend into Hell. Not only were all the OT prophets, holy people and any other righteous person released from Hell, but that God did unleash All of his retributive justice due to our sins upon Christ. This is the beauty of the Trinitarian concept and that Christ is begotten from God the Father.

So Christ's death was atonement. God is Pure Justice. He is a Perfect Being and so he is also Pure Justice. No one can enter the presence of God with any type of sin. There are no sinners in the presence of God. God knew this from the beginning and so "like an iceberg calves a part of itself off", So did God calve, or begotten Jesus. Only a god can take the punishment from a God. The great glory and Honor of Jesus is that He descended into Hell, and, as the Scripture says, received the fury of a Pure Righteous God. What God did was take Jesus to the Woodshed and just unleashed all of His Fury at sin upon his own Flesh and Blood. Jesus took the punishment. I think this is just amazing.

This is why Baptism is soooo important. This is why we worship Jesus for remitting our sins, taking upon Himself the punishment that we so rightly deserve. He took the punishment that no bull, dove, or sheep could do. He took the punishment, so we don't have to. Nor could we have atoned for even our own sins. No one could. That is the reason for Jesus. Jesus descended into Hell and received all the punishment of sin that has occurred or will occur and then left, crushing Death by Death and giving us the opportunity to attain to eternal life.

Blogger Crude October 16, 2015 8:18 AM  

I was informed on the Thursday that the video would not be put online because I had hurt Scott’s feelings by suggesting that I would excommunicate him if he were a member of my church.

Even if he fucked up, the fact that he was willing to say that someone should be thrown out of the Church for heretical views is music to my ears.

Too often, even conservative Christians seem to think that packing as many people into a Church - even the essentially unbelieving - is top priority.

Blogger tridekka October 16, 2015 8:21 AM  

Kratman's Carrera series also has some good examples for dealing with the press/interviews. Having your own recordings going at all times, both before and after the 'official' event was one of the major ones.

The other major one was death to those who twisted your words.

Blogger Edward Isaacs October 16, 2015 8:28 AM  

@23 W. Lindsay Wheeler

My understanding is that the view of Christ's descent into hell which you describe is not the traditional Catholic view.

I will defer to one Alyssa Pitstick, who writes in this article http://www.firstthings.com/article/2006/12/balthasar-hell-and-heresy-an-exchange the following summary (I hope you will forgive the long quote, as this is quite an important matter):

"The traditional doctrine of Christ’s descent into hell can be summarized by four points:

" * The sinless human soul of Christ, united to his divine person, descended only to the realm of the dead reserved for the souls of holy individuals, called the limbo of the fathers. Hell , as any abode of the dead other than heaven, has progressively lost the breadth of meaning it once had, and much confusion about Christ’s descent is due to this fact of linguistic history. Historically, hell could refer to any or all of the following: the hell of eternal punishment, purgatory, the limbo of the fathers, or the limbo of the children. (The limbo of the children--today just called limbo and the subject of some theological controversy--would be the eternal abode of those individuals who died without personal sin but also without the grace of justification; in contrast, those liberated from the limbo of the fathers had received that grace.) If, then, Catholics profess Christ descended into hell , we must ask which “hell” the Catholic Church intends. Catholic teaching has consistently and unambiguously held that Christ descended in soul only to the limbo of the fathers. For the sake of those who are squeamish of talking about separated souls being in places, we may say just as well that Christ’s soul joined the company of other holy souls.

" * He then liberated the just from the limbo of the fathers, conferring on them the glory of heaven. Having accomplished mankind’s redemption in the blood of his cross, Christ distributed the first fruit of his sacrifice.

" * In doing so, his power and authority were made known to all the dead, both good and evil, and to the demons.

" * Because Christ descended in his sinless soul as the all-holy redeemer, his descent was glorious in a way similar to his resurrection, and he did not suffer in hell.

"Although this traditional doctrine of Christ’s descent has not been defined by an ecumenical council in resolution of controversy or proclaimed in an extraordinary manner by papal authority, it has consistently been held as an authentic and authoritative doctrine of Catholic faith. To doubt that would be to doubt not only the testimony of history but also the authority of tradition itself and of the Church’s ordinary Magisterium. The doctrine is expressed in Scripture; in papal statements, conciliar documents, and other forms of magisterial teaching such as official catechisms; in the creeds; in the diverse eastern and western liturgies; in the consensus of the Church Fathers, the doctors of the Church, and the saints; and in the sensus fidelium expressed in sacred art. The elements of the doctrine go back to apostolic and patristic times, attain particular systematic integrity in the scholastic period, are reaffirmed as Catholic doctrine in response to the challenge of the new Protestant doctrines of the Reformation, and are reiterated in the present day in the Catechism of the Catholic Church ."

Blogger Alexander October 16, 2015 8:45 AM  

SJWs believe that when it comes to free speech, other people's words should have consequences.

Blogger VFM 188 October 16, 2015 8:56 AM  

This is yet another reason that SWJAL is such an extraordinarily important book. Is the following mandate included in it? ALWAYS record interviews and debates YOURSELF. ALWAYS. No exceptions. (If it's not, the book should be updated to include it.)

The Amazon reviews have slowed, but continue to come in, with the latest being a "hostile-but-positive" review from sci fi writer Michael Z. Williamson.

Blogger Michael October 16, 2015 8:59 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Michael October 16, 2015 9:01 AM  

As a Cradel Presbyterian, I can tell you that we memorize the apostles Creed before the age of 11. So the Reformation believed that Jesus descended into hell.

Blogger Zach October 16, 2015 9:02 AM  

There's a difference between someone who doesn't accept "penal substitutionary atonement" because they find it a bad theological model to describe the saving work of Christ's crucifixion, death, and resurrection....

... and because they disbelieve in atonement period, and are using "penal substitutionary atonement" as a whipping boy to deny the very idea of atonement, of the resurrection, and to blaspheme God as a cruel tyrant.

It's obvious which kind this "Rev." McKenna is.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler October 16, 2015 9:06 AM  

I can agree to all of that. But there is something missing there. It is not the full story. God had to unleash Retributive Justice at some time.

The exact mechanics of what is unseen to us can be unknowable. Hell, or Hades was a place of Limbo. May I conjecture that when Christ descended into Hades (Limbo), then Christ released the righteous and what happened is that God threw his fury of Retributive Justice at Christ. Christ as God accepted it all, received the punishment, and THEN LEFT the Retributive Justice in a new place called specifically Hell. Hades was turned into Limbo, Hell was created and Purgatory was created. The old Hades was split into three places. Hell where God's Retributive Justice remains--permanently and then unbaptized and evil people who have not repented go. Limbo where unbaptized babies and neutral persons go that were never evil to merit hell and then Purgatory where Christians who die in sin may be expiated till they go to Heaven. Purgatory will finally disappear altogether. Hell, as Dante figures out, has layers to it. Liars are thrown into the pit of fire. Traitors go to the lowest depths.

Blogger The Rev October 16, 2015 9:21 AM  

@31

Exactly. There is a huge difference between saying "I have some Scripture-based issues with the exact mechanics of Penal Substitutionary Atonement" and "I don't feel that God really cares about sin."

Lewis fell into the first camp (technical issues). McKenna is denying that God's wrath is just and that "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins."

I don't know where our Mr. Issacs stands. A charitable reading of his comments indicates he has some issues with the technical niceties. A less charitable reading would indicate he is attempting to sow doubt and lower defenses.

So let's remove all room for doubt that could impair charity, Mr. Issacs. Was the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross necessary for the forgiveness of sins?

Blogger Michael October 16, 2015 9:27 AM  

As a Cradel Presbyterian, I can tell you that we memorize the apostles Creed before the age of 11. It says he decided that the hell

Blogger David-093 October 16, 2015 9:39 AM  

@Wheeler

Sin was paid for on the cross, not in Hell. He said "It is finished" on the cross. In hell, he preached to the captives and declared victory over Satan and his demons.

Blogger Ignatius Mulder October 16, 2015 9:39 AM  

For a moment I wondered if he was simply moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy, which denies forensic nature of Christ's work on the Cross. The Orthodox have a 'transformative' understanding of salvation rather than a Western 'judicial' one, meaning that the real object of salvation is God effecting an inner change in us. Their model of atonement is one of recapitulation, rather than appeasement. In other words, the need for the atonement was not to satisfy a need God had for punishment, but rather to recreate in us the image of God that we had lost, and to free us from the bondage of sin…the also see original sin as something we live with the consequences of, rather than an inherited guilt.

The point is, though, is that I don't see this fellow moving toward Eastern Orthodoxy but rather, simply denying atonement theory because he is personally displeased by it. The Orthodox don't reject atonement theory out of spite toward God, they simply affirm a different theological model because they believe that is what the earliest Christian fathers actually taught. I worry, actually, that Orthodoxy is being infiltrated by the Frank Schaeffer's (not Francis, God rest his soul) of the world who become Orthodox for the wrong reasons - namely that they simply don't like conservative evangelicalism. Once inside the Orthodox Church, then they run riot and try to change everything else.

Blogger Desiderius October 16, 2015 9:40 AM  

"There's a difference between someone who doesn't accept 'penal substitutionary atonement' because they find it a bad theological model to describe the saving work of Christ's crucifixion, death, and resurrection....

... and because they disbelieve in atonement period, and are using 'penal substitutionary atonement' as a whipping boy to deny the very idea of atonement, of the resurrection, and to blaspheme God as a cruel tyrant."

This, exactly (credit, Zach).

Perfect enemy of the Good, with malice aforethought.

Blogger Carl Philipp October 16, 2015 9:43 AM  

I've been, for a while, screenshotting every Facebook conversation I enter with any suspected SJW. ... Hit paydirt last night, when I asked a very specific question to somebody, who dodged it repeatedly - and then started comment deletions. Sadly she deleted her first juicy question dodge before I capped it :(

Blogger Desiderius October 16, 2015 9:43 AM  

Note that Robertson's tone in discussing the matter leaves an impression of him as being sheltered and naive, as if he is surprised to find evil contending with Christ.

Blogger bob k. mando October 16, 2015 9:53 AM  

The problem is that until recently, no one who has dealt with an SJW and been played for a fool has seen the pattern, much less explained it to anyone else.


i would actually say that people have been pointing this out ... but that it has been silenced.

Vox just got done reading "How to Deal with Narcissists". i have a book which was published back in the late 60s / early 70s pointing out the explosion ( relative to the 40s and earlier ) in the population of sociopaths AND the grooming of society to behave in a sociopathic manner.

the Descriptive Psychologists ( early versions of the DSM ) were describing these mechanisms and psych profiles BEFORE 1900.

so ...

the knowledge has been there.

but, at every turn, it is concealed ( by false psych theories like Freud ) or distorted ( like new versions of the DSM ).

there is a reason why psych majors are so reliably bonkers. and it's not just because they're trying to figure what's wrong with themselves.


32. W.LindsayWheeler October 16, 2015 9:06 AM
Hades was turned into Limbo, Hell was created and Purgatory was created. The old Hades was split into three places. Hell where God's Retributive Justice remains-



the problem being that Jesus himself tells the parable of the rich man and Lazarus ...
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16%3A19-31&version=KJV

being a parable, it is possible that this is ONLY a teaching story, rather than a relation of something that had actually happened.

otoh, if both Abraham's Bosom AND the punishing fire were NOT already considered to exist by au courant Jewish theology, his parable would have sorely confused his listeners.

this implies that 'Retributive Justice' has always been a part of Hades.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 16, 2015 9:56 AM  

The Apostles' Creed is NOT Scripture. The Nicene Creed is NOT Scripture. Where in Scripture does it say that Jesus descended into hell? At any rate, hell is not in the Nicene Creed.

The Apostles' Creed
http://www.creeds.net/ancient/apostles.htm

The Nicene Creed
http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm

Blogger Rabbi B October 16, 2015 10:22 AM  

@41 JaimelnInTexas

"Where in Scripture does it say that Jesus descended into hell?"

For the Messiah also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine long suffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. (cf. I Peter 3)

(Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.) (cf. Ephesians 4)

I believe these passages are often used as proof texts for the assertion.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 October 16, 2015 10:24 AM  

So when do we start bashing the orcs' heads in?

Blogger Random October 16, 2015 10:24 AM  

JaimeInTexas,

Be careful you don't accidentally ignite a Sola Scriptura discussion.

Those ARE great fun, though.

Blogger The Rev October 16, 2015 10:33 AM  

@41

The Apostle's Creed is in agreement with Scripture if we use "Hell" as the English equivalent of Hades/Sheol, or the abode of the dead. Jesus did most certainly die and descend to the abode of the dead.

This is in fact the root of the word "Hell" - "Hel" is the abode of the dead in Norse mythology.

Blogger ScuzzaMan October 16, 2015 10:37 AM  

Before we get bogged down in another 300+ comments about the finer points of Christian theology - an argument I love far more than I should - it is worth noting that this isn't in fact the point of the OP.

In every Christian church there are benign and malign SJW types who want to change the whole church to make it more attractive to sinners. Unfortunately, they often gain ground because we all know there is some justice in their accusations against us; we ARE sinners, hypocrites, and etc. That is, after all, why Christ counsels us to congregate in the first place.

However, it is a simple matter of logic, easily amenable to most retarded among us, to see that once the church is the same as the nightclub, one of them is redundant, and the club serves better drinks and more willing wenches.

Churches, to have any purpose and thus any future, must maintain a stark distinction between themselves and the un-churched.

This lesson has been demonstrated so often in history that you have to be mad to even attempt denying it, and deniying it is exactly what the neo-reformists are doing.

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof ...

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler October 16, 2015 10:41 AM  

Good point Mando. I have to take that into consideration. Was that a literal rendering of reality or was it a metaphorical parable? Need to consider that. Thanks.

Another good point David 93.

What one must do, is take in all the parameters and facts, and put them into a coherent whole. True, the Nicene Creed doesn't mention hell but the Athanasius Creed does! Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead.

The Christian Tradition does teach that Jesus descended into Hades. He had to. The Athanasian Creed is orthodox and does teach the traditional orthodox Faith. It is also used to explicate the Nicene Creed.

The Apostles Creed also mentions that Christ descended into Hades.

The Lutheran Church along with many other Protestant Churches have always accepted these three creeds. Two of whom mention that Christ descended into Hades.

Blogger Rabbi B October 16, 2015 10:44 AM  

@3 Joseph Maroney

Many of these people are Luciferians in disguise. They've thoroughly penetrated the church and society in general. They constantly attempt to undermine Jesus and His death on the cross.

Yes and wolves do not dress up as wolves thy dress up and act like sheep. More shepherds need to learn to recognize them and deal with them accordingly. They are not doing anyone any favors by allowing them to remain among the sheep who are faithful.

We have gone from a congregation of 200 to 20. I have asked my fair share of people to go be a blessing somewhere else, although most have left of their own volition once they were exposed. The Bible is a marvelous house cleaner if you have enough courage and conviction to let it do the work it was intended to do.

It's always so amusing when people get disgusted and unhappy, for whatever reason, start sowing seeds of discontent and division, are confronted, given an opportunity to change, refuse, and then leave of their own volition would later complain to others that I had kicked them out and excommunicated them.

I simply remind them and those to whom they complain that they left of their own volition because they couldn't behave themselves and I merely supported and reinforced their decision to leave by telling them not to let the door hit ya where the good L-rd split ya, informing them thy were not welcome back until they had repented, and warning the remaining faithful to have nothing to do with them lest they want to be shown the door as well.

Shepherds have an obligation and responsibility to G-d and their flocks to serve His and their interests, not cater to heretics and rebels who are only serving their own interests and the interests of the Adversary.

I guess you might say we are not all that seeker-friendly. I have said it before, and it's worth saying again,ministers, rabbis, pastors, etc, who are serious about teaching what the Bible says and holding people accountable for their behavior had better start getting used to smaller congregations. It's fundamental principle that when all men speak well of you and say all matter of good things about you . . . woe to you. Let the Bible do its work.

Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God[a] which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. (cf. Acts 20)

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler October 16, 2015 10:51 AM  

From the Wikipedia page about the Apostles Creed

Some have suggested that the Apostles' Creed was spliced together with phrases from the New Testament.[15] For instance, the phrase "descendit ad inferos" ("he descended into hell") echoes Ephesians 4:9, "κατέβη εἰς τὰ κατώτερα μέρη τῆς γῆς" ("he descended into the lower, earthly regions"). It is of interest that this phrase first appeared in one of the two versions of Rufinus in A.D. 390 and then did not appear again in any version of the creed until A.D. 650.[16]

Now both references used #15 and #16 BOTH refer to Protestant Scholarly works. Not Catholic. So.

Blogger 罗臻 October 16, 2015 10:52 AM  

"Where in Scripture does it say that Jesus descended into hell?"

They should do a movie version in the style of 300.

OpenID Jack Amok October 16, 2015 11:12 AM  

That may not be radical theology, but it also isn't Christian theology.

It's also clearly theology that SJWs don't want widely discussed or known outside their own little warrens. Which goes to show SJWs know they are lying and don't want to be exposed.

At first glance, you might wonder why they would even agree to let Robertson come into their warren and dispute their narrative, why expose themselves to the feelbadz of being disagreed with. The answer has to be one of two things - either the "ersatz-Alpha Rabbit" behavior Vox has so often provoked from Scalzi, or else a deliberate setup to discredit Robertson by gaining control of the PR from the debate with selective, twisted claims.

I wonder which it was?

Blogger James Dixon October 16, 2015 11:23 AM  

> Sin was paid for on the cross, not in Hell.

Correct. "The wages of sin is death." Christ's death and resurrection paid the price for us. We honestly do not know what happened in the three days he was "dead". Pretty much everything is conjecture on our part.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler October 16, 2015 11:56 AM  

The Cross is a symbol of what really happened. A scourging by Roman soldiers followed by crucifixion was not the all of it.

God loves symmetry. You always, in the Bible, have a precursor. The Cross is the precursor of what was to come for Jesus. The two events are connected. Christ had to die as an innocent man and put to death by His people. And then descended into the inferno where He received the full punishment of all the nations upon Himself. And because He was innocent of all sin and was perfectly righteous, He Walked out. The Cross is a symbol of a deeper reality.

So now to tie it in with SJWs. What are the SJWs or liberals lamenting?

The Hardness, the Eternalness of hell. At the basis of all SJWism and/or liberalism is a softness. This is why theology and philosophy is so important. Theology gives us all the facts but it is philosophy that marries all the facts together in an harmonious whole while being conscious of reason and the natural law.

The point being is that "The Good comes thru the Hard". Christian teaching is Hard. A liberal can't stand the Hard. The Cross is Hard. The cause and effect of the Cross is Hard. And this is why SJWs/Liberals have a hard time understanding. They do not understand.

OpenID Steve October 16, 2015 12:00 PM  

46once the church is the same as the nightclub, one of them is redundant, and the club serves better drinks and more willing wenches

I take it that you have not been to an MCC church?-BGS

They are not doing anyone any favors by allowing them to remain among the sheep who are faithful. We have gone from a congregation of 200 to 20

Rabbi B-For the sake of everyone else could you please try harder to turn jewish lesbians

The problem is that until recently, no one who has dealt with an SJW and been played for a fool has seen the pattern

Most people have no idea how bad it could be, because people think merit based hiring is still practiced. I actually dodged a bullet one time by apologizing to a co worker & telling her it was all my fault(after she filled out and incident report). One of the people on my side wrote the great American novel of an incident report, once I understood how great her knowledge deficit was I apologized to her and told her it was all my fault so that she wouldn't change her story/play the race card before an impartial person could verify what she didn't know(3 sentence incident report). That resulted in a black woman being fired, if she played the race card & changed her story she might have stayed. BigGaySteve has had a greater affect on the lack of non-asian die verse city in US healthcare than probably any other individual, with the possible exception of someone at the inspector generals offices I visited.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 16, 2015 12:06 PM  

@44. Random
Party pooper

Blogger Joel and Stacey October 16, 2015 12:18 PM  

Calvin and the Heidelberg Catechism both place Christ's suffering the pain of hell as being while he was on the Cross:

"Question 44. Why is there added, "he descended into hell"?

Answer: That in my greatest temptations, I may be assured, and wholly comfort myself in this, that my Lord Jesus Christ, by his inexpressible anguish, pains, terrors, and hellish agonies, in which he was plunged during all his sufferings, but especially on the cross, has delivered me from the anguish and torments of hell."

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 16, 2015 12:24 PM  

@42 Rabbi B October 16, 2015 10:22 AM

"I believe these passages are often used as proof texts for the assertion."

I know. Wrong though.

1 Peter 3:18-22

More or less clear depending on translation. What follows after "made alive by the Spirit" is "by whom". It is talking about the Holy Spirit. That the Holy Spirit who brough Jesus back to life, is the same Holy Spirit that empowered the peaching to all who are spiritually dead, taking Noah as a starting point. It is just an allegorical use of Noah's story. Noah preached while building the ark. Then, the flood. But safety/rescue within the Ark. We are saved because Jesus is our ark. Jesus, after having trod the Earthly realm, died and buried became our ark of rescue, for those who believe.

The reference to Ephesians 4:9 is just restating that Jesus first had to come down to Earth if he was to ascend back to Heaven. What goes up must first come down.

Blogger Rabbi B October 16, 2015 12:24 PM  

@54 Steve

"Rabbi B-For the sake of everyone else could you please try harder to turn jewish lesbians "

From your lips to G-d's ears, my poofy friend.

(*Stay strong*)

Blogger Patrick Kelly October 16, 2015 12:27 PM  

"I was talking about penal substitutionary atonement which is the notion that, in order to satisfy the wrath, the anger of God who had been offended by the wrath of God, that Jesus had to die as a blood sacrifice to pay for this sin, in order to satisfy the wrath of God. ....... You will find this theology in numerous places including a number of evangelicals."

Including also The Eastern Orthodox (Including Russians and Greeks), Armenians, and Coptics, all reject this western, innovative doctrine.

Blogger Patrick Kelly October 16, 2015 12:30 PM  

@36 Ignatius Mulder

Yes, I should have read other comments first. Ignatius does a better job with the subject than I did re: Orthodox Christianity.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 16, 2015 12:33 PM  

As someone else pointed out, Jesus' cry just before dying on the cross, "it is finished," the word in Greek is "tetelestai." An term of accounting that meant/means "paid in full."
Let that sink ... paid in full.
Only remaining events was the resurrection, to prove that He indeed had the power to forgive sin(s) and, of course, ascend to heaven so that the Holy Spirit could descend to all who believe and indwell until Jesus' return.

Maranatha

Blogger CM October 16, 2015 12:40 PM  

There are OT references to Sheol where both the righteous and unrighteous reside. Sheol would be Hell.

It is the place of the dead. This would be where a DEAD Christ would have been for 3 days. He was Dead!

His work was started on the cross, but it wasn't completed til his resurrection when he conquered death.

There is debate about what happens or happened in death and it varies wildly by denomination and can even be different within congregations.

However, there's a plethora of verses. Regrettably all written by the living.

Blogger CM October 16, 2015 12:43 PM  

"it is finished," the word in Greek is "tetelestai." An term of accounting that meant/means "paid in full."
Let that sink ... paid in full.


Our debt was satisfied, but what about the defeat of death? I thought that was what his resurrection was. His victory.

Blogger Carl Philipp October 16, 2015 12:48 PM  

@48 Sounds a bit like my current church... We've never been 200, but the pastor actually believes in church discipline. So we've had our fair share of people leaving after being told "no, you should AT LEAST wait until his divorce is finalized before dating that man."

Blogger SirHamster October 16, 2015 1:06 PM  

I've been, for a while, screenshotting every Facebook conversation I enter with any suspected SJW. ... Hit paydirt last night, when I asked a very specific question to somebody, who dodged it repeatedly - and then started comment deletions. Sadly she deleted her first juicy question dodge before I capped it :(

I need to join that habit. Had a fun fight on Facebook over the clock-"inventing" kid that got deep-sixed after the fact.

If it doesn't favor the SJW narrative, SJW-busting conversations will "disappear".

Blogger Doc Rampage October 16, 2015 1:07 PM  

This illustrates why organized churches are a bad idea. Entryists can have a few talented entryists who have an effect far beyond their numbers. When the Church is organized as it was in the New Testament as a collection of local bodies, the entryists have to attack each one individually. That's impossible because there aren't enough of them.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 16, 2015 1:14 PM  

@63 CM

There is no issue. Death was indeed defeated and anyone in Christ has passed from death to life. Christ first had to satisfy God's call for the wages of sin to be paid. We sinners pay it, one-for-one, or God's sinless Son pays it one-for-all. All you have to do is appropriate the payment by accepting Jesus as payer of your debt.

We do not get a glorified body until God calls the end of the game. That is still in the future.

Blogger Rabbi B October 16, 2015 1:14 PM  

@64 Carl Phillip

We've never been 200, but the pastor actually believes in church discipline.

Refreshing. G-d disciplines His children, which serves as one water mark of their legitimacy and his love for them. I mean what part of "Go and sin no more," is so difficult to understand? How is that not good for you?

Sadly, we know that people will continue to reject sound doctrine and heap up for themselves *teachers* who will tell them what their itching ears long to hear until His return. (cf. II Timothy 4:2-4) Go get your itch scratched somewhere else.

We are called to serve Him faithfully and remember that the only audience who counts at the end of the day is the audience of One. All I need to hear is "Well done, good and faithful servant." I will be more than thrilled if I am found worthy to hear those words at the end of it all.

Blogger SirHamster October 16, 2015 1:15 PM  

When the Church is organized as it was in the New Testament as a collection of local bodies, the entryists have to attack each one individually. That's impossible because there aren't enough of them.


Are you not familiar with the number of problems the early church had? Are there no women in your church congregations?

There are always enough sinners and entryists to turn our church bodies off course. That's why all of us need to watch and pray, and remain in the One who gives us life.

Blogger Rabbi B October 16, 2015 1:31 PM  

@69 Sir Hamster

That's impossible because there aren't enough of them.

One wolf is remarkably effective when sheep are on the menu.



Blogger Matamoros October 16, 2015 1:57 PM  

Everyone should read Liberalism is a Sin - Englished and Adapted from the Spanish of Roman Catholic Priest, Dr. Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany By Conde B. Pallen, Ph.D., LL.D.

Free online at: http://www.liberalismisasin.com/

Blogger Dexter October 16, 2015 3:22 PM  

Whut tha fook is "mindfulness"?

Blogger Midnight Avenue J October 16, 2015 3:50 PM  

despot of a god; a barbaric god who is vindictive and immoral

Just, blinking...huh? Hasn't this been the argument used to lure Christians away from their belief for centuries, that God isn't so great and is just some kind of vampire and tyrant?

I mean, protest the rule of Popes all you want, but at some point the word of God stands regardless of earthly politics. Men of this mental incapacity cannot stand as shepherds of the Body on Earth.

Blogger James Dixon October 16, 2015 4:00 PM  

> Our debt was satisfied, but what about the defeat of death? I thought that was what his resurrection was. His victory.

Yes. The resurrection was his victory over death, and established that he did in fact have the right and the power to bear the punishment of our sins for us.

Blogger Cail Corishev October 16, 2015 4:18 PM  

Whut tha fook is "mindfulness"?

In a religious context, it quite often refers to a Buddhist practice that has snuck into Christian churches via New Age. It refers to opening your mind and being aware of things on a higher level than normal.

It sounds a lot like meditation, which Christians are fine with, but there's a big difference. The Christian meditates on something like Jesus's Passion and tries to unite himself on a higher level with God. Mindfulness meditation, on the other hand, often means trying to enhance your awareness of material things and the present moment, and opening your mind to whatever may enter it. Christians believe that when you do that, bad things may come in.

There's a non-judgmental aspect of mindfulness that appeals greatly to modernist Christians. The idea is to be mindful (hyper-aware) of your present experience, but specifically not judging it, because being judgmental or trying to guide the process interferes with it. (It's a bit like brainstorming -- you separate the idea-producing and idea-judging parts of the process so the latter won't bog down the former. That's valid. Except these people never get to the second step.)

If you're trying to sell people a scam, then if they will agree to be "mindful" first, you've gotten them to actively turn off their judging facility, which means all they have left are their emotions and how you're making them feel.

So I don't know whether this particular guy was using it in the religious sense of "We should start meditating on crystals and see what happens"; but I'd say he at least meant it in the sense of, "We need to get everyone to work to be more aware (more navel-gazing) and less judgmental (of my ideas)."

Blogger Carl Philipp October 16, 2015 5:31 PM  

@68 Amen. And you remember the Great Commission?
"Go forth and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit..."

"Awww, that's nice! We should outreach, to bring others into our inclusive club!"

"... and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded."

"What... Legalism! LEGALISM! My live-in mutual-concubine and I LOVE each other!"

I speak not of those outside the church; God will judge those outside. But INSIDE the church, JUDGE AWAY!!

Blogger Geir Balderson October 16, 2015 5:34 PM  

In my opinion, God is not a despot. God created this Universe with rules and regulations to keep it humming along nicely. He gave man the freedom to chart his own course and to make mistakes and sin. Jesus gave His life as a substitute for man's death from sins. Jesus' death neatly satisfies God's universal laws in a way that man seems to not understand well, or accept, in his own mortal state.

The man above, Scott, does not seem to believe the Bible or at the very least interprets it the manner of a true SJW. He does so at his own peril and will bring many along his wide easy path. The situation is very sad. But, foretold long ago in the Old Testament.

Blogger John Wright October 16, 2015 5:42 PM  

"The Apostles' Creed is NOT Scripture. The Nicene Creed is NOT Scripture."

And, by that same logic, the Church councils that defined scripture are also NOT scripture, and much else of Christian teaching, belief, and thought besides.

It is good to see someone re-opening the heresy of Arianism. That is an argument that needs to be rehashed.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 16, 2015 6:13 PM  

I am not re-opeming anything.

I agree with your conclusion that the councils are not Scriptures. I do not discard all.

Creeds, traditions are useful but when questions arise we go to the source. Then, if need be, consulting other sources may be appropriate.

To paraphrase Jesus: traditions of men may be good but "it is written" and "Scriptures say" take precedence lest we commit idolatry.

Blogger AnalogMan October 16, 2015 7:27 PM  

ALWAYS RECORD ALL INTERACTIONS WITH SJWs.

If I may add a suggestion, always play some background music. That way, if they try to edit the recording, or claim that you have edited it, the truth will be obvious.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler October 16, 2015 7:33 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler October 16, 2015 7:36 PM  

Councils are called to settle doctrine, dogma, practice and Church discipline.

In Acts, there was a council to decide if Gentiles had to follow the Mosaic law in regard to food. The answer was no. Councils are an Authority though. The Church in a sense is Living in that it is always defining truth from error and correcting bad behavior and other stuff. In the case of the Nicene Creed, councils were called to create a symbol of the Faith, that encapsulated the essence of the Faith, Traditional and orthodox.

Councils, Synods, regional councils are one Authority in Christianity. Bishops, singly in their Diocese are another authority. Scripture is an Authority. There are many sources of authority in Christianity. And Holy Tradition is another authority. Tradition is the Lived Experience of the Church. And then Christ gave authority to the Bishops when he said, "Whatever you hold bound will be bound in heaven,and whatever you loose on earth, will be loosed in heaven". Christ gave authority to the Bishops of the Church. Another authority is the Natural Law. The Natural Law is found in the cosmos and its author is Jesus Christ. Though the Natural Law is the authority in the Natural Order. Yet, its rules are used to guide human reasoning.

We have to remember that Christianity started out as an Oral Tradition first. The first thing written down was St. Paul's letters. The Gospels came after St. Paul wrote some of his letters. So the Faith was lived and taught without the NT and they used only the OT. Holy Tradition is an authority.

Blogger Michael O'Duibhir October 16, 2015 9:15 PM  

W.LindsayWheeler very nicely wrapped it up:

"We have to remember that Christianity started out as an Oral Tradition first. The first thing written down was St. Paul's letters. The Gospels came after St. Paul wrote some of his letters. So the Faith was lived and taught without the NT and they used only the OT. Holy Tradition is an authority."

Nowhere in the Bible do we find the term "sola scriptura" or "scripture alone."

Blogger bob k. mando October 16, 2015 10:31 PM  

51. Jack Amok October 16, 2015 11:12 AM
I wonder which it was?



uhhh, they did an awful lot of screeching about Robertson saying that he would seriously consider excommunicating his debate opponent IF he had such authority.

they also tried to destroy all a/v copies of the debate.

THEREFORE, they KNOW that the principles that they are espousing are Satanic in nature.

their purpose is to render any critique of THEIR positions impossible while at the same time constantly criticizing the positions of actual bible believers.

nothing more than Cultural Marxism ( all frameworks of the establishment to be critiqued at all times, no element of Marxism to be critiqued, ever ) played out in a church, really.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaBpVzOohs

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 16, 2015 10:47 PM  

@83
Neither will you find the word trinity.

You will find Jesus saying "it is written" and "Scriptures say" .. pretty close to the idea of Sola Scriptura, dontcha think?

Blogger Desiderius October 17, 2015 12:28 AM  

"pretty close to the idea of Sola Scriptura, dontcha think?"

Not even enough for horseshoes and hand grenades.

You've demonstrated Scriptura, but not Sola.

Scripture is not the only work of the Spirit.

Blogger Random October 17, 2015 12:31 AM  

@85

The scriptures Jesus referenced in each of those cases is the Old Testament (the Septuagint, actually), so that doesn't allow for use of the New Testament as scripture in the sense Jesus was using it.

The Church, not the scriptures, is the pillar and ground of the truth, 1 Timothy 3:15.

Blogger Desiderius October 17, 2015 12:35 AM  

John Wright,

"It is good to see someone re-opening the heresy of Arianism."

My understanding is that Arianism is about the Trinity. What does Sola Scriptura have to do with it?

Blogger Carl Philipp October 17, 2015 3:35 AM  

Regarding how to deal with SJWs in the church, I submit this article from an apologist on the use of satire and sarcasm to correct error:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.php

This guy was my introduction to the power of rhetoric to persuade people of the truth. This article goes through some of the history, and also addresses common Biblically-motivated objections, including various Bible verses about "gentleness." E.g.:
'"But we should be all things to all men and modify our approach for today's culture."
Then it's time to give up blood atonement too. No, modern culture has forbidden riposte as a way to prevent deserved criticism and to silence the critic. To that extent, the culture itself is sick and those who reject valid riposte are themselves aiding and abetting the sickness.'

My rediscovery is timely, as I fear my church, for all its strengths, has gotten a touch of cuckservatism... we had a discussion recently about certain related Bible verses on answering gently, and there was a lot of "soft" resistance to the idea that sometimes you need to fight fire with nuclear weapons.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 17, 2015 8:05 AM  

@87 Random
Agree with the Scriptures being the Old Testament.
1Tim 3:15
Context is qualification of church "officers" and how to conduct themselves.
Jesus is the truth and foundational cornerstone then the Apostles. The Church is us, the called who believe and answered. We are the living stones that bear witness of the truth iof Jesus to a fallen world.

Blogger Michael O'Duibhir October 17, 2015 8:31 AM  

JaimeInTexas:
"The Church is us, the called who believe and answered."

So, when the Catholic Church convened the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 in Bithynia, were the "us, the called who believe and answered" convening their own council across town? If so, why is there no record of such a council? In fact, why is there no record (the relatively small number of adherents who espoused the heresies of the Albigensians, Cathars, etc. notwithstanding) of such non-Catholic "believers" in all of recorded history? Did those horrid papists methodically find and destroy all historical evidence of the existence of such believers?
Absurdity of absurdities: God allowed a false religion--the Catholic Church--to usurp His Gospel until the 16th century, at which time the "true" religion, Protestantism, would emerge to assume its rightful place as the embodiment of the Christian religion. Really? God would allow 1500 years of deceit!

Blogger Anthony October 17, 2015 11:40 AM  

I was talking about penal substitutionary atonement which is the notion that, in order to satisfy the wrath, the anger of God who had been offended by the wrath of God, that Jesus had to die as a blood sacrifice to pay for this sin, in order to satisfy the wrath of God.

I'm not a scholar of theology, but this seems wrong several ways. First - is the concept of penal substitutionary atonement being accurately described? Second - is the atonement about the wrath of God? Third, and perhaps most important - Jesus had to die? My impression was that Jesus chose to die for our sins.

Blogger Den Ekte Norsk October 17, 2015 5:01 PM  

Remember - "Enemy of my enemy".

I understand why you and Dawkins will never be bosum buddies, but he, Hitchens, Harris, et al have also been frequently and rabidly attacked by the thought police as well.

Harris is routinely critical of the one religion who wins out in oppression poker time and time again and its links to terrorism. He has called for profiling in security checkpoints (arguing, correctly that it does no good to subject an elderly lady who raises no suspicions other than trying to appear "fair"). I don't buy into his spirituality nonsense but the man is entitled to his opinions and he by no means follows the SJW narrative.

Dawkins routinely lambasts Islamic 'scholars' for their idioctic believes concerning proven scientific fact. One of his more recent thought crimes was having the temerity to suggest that being asked out on a date (while in an elevator) and being violently raped are two entirely different things. Perish the thought! Needless to say the usual suspects were in suitable uproar.

Blogger Den Ekte Norsk October 17, 2015 5:07 PM  

Remember - "Enemy of my enemy".

I understand why you and Dawkins will never be bosum buddies, but he, Hitchens, Harris, et al have also been frequently and rabidly attacked by the thought police as well.

Harris is routinely critical of the one religion who wins out in oppression poker time and time again and its links to terrorism. He has called for profiling in security checkpoints (arguing, correctly that it does no good to subject an elderly lady who raises no suspicions other than trying to appear "fair"). I don't buy into his spirituality nonsense but the man is entitled to his opinions and he by no means follows the SJW narrative.

Dawkins routinely lambasts Islamic 'scholars' for their idioctic believes concerning proven scientific fact. One of his more recent thought crimes was having the temerity to suggest that being asked out on a date (while in an elevator) and being violently raped are two entirely different things. Perish the thought! Needless to say the usual suspects were in suitable uproar.

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 18, 2015 8:49 AM  

@91
I figured it would get there. Look I am not Catholic.

To argue against The Church being us believers is to argue against the whole Scriptures.

But to restate, traditions are useful and good. When it comes to resolving disputes, we go first to the Scriptures.

Blogger Michael O'Duibhir October 18, 2015 10:53 AM  

JaimeInTexas,

I understand. What I'm saying is the Protestant position is, ultimately, untenable because it cannot account for the fact that from Christ's ascension until the 16th century the historical record shows only one Christian religion--the Catholic religion. The Orthodox Christians cannot be considered an exception because they are schismatic, not Protestant. And the various heretical sects, i.e., the Albigensians, the Cathars, etc., cannot be considered exceptions because (1) the number of adherents to those heretical cults was extremely small compared to the number of Catholics, (2) research into the practices of those cults reveals abominable behavior (the Cathars, for example), and (3) some of those cults, the Albigensians for example, were in a great many respects Catholic in their nature, differing only in a few particulars--particulars which were, however, sufficiently egregious to merit condemnation by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
All of what I say is available online for anyone who is objectively seeking the truth. The problem seems to be that there is such a deep-seated hatred of the Catholic Church that some people cannot get over the hurdle of their hatred so that they can consider the historical facts objectively. By the way, one would be mistaken to judge the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church by those who pose as its leaders today (and for the past 50+ years). But that's another story.
Cheers

Blogger JaimeInTexas October 19, 2015 9:10 AM  

"... until the 16th century ... "

When a king converts to x, all his subjects convert to x. Whether they like/dislike/agree/disagree/ambivalent/believe/disbelieve.

It does not mean a thing.

What happened at Philippi ... I disagree with RCC's misinterpretation.

Blogger Michael O'Duibhir October 19, 2015 10:51 PM  

So, where's the proof that "the believers"--in other words, those "Christians" who were not members of the Catholic Church--existed from the time of Christ's ascension? Where is the historical proof of their existence? One can't point to the Bible because the Bible did not exist until the 4th century (Catholic Council of Nicaea). One can't reasonably point to the various heretical sects for reasons I've already mentioned. And yet, the historical record is replete with references to the word "Catholic" when mentioning early Christianity, as well as references to Catholic bishops, priests, deacons, the Sacrifice of the Mass, etc.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts