Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
But if this man is who I think it is, having made a cursory search, this man is a racist. Although I usually don't believe everything I read in Wikipedia, this short paragraph about Douglas Wilson is not only telling but well referenced.
Douglas Wilson co-wrote a booklet on Southern slavery and argued for the conservative point of view that not all slave owners were wild-eyed satanists; that slavery served an economic purpose; and that Reconstruction devastated the South economically and spiritually.
Not surprisingly, two liberal college professors pounced on the booklet and denounced it as "racist."
As we all know, white men are very often accused of racism if they even attempt to discuss slavery, etc.
I am very surprised to read this from you, tc. As Kosta point out, we are utterly incapable of knowing God's essence/nature. This is because, quite simply, God is the Being Which is the Source of being... Ο ΩΝ. We who are beings with natures could never, ever, know or understand or share in that. His uncreated energies, however, we do perceive and we can experience and we can become united with. If this were 500 years ago, I could understand you not knowing this, but virtually all of this has been available to Christians for more than 1500 years. Palamite theology, which forms all of this into an understandable whole has been available in the West since the 14th century. tc, there is no earthly reason why you should ascribe to the theology of The Church, but before you presume to characterize it, you ought at least to become marginally familiar with it.
Gosh, that was convincing: “Give it up!” I cry “uncle!”
Wait - no I don’t. RCC dogma is nonsense. Enjoy it. I’ll stick with the Word of God, you stick with the cultural traditions and words of men that have wrapped themselves tightly into the very fabric of the Roman Catholic Church. I pity folk trapped in that religion.
Lol. Thanks. That’s great.
Truly a pity that the only thing you have is a “Book”.
And where does this book say this is all you need?
Longer answer: you guys don't take the Incarnation the way we take it.
The Catholic faith has taught me to be willing to give my life and to suffer for others for their salvation.
I would do this for you,Dear friend.
It's not so much that I want to be confused, but that's the effect produced by hearing things like "It was the Church guided by the Holy Spirit that destroyed what God wanted destroyed!" Accusations of "Gnosticism" or "secret knowledge" seem to fly around this thread like frisbees, so hopefully you can explain to me how a statement akin to "We broke and burned things because God told us to" escapes such scrutiny.
Muslims said something similar when they destroyed the Library of Alexandria, but such a notion of God being the author of destruction is alien to Christianity as I understand it. On the contrary, death and destruction are the results of rejecting God's freely offered grace, not of acting in cooperation with it. You said:
One can only imagine how many other groups would be grasping on to even more heretical teachings if the Church had not destroyed them.
That's right. One can only imagine, and we can not at all be sure. Perhaps some good came out of it, but I utterly reject the claim that they were following God's will by doing so.
A related question is: Were the ones who crucified Christ free from sin because they were simply taking part in the economy of salvation? The answer, I think, must be an emphatic "no". Christ merely took the death that was offered him--the death that entered this world because of sin--and thus overcame it.
I wish you a Blessed Evening.
Same to you, dear friend.
I confess! :)
Actually, Kosta, given our previous discussions I was considering asking you the same thing. :) But you asked first, so here's my answer:
We've discussed how many things in the Old Testament might very well be viewed as allegory, and IIRC you said that it must be viewed in light of the Gospel. I agree. I do not believe that it is essential to the Christian faith to view the entire OT in a strictly historic sense, and in fact doing so can cause some problems. C.S. Lewis opined that as the Hebrews were God's chosen people, so their mythology was God's chosen mythology. Some of the OT may be historical, some may be mythological or allegorical, but it must be read in light of the Gospel, in which "myth became fact." So no, I'm not offended by the OT.
But there is a difference between this and the claim that "It was the Church guided by the Holy Spirit that destroyed what God wanted destroyed!" The latter is driven by a claim of infallibility, much like the rigid historic inerrancy that the Reformed tend to attribute to the OT. Either way, it is nothing more than an excuse that makes God the author of sin.
So, without qualification liberal is always bad and conservative is always good? With his shady past, I am not surprised that you didn't provide a link or at least an introductory note to attenuate the reality of his book being taken out of print for racism.
You probably hoped no one would check. You were wrong and now you act indignant.
Douglas Wilson co-wrote a booklet on Southern slavery and argued for the conservative point of view that not all slave owners were wild-eyed satanists; that slavery served an economic purpose; and that Reconstruction devastated the South economically and spiritually
So what if slavery served and economic purpose? Does that make it morally right? Ends do not justify the means. The fact is that the Protestant west justified slavery because it's in the Bible, and the Bible is not really adamantly opposed to it on moral or practical grounds. Mixed with the Reformed mindset, it justified slavery like everything else: God wanted it.
If you can't see the error in this, then may God grant you the eyes and the ears to see and hear the message loud and clear one day.
Here are some quotes from this book:
"There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world." (page 24)
Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care." (page 25)
"But many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends." (page 27)
"Nearly every slave in the South enjoyed a higher standard of living than the poor whites of the South -- and had a much easier existence." (page 30)
You are amazing.
Thank you.
I do not believe that it is essential to the Christian faith to view the entire OT in a strictly historic sense, and in fact doing so can cause some problems.
No it's not essential. Without the Gospels and the NT, there is no Christianity. One could argue that whatever needed to be known of the Old Testament was quoted by the Apostles in the New Testament.
Lewis opined that as the Hebrews were God's chosen people, so their mythology was God's chosen mythology
Not everything Hebrews did was God's choice, or else He wouldn't have discarded the Old Covenant and given a New One. The other issues is what is meant by God's chosen? I was at a Passover Seder few years back, invited by a Jewish teacher friend of mine, and the rabbi who was there said "Jews are God's chosen people." To which a few younger individuals present approved loudly.
The rabbi looked at them and then said "the privilege of being chosen was to do work." In order words God wanted the Jews to proclaim the God of Abraham to the world (remember "Salvation is from the Jews"), and they took it as some private club membership privilege.
But there is a difference between this and the claim that "It was the Church guided by the Holy Spirit that destroyed what God wanted destroyed!"
In my faith, the Holy Spirit is the Lord, the Giver of Life, not the taker of life. God is the source of life and not the source of death. God is a Maker not a destroyer. He is a giver, not a taker. Love gives and doesn't ask for anything in return.
The latter is driven by a claim of infallibility, much like the rigid historic inerrancy that the Reformed tend to attribute to the OT
What about the infallibility of the NT?
Either way, it is nothing more than an excuse that makes God the author of sin
Mankind has justified a lot of sin in the name of God, and that is wrong. But they get the idea from the Old Testament.
I'm quite confident that you would not consider their beliefs equal to your own. They would likely feel the same about yours.
In considering the key question "Who do you believe?" I provided a range of examples. They included the successful (Catholic, Orthodox, LDS) and the tragic (Applewhite's Heaven's Gate, Koresh's Branch Davidians and Jim Jones.)
As for me, again I testify that I love God, I believe Him and I trust Him. Him alone.
No mortal being - or collective of mortal beings - can thwart the will of God. Indeed, no thing at all can thwart the will of God.
Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; [I am] God, and [there is] none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: - Isaiah 46:9-10
Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, [saying], Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. - Psalms 2:1-5
But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. - Matthew 19:26
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two [women shall be] grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. - Matthew 24:37-42
I don't see any contradiction. We don't earn our salvation by doing the right number of works, so our assurance is not dependent on doing the right number of works. But of course, that does NOT mean that what we do doesn't matter. God created us (in part) to do good works.
Eph 2:10 : For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
So, of course works are important.
The problem is that all these claims require absolute blind faith. Gravity doesn't. No one doubts gravity. There is a qualitative difference in a priori acceptance of biblical claims and physician reality. An a priori acceptance is a matter of choice. We choose to go to church (unless Reformers think otherwise, and feel that they are "frog marched" to go to church against their will).
Comparing scientific laws to whether something is historically true makes no sense. By your standards believing that George Washington ever lived is solely by blind faith.
You guys seem really stuck on this "frogmarching" thing. :) Before I was saved I had no interest in going to Church, but then God changed my heart and I did have the interest. Why do you guys think that is so horrible? :) I fully admit that reconciling that God is in control is a very difficult thing for men to do, but the Christian REALLY needs to do it:
1 Cor 6:19-20 : 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own ; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
----------------------
Just because we don't see radio waves doesn't mean they don't exist! The only reason we all agree they exist is because we can detect them. Believers, however, claim that what they believe is absolute truth because they have the "ears and the eyes" to "detect" God!
No, detection is not the issue. Faith is. Do you say that you cannot "detect" God simply from your human experience? I think most Christians would say that they CAN detect God this way. Demons detect God too, but they do not have faith. The eyes and ears are what confirm for believers that the words of scripture are true. Eyes and ears do not change that which is false into something that is true. They allow a believer to see what has been absolutely true all along.
Faith does not require proof (by definition). That's why it is futile to try to argue faith. If you have faith, you can not prove it, and you cannot be proven wrong either.
I disagree. I think ALL of us have proved we have faith by the evidence of our postings here. Whether we have PROVED REASONABLY that we have faith in the correct thing is a matter of opinion.
True. True.
Thanks for your encouragements.
LUB
When God brings his words alive within me, I will convey them. I cannot and will not bottle up the words of God.
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) - John 7:38-39
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.