TGC and Seminaries

Status
Not open for further replies.
Andrew35 said:
We have a good number of educated theologians on this board who are much more deserving a hearing than Hall.

Sorry, I'm sure he has good points from time to time. Most people do. But when you go about publicly slandering people about whom you know next to nothing, you automatically go into my "junk" folder -- along with the pesky political fundraisers and the wholesale-viagra peddlers.
Click to expand...
You don't have to apologize. I agree for the most part. Like I said, I was not trying to advocate for him, just saying not everything he posts is completely false.
 
retroGRAD3 said:
You don't have to apologize. I agree for the most part. Like I said, I was not trying to advocate for him, just saying not everything he posts is completely false.
Click to expand...
Maybe not everything. But when you deliberately superimpose a swastika armband on Tim Keller, for instance......how seriously do you expect to be taken?
 
TomVols said:
Maybe not everything. But when you deliberately superimpose a swastika armband on Tim Keller, for instance......how seriously do you expect to be taken?
Click to expand...
It's not a swastika, it is a hammer and sickle. I agree that is a bit inflammatory. However, again, it is not completely untrue. Keller does admit to having some Marxist leanings. I am not saying he is a full blown communist though, that is a misrepresentation.

Here is a short biography of Keller's Marxist origins
The whole discussion is pretty good, but the biography starts at about the 37 minute mark.

Conversations That Matter

www.worldviewconversation.com www.worldviewconversation.com
Here is the print version, with all of the sources of the information listed.
 
retroGRAD3 said:
The whole discussion is pretty good, but the biography starts at about the 37 minute mark.

Conversations That Matter

www.worldviewconversation.com www.worldviewconversation.com
Here is the print version, with all of the sources of the information listed.
Click to expand...
That's a really good article.

I've spent a couple of years now reading about Missional theology and left-leaning neo-Kuyperianism.

This helps explain why so many progressives in the PCA cite Conn as an important voice.

I don't know if Carl Ellis has settled down a bit. Some of his stuff is quite useful in terms of describing why certain aspects of society stay impoverished.
 
retroGRAD3 said:
It's not a swastika, it is a hammer and sickle. I agree that is a bit inflammatory. However, again, it is not completely untrue. Keller does admit to having some Marxist leanings. I am not saying he is a full blown communist though, that is a misrepresentation.

Here is a short biography of Keller's Marxist origins
The whole discussion is pretty good, but the biography starts at about the 37 minute mark.

Conversations That Matter

www.worldviewconversation.com www.worldviewconversation.com
Here is the print version, with all of the sources of the information listed.
Click to expand...
My mistake on calling it a swastika.

It's more than a bit inflammatory. And that's the problem....well, one of many.

When I can, I'll read this/watch and post. If it's like everything else I've seen, it's slander, pure and simple, and a violation of the prohibition against bearing false witness. But I'm open to anything credible. Peace.

Edited: I have read/watched this before. Someone somewhere discredited this, but I'm not on my primary device. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
TomVols said:
My mistake on calling it a swastika.

It's more than a bit inflammatory. And that's the problem....well, one of many.

When I can, I'll read this/watch and post. If it's like everything else I've seen, it's slander, pure and simple, and a violation of the prohibition against bearing false witness. But I'm open to anything credible. Peace.

Edited: I have read/watched this before. Someone somewhere discredited this, but I'm not on my primary device. Thanks!
Click to expand...
What I posted in this response is not from Pulpit and Pen. I believe you will find it is credible.

Also, "someone somewhere" discredited? Did they refute all of the sources posted? Otherwise, it seems more like an opinion.
 
I actually thought Tim Keller's Generous Justice book was pretty balanced on the whole subject of helping the poor. He rightly noted that a paternalistic view of government does mean that the state should help the poor, but not in such a manner as keeps them in a state of slavish dependency. While you all know that I have no time for woke evangelicalism, there has been too much of a libertarian or small government fundamentalist influence on conservative evangelicals (I am not saying that libertarianism is a wholly bad thing). Hence, there was a tendency to cry "Marxism" every time someone proposed that the government should do something. For that reason, some people automatically think you are being hysterical whenever you warn of Marxism (cultural or orthodox) or of a totalitarian police state. The same thing seems to apply to criticisms of Tim Keller. I recall seeing him being accused of Communism for his views on poor relief and that put me off listening to those who said that he does still have some Marxist-leanings. While I agree that he does have some Marxist leanings, we need to be careful that we are criticising him for the right reasons.
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
I actually thought Tim Keller's Generous Justice book was pretty balanced on the whole subject of helping the poor. He rightly noted that a paternalistic view of government does mean that the state should help the poor, but not in such a manner as keeps them in a state of slavish dependency. While you all know that I have no time for woke evangelicalism, there has been too much of a libertarian or small government fundamentalist influence on conservative evangelicals (I am not saying that libertarianism is a wholly bad thing). Hence, there was a tendency to cry "Marxism" every time someone proposed that the government should do something. For that reason, some people automatically think you are being hysterical whenever you warn of Marxism (cultural or orthodox) or of a totalitarian police state. The same thing seems to apply to criticisms of Tim Keller. I recall seeing him being accused of Communism for his views on poor relief and that put me off listening to those who said that he does still have some Marxist-leanings. While I agree that he does have some Marxist leanings, we need to be careful that we are criticising him for the right reasons.
Click to expand...
Correct, I agree with this. I believe the conversations that matter response is balanced in it's response. He does not advocate full blown communism at all. He even gives appreciation to Tim Keller in several areas.
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
I actually thought Tim Keller's Generous Justice book was pretty balanced on the whole subject of helping the poor. He rightly noted that a paternalistic view of government does mean that the state should help the poor, but not in such a manner as keeps them in a state of slavish dependency. While you all know that I have no time for woke evangelicalism, there has been too much of a libertarian or small government fundamentalist influence on conservative evangelicals (I am not saying that libertarianism is a wholly bad thing). Hence, there was a tendency to cry "Marxism" every time someone proposed that the government should do something. For that reason, some people automatically think you are being hysterical whenever you warn of Marxism (cultural or orthodox) or of a totalitarian police state. The same thing seems to apply to criticisms of Tim Keller. I recall seeing him being accused of Communism for his views on poor relief and that put me off listening to those who said that he does still have some Marxist-leanings. While I agree that he does have some Marxist leanings, we need to be careful that we are criticising him for the right reasons.
Click to expand...

Is it within the state’s purview, according to Scripture, to do charity work? To me, this is where Keller is wrong. Actually, he errs on two fronts:
  1. He conflates generosity and justice (even in the very title of his book on the subject). But the two have little if anything to do with each other. A lack of generosity is not a matter of justice, but sin. The state cannot punish me for refusing to give charitably. But that’s precisely what state-enforced welfare is and does. It makes lack of generosity a crime. But this isn’t biblical. To say that generosity is a matter of justice is to say that the poor have a legal claim on my possessions. But that’s just not true. We cannot confuse duty before God with duty before the state. But that’s what I believe Keller does.
  2. He believes the state has the duty to perform charity work. The problem is that this requires, essentially, stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Rather, charity to the poor is a duty of all Christians individually and the Church collectively. Where Keller goes wrong is in suggesting that the solution to the failure of the Church in this task is simply to give a function of the Church to the state. That, to me, is textbook statism, and part of the reason we are in the mess we are in in this nation.
The problem is that the Wokist will hear what I just said and say, “Well, you just hate the poor, are greedy, and have no interest in generosity.” But that’s just not true. I care deeply about those things. I just believe it’s the responsibility of the Church and the individual believer to exercise these duties, and that failure to do so is a spiritual matter, not a legal one. The state, in my view, has no business in charity. They are to wield the sword to reward the innocent and punish the guilty.
 
Taylor Sexton said:
Is it within the state’s purview, according to Scripture, to do charity work? To me, this is where Keller is wrong.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the suppositions underlying your argument, which flow from the Kuyperian notions of sphere-sovereignty and the idea of a regulative principle of civil government that undergirds modern theonomy. The Reformed traditionally believed that the civil magistrate, as the father of the commonwealth, was to have paternalistic care for the poor. Paying taxes to this end is not stealing as defined by nature and scripture. On this issue, Tim Keller is basically correct from a Reformed point of view. However, these points are too big to discuss at length here, as it would effectively derail the thread.
 
Taylor Sexton said:
The problem is that the Wokist will hear what I just said and say, “Well, you just hate the poor, are greedy, and have no interest in generosity.”
Click to expand...

Also, I am not a Wokist. Nor are many other people who do not agree with what you are arguing. You would be hard pressed to find a conservative Christian outside of the USA who disagrees with me on this issue. Nor do I believe that those who oppose state welfare necessarily hate the poor. I think they are wrong-headed in their approach to poor-relief, but it does not mean that they hate the poor. It is precisely this sort of rhetoric that we need to avoid.
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
Also, I am not a Wokist. Nor are many other people who do not agree with what you are arguing. You would be hard pressed to find a conservative Christian outside of the USA who disagrees with me on this issue. Nor do I believe that those who oppose state welfare necessarily hate the poor. I think they are wrong-headed in their approach to poor-relief, but it does not mean that they hate the poor. It is precisely this sort of rhetoric that we need to avoid.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughts, brother.

I do want to clarify that when I referenced "the Wokist" here, I in no way intended that to be directed toward anyone here, certainly not you, brother. I sincerely apologize for that confusion. I was basically critiquing the arguments of people I hear everyday, and remarking that this kind of cynical and shallow thinking among the Woke is why these conversations are so difficult to have.
 
Taylor Sexton said:
Thanks for your thoughts, brother.

I do want to clarify that when I referenced "the Wokist" here, I in no way intended that to be directed toward anyone here, certainly not you, brother. I sincerely apologize for that confusion. I was basically critiquing the arguments of people I hear everyday, and remarking that this kind of cynical and shallow thinking among the Woke is why these conversations are so difficult to have.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I knew that you were not getting at me but I thought that I would add that clarification. I do agree that many of the Woke people use silly, emotive, and even manipulative arguments to get their way - even on issues where I might (in the odd instance) agree with them.
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
Thanks, I knew that you were not getting at me but I thought that I would add that clarification. I do agree that many of the Woke people use silly, emotive, and even manipulative arguments to get their way - even on issues where I might (in the odd instance) agree with them.
Click to expand...

Regarding what you said above in your first reply to me, can you recall anywhere in the Puritans or continental Reformed where they discuss these matters? I need to read on this more.

Thanks, brother!
 
Taylor Sexton said:
Regarding what you said above in your first reply to me, can you recall anywhere in the Puritans or continental Reformed where they discuss these matters? I need to read on this more.

Thanks, brother!
Click to expand...

The best places to start are John Calvin's commentary on Isaiah 49:23 and Martin Bucer's De Regno Christi.
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
I disagree with the suppositions underlying your argument, which flow from the Kuyperian notions of sphere-sovereignty and the idea of a regulative principle of civil government that undergirds modern theonomy. The Reformed traditionally believed that the civil magistrate, as the father of the commonwealth, was to have paternalistic care for the poor. Paying taxes to this end is not stealing as defined by nature and scripture. On this issue, Tim Keller is basically correct from a Reformed point of view. However, these points are too big to discuss at length here, as it would effectively derail the thread.
Click to expand...
I follow what you are saying. I wonder though, how some of those folks would react today with all of the welfare and social programs that are completely taken advantage of. I am speaking of the United States here at the moment. We have many who never have worked a day in their life because they get checks from the state that incentivize them to continue to have children out of wedlock. Why work when you can make way more money with no effort from the state? We saw this in the US as well when the state gave out unemployment during Covid. There was a point when aid was given to the businesses to rehire people, but the people did not want to come back because they made more money on unemployment.

I think the main issue is there are categoies here of truly poor and those that are able bodied but opt to be "poor". I think that is why the traditionally reformed position at this point actually fails because the government is no longer good stewarts of the people's money. At this point, people giving charity voluntarily would seem the better course because it would ensure that those who actually need the money, get it. I think other arguments could be made about how the church and the state used to be almost the same thing at certain points as well.

Also, to mention, I am not accusing you of being woke either. Just trying to analyze the position a bit.
 
retroGRAD3 said:
I follow what you are saying. I wonder though, how some of those folks would react today with all of the welfare and social programs that are completely taken advantage of. I am speaking of the United States here at the moment. We have many who never have worked a day in their life because they get checks from the state that incentivize them to continue to have children out of wedlock. Why work when you can make way more money with no effort from the state? We saw this in the US as well when the state gave out unemployment during Covid. There was a point when aid was given to the businesses to rehire people, but the people did not want to come back because they made more money on unemployment.

I think the main issue is there are categoies here of truly poor and those that are able bodied but opt to be "poor". I think that is why the traditionally reformed position at this point actually fails because the government is no longer good stewarts of the people's money. At this point, people giving charity voluntarily would seem the better course because it would ensure that those who actually need the money, get it. I think other arguments could be made about how the church and the state used to be almost the same thing at certain points as well.

Also, to mention, I am not accusing you of being woke either. Just trying to analyze the position a bit.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of the substance of what you are saying. The UK government was (and still is) paying people 80% of their wages (up to something like £2,000 per month) for six months to sit at home and do nothing when there is nothing wrong with them. It is the economics of a madhouse. Peter Martyr Vermigli: no welfare for idlers provides quite a useful summary of much of what is wrong with some modern welfare systems.
 
Semper Fidelis said:
That's a really good article.

I've spent a couple of years now reading about Missional theology and left-leaning neo-Kuyperianism.

This helps explain why so many progressives in the PCA cite Conn as an important voice.

I don't know if Carl Ellis has settled down a bit. Some of his stuff is quite useful in terms of describing why certain aspects of society stay impoverished.
Click to expand...
An eye opening read. I knew little about Harvie Conn. It explains why many of the former left leaning faculty *cough* Longman*cough* were nostalgic about the 'middle era' of the seminary recently.
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
I agree with much of the substance of what you are saying. The UK government was (and still is) paying people 80% of their wages (up to something like £2,000 per month) for six months to sit at home and do nothing when there is nothing wrong with them. It is the economics of a madhouse. Peter Martyr Vermigli: no welfare for idlers provides quite a useful summary of much of what is wrong with some modern welfare systems.
Click to expand...
The traditionally reformed position would likely still work as intended if the government still enforced the following command:

2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.
 
retroGRAD3 said:
www.thegospelcoalition.org

How to Navigate the Generational Divide in Politics

The dynamic of being disappointed—even incensed—by your parents’ (or your children’s) politics is not new.
www.thegospelcoalition.org www.thegospelcoalition.org

More "gold" from TGC. The second paragraph is especially ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I’m hearing more and more young, conservative-leaning evangelicals express disappointment at the political behavior of their conservative parents—a growing concern that they’re being radicalized into the conspiracy-spreading far-right by a steady diet of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Ben Shapiro.
Click to expand...

It is hard to take anyone seriously when they think that the likes of Fox News and Ben Shapiro are leading people into the Far Right.

Given the extreme pro-abortion policies, Maoist enforcement of speech codes, and guillotine optics of the other side, we can understand why Christian voters might find Trump the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

The concession is one that various TGC writers would be reluctant to make.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top