Great comment by Brendan on a post by 7Man:
I would take it one step further in that, following the metaphor, the Church, as the Body of Christ, is not acting like God in the picture. That is, God condemns the sin of Adam *AND* the sin of Eve, each for different reasons — Adam for listening to Eve instead of leading her, and falling into sin, and Eve for giving in to the temptation in the first place. Unlike the current Church, which basically subsumes everything under Adam — Adam is responsible for his sin AND for Eve’s sin, according to the prevailing model in much of contemporary Christianity: the woman may have done wrong, but her wrong is less than the man’s wrong, because the man is supposed to lead, etc. This is explicitly NOT what happens in Genesis. In Genesis, God does reprimand Adam for listening to Eve and following her in her sin (instead of leading her), but Eve, for her own sin, receives her own harsh punishment and is not exempted simply due to Adam’s leadership failures.
I have thought this for some time really. The Church, when dealing with male/female issues, has simply stopped being Christian. Arguments inspired by the ambient cultural trends are trotted out such that in Christ there is no male and female and the like, when, in dealing with things on this earth as between husbands and wives, Paul had very express teachings which were in harmony with Genesis rather than in abrogation of it, as our modernist neo-Christian friends would have things. In a very real sense, much of the Church (in all of its variants, sadly) has become post-Christian — only a faithful remnant remains.
Alas…
Carnivore
February 29, 2012 at 9:47 pm
Yeah, Brendan is one sharp dude. I met him first at the Spearhead as Novaseeker.
As St. Jerome said, “the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian.” Only in our case, the whole world found itself following the modernist heresy.
Will S.
February 29, 2012 at 9:52 pm
Yes, I’ve been appreciating him since his blogging, Novaseeker days, too.
Sad, how even in trad churches, we find ourselves confronting this, all too often. I only hope it means the time is growing shorter. But it could be just so for the West; the Church is thriving in places like Africa, where it is more traditional and Scriptural, and with proper understandings of men and women, too, not to mention homosexuality, etc.
Simon Grey
February 29, 2012 at 11:21 pm
Amen, Brendan. Each of us has to give an account for our actions, and each of us will answer to God for actions. And each of us is responsible for actions; we cannot blame anyone else.
Will S.
March 1, 2012 at 12:57 am
Exhibit A: Prof. Mike S. Adams:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/pro-lifers-should-not-condone-premarital-sex-as-a-pathway-to-marriage/
Wintery Knight
March 1, 2012 at 3:25 am
Hey Will, can you tell me which blogs in the manosphere are written by conservative evangelical Christians? I would appreciate it.
will
March 1, 2012 at 6:21 am
Christianity is blamed for forced adoption by the commentators check it out:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/how-a-defiant-young-mother-kept-her-baby-20120301-1u468.html
Single mothers are now heroic.
Will S.
March 1, 2012 at 7:51 am
“Papa don’t preach…”
Will S.
March 1, 2012 at 8:00 am
@ Wintery Knight: On our blogroll: Elusive Wapiti; Full of Grace, Seasoned with Salt; Christian Feminism Watch; Samson’s Jawbone; Biblical Manhood. Google Haley’s Halo; we don’t link her though since she’s pro-fag (works in LA in the film industry, figures), to the point of banning me for using the terms queer, homo, and sodomite; kinda compromising, that.
Other than that, don’t know. There may be other Christians who are evangelical but I don’t know it, because they don’t self-identify readily as such, and all I know is they’re Christian.
Are you evangelical?
In any case, you’ve just been added.
Svar
March 1, 2012 at 8:11 am
I hate heretic drivel. Women are getting off too easy while pastors find it okay to heap loads upon loads of shit upon the men. It would be okay for them to heap shit on the men if they were to only actually keep the women in like.
Alas, reading what I’ve read so far over here and over at Chronicles with Aaron D. Wolf’s articles, I do not think that is the case.
Cranberry
March 1, 2012 at 8:14 am
Being Christian is haaaard! Very hard. I keep falling down on the Path back home, and take lots of rest breaks. Reading the Catholic mystics is helpful; St. John of the Cross is especially illuminating for me at the moment.
Brendan highlights that there is a problem of interpretation or comprehension in the story of the Fall. It seems harsh and critical only to women in most feminist minds. Feminists see the story of the Fall as one which blames women for all evil, forever*, and it is their duty to turn that narrative around (while perpetuating evil). I am baffled by it, because if Christianity does anything for women and men, it opens up a path to forgiveness and a way to fight evil, the means to master the Self and master temptation, the means to celebrate the life we’ve been given.
I’ve been thinking about this issue of self-master lately, since I re-read a passage in the Catholic Catechism about chastity in relation to the story of the lesbian who was denied communion. To live in a way which does not offend God is to master temptation, to master the Self, and to accept that some things are just not good for us. Sometimes, we need leaders to show us how to do this; it does not happen organically, which is why we are here – to help each other, to guide each other. Some people are neither good guides (Adam) nor good followers/students (Eve) and must suffer for it, but that does not mean all is forever lost, as the chances for redemption are myriad. Nothing happens without our own efforts to overcome temptation.
*I wonder if feminists feel the same way about Pandora, or if they forgive that story because it’s only Greek mythology and not part of an established religion?
Svar
March 1, 2012 at 8:16 am
Hey, Will, looks like we have another! A truly conservative Evangelical.
Wintery Knight, I mainly flooded our blogroll with Roman Papists. Guess it’s the Team Rome mindset.
Svar
March 1, 2012 at 8:22 am
“Being Christian is haaaard! Very hard.”
Yep.
“*I wonder if feminists feel the same way about Pandora, or if they forgive that story because it’s only Greek mythology and not part of an established religion?”
I remember back in English class. I had a fruity male professor. They do. It was a an established religion at one point and created a great civilization(unlike anything the leftists/feminists have proposed) so I’m sure they hate that story. Just not as much as the Eve one, because no one believes in the Pantheon anymore.
Cranberry
March 1, 2012 at 8:53 am
I suppose that last question was rhetorical; Pandora is forgiven, and the reason is thus: it is a myth from a long-ended civilization and a long dead religion.
When seen through the lens of perpetual victimhood that glazes feminist vision, the story of Adam and Eve is difficult to parse as one of blame for both sexes. It’s as though something in the glass distorts Adam’s part in the whole thing and people forget that he was also denied paradise and had to live with his shame.
Will S.
March 1, 2012 at 9:06 am
@ Cranberry: Feminists see everything only through their female-victim lens, and so the Genesis account has got to either go or be reinterpreted in light of their ideology. Sad, indeed. A severe misreading.
@ Svar: Yes, we do!
@ Wintery Knight: BTW, welcome to our corner of the manosphere! We are traditionalist Christians who’ve taken the Red Pill: some trad Protestants (e.g. I’m Reformed, i.e. Calvinist; Ulysses is trad. Episcopalian), some Catholic (e.g. Svar and ElectricAngel), and while we are harsh on evangelicalism in terms of its propensity to churchianity / spinelessness in truly confronting cultural rot / giving into it all-too-often; as I demonstrated in my previous comment to you, we have evangelical friends amongst our commentors and on our blogroll. I used to be evangelical, myself (before that, mainline). Cheers.
Elusive Wapiti
March 1, 2012 at 11:33 am
Will, thanks for the mention and Brendan/Novaseeker can always be counted upon to elevate the conversation.
Will S.
March 1, 2012 at 11:44 am
Hey EW, you’re welcome!
Oh yes, it’s a shame he’s not blogging himself any more. But he’s greatly appreciated as a prolific commenter still, very much.
Chris
March 1, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Will, what do you mean by evangelical? In my part of the commonwealth, it means fairly calvinist — Westminster confession types like me would be considered evangelical in contrast to the liberals, or the pentecostals.
I’m aware that many of the big churches that are “evangelical” function from a prosperity doctrine and holiness (or pentecostal) point of view. But they were not called evangelical when I was a kid.
WintryKnight — denominations or even branches of the faith don’t seem to work much anymore. There are freakingly scarily liberal Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans (and then Catholics, who make the others look lukewarm in their progressivism). And then there are those who are faithful. At present arguing over Mary, the symbols of communion, the number of sacraments and bishops vs elders is not useful. Standing firm in the faith and resisting the federal takeover of all aspects of our lives — including the church — is.
Will S.
March 1, 2012 at 2:18 pm
@ Chris: Here in North America, the historic meaning of the word ‘evangelical’ which is still used there in NZ, as in Britain, has been lost; the word ‘evangelical’ has now come to mean what are also known as ‘born-again Christians’, i.e. conservative Protestants of various denominations other than confessional (Reformed, Lutheran), such as Methodists, Baptists, Salvation Army, Pentecostal, various charismatic denominations, and various non-denominational churches, and ‘megachurches’; most of which tend to eschew creeds and confessions, and are similar to fundamentalists in their conservatism, except not explicitly holding to the five fundamentals, and more inclined to engage the world, rather than separate from it as fundamentalists do. They tend to be Arminian / Holiness, or at least non-Reformed, in their doctrines (though not all). The churches that use Hillsongs, or Maranatha! music / praise songs, for example, in worship, would be considered evangelical. They tend to modernize worship, rather than being old-fashioned and traditionalist, though that isn’t universal, by any means. They tend to shy away from explicit doctrinal statements, and emphasis on theology, in favour of right living, politics, and what they share in common with each other rather than their historical differences.
Thus, based on my decade-plus in evangelical churches, how I would characterize them.
Samson J.
March 1, 2012 at 3:05 pm
we don’t link her though since she’s pro-fag
Well, to be fair, I think she isn’t really; I think she probably just has homosexual friends that she wants to engage in a “friendly” rather than hostile manner.
denominations or even branches of the faith don’t seem to work much anymore.
Yeah, definitely, that is why I was surprised when I saw Will calling himself “Reformed but not evangelical”. To me “evangelical” is a mindset, as you say.
Will S.
March 1, 2012 at 3:09 pm
@ Samson: “Well, to be fair, I think she isn’t really; I think she probably just has homosexual friends that she wants to engage in a “friendly” rather than hostile manner.”
Fair enough. But having such as friends, rather than merely being civil to those one must come in contact with, as well as working in the modern Hollywood entertainment industry, is problematic enough, IMO; it compromises one’s witness and one’s values, when one worries about what one’s gay friends may think, in hosting some commenters using truly non-offensive words (I never said ‘fag’ or ‘faggot’ there, just ‘queer’, ‘homo’, and ‘sodomite’.). That’s just sad, IMO.
“Yeah, definitely, that is why I was surprised when I saw Will calling himself “Reformed but not evangelical”. To me “evangelical” is a mindset, as you say.”
I am ‘evangelical’ in the old sense of the term, because I am Reformed. I am also ‘born-again’, as all who truly are Christians must be, since Christ told us to regard ourselves thus, that we must be that.
Gerry T. Neal
March 1, 2012 at 7:47 pm
I still use the word “evangelical” to describe myself, although I have become less comfortable with it as it has increasingly taken on less conservative nuances. I come from a mainstream Protestant background – I was raised United Church of Canada, and my extended family are all either UCC or Anglican. I had an evangelical conversion experience when I was 15 and was baptized a year or two later in an evangelical Baptist church. I attended an evangelical college and seminary (Providence in Otterburne). Over time I developed a greater sense of the importance of the historical creeds and a greater appreciation for liturgy and so I joined an Anglican parish that has strong conservative theology.
Samson J.
March 1, 2012 at 8:09 pm
I was raised United Church of Canada
Weren’t we all!
Svar
March 1, 2012 at 8:52 pm
@ Samson, Will, and Gerry
I find it interesting that you were all raised in the same mainline church. What drove you men towards the traditional churches? Was it a change in politics or a change in doctrine? Both?
Samson J.
March 1, 2012 at 9:21 pm
Well, I was “raised” in the United Church only till about age 10 or so, and by that time the church had pretty much already abandoned its historic faith. I became a typical heathen in my teens, and my conversion to real faith in college was pretty much like anyone’s who wasn’t even raised in church.
It’s an interesting question, though, Svar. The United Church of Canada’s story is a cautionary tale, to be sure.
Will S.
March 2, 2012 at 12:13 am
I started to be discontented with the UCC, when they became pro-gay not only to the point of excusing the lifestyle, but having openly practising gay clergy. I couldn’t abide that, so I quit once I was out from under my parents’ roof; well, within a year of that; I was able to make the break then, psychologically, even though I’d been irritated for a few years earlier, because I was then an adult, responsible to make my own decisions on faith matters, and my parents couldn’t do anything about it.
They also came around eventually, though also for other reasons, and eventually quit the UCC, too.
At the same time, I also began to change politically.
I discovered both evangelicalism and National Review magazine around the same time, and was a typical evangelical neo-con soon after. Yet not entirely; I was neither completely satisfied with evangelicalism, nor with neo-con politics. Eventually, in both cases, I became full-blown dissatisfied. I began to discover paleoconservatism first, and quickly found myself more in tune with it. Later, my dissatisfaction with evangelicalism, drove me to seek alternatives, and after flirting with fundamentalist Baptist churches, with which I wasn’t completely happy, either, I eventually found the Reformed faith, and knew I was spiritually home; at least, once I started attending one, I did.
I continued to evolve slightly, politically, as regards Canadian politics particularly, and became more trad-Red-Tory; later, I discovered the Red Pill.
Now, I’m at home spiritually in the Reformed churches, but find myself much at odds politically with many of my brethren, just as I had been in evangelicalism, but also in Red Pill and some other ways. Oh well. C’est la vie.
Will S.
March 2, 2012 at 12:23 am
@ Svar: That we were all raised in the same church, is interesting indeed, yet at the same time, also not too surprising; it’s still the largest Protestant denomination in Canada, despite hemorraging members badly over the last quarter-century. Back then, it was even bigger. It had been formed from the merger of Methodism, Methodist Episcopal, and Presbyerianism; thus, it was quite large at that time in 1925, and has remained large, even though now not nearly as much.
Lots of Canadians were raised UCC…
Svar
March 2, 2012 at 8:41 am
“It’s an interesting question, though, Svar. The United Church of Canada’s story is a cautionary tale, to be sure.”
Thanks, Samson. I just found it interesting that the three most conservative Canadians I know went to the same liberal mainline church.
Svar
March 2, 2012 at 9:11 am
“I started to be discontented with the UCC, when they became pro-gay not only to the point of excusing the lifestyle, but having openly practising gay clergy. I couldn’t abide that, so I quit once I was out from under my parents’ roof; well, within a year of that”
“At the same time, I also began to change politically.”
I had believed all the stupid leftie crap about women(read: men bad) and about race(read: whites bad) and about the Jews(read: Christians caused the Holocaust) and even economics(read: everyone should get free stuff). But, there were two issues that I could not stand: homosexual activism and gun rights. I was disgusted by how the Left was promoting the former and trying to normalize when I knew with every fiber of my being that homosexuality is deviant and unnatural. Deep down inside even the most ardent liberals and flaming homos know this to be true. That reality is what enrage them. As for gun rights, the arguments that the Left made were complete shit and continually debunked by the Right. And that, is why I became a Neo-Con.
“I discovered both evangelicalism and National Review magazine around the same time, and was a typical evangelical neo-con soon after. Yet not entirely; I was neither completely satisfied with evangelicalism, nor with neo-con politics. Eventually, in both cases, I became full-blown dissatisfied.”
Same here. I used to be Fox News junkie and I was sympathetic to Christianity and even thought I was one.
“I continued to evolve slightly, politically, as regards Canadian politics particularly, and became more trad-Red-Tory; later, I discovered the Red Pill.”
I actually discovered the Red Pill first before I delved into Paleoconservatism. I do not remember how I stumbled upon the Manosphere(I think I was pissed off at feminists for some reason) but I remember clicking upon The Spearhead. And from there In Mala Fide, Roissy, and Hawaiian Libertarian. This was all about two to three years ago. I ended up learning a lot. At that time, I rejected neo-conservatism and could be best described as an “Enjoy the Decline” type.
Then I remember coming across Traditional Catholicism(and before that Traditional Marriage) and I was intrigued. I started to see the connection between certain Red Pill ideas and traditional gender roles promoted by Christianity. I started to think “if Christianity had been right about this for so long, what else has it been right on?”. By this time, I had already begun to not think much about Evangelicalism and the mainline churches. To be honest, I didn’t think much of most Catholics either(still don’t, especially the American ones) but I was intrigued by Catholicism. I had three choices in mind: some sort of traditional hard-line Protestantism, traditional Catholicism, or one of the Eastern churches. Obviously, I chose the middle one.
“Now, I’m at home spiritually in the Reformed churches, but find myself much at odds politically with many of my brethren, just as I had been in evangelicalism, but also in Red Pill and some other ways. Oh well. C’est la vie”
Yep. Same here. To be honest, I have much more in common with you men(trad Prots) than I do with the vast majority of American Catholics. Politically, yes, but also in terms of basic doctrine. No female “priests”, no Christo-feminism, and adherence to creeds and confessionals, and none of that gay rights in church bullshit. I also like how your churches don’t have guitars, praise bands, Hilsong, and Marantha! crap either.
Will S.
March 2, 2012 at 10:25 am
Yeah, I used to be quite liberal too, on everything save homosexuality. And because that became such a cause celebre for the left, as well as the United Church, it was the catalyst for my discontent with both, because like you, I knew in my guts how profoundly wrong the UCC and the left were about it.
So, I’d like to say, thank you stupid leftists out there, for making ‘gay rights’ the end-all, be-all, of your politics and mainline churches; your doing that, drove me away from you, despite how much I was otherwise in agreement, on things like abortion, euthanasia, ‘racism’, etc. You leftist twits drove me out of your churches and political camps, for which I am grateful. Had y’all not been so stupid, had you been focused on the working man and his situation, criticizing materialist capitalist excess, etc., like you used to, you mighta kept me. Fools.
Gerry T. Neal
March 2, 2012 at 11:00 am
Svar: “I find it interesting that you were all raised in the same mainline church. What drove you men towards the traditional churches? Was it a change in politics or a change in doctrine? Both?”
My evangelical conversion at age 15 and the direction the UCC was taking at the time – the same one Will S. referred to above led to my leaving the UCC. Thanks to a Christian neighbour I had a place to go, an evangelical Baptist church, in which I was baptized (I had not been baptized as an infant in the UCC, so I can with good conscience recite the part of the Creed that says “and in one baptism”). It was in my last year of formal theological studies that my view of Church history changed when I realized that the “Constantine created the Catholic Church” doctrine held by many fundamentalist Protestants was no different from the view of Church history held by all the cults that have been reviving early church heresies. This changed my theology. I realized the importance of the Creeds as the standard of orthodoxy, I came to agree with the Lutheran/Anglican view of the sacraments. When my theology shifted in this direction I had basically two options – Lutheran and Anglican. I had some Anglicanism in my background having become familiar with the Book of Common Prayer and the Anglican Journal when visiting my paternal grandmother. I knew of an Anglican parish that was an “Essentials” church, I began attending its traditional, BCP Holy Communion services, and immediately had that “at home” feeling.
A longer version of this story is found in my essay “Testimony of a Tory”.
Svar
March 2, 2012 at 2:30 pm
“So, I’d like to say, thank you stupid leftists out there, for making ‘gay rights’ the end-all, be-all, of your politics and mainline churches; your doing that, drove me away from you, despite how much I was otherwise in agreement, on things like abortion, euthanasia, ‘racism’, etc.”
Yes, “gay rights” and gun control were the two main reasons why I left. I didn’t know much about either abortion or euthanasia(as in I was too young to even know that people actually did those kinds of things), but when I did I became firmly against the Left. When I learned about abortion, I was horrified. I had always found it to be abhorrent.
“You leftist twits drove me out of your churches and political camps, for which I am grateful. Had y’all not been so stupid, had you been focused on the working man and his situation, criticizing materialist capitalist excess, etc., like you used to, you mighta kept me. Fools.”
The latter, “materialistic capitalist excess” and the lack off focus on the working man as well as my increased anger towards Israel and the Jewish lobby was what led me away from the neo-conservatives(which Dr. Trifkovic rightfully describes as the bastard children of Trotsky) into the ranks of the paleocons.
“you mighta kept me. Fools.”
Eh… It was all for the better, wasn’t it?
Svar
March 2, 2012 at 2:32 pm
“My evangelical conversion at age 15 and the direction the UCC was taking at the time – the same one Will S. referred to above led to my leaving the UCC.”
So you were younger than Will when you became disgruntled. I take it that you were raised into a conservative family.
“A longer version of this story is found in my essay “Testimony of a Tory”.”
Sounds interesting. I’ll go read it.
Will S.
March 2, 2012 at 2:50 pm
I became disgruntled roughly around the same age as Gerry, it would seem, but I took longer to leave the UCC.
It certainly was for the better, Svar, that the left lost me, and the trads / paleos got me ultimately, instead.
I do miss the old left, though; the one that cared about the working man and his plight, and about corporate greed, etc., rather than the group identity-politics, anti-white, anti-male, anti-straight, anti-Christian, envious-and-hateful left which replaced it. The older kind could help keep in check some of the worst impulses of both neo-conservatism and mushy liberalism, if it were still around, the way it used to, in Canada at least.
Sometimes, I dream I’m back in the United Church, like I was a kid again; in a nice old church building, with familiar surroundings, hymns, and WASP / Scotch-Irish folks around me, unlike all the Dutchies today. I became Christian through it, notwithstanding its own apostasy, esp. now… I still have some sentimental affection towards the UCC, the church of my youth, despite how strongly I oppose what they’ve done / become, over time.
Will S.
March 2, 2012 at 2:51 pm
I have skimmed your piece there, Gerry, previously; I intend to read it in more detail soon.
Will S.
March 2, 2012 at 3:04 pm
@ Samson: How about you? What led you to leave the UCC? Was it the move in the UCC in a ‘gay rights’ direction, the way that issue and/or that whole mindset was the catalyst for both Gerry and I?
Samson J.
March 2, 2012 at 3:53 pm
I “left” it when my family stopped going to church, when I was 10 or so. When I became an actual Christian, in university, I didn’t go back to it because it was readily apparent that it wasn’t offering the kind of faith I was looking for.
Will S.
March 2, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Ah, a different trajectory than Gerry and mine, indeed.
Gerry T. Neal
March 2, 2012 at 6:07 pm
“So you were younger than Will when you became disgruntled. I take it that you were raised into a conservative family.”
Yes. My parents were both small-c conservatives and big-C Conservatives in the 80′s, who supported Mulroney at first but became disillusioned with him. My uncle – my mother’s brother – subscribed to the Alberta Report, and his mother, my maternal grandmother also read the Report and introduced me to it in my late teens. I was already a conservative at the time – indeed, I have been a conservative of one sort or another for as long as I have had political ideas of any kind.
Will S.
March 2, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Whereas my parents, a teacher and a librarian, are decidedly NOT Conservatives, always tending between Liberal and NDP. They don’t agree with things like ‘gay rights’, though; never have; they are more orthodox than that in their faith, for which I am glad, notwithstanding their unfortunate politics.
Will S.
March 2, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Which is to say, I was raised in an orthodox Christian home, albeit within the UCC, and with parents of a much more left / liberal bent than I presently have, by which I was influenced, till I could form my own views as an adult.
pb
March 2, 2012 at 6:47 pm
I am reminded of Scott Hahn’s explanation of original sin and Genesis. I guess after being exposed to the manosphere I can add the adjective of “white-knighting” to his theology.
Svar
March 2, 2012 at 7:03 pm
“Whereas my parents, a teacher and a librarian, are decidedly NOT Conservatives, always tending between Liberal and NDP. They don’t agree with things like ‘gay rights’, though; never have; they are more orthodox than that in their faith, for which I am glad, notwithstanding their unfortunate politics.”
Your parents are ridiculously similar to mine. Unbelievably similar. My parents are pro-Democrat in general(though neither are that political), but they are staunchly against ‘gay rights’ as well. I don’t really know much of their other politics though.
“Which is to say, I was raised in an orthodox Christian home, albeit within the UCC”
How orthodox could the UCC be?
Svar
March 2, 2012 at 7:07 pm
“indeed, I have been a conservative of one sort or another for as long as I have had political ideas of any kind.”
To be honest, I think I was as well. When I was too young to understand politics, I was a fan of Bill Clinton mainly because my parents loved him so much. I had no clue what he was about but I liked him because my parents did. Cult of personality.
Of course, I disliked him upon becoming a Republican, when I had grown old enough to have some understanding of society and politics.
And now, I hate the Republican Party.
Svar
March 2, 2012 at 7:08 pm
What was Scott Hahn’s explanation of original sin and Genesis, PB?
Will S.
March 3, 2012 at 12:25 am
@ Svar: I said my home was orthodox, i.e. my parents were, our family was, even though it was within the context of a less-than-ideal (to say the least) denomination.
Will S.
March 3, 2012 at 9:22 am
I’m sure pb will respond himself later, but in any case, out of sheer curiosity, I have googled pb’s reference to Scott Hahn and his view of Original Sin; sounds disturbingly unorthodox and white-knighting, indeed:
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4093070&postcount=10
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/note.jsp?print=1&did=0105-notes-hahn
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-sands_celebrity.htm
I see that Hahn was a thenomist before converting to Roman Catholicism; knowing a thing or two about theonomists, I’m not surprised that he is equally ‘innovative’ in his theology as a Catholic as he would have been as a Calvinist. (I’m not going into it here, but theonomists are on the fringes of Calvinism, generally looked askance at by the rest of us, for their beliefs that Old Testament law is supposed to still be in effect; we disagree, to say the least.)
Gabriella
March 3, 2012 at 9:34 am
Why don’t you guys add a recent comments widget? It makes it much easier to keep up with conversations on my cell phone.
Will S.
March 3, 2012 at 9:35 am
That’s an idea.
Will S.
March 3, 2012 at 9:38 am
Done.
Svar
March 3, 2012 at 9:59 am
Gabriella, can’t you see that we’re having man-talk?
Frauen…
Will S.
March 3, 2012 at 10:05 am
Actually, I’d thought about that before; it’s easy for us admins to follow comments thread from our dashboard, but others couldn’t do so, so I decided to follow her excellent suggestion. We now have a recent comments widget.
Svar
March 3, 2012 at 10:17 am
I also thought that we needed a recent comments widget as well.
But Will. You know how the rules of our site works-they’re completely arbitrary. Gabby should have submitted an essay(far, far away from our man-talk) on the pros of having a recent comment widget. It should have been a full page, single-spaced, type 12 font, with examples and sources.
Even though I am greatly irked, I think I can find it in my heart to forgive her-this time.
Will S.
March 3, 2012 at 10:18 am
LOL; yeah, a missed opportunity, there.
pb
March 3, 2012 at 10:44 am
Thanks Will S. for those links. Svar, I don’t know if what Scott Hahn wrote about the Holy Spirit was misunderstood by his critics. I’d have to read what he wrote again; he could be just stretching appropriation (and analogy) too far and coming to iffy conclusions. Anyway, his explanation of original sin, at least several years ago, was that Adam failed to protect Eve from the dragon out of fear.
pb
March 3, 2012 at 10:47 am
Here’s another discussion thread – http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=262940&page=1
Will S.
March 3, 2012 at 10:52 am
@ pb: You’re welcome. Cheers.
“Anyway, his explanation of original sin, at least several years ago, was that Adam failed to protect Eve from the dragon out of fear.”
Which is quite a hell of a stretch; nothing in the text suggests that, at all. And furthermore, we know that the one thing Adam and Eve were forbidden to do, was to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; thus, Adam’s failure to ‘protect’ (as if they were in any physical danger, pre-Fall, in the Garden of Eden), does not qualify; since their eyes were only opened to sin with the eating of that fruit, and since immediately in the text after their doing so, God confronts them over their hiding from Him, and their partaking of the fruit, and pronounces the Curse / the Fall, it’s clear that their sin was in partaking of that fruit, as well as Adam’s allowing Eve to feed him the fruit, and Eve’s eating it herself, too. Nothing in the text says Eve was threatened by the serpent; on the contrary, the text shows Eve was lied and deceived, by the serpent, and that she ignored the command to not partake, ate, and gave to Adam, and he also ate. No force-feedings going on; just beguiling. How Hahn got that out of the text, is a mystery. And wrong, clearly.
Svar
March 3, 2012 at 10:56 am
Gentlemen, I think it is best to use the David Collard intepretation of Genesis: “Look what happens when you listen to your wife”.
A far more logical and orthodox interpretation.
Will S.
March 3, 2012 at 10:57 am
Exactly.
Samson J.
March 4, 2012 at 7:56 pm
theonomists are on the fringes of Calvinism, generally looked askance at by the rest of us, for their beliefs that Old Testament law is supposed to still be in effect; we disagree, to say the least
I have a lot of sympathy for theonomists, actually, Will; in fact, one of my favourite bloggers is a theonomist. I think you’ve slightly mischaracterized their views, but it’s a topic for another time.
Will S.
March 6, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Ah. Interesting.
There are of course different branches within theonomy, I realize. But I’m quite certain that I get them correctly, in saying that, generally speaking, they would have a state church, and Biblical Law, even OT Biblical Law, as the law of the land; at least, that’s what the likes of Gary North have articulated.
And I also know I’m not wrong to say it is a minority position within the Reformed fold; most people in confessing Reformed denominations are not theonomists, though there are a fair number of theonomists in the blogosphere, and writers, with much clout, certainly. But for now, their political vision is not widely shared by the rest of the Reformed world.
But yes, perhaps it’s best left as a subject for another occasion – and another place: perhaps you may wish to bring it up at your blog, and we could have a discussion there.
Brandon
March 11, 2012 at 8:51 pm
Yep. Most men have been doing the Adam and Eve thing since at least 1920. Eve has been feeding Adam the fruit of the wicked tree and he’s been going along to get along since. When the male goes along the roles become reversed and the male becomes female-ized in the process. However, the change is coming, for the “answer” to Jezebel is a strong domineering male who causes Jezebel to be “put to sleep”- Rev.2:22-23.
Will S.
March 12, 2012 at 3:20 am
Sounds like God Himself will take care of such.