-
“Let’s Get This Done”
November 8, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Re: Joe Frazier
November 8, 2011 | 3 comments
-
Deep Thoughts from Occupy Wall Street Toronto
October 24, 2011 | 12 comments
-
The Revolution Goes Trick or Treating
October 17, 2011 | 2 comments
-
Take That, Internet!
October 17, 2011 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Mark Hemingway eviscerates the latest smear-campaign-as-news bit on Sharron Angle.
Ryan| 7.21.10 @ 10:16AM
I'm REALLY glad that Hemingway used "hyper-Calvinism" in his description. It's a far more accurate description, and there are many people who misunderstand Calvinism and lump us all together.
The article is mostly accurate.
There's a lot of leftists complaining and trying to use "Christian Reconstructionism" as a blanket term when they don't understand the theology behind it.
There IS a strand of Arminianism that is, in a sense, attempting to push forward some conditions for the Rapture, and they wind up with similar end goals.
Margie| 7.21.10 @ 11:41AM
Personally~ I ignore these things. I am a Christian and care not to join in or be any part of any faction or denomination, which are nothing more than vehicles to divide.
I will stick to this: "Jesus said to him, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me. Jn. 14:6.
Ryan| 7.21.10 @ 2:19PM
There's a point to be made that the different denominations have their strengths as well; those who emphasize that their denomination are the only ones heavenbound within the evangelical movement aren't really all that common, just outspoken.
And, btw, you're making a historically factional statement, and joining in with some who have participated - beneficially - in dissention; solus Christus came about because of it.
Margie| 7.21.10 @ 2:47PM
Ryan, I am happy to report to you that I have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't go to the school of indoctrination and never will. As I said~ I will stick to, no not only stick to but cling to Jesus Himself.
Ryan| 7.21.10 @ 3:51PM
What's "the school of indoctrination?"
Look up "solus christus," and you'll see what I am talking about.
Your theology (yes, you have one - everyone does) was not made up in a vacuum, and has historical roots that go back maybe further than you think...and you may be surprised how, at some point, it was unorthodox.
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.21.10 @ 1:07PM
These accusations against Angle would be a joke in any State...except LasVegas...uh Nevada.
There? Who knows?
Red Phillips | 7.21.10 @ 1:50PM
For the record, most Southern Baptists are not Arminian in the strict sense of that term. What most Southern Baptists believe is something of a middle ground between doctrinaire Calvinism and Arminianism. This is debatable, but arguably modern Baptist can more directly trace their lineage to Calvinist origins, and there is a sizable and active effort within the Southern Baptists Convention to return it to what they see as its Calvinist roots. Hemingway is right that Southern Baptists are by and large pre-mil, although that is changing somewhat as well.
That said, liberals and journalists (sorry I repeat myself) are appallingly ignorant of Christian theology. If Sharon Angle is a practicing Southern Baptist it is almost certain that she is not a Reconstructionist.
But also, I don’t think Christians running screaming from the Reconstructionist label as if it is some sort of slur is helpful either. It is often inaccurately applied, and if it is this should be pointed out. But Reconstructionism is a precise theological term indicating a precise set of theological beliefs. As such it rises and falls solely on whether or not it is a sound interpretation and application of Scripture. It is not wrong because it has a high PC ick factor or because it is somehow inconsistent with the “American way.” It is either a sound interpretation of the Word of God, or it is not.
Also, Christian Reconstructionism is not a matter of “hyper-Calvinism” per se, although all Reconstructionist are Calvinists. Reconstructionists do not necessarily hold to the “five points” more strongly than non-Reconstructionist Calvinists. It is a matter of a difference over a particular application of doctrine.
For the record also, I am neither a Southern Baptist (I am a Baptist), a doctrinaire Calvinist, nor a Reconstructionist. I just hate imprecision, and I hate it when conservatives and Christians dance to the PC tune. “Ewww… I not one of those icky kinds of conservatives/Christians.” For Christians, the claims of the Reconstructionists should be supported or countered on the basis of theology alone, not its conformity or lack there of with modernism, the American way, the Constitution or whatever.
Ryan| 7.21.10 @ 2:24PM
I agree here, though I would state that Reconstructionism is not necessarily the logical end, but the reach to it almost has to come from hyper-Calvinism; but there are also some semi-historical Calvinist roots.
Pre-millenialism and its parent, dispensationalism, are VERY modern ideas (late 1800s) that came about just before and with modern evangelicalism - historical Christianity essentially preaches a sort of Reconstructionism - that the Church will be triumphant.
Some people just take the matter of what amounts to theocracy a bit too far.
Red Phillips | 7.21.10 @ 3:05PM
Calvinism in most people's minds, for better or for worse, means the "five points," but the five points are only a part of what is more broadly the Reformed theology umbrella. It might be somewhat accurate to describe Reconstructionism as hyper-Reformed, but hyper has a pejorative meaning that I think it is best to avoid. It is still either correct or incorrect.
You are right about the modern origins of dispensationalism, a point I have made to Margie repeatedly. My point applies to dispensationalism as well. It is either a correct or incorrect interpretation. But its modern origin argues against the idea that it is somehow self-evidently the “plain reading” of the Bible.
Ryan| 7.21.10 @ 3:56PM
I don't mind using "hyper," - it's accurate and the only people offended by it are probably a bit too touchy anyway (and probably think they're the only ones heavenbound in any case). If there's a less "mean" one, I'm willing to use it, I suppose.
I think that rapture theology specifically doesn't lend itself to "plain reading" (it's more of an inference from scripture rather than specifically spelled out), but covenant theology doesn't always fit all that well with Revelation, either.
I'm a bit of a mix of dispensationalism and covenant theology, myself, and don't cast much aspersions on the end times; though I DO like the idea that the Church - through God's grace - gets to win.
God has all that well in hand. Any statement beyond "Christ is coming back and we're closer today than yesterday" is all speculation.