<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d14792577\x26blogName\x3dPLAIN+PATH+PURITAN\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://electofgod.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://electofgod.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d3757314713231228019', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

7.17.2009

More evidence Reformed academics are man fearing delinquents


Update below...

Over at professor R. Scott Clark's blog he posted an announcement of a new systematic theology written by his academic comrade Michael Horton. The title of the systematic theology is 'The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way.'

I wrote a comment saying, after listening to Horton over the years I don't associate him with the phrase 'pilgrims on the way.' We'll see.

Then a person wrote a reply to me asking what I meant.

I said, the phrase 'pilgrims on the way' suggests things like spiritual warfare, a subject academic Reformed Christians rarely mention let alone write about. Also, practical level Christian practices such as 'watchfulness', which, for instance, the old Dutch Calvinists would devote an entire chapter in their systematic theologies, is not a subject one associates with Horton. But, we'll see.

Clark deleted both comments.

What could have cracked in his brain to make him delete both comments? You decide.

Christianity is not for common dopes. It's also not for sterile academics who can't discern philosophy from theory from practical level doing, and who also operate too easily in environments of man fearing and being respecters of persons.

My comments should have, if even taken notice of, brought out a defense (or an explanation of why Reformed academics avoid the subject of spiritual warfare, a subject the Puritans were known to write about quite extensively). Instead, delete, ban, bye.

Academic Christians. One wonders what will happen to them the moment they have to face the devil one on one. The first words out of their mouths: "My institution was actually more secular than most seminaries, I swear!"

* * * * * * *

Here's an update. This is usually what happens when these churchian creeps delete someone's comments and ban them. They post the response from the person and cite it as 'evidence' that their action in banning the person was justified. This is like sucker punching someone on the street, getting your ass kicked in response, then saying to the people gathered: "See? This is why I sucker-punched this person to begin with. Obviously this is a violent person!"

So this academic pantload, R. Scott Clark, posts my immediate response to his deleting my two (rather extremely innocuous, though obviously stinging) comments:



July 17, 2009 at 2:42 pm

DT has been banned. He’s so full of the Spirit, this is what he last wrote:

“Wow. You deleted those two comments? You filthy romanist piece of ****. Die in the arms of your fag pope. You academics are unregenerate ****.”

Of course he said it all in the love and grace of Christ.


Yes, that is vintage me when dealing with churchians who set themselves up as leaders and teachers of Christians. Clark is a sacramentalist wimp, one and a half baby steps from the Beast of Rome's teats.

And like any good Village of Morality alder he thinks "the love and grace of Christ" means always using fake, political language. No, when dealing with churchianity shit you use *direct* language.

So why did Clark get stung by the comment about Reformed academics avoiding the subject of spiritual warfare (unlike Reformed theologians of the past)? Because it exposes them.

1 Comments:

Anonymous ct said...

A similar thing to this subject: When Robert L. Reymond published his New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith he was asked why he didn't have a chapter on angels. The questions turned into insinuations that he didn't believe in the existence of angels. So Reymond turned out an article on angels to quiet such talk. A rather half-hearted article on angels. Mostly the intent of the article was to 'caution' too much thought about angels.

The fact remained: Reymond, a Reformed academic, probably doesn't believe in the existence of angels. He can't say it because it will expose him as not believing the Word of God, but he already took that step when he, along with all his fellow Reformed academic comrades, accepted giddily the 19th century downgrade on the Word of God. That allowed them to not have to believe the Word of God is actually inspired and true. So they play a game, on and on.

The subject of spiritual warfare is similar. The notion of 'spiritual warfare' is comical to Reformed academics. It's like "believing the earth is flat" or some such "uneducated" nonsense.

This all comes down to regeneration. What happens when you are regenerated by the Word and the Spirit? You value the pure and whole - *received* - Word of God as being the actual inspired *Word of God.*

*And* you are confronted by the flesh, the world, and the devil *so that* you *damn well* know what spiritual warfare is.

July 17, 2009 at 5:30 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home