arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
Egalitarian is not confessional and it's not liberal per se. I know what you mean but, again please let's parse things properly.
Sons of Patriarchy
- Thread starter Guido's Brother
- Start date
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
"When used as a doctrinal term within Christianity, egalitarianism has a narrower meaning, suggesting that God does not intend any distinctions between men and women in matters of spiritual leadership."
Friend, this is liberalism. It is a direct contradiction to what Scripture teaches. That is to be liberal when it comes to the word of God.
Yes. It is liberal.
itsreed
Puritan Board Freshman
I read the thread.
At one point, Pastor Smythe, as to his motivation, says he’s on this because he thinks Bell “throw(s) men and churches I love under the bus to cover your tracks”. What he’s written (expose article) and his X interactions reads like someone trying to muddy someone trying to expose his friends, i.e., Wilson & co.
I.e., it sounds like character assassination in order to obfuscate this issues. This does not encourage trust in his reporting of “sins” of Bell.
I’m inclined to hear Bell out, or at least his guests. I expect it will be a mix of helpful and not helpful.
Im willing to give it a listen, though I’ll be on alert for shenanigans.
Andrew's Myth
Puritan Board Freshman
I'm willing to clear up any questions about this.
I'm no friend of Wilson's, I've frequently been a critic. I could provide examples but if you look they're probably easy enough to find.
As far as this being character assassination, while the matter was initially confronted in public and involved public offenses, we tried to keep this an ecclesiastical matter as much as possible. It has been 5 months since the initial confrontation of Bell and 4 months since our ecclesiastical letter. We tried to spare his reputation as much and as long as we could. The necessity to publish now comes as Bell has removed himself from ecclesiastical oversight and set himself up in a capacity where he is still trying to teach and instruct the church. He has had all this time (and many opportunities, including direct contacts from me) to correct these issues and change course, but he never would, and has seemingly moved further in the wrong direction.
As far as our X exchange yesterday, Peter was still claiming that he was licensed by OURC at the time of our investigation. This is not true. As I said there, I talked to an elder there, and as I said in the article I also confirmed through friends who had access to the URCNA licentiate list--he was not licensed nor a member in the URCNA at the time. But this is in some ways sidestepping the major issue. Peter on his own podcast and its website (even if he did not directly control the website) publicly represented for a year that he was a pastor when he was not and never had been. When initially confronted, he changed a few things to say he was a licentiate (though again, he was no longer a licentiate at the time). I have a podcast, and if, hypothetically, my co-host or other parties assisting us made major misrepresentations about me on my podcast and I allowed them to stand, I would be at least be partially responsible because it's my podcast. Until yesterday that website still listed that Peter was a pastor even as it had been updated to remove him as a co-host.
As I said when I posted the article, I take no joy in doing this. But I'm forced to conclude that Peter's character is questionable at best, and it troubles me to see him still trying to position himself as one speaking to the church (particularly when it involves seeking out and dealing with the particularly vulnerable). As a shepherd, I have a duty to warn the sheep of such things.
TheBoringBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
May you elaborate on this. I've heard of this from other places both secular and Christian. I thought it was just an insult like how some people would call Christians "Jesus Freaks". Is there really a Christian Taliban?
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
I have heard it said of Christian Reconstruction, it was a Christian form of Islam's Sharia law, with death penalties, etc.
Theoretical
Puritan Board Professor
Yep, there's definitely some on the fringes of the movement that you get the sense are really itchy for the prospect of stoning, and stoning both broadly and regularly.
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
Indeed, most (not all) of the names on this list are liberals.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
So a hodge podge?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I look at it the same way I did CT's piece on Driscoll. Driscoll deserved everything he got, but CT is still liberal. I think this will shed some factual light on guys like Webbon and Wilson, even if SoP is liberal. Liberal or not, read Webbon's weekly tweets about killing women in a Christian theocracy.
Scott Clark and Harrison Perkins are not liberals; but they should be careful of the company they keep. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
Andrew's Myth
Puritan Board Freshman
So...ends justify means? It's OK to ally with liberals and potentially lead people astray as long as Wilson and Webbon get theirs?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I’m not addressing whether it is okay, only whether the information is factual
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
Interesting question. The converse, ”whether it is OK to ally with Webbon and Wilson and potentially lead people astray as long as the liberals get theirs” is an recurring topic here with mixed answers from sober minded people. The answer one usually can conclude from a heated 150+ post thread is essentially- it depends.
itsreed
Puritan Board Freshman
Thx for the gracious reply.
I retract my suggestion of “character assassination.”
Ploutos
Puritan Board Junior
I somewhat jokingly request that moderators henceforth pin some version of this post at the top of every future DW thread.
Does error in one thing mean that someone can't credibly articulate and condemn error in another thing?
It's only natural that the particular errors of which the new patriarchalists are accused would find ready argument from both orthodox and liberal christians. In this case, isn't it the strength of the scriptural basis of the argument not the doctrinal fidelity of the argumentor that matters?
Should we spurn the truth just because a liar might speak it for once?
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
Liberalism is a different religion and they generally don't care what Scripture says. That's why they are called liberals. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, there are probably far better people to offer criticism against Wilson, likely on this very message board. Liberals destroy true religion, families, and theology just as bad as the opposite end of the spectrum.
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
Furthermore, what does light have to do with darkness? I would not share a platform with liberalism or wilsonism. I don't think it is right for Orthodox men to be doing this either on the podcast. You are granting legitimacy to enemies of the true gospel.
Guido's Brother
Puritan Board Junior
I participated in this podcast. I'm a confessionally Reformed minister, subscribing without reservations to the Three Forms of Unity. In my view, the podcast is like a pro-life rally in the community. There are going to be Roman Catholics there. There may be gospel-endangering Arminians there. Some of them may speak, some of them may pray. But we share the common goal of eradicating abortion and we're free to follow our own beliefs in so doing. Similarly, there are people in this podcast that I don't see eye-to-eye with theologically. But we share the common goal of addressing the problems associated with DW, especially all the abuse situations. I'm not being hindered from speaking the truth as I do that. Going forward, as the podcast episodes drop, I may even use my platforms (blog/FB/X) to address any theological errors I hear. But I still stand behind the overall project and I'm glad it's been done. If any confessionally Reformed guys want to bite the bullet and make a podcast featuring people that I can totally agree with on everything, I'll be there for that too (if asked). But, sadly, it seems like very few Reformed guys actually want to stick their necks out on this.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
Sorry, some of those names aren't 'liberal.' I disagree with them but, they aren't 'liberal.' I've learned a few things from them, but not necessarily about the Bible...Better to term them as non- or even anti- confessional, while a few are 'evangelicals' in the Big Eva sense unfortunately.
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
That could be and that is sad. I do think some are, they just don't have a big eva platform.
However, it is likely people like Bryd and Dumuz will not only attack DW, but also any type of male leadership in the church or home. I hope I am wrong though.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I am too. We disagreed earlier on this topic.
Last edited:
PhilalethesIrenaeus
Puritan Board Freshman
Who could have predicted such tragedy?
Sorry if I am bitting in but isn't Doug Wilson self ordained? Maybe I am thinking about someone else.
I've been absent a bit but Robert Clark has his Radical Two Kingdom theology issues and his very poor hermeneutic concerning law and grace.
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Senior
I personally would keep such opinion private regarding a minister of a sister church especially when all he is doing is appearing on a podcast here.
Why? The guy has many issues and it has been discussed here before.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
That's correct. He was guitar player in his evangelical free church and then became pastor the next week. He isn't a real minister.
Similar threads
- Locked
