The Case For Christian Nationalism by Stephen Wolfe

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mac

Puritan Board Freshman
Can someone more educated than me comment on this new release from Canon Press? I have my concerns with Canon Press/DW but I’m not sure that I have a full-orbed perspective on what this book is about. It is popping up among our members.
 

B.L.

Puritan Board Sophomore
Can someone more educated than me comment on this new release from Canon Press? I have my concerns with Canon Press/DW but I’m not sure that I have a full-orbed perspective on what this book is about. It is popping up among our members

Perhaps listen to Mr. Wolfe himself -
 

Mac

Puritan Board Freshman
Why is this thread under sub forum Federal Vision?
Maybe it shouldn’t be. I’m a rookie. I watched an interview w/ DW and Stephen Wolfe. Had me concerned. Also saw some stuff on social media from Wolfe ab women not being franchised to vote? Probably should’ve waited to read the book prior to posting.
 

Mac

Puritan Board Freshman
Here’s the social media stuff I referred to
 

Attachments

  • FC06D2A1-52CD-48B2-8580-EDAB22159AF8.jpeg
    FC06D2A1-52CD-48B2-8580-EDAB22159AF8.jpeg
    247.5 KB · Views: 0

Polanus1561

Puritan Board Sophomore
mods just closed the other DW thread to clean up… and now another (in some way related) one pops up on a Lord's Day morning…
 

Tychicus

Puritan Board Freshman
There was a minority of Reformed scholastics that used the language of superadded gifts. They were not the dominant position. Bavinck is clearly in line with Turretin on this.
That's the problem right? One writes an over-the-top review calling the author a Papist, when the same charge could be thrown against Vermigli. I doubt if having Vermigli on your side counts as minority.

I'm not disputing necessarily whether one is in the tradition or not. There's diversity. But you don't go around calling someone a Papist because he quotes Thomas and Suarez, and the reformed Scholastics who utilized them.
 
Last edited:

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
That's the problem right? One writes an over-the-top review calling the author a Papist, when the same charge could be thrown against Vermigli. I doubt if having Vermigli on your side counts as minority.

I'm not disputing necessarily whether one is in the tradition or not. There's diversity. But you don't go around calling someone a Papist because he quotes Thomas and Suarez, and the reformed Scholastics who utilized them.

If I implied any Roman Catholicism on his part, I take that back. I don't think he knows enough about the system to be a papist. I do think he is wrong on the donum superadditum. Yes, earlier Reformers like Vermigli used it, but as Reformed thought crystallized it became apparent that wasn't the best way to speak of it. Donum concreatum is much better.
 

Tychicus

Puritan Board Freshman
If I implied any Roman Catholicism on his part, I take that back. I don't think he knows enough about the system to be a papist. I do think he is wrong on the donum superadditum. Yes, earlier Reformers like Vermigli used it, but as Reformed thought crystallized it became apparent that wasn't the best way to speak of it. Donum concreatum is much better.
Oh, no you didn't, I was referring to the reviewer. I'm still waiting for a solid critique that doesn't go "mUh, sChoLaStiCism tHomAs", or the other route of guilt-by-association.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
Oh, no you didn't, I was referring to the reviewer. I'm still waiting for a solid critique that doesn't go "mUh, sChoLaStiCism tHomAs", or the other route of guilt-by-association.

The dualism critique has some merit. I also think Mattson scored huge points by bringing up Oliver O'Donovan. O'Donovan's works on political theology are a textbook model on how to work through problematic issues in light of Scripture. There is a reason O'Donovan is the gold-standard on political theology.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
The "Christian Platonists" also have to face this challenge.
Agreed. Torrance, James Clerk Maxwell, and Einstein formally killed off any kind of viable Platonism.

And here is an analytical outline of Oliver O'Donovan. Wolfe punted on Scripture. O'Donovan did not. You can tell the difference.
 

Tychicus

Puritan Board Freshman
Wolfe punted on Scripture. O'Donovan did not. You can tell the difference.
Yeah, I saw that criticism. But I'm not sure if that was what he was aiming at. That probably explains the theonomists (Sandlin etc) throwing out all sorts of mind-numbing takes.

I was surprised to see Yoram Hazony's endorsement though, I thought a Burkean like him would find it too idealistic and abstract (from the little I've gathered from Wolfe's book).
 

Tychicus

Puritan Board Freshman
@RamistThomist , do you intend to read the book and write a review? I have a feeling you might have criticisms that I might resonate with, especially your love for Scruton, classical conservatism, and Scholasticism as well.
 

Notthemama1984

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I haven't read the book and don't have an opinion either way, but I wanted to let people know that it is free on kindle unlimited for those that would like to read and interact with. I also did not read every response in this thread so I apologize if someone already mentioned this.
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
@RamistThomist , do you intend to read the book and write a review? I have a feeling you might have criticisms that I might resonate with, especially your love for Scruton, classical conservatism, and Scholasticism as well.

Eventually. It's not important right now. I support limited nationalism against the likes of Bill Gates and George Soros. Christian nationalism is another issue and one that is quite difficult to reconcile with the pilgrim nature of the church in the last days.

Also, I was reading nationalist literature, especially the historical sources like Herder, a decade before any of these guys heard of it.

But to my main problem:

Main problem with Cn Nationalism: (this isn't refutation). What Paul called the "mystery of the ages," (Eph. 3), Jews and other ethnicities eating together, is utterly irrelevant on the CN reading. They don't reject it, to be sure, but it isn't important.
 

PuritanCovenanter

The Joyful Curmudgeon
Staff member
He went to the CREC when the PCA Presbytery wouldn't allow him to do something. That was a long time ago that he went CREC. I remember that. Wow, I just found out he is only a few years older than me. The weight he was pulling and the influence he was wielding seemed to make me think that he was older. He is a dipstick like me. LOL
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
He went to the CREC when the PCA Presbytery wouldn't allow him to do something. That was a long time ago that he went CREC. I remember that. Wow, I just found out he is only a few years older than me. The weight he was pulling and the influence he was wielding seemed to make me think that he was older. He is a dipstick like me. LOL
A friend (Kevin Reed of later Presbyterian Heritage Pub. fame) who largely was responsible for getting me on a reformed presbyterian tract and I went to a theonomist conference at Joe Moorecraft's congregation in Ga. in 1983 or 84 (I forget the actual subject but Rushdooney and Morton Smith were there; it was fairly soon after the Korean airline was shot down but Russia with Rep McDonald on board, a friend of many at the church). We stayed one night in Peter Leithart's parents' home and my friend warned them that it would be no good end or words to that effect, Leithart's following Jim Jordan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top