๐/๐๐ It seems to me that we have the perfect biblical example of what we should do when people misunderstand what weโre trying to communicate. This same thing happened to the Apostle Paul & he set the matter straight in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11.
โน I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral peopleโ
ยนโฐ not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.
โ1 Corinthians 5:9-10, ESV
๐/๐๐ Whatever Paul originally wrote, at least some at Corinth seem to have taken him as calling for Christians to totally withdraw from the world to avoid mingling with sinful people. So, he basically said, โThatโs not what I meant,โ & then went on to explain what he did mean.
๐/๐๐ He wrote:
ยนยน But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindlerโnot even to eat with such a one.
โ1 Corinthians 5:11 ESV
๐/๐๐ Of course, itโs absolutely true that our words are not always heard the way we think they are. All of us have surely had that experience. And sometimes our words are interpreted in the worst possible way, as we see in the examples provided by Greg Johnson.
๐/๐๐ But the ones he gives are so uncharitable they would tend to make me wonder whether the hearer (or reader) had any intention to understand the original words in the first place, especially if the person making those particular misinterpretations claimed to be a Christian.
๐/๐๐ But I have to concede itโs at least possible that such misinterpretations could arise honestly, due to someone having been previously treated in an unfair or unloving manner. Still, responsibility for clear communication is a 2-way street. Every sane person knows this.
๐/๐๐ Iโm responsible to interpret others as charitably as possible & theyโre responsible to do the same for me. And when others misunderstand me, I should charitably assume theyโre not deliberately twisting my words (until they prove otherwise!) & patiently clarify my meaning.
๐/๐๐ And they should accept my clarification. According to the Westminster Larger Catechism, one of the things forbidden by the 9th Commandment (โThou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighborโ) is โmisconstructing intentions, words, and actions,โ (Question 145).
๐๐/๐๐ It seems to me that Greg Johnsonโs examples are helpful if they alert us to some common misinterpretations that others make of common Christian statements so weโre prepared to make the necessary clarifications when theyโre used against us. Itโs good to know this.
๐๐/๐๐ And perhaps we should consider whether in some circumstances we might want to offer our clarifications before those misunderstandings occur, or even change our wording to communicate the same thing to different audiences.
๐๐/๐๐ But if heโs suggesting we shouldnโt use those words at all, thatโs not helpful because they communicate truths in a way most Christians properly understand. And if he has problems with the truths those words are actually meant to convey, we have a much deeper problem.
โข โข โข
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
๐/๐๐ In the wake of the #PCAGA, Kevin Twit (@kevinjtwit) argued that โunion with Christ languageโ is superior to โidentity in Christ language,โ thus setting them at odds with each other & alleging that the latter unduly focuses on believers more than on Christ.
๐/๐๐ This was a sequel to his suggestion on the floor of the GA that those who interpret 1 Cor 6:9-11 as ruling out a โgay Christian identityโ subscribe to a Keswick/Wesleyan view of sanctification (Thursday Closing Business Session, start at 2:05:33.) livestream.com/accounts/85219โฆ
๐/๐๐ Working from Twitโs argument, Greg Johnson (@PcaMemorial) argued that โโidentity in Christโ theologyโ is โquite recent,โ called it a โtheological fad,โ & associated it with the non-Reformed sanctification teaching of Neil T Anderson, Miles J Stanford & Keswick theology.
๐/๐๐ This is highly misleading. If Greg Johnson was trying to say he didnโt think ๐๐๐ฆ of his critics are โsouthern pietistic moralistsโ (whatever thatโs supposed to mean), he failed to communicate it & in fact implied the opposite, even in his attempts to clarify himself.
๐/๐๐ First of all, to claim that itโs even possible to posit that an โan attack from pietistic southern moral๐๐ ๐โ doesnโt intend to imply the existence of actual & particular โpietistic southern moral๐๐ ๐ก๐ โ who are involved in that attack is an exercise in obfuscation.
๐/๐๐ Second, to say, โIโm not intending to paint any of my ๐๐๐๐-๐๐๐๐กโ critics as pietistic moralistsโ is so worded as to seem most likely to be naturally & reasonably understood as implying the existence ๐๐๐-good-faith critics whom he does intend to paint as such.
To say that there's a promise in Scripture that's for Israel but not for the church is contrary to the teaching of the New Testament. All of God's covenant promises are to spiritual Israel and Christians are spiritual Israel.
๐/๐
Being ethnically Jewish does not make someone a true, spiritual Israelite:
ยฒโน No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.
(Romans 2:29a NIV)
๐/๐
Christians are the true circumcision:
ยณ For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the fleshโ
1) Should Calvin have checked with these guys before writing this?:
"He offered as a sacrifice the flesh he received from us, that he might wipe out our guilt by his act of expiation and appease the ๐ญ๐๐๐๐๐โ๐ righteous wrath."
2) Please don't try to retweet this in their threads. Denhollander & I have mutual blocks & I blocked Howard long ago. If you must, give them screenshots. I don't want to interact with them.
"...He has borne the punishment to acquit us; He has made us clean by His blood; He has appeased the wrath of the ๐ญ๐๐๐๐๐ by His own obedience..."
โActs of the Apostles, comment on 20:21, in Torrance & Torrance, eds., Calvin's NT Commentaries, 7:177.
"For we could not believe with assurance that Christ is our redemption, ransom, and propitiation unless he had been a sacrificial victim." (2.16.6, Battles trans.)
2/12: The Latin text, with Calvin's own Greek interpolation, reads:
Neque enim certo confidere possemus, Christum esse แผฯฮฟฮปฯฯฯฯฯฮนฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฮฝฯฮฏฮปฯ ฯฯฮฟฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ แผฐฮปฮฑฯฯฮฎฯฮนฮฟฮฝ, nisi ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ๐ fuisset.
(A. Tholuck, ed., 1846)
3/12: Earlier translations of ๐ฃ๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ have "victim" (Beveridge, 1845), "slaughtered victim" (John Allen, 1813), & "sacrificed offering" (Thomas Norton, 1762), in place of Ford Lewis Battles' (1960) "sacrificial victim."
At the risk of being cited for fulfilling Godwin's Law, Hitler is famous for saying that the bigger the lie, the more weight it carries. And this one's pretty big. Just how big is it? Let's take a look, shall we?
First, let's deal with the smaller lie, that "DiAngelo is just a corporate sensitivity trainer." According to her CV, she's a whole lot more than that. In addition to her Ph.D. dissertation, "Whiteness in Racial Dialogue: A Discourse Analysis"...
...at the U of Washington, she's also served on the faculty there, plus at Smith College & Westfield State U, published 24 peer-reviewed journal articles, authored chapters in 9 books, wrote or co-wrote 3 books, completed 2 academic research projects, & gave 12...