Archive for the ‘pseudo-theology’ Category
Pastors have no business endorsing any politician. They also have no business pretending that their particular candidate has anything remotely messianic about himself or herself. And they certainly have no business suggesting that a serial adulterer and con man is God’s personal choice.
How would they know such a thing if it were even true? They wouldn’t. And they don’t. But like Jerry Falwell Jr and Eric Metaxas, they will say and do anything they have to in order to cozy up to worldly power.
New Spirit Revival Center church pastor Rev. Darrell Scott declared Wednesday that there is a “concentrated satanic attack” being waged against Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who is believed by some evangelicals to be God’s choice for president.
Speaking at the Midwest Vision and Values Pastors Leadership Conference held at his church in Cleveland, Scott who is CEO of the National Diversity Coalition for Trump, revealed at the event that a “nationally known” preacher had warned Trump prior to the launch of his presidential campaign “that if you choose to run for president, there’s going to be a concentrated Satanic attack against you.”
“He said there’s going to be a demon, principalities and powers, that are going to war against you on a level that you’ve never seen before and I’m watching it every day,” Scott said.
These Pentebabbleists don’t speak for God. I doubt they even know God. They certainly don’t speak for Christians and no one in the media, or society, should be so confused as to think they do.
There are several problems with this absurd claim. First, Jesus explained what he was demonstrating at the Supper. It’s not as though the disciples all sat around staring at each other and just automatically knowing what it all meant. Second, this ridiculous statement ignores the numerous remarks by Jesus about his coming death. And third, the notion that the Supper is self-explanatory is insane. And finally, even the meal didn’t ‘fully explain what his forthcoming death was all about’. The early Church reflected on the meaning of his death from the moment it occurred forward. We’re still reflecting on it. Accordingly, the suggestion that it was ‘fully explained’ is, on its face, wrong.
The Bishop is wrong. And his bumper sticker theology is equally wrong.
From a Presbyterian song book…
Via a secret source who has visited a Presbyterian Church
Someone needs drop kicked. And Servetus-ized.
It hasn’t been for a few years and it’s getting in the business of publishing more and more bizarre stuff (apparently the more bizarre the better they like it). If Tyndale and Zondervan publish the rubbish of the far right, WJK has taken on the task of publishing the rubbish of the far left.
I used to love thumbing through the WJK catalog, but anymore I just can’t stomach their questing for obscurity and irrelevance.
I saw this on facebook and swiped it because the comments at the top of the post are right on the mark. The ick factor is off the scale-
Some People Need to Learn to Distinguish Between the Words of Jesus and the Words of His Interpreters
Like Leithart who, without justification or reason, has read John’s rendition of the prayer of Jesus in Chapter 17 of his Gospel as a roadmap of Jesus himself for the future of his Church.
Some ‘theologians’ are genuinely awful at biblical scholarship and vice versa. This is the primary failing of academic theology today: the severing of biblical and theological learning.
At any rate, one needn’t even read the volume to know Leithart is wrong, for two reasons:
- It’s by Leithart.
- It suggests a priori an unsubstantiated notion about the Historical Jesus that cannot be sustained by research.
So here’s something else I won’t be reading.