#theology (Discord ID: 469830219889377283) in Willem Petzer Live Chat, page 3
Security Advisory: Links in messages may lead to maliciously operated websites that could track your IP address and reveal your identity, or they may contain harmful files. The DiscordLeaks team does not check links and cannot make any statements about the safety of following these links.
Some ways to protect yourself are:
- Do not open files downloaded from links, and do not run any programs that try to download themselves to your computer.
- Use anonymization measures such as Tor Browser or a VPN.
If you are using the Privacy Badger or other privacy extensions, you may need to whitelist Discord and related domains in order for the images to load.
"I don’t see any reason for misrepresenting my opponents, they’re all so bad they don’t need to be misrepresented. If I misrepresented them, they’d appear better than they are." - Gordon Clark
This is very clarifying to me as a citizen of two kingdoms
@Daniel van Straaten Two Kingdom theology is usually dodgy. Is this in the same vein as Daryl Hart?
What kind of 2k theology does Darryl Hart believe in?
It seems one Kingdom theology is that which got the Jews into rejecting Christ. Sacralism reigned for a century in Europe and still plagued the magisterial reformers.
Modern “Radical 2K” led by David VanDrunen modifies the historic two kingdom doctrine by associating it with a dual ethic consisting of Scripture and “natural law.”
I affirm historic 2K while rejecting VanDrunen’s modification.
Historic radial 2K is what many anabaptist where.
"The moral law says thou shalt not kill. Paul says the magistrate wields the sword and kills legitimately. Moral law does not apply to government in the same way it applies to persons... Nero did not violate God’s law if he executed Christians who obeyed God rather than man. If Paul continued to preach after the emperor said he may not, then Nero was doing what God ordained government to do. Christians don’t get a pass from civil law just because they follow a higher law."
"The lips of the wise disperse knowledge, But the heart of the fool does not do so." Prov 15:7
I recommend the part two sermon on 2k theology on sermon audio too https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=77141712473
I would agree with the Westminster Establishment principle: the church and state are distinct but not wholly separate. They have separate spheres of authority but work hand in hand.
The whole nation should be Christian and it is the role of government to enforce that
Society should not be pluralistic. There should be no other religions in a Christian society
As for Hart I would have nothing to do with him. He goes out of his way to criticise Christians who try to promote Christian values in society.
And his blog is a sewer of antinomian filth
The logical consequence of establishmentarianism is that the civil magistrate holds the keys to the kingdom.
Christ is Lord.
But if it's Biblical it's Biblical. That's why we had the Disruption in Scotland but we still maintained the Biblical Establishment principle
@Malcolm the Seceder How do the Free churches view of the Establishment principle differ from the National church? Where they basically thinking that they should be the established church? Like in the Church of Scotland continuing?
@Daniel van Straaten Well the FPs would say we ARE the true Church of Scotland, Free and Presbyterian. Basically that there should be an established church.
I suppose the FC and FCC would say the same
Indeed. They'd be wrong however 🤷🏻♂️
What do you think of the FCC?
I was in the FCC for a while but became a APC guy.
I think they should have joined us when they split instead of forming a whole new denomination
But now they're too different from us
What is the difference?
They're not KJV only; there's hyper Calvinism lurking in their midst; they're not as strict on dress and lifestyle.
There are some very good fcc ministers but there's not uniformity across the board
I love Maurice Roberts
Yeah he's cool. And JJ Murray
Come into voice chat?
I used to visit JJ Murrays brother near dornoch
Who were the nephilim?
Aren’t they the fallen angels?
Giants refer to original silicon based earth life, nephilim are fallen angels that came here and engineered carbon based life to work for them, apparently the garden of eden was more like the work camp of eden, we angered god by eating from the tree of knowledge became conscious and escaped. Titans are the giants in that passage and the great men of old are giant carbon based humans. Apologies if I went too info wars in here
Spoken like Alex Jones himself would approve of it lol
Many in the early church believed that the "sons of God" - of whom the nephilim are the children- were fallen angels. The view nowadays is that they are the descendants of Seth, i.e. believers, and the daughters of men are the daughters of the Cainites (Cain). And so it was a mixture of believers with the heathen
Following this view the nephilim- or giants- are mighty men of renown but who followed the heathen rather than the true religion. Some have also hypothesised that they may have been of great stature.
For we also read in Genesis 4:26:
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord .
So it was in the line of Seth that true religion was carried followed
@Malcolm the Seceder yeah that's my understanding too... The fallen are those that married outside of the ideology, because the man always takes on the religion of the female as well... I suppose the lefty wild and free spirited hippy chicks ended being more tempting than the proper lady. Who knows why they fall
@Daniel van Straaten <:Willem:469475674508361739> <:Willem:469475674508361739> <:Willem:469475674508361739>
Have you seen this? Pretty thought provoking stuff. https://youtu.be/m_ga0gjX_34
Not a fan of T4G
Kevin de Young is a pretty solid guy though.
For that group
All that "young restless and reformed" is not for me. I prefer the Old, Settled Scottish Presbyterianism
Well there is variations in that group and he is by far the better of them if you want to group him with them.
However if you're looking for a book on the doctrine of God, James Dolezal's "All That is in God" is excellent!
(I hope this doesn't get flagged by the Fake Book Channel Police)
That book appears to have been influential in Kevins talk. It is encouraging that this doctrine was taught to so many at T4G.
Do you ever listen to the Reformed Forum podcasts?
I did yes
There's some really good ones on there
These two are excellent discussions with Dolezal. Very involved but worth the effort.
I wonder if @Willem Petzer get tought this doctrine in his theology course.
I would have thought so. If they're using a good systematic theology it should be there
Some reformed theologians seems not to be a fan of this doctrine.
I enjoyed Carl Truemans podcast on this.
That's brilliant! Where'd you find it?
Oh yeah I see where 🤣
Here are some recordings of Unaccompanied Psalm Singing. This is the old way of singing in the Scottish Presbyterian Churches. Unfortunately it has become very rare and even many congregations which still do it have adopted modern translations of the Psalms. In my church we still use the 1650 Metrical Psalms which were approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
We believe the Biblical rule of worship, amongst other things, requires the exclusive singing of the Psalms without musical accompaniment. Nowadays you'll tend to only find this form of worship in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, but some congregations in the Lowlands still do it. It once was the norm in all Protestant churches.
The first video is an example of Gaelic Psalm Singing. The precentor "puts out the line" which means he songs the line of the Psalm himself and then the line is repeated with the whole congregation joining in. Below that are some English singings (which is the vast majority of Psalm singing now, including my own congregation). English singing is a bit more "polished" sounding than in Gaelic (depending on the congregation!) but still very nice. And of course Biblical.
What is everyone's favourite Christian book? (Other than the Bible!) Few suggestions allowed
Actually for a secular philosopher this is a pretty good explanation of God. Of course the church has formulated a very careful description of God in her Catechisms, but better to be lost for words than to speak nonsense (which admittedly he has done on this subject in other places) @Daniel van Straaten @Conscious Caracal
yes goy, let (((Jordan peterstein))) explain God to you since you know its not like he is an Atheist or anything
Just watch the 1 min video, @Nogals <:IQ:468409414592757780>
just watched it now, he didn't say anything
@Nogals I'm happy with the Westminster Assembly's definition of God. I was merely making a point about secular philosophers thank you very much.
12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
God is nie in die kant van die arme of onderdruktes nie, net soos Hy nie aan die kant van swart, wit of ryk mense is nie - Hy is aan die kant van Sy kinders wie uit verskellende groepe geroep is om sy kerk te vorm deur al die eeue.
Dit lyk of die Belhar belydenis kulturele marxisties propaganda is wat die kerk baie skade aan gedoen het.
God is not in the side of the poor or oppressed, just as He is not on the side of black, white or rich people - He is on the side of His children who are called from different groups to form His church through the centuries.
It seems the Belhar confession is cultural marxist propaganda that has done much harm to the church.
What are you reading these days Daniel?
Half way through Boettner Predestination which is excellent.
I'm reading a book of sermons of one of our ministers that has been published. Also reading a book on the history of American Fundamentalism in the 20th century
Did Hugh Cartwright wrote books? Which book about Fundamentalism is that? Do the FP people have a problem with alcohol?
There is a book of his sermons that has been released. This is a different book
Fundamentalism book: Revive Us Again
FP Church isn't teetotal but is opposed to pubs/off-licenses. So we wouldn't go to a pub/bar and supported temperance laws in the past. Some of our people including myself would also be teetotal but most would imbibe very moderately at things like weddings
A very thorough treatment of a hugely influential theologian in South Africa and the world https://douglasdouma.wordpress.com/2018/07/04/gordon-clark-and-other-reformed-critics-of-karl-barth/
Highly recommended lectures on economics from a christian perspective. http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3_downloads.php
"Theonomists ... where are they today? Oh, yeah, they're all Federal Visionists." Sean Gerety
Up Willems ally
What Bible translations/versions do people use? English, Afrikaans or other languages (I believe others exist)...
Emaciated girl: I'm bisexual.
Me: No love, you're just a slut.
Police in the UK are utterly pathetic. No respect for them anymore. They're either tubs of lard who couldn't catch a shoplifting granny or gym freaks who think they're tough but literally run away from muslims. The only guys they can actually overpower are the Christians because we're civilised.
But hey that guy has no fear of man so all power to him.
Yeah it's just a matter of time man, they going to get sick and tired of us eventually.
Not if we get sick and tired of them first...
lol, then what?
The burden which Habakkuk the prophet did see. O Lord , how long shall I cry, and thou wilt not hear! even cry out unto thee of violence, and thou wilt not save! Why dost thou shew me iniquity, and cause me to behold grievance? for spoiling and violence are before me: and there are that raise up strife and contention. Therefore the law is slacked, and judgment doth never go forth: for the wicked doth compass about the righteous; therefore wrong judgment proceedeth. Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvellously: for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you. For, lo, I raise up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation, which shall march through the breadth of the land, to possess the dwellingplaces that are not theirs. They are terrible and dreadful: their judgment and their dignity shall proceed of themselves. Their horses also are swifter than the leopards, and are more fierce than the evening wolves: and their horsemen shall spread themselves, and their horsemen shall come from far; they shall fly as the eagle that hasteth to eat. They shall come all for violence: their faces shall sup up as the east wind, and they shall gather the captivity as the sand. And they shall scoff at the kings, and the princes shall be a scorn unto them: they shall deride every strong hold; for they shall heap dust, and take it. Then shall his mind change, and he shall pass over, and offend, imputing this his power unto his god.
Habakkuk 1:1-11 KJV
What are people's thoughts on supralapsarianism versus infralapsarianism?
Also, are we all equal before God?
about supralapsarianism versus infralapsarianism?
I found this quote interesting...
"The difference is that infralapsarianism puts the decree of election subsequent to the decree of the fall. ...If you wish to check various theologians you can look up Henry Bradford Smith, Louis Berkhof, my father, and oh well maybe Charles Hodge and I think you will find in all of them that they put the decree of election after the decree of the fall. My criticism of this is that they confuse logical sequence with temporal sequence."
"And my contention is that the logical sequence is precisely the reverse of the temporal sequence. A person chooses an end and then works back from the end to where he is now."
- GHC from the audio lecture on Predestination in the Old Testament
Since God is outside time, it seems His decrees does not have a chronology but rather each one follow logically after each other.
Regarding equality, equal in what sense?
We are under the same moral law (equal in this sense) and as Christians we will get rewarded according to our works. Unbelievers will get punished according to their works too. The works the Christian performs is by the enabling of the Holy Spirit and they don't earn their salvation by it but get rewarded in the next life. What those rewards will be I am not sure. By God's decree some Christians will perform more good works than others. Thus they are not equal in that sense.
The other inequalities we as humans have like looks, wealth and intelligence are insignificant to the above.
Just heading into the prayer meeting now will respond laterz
Enjoy brother. wish I could join
BTW I don't agree with Peter Hammond here.
I haven't really delved into infra and supra laplarianism, so I'll use Daniels quote of reference, and I'm not sure how i think about it yet, I'll probably have to look into that. As for equal, there is right and there is wrong. It's only right that everyone in the right are righteously equal in their efforts to do what's right to the glory of the right. Lol and everyone in the wrong, well... they are all wrong, because they refuse to be equal, and to contribute towards the good and what's right. So yeah i don't think all will have equal outcome in God's eyes, but i certainly do think everyone gets the same chances, and equal opportunity we get, and we ought to be respect that to the best we can, but if others refuse to be equal, and refuse to reason... Then that inequity exists, and that ought to be recognized too.
There's an awful lot of responsibility on the choices we make lol, talk about carrying a burden.
I know that came of rather simple and not very complex..
Dankie sal kyk daarna
i dont know if im the only one who's experiencing this in the work place but it feels like im surrounded by a bunch of insecure children
and i mean seriously insecure
there's these fake 'power structures' that you have to adore and if you don't then you're some kind of 'evil shit'
speaking of children its as if the powers that be want to keep you that way, where adults get treated like children... its absolutely bonkers.
Yeah that's the world now.
It's those HR women.
I could never last more than 2 years in any corporate job.
I always had issues with HR.
Women in the workplace. Jordan Peterson has mentioned this. In the span of human experience this sort of co-working environment is still a very new experiment. If MeToo has told us anything it's that maybe the experiment is failing in a major way
A lot of the problems we have today is because so many women just can't handle the work environment. And the losers who were bullied at school have managed to seize power. A lethal combination
I should say women raised in our feminised culture. Women raised in masculine culture are given the abilities necessary to operate in the real world
That's why our grandmothers and mothers were able to go out into the workplace and get on with things but our young women today have nervous breakdowns the moment they're asked to take any responsibility
ive tried to check if im the culprit in the equation
but its not so, i will stoop... but i cannot entertain like fake vibes
i lose it
i dont know if you guys know what im talking about when its that 'adult child' vibe
like its like this vibe that comes at you that tries to 'soften' you and lull you into this like 'its okay my darling' thing
meanwhile your ass is getting plundered out the back
your very life is being kept in stagnation
only to await to hear some kind of tragic fallout that you are meant to not avoid
one thing is certain, there's never any good news.
only dripping negativity
the gospel of no hope
'everythings gonna be just perfect my darling....'
suck my ass!
What do you make of this from a theological perspective?
Justification for sin...
very thought provoking
This interview with Jordan Peterson by BBC "journalist" Stephen Sackur is worth a watch. Especially interesting is the discussion on Peterson's use of research into lobsters (which begins at 18:37). Now obviously humans aren't evolved from lobsters. The Bible is quite clear where humans come from. However what is interesting is that the leftists who interview Peterson keep using this discussion of lobsters in his book to try to portray him as crazy or bizarre.
This is the theory of evolution! This is your theory!
Shows how totally removed they have become even from their own "science". Everything is just feeling and "intuition" now.
Of course, even Christians can agree that there are things we can learn from the study of lobsters. God created all life on Earth so it only stands to reason that there would be similarities across the different species in how our bodies, brains, nervous systems work whilst also acknowledging that there are major, fundamental differences between species and that humans are something different again because we are rational, reasoning, thinking creatures by virtue of our souls.
But it is amusing to see leftists criticising their own beloved theory of evolution to try to score points against Peterson without realising what they are doing.
Do they ever realize their own ignorance? I think not lol
Good FaceBook group on if you are interested in the Bible version debate.
This needs a parody
@Daniel van Straaten Faith Like Potatoes!! I saw that years ago! 🤣
You can ask this just as well from Afrikaaners....
"as an african-american how do I encourage other african-american Christians to consider reformed theology and other deeper things of God instead of being caught up in the emotionalism of Pentecostalism and word faith theology"
As 'n Afrikaaner hoe bemoedig ek ander Christene ens. :
Haai boet, sit daai braaitang neer en luister bietjie: is jy seker as jy sommer vandag dood omval jy gaan hemel toe? Nie? Nee man, jy moet weet! Bybel toe: Dit het ek geskrywe aan julle wat glo in die Naam van die Seun van God, sodat julle kan weet dat julle die ewige lewe het en kan glo in die Naam van die Seun van God.
So I read the article, and he says, there's a claim that "gospel preaching that calls unbelievers to repentance and submission to Christ’s lordship is itself a form of legalism." Indeed it is a form of legalism. Mr MacArthur's "gospel" is a call to do be sad and do dead works: not repentance from dead works and faith toward God. It's all about you, and it's not much about Christ and his work. MacArthur's not your old-style calvinist that looks for philosophical answers beyond what the Bible provides. He's a new sort that goes all the way to the idea that salvation is by faith, but faith is really works.
@Derde We shouldn't be basing our salvation on anything beyond what the Bible teaches. That's not Calvinism but humanism or rationalism. The Law is till binding on believers as a rule for life. The Westminster Confession is clear on that and one can't get anymore Calvinist than that.
A true believer submits to Christ as his Saviour AND Lord
The Spirit brings the believer into submission to the law of God
Legalism is relying on one's own works for salvation. Striving to live according God's law is not legalism
One is justified by faith. Faith is a gift of God, given to the sinner when he is regenerated.
If you submit to Christ as Lord, then you are submitting to his law. If that is salvation, then that's salvation by works of the law. If you're not submitting to his law, then what exactly are you submitting to?
Being saved is the gift of God.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
John 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
@Derde We must distinguish between justification and sanctification. We are justified by faith alone, and that faith is a gift of God. When we are converted we are regenerated and have the righteousness of Christ imputed to our soul. This new principle has the effect of sanctifying the believer.
James tells us that faith without works is dead and that we show our faith by our works. James 2
So a true believer is not depending upon his good works as the basis of his salvation. But true faith will produce good works in the life of the believer
Sanctification is not by works, but by the blood of Christ.
Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
1 Corinthians 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
It's not a special word: it just means "made holy".
Yes. Made holy. What does that mean? It means living in accordance with the standard of holiness which is the law of God. I didn't say we are sanctified by our works. Our works are the fruit of our sanctification
It means that even where you fail to live in accordance with the holiness that you have in Christ, you are still holy:
1 Peter 1:4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
The law is the law. It's a thing. The gospel is not the law:
John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
The law is no longer to us a covenant of works because Adam fell and we are no longer able to keep it perfectly. But it does bind us a moral law.
Nobody but Christ has kept the law perfectly.
But you say sanctification is keeping the law
But not perfectly. But if you'll read what the Westminster Confession says the believe is made progressively holy but never perfectly
A believer who sins is still saved because he is accepted for Christ's sake, not his own
Then you're guilty of all.
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
But being accepted in Christ means that the believer will be forgiveb
Will be forgiven?
John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Well we're talking about hypothetical sins so yes I'm talking in the future tense
I'm in present tense:
Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
To be more precise when a sinner is converted all his sins are washed away past present and future but he still needs to ask forgiveness for any sins he goes on to commit
And if he doesn't ask, kinda knows, and doesn't care?
Well if he doesn't repent then he's not saved
So if you die in a sinful rage that you don't repent of, you're going to hell?
Someone who doesn't care that he has sinned and doesn't seek forgiveness is strongly suggesting he's not a true believer
No and that's not what you said