To Heidelblog and Charles Porterfield Krauth and the quote from Krauth in Heidelblog that talks about the 3 states that error has in the Church. The first is for those promoting an error to request tolerance from the Church and the last state is for the error to have supremacy over the Church.
Are we going to assume that the Church is not tolerating error already? And if so, which denomination has no error? Which standards have no error? Or are we only talking about serious errors that clearly go against what the Scriptures teach as essential in faith and life?
The above invites the same kind reaction differences of opinions that a cynophobic person (a person who has a fear of dogs) person has toward dogs. They either refuse or unable to distinguish between dogs that are threatening from dogs that aren't. And so they react to all dogs in the same way.
There is a difference between the above and a cynophobic. person though. The above implies that their views are inerrant. Yet Church History does not look favorably on the idea that all of the beliefs of any one person or one church or one denomination are inerrant.
Just think of what the OPC should have done to Machen for his racist views or the Congregationalist Church should have done with Jonathan Edwards for his views on slavery? Or what is worse is for any Reformed denomination to believe that their standards are inerrant.
Around June 26
To Anthony Costello and his comment on June 27 which was in response to my comment on his blog article on the effects of today's access to information on Evangelicals. This appeared in the Theological Apologetics blog on Patheos.
There is a difference between having a good analysis from having a good solution. Both Marxism, toward which I lean, and Post Modernism, for which I have a modest appreciation, provide very help analyses of some of today's problems with evil. Marxism's analysis of capitalism in his day is right on target with the shareholder economy we have for today. Likewise, Post Modernism is able point out the abuses practiced in science and faith. But their responses to their respective issues are wanting.
If we are going to say that God has the perfect response to evil, realize that part of His response lands some people in an inescapable place of judgment. And in so doing, that does not address the problem we have here and now. Also, many who believe often contribute to the evils we try to deal with. So how are we going to address today's evils? Are we just going to say Jesus's name? Are we just going to say that God will solve the problem and do nothing? What is the point of saying that only God has the solution to our problems?
The point of making such a claim is that we use it to point people's attention toward us, and that goes for even our own attention. And thus we should look at why Christians all too often contribute to today's evils. One reason why so many us contribute to today's evils is that we are vulnerable to political and/or ideological tribalism. In other cases, our theologies get in the way. For while, our political and ideological tribalism sometimes take us away from God's Word, our theologies distort both our understanding of God's Word and our perception of temporal reality. And so saying that God has the only solution and claiming that we Christians, with so many of us contributing to the world's evils, are God's representatives can make us too arrogant to listen to unbelievers have to say.
I understand that the world's problems evil with problems are spiritual. But those problems are also immanent and material. And so we need to remember the part in Romans 2 that challenges the believer in God with the fact that the unbeliever can be more righteous than the believer. And we need to realize that in terms of this world, we are trying to solve the immanent and material causes and effects of evil in the world. It isn't society's job to address the spiritual dimensions of evil.
So in the end, it is what I wrote in my first comment:
That is because if we have the only solutions to the world's problems with evil, we can wrongfully, but understandably, look down on unbelievers in the world who are trying to solve those problems. And because we can look down on them, we often act like we have everything to teach them and nothing to learn from them. Thus we refuse to listen to them in a meaningful way. And that failure to really listen leads to our ignorance of the insights they have regarding the problems with evil we see in the world.
Finally, what is it about Marxism that bothers you as a Christian. I have a list of complaints myself. That is whyI describe myself as only leaning toward Marxism. So why would you doubt that I could adequately present myself as a Christian while claiming to lean toward Marxism? That goes back to what I already quoted from my first comment:
And because we can look down on them, we often act like we have everything to teach them and nothing to learn from them