Jared Smith

@citizenoftheway @realmattcarr @irishpresby If slavery was legal here, and I or they sold ourselves to pay off a debt or were captured in war, then yes. Kidnapping is forbidden in the Mosaic Law. You're free to disagree, but that is what the Bible says. For a Christian to deny that is to deny God's Word itself.

@jaredsmithdgs @realmattcarr @irishpresby Would the Bible support forcibly enslaving you and your family?

Imagine thinking this is some kind of “burn.” A Presbyterian minister appreciates some of the sharpest minds his tradition has produced in America. Oh no!

@cjneuendorf @MethodMinistry Yeah, I agree with that essentially. Thanks for the answer.

@jaredsmithdgs @MethodMinistry The crucial question is whether they have faith (as in real Spirit-wrought trust in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins). Such faith can only be created by the Word (including the Word with the water in Baptism). If they have faith, they’re saved, & they’ll desire baptism.

The Baptist hermeneutic is extremely fragile. If they're wrong about just one text, then their entire paradigm is uprooted. For example, if the water in John 3:5 or the washing in Titus 3:5 and Ephesians 5:26 refer to baptism, then baptism is a means of grace for the washing away of sins.

@DinennoStuart Do you not see this destruction as a judgment on whites for our apostasy? Or do you see it as both?

What many Chrstians today fail to see is that Satan’s latest tactic is to destroy the Christian faith by destroying the people themselves who are the only ones that have faithfully preserved and propagated it (i.e., the European or White race). This is why I say that churches which go along with the anti-White and pro-Jewish agenda are satanic regardless of however accurate their theology might be—they are literally participating in a pro-death program. This is worse than theological error because theological error can be rectified, but the loss of a race cannot be rectified. So they are in grievous error who categorize this sin as something less serious than a failure to preach the gospel, and who view the churches that go along with the anti-White and pro-Jewish agenda as only errant institutions. The men who lead these organizations are satanically-driven enemies, and to merely call them apostates is to understate the case rather than to overstate it.

@cjneuendorf @MethodMinistry I meant more someone who intends to get baptized, but is delaying it for whatever reason. I'm guessing not, in that case. Baptists, from my experience, would say that person is disobeying, but still saved.

@jaredsmithdgs @MethodMinistry He’s going to heaven. If, e.g., the Ethiopian eunuch or the Philippian jailer had suffered a massive heart attack or stroke just before being baptized, they would have gone to heaven, because they already had by faith everything that God promised to give them in baptism.

@cjneuendorf @MethodMinistry If someone believes but has not yet been baptized, where is he going in the Lutheran view? An honest question, not arguing.

@MethodMinistry I don’t know your current denominational commitment, but for Lutherans, you are exactly right. Faith believes the washing away of sins in baptism, so faith alone is upheld. The bare Word also regenerates, so even if baptism is unavailable, the believer is still saved.

@peterpeccavi I think I agree with most of the theology you've presented here, i.e., dual covenants and the restoration of Israel. But as you say, "Judeo-Christian" is a propagandistic term, used today to imply an affinity between Jews and Christians, not to refer to old theological ideas.

3/3 It’s important to note Webbon & Hall’s view and why they would blatantly misrepresent Church History. Because they not only hold a hyper view of supersessionism (which is modern, 20th century modern) but they hold a hyper view of preterism (though I don’t believe they’re FP, at least not admittedly yet). You see, Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin frequently identified the Pope as the Antichristand the Roman Catholic Church as the "Whore of Babylon". Luis de Alcazar (1554–1613), a Jesuit Priest commissioned by the papacy published his monumental 900 page work, ‘Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi’ ("Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse"), to neutralize these attacks by arguing that the prophecies in the Book of Revelation had already been fulfilled in the distant past (what we today call preterism). He argued that Revelation 1–11 described the Church's victory over Jews / Judaism (culminating in the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD) and Revelation 12–19 described the victory over pagan Rome (ending around 476 AD). He identified the "Beast" or Antichrist as Emperor Nero and moved the fulfillment of these prophecies back into the first century, effectively "absolving the Papacy" from the Protestant stigma. To be fair to history, another Jesuit priest was commissioned during the same time as Alcazar during the counter-reformation. Francisco Ribera pushed the Antichrist into the distant future, just before the end of the world. Thus the papacy couldn’t be the antichrist in this scheme either. And that’s the point. These priests weren’t commissioned to teach eschatological truth, but solely to sow confusion and sway the public from the Reformers accusations that the papacy is the antichrist. Additionally in the late 17th and early 18th Centuries preterism took rise again: Hugh Grotius wrote ‘Annotationes in Vetus et Novum Testamentum’ (1642). He was an Arminian Remonstrant, and held to Natural Law. Henry Hammond’s ‘A Paraphrase and Annotations of the New Testament’ (1653). He was a Royalist, Arminian and Grotian. Richard Baxter’s ‘Glorious Kingdom of Christ’ (1691) written the last year of his life, he made no earlier statements on eschatology. Daniel Whitby, ‘Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament’ (1703); Arminian, Unitarian. Despite popular belief preterism is more novel than dispensationalism insofar as the doctrine of Israel goes, as Darby nor Scofield introduced the idea of the restoration of the Jews. Christians have always held this position down through the ages. Deceivers like Webbon and Hall twist both history and Scripture, just like the papists. Mark and avoid these wolves.

🧵1/3 Joel Webbon & JD Hall’s book “the hyphenated-heresy” is revisionist deception. From their Amazon book page: “Politicians and pastors began speaking of a “Judeo-Christian” civilization—a phrase born not on Sinai, but in Washington.” Except, Washington didn’t exist in the 1660s-70s. In fact, it didn’t become our nations capitol until 1800, prior to this it was in Philadelphia. This is important context. Philadelphia is derived from two Greek words: phila (love) and adelphos (brother). The city was named by its founder, William Penn, an English Quaker, when he established the settlement in 1681. Penn chose this name to reflect his vision for a "holy experiment": a community rooted in religious tolerance, peace, and harmony where people of Hebrew and Christian faiths could live as brothers. This had eschatological undertones which I’ll explain below. Early Quakers, including founder George Fox and William Penn, considered themselves to be returning to "primitive Christianity". They held the Bible in high regard and frequently cited both Hebrew and Christian scriptures for guidance. I believe Webbon and Hall are projecting toward the term Judeo-Christian, as they label it “political propaganda” when in actuality “Christian Nationalism” is political propaganda. They’re snakes. You see, by the mid-17th century, the postmillennial expectation of a national restoration of Israel was firmly established in Reformed orthodoxy. John Owen, Increase Mather, and Jonathan Edwards as well as many other post-reformation and puritan scholars had a profound interest in the Jewish people. The Puritans were not *modern* supersessionists. They held a “dual covenant” or "pro-restorationist" view of the Jewish Nation. Dual covenant in today’s terms seems heretical. But inferring what we mean today is anachronistic to apply it to the Puritans. Same goes for Judeo Christian and its concept. Language is always in flux, but truth is not. This view traces back to Theodore Beza and his influential annotations on Romans 11:15 & 26. He shifted the interpretation from the papist view of "all Israel" from the "elect of all nations" to the ethnic Jewish people, a move that became the standard for the Puritan Hope. The puritans spoke of the "Restoration of Israel" or the "Conversion of the Jews" to indicate Judeo-Christian eschatology. While the modern "Judeo-Christian tradition" implies a shared set of civilizational values between two distinct religions, the Puritans saw the relationship through a strictly millennial lens. They viewed Judaism as a sort of parallel value system to be preserved in "judicial laws" of the Old Testament applied to Christian governance. And as a precursor that would ultimately find its "fulfillment" in Christianity at the end of days. Supersessionism has also evolved much. It’s important to note the Puritans followed a "threefold division" of the law given at Mount Sinai, all of which they believed originated from the God of Israel. By Israel, they meant the Jews. Moral Law (The Ten Commandments): Reflects God's eternal character and remains binding for all people at all times. Ceremonial Law: Laws regarding sacrifices and rituals (like Passover) that were fulfilled by Jesus and are no longer binding. Judicial Law (or Civil Law): The specific statutes given by God for the civil government of the nation of Israel. Unlike many modern hyper-supersessionists like Webbon and Hall who believe the NT Church has fulfilled Israel, the Puritans argued that the biblical promises of land and national identity to the Jews were irrevocable. They believed that even after converting to Christ in the end times, the Jews would retain a distinct national identity and return to their ancestral homeland. It’s important to note also, that the Reformed tradition has always held that Israel is the Church (see Ps 89:5 where ekklesia is used for the gathering of the saints / Israel; the fullness of the gentiles is a NT phenomenon).

@Shaded121 @PaleoconGenZ @JoelWebbon You may be right about that. But these things do come up with atheists. And I think it's better to let the Bible say what it says. Trying to accommodate modern cultural values is a losing battle. I'll leave it at that.

@jaredsmithdgs @PaleoconGenZ @JoelWebbon You’re probably right but there’s plenty of wolves out there who would argue for such things simply to discredit us. There’s important hills to die on and this isn’t one.

Satan was the first Egalitarian. He resents being a creature, lower than God, and he deceived the woman by saying that she could be equal to God. Satan loves America’s obsession with equality. He loves feminism, color-blindness, the myth of the noble savage, etc.

@Shaded121 @PaleoconGenZ @JoelWebbon I don't think you know nearly enough of my views to make that statement. I haven't been arguing for the return of slavery, if that's what you dislike. But I do think Christians are on poor ground when trying to make the Bible anti-slavery. And well-read anti-Christians know this.

@jaredsmithdgs @PaleoconGenZ @JoelWebbon Go ahead and try to establish a “Christian” nation after your own making. I’m waiting with anticipation. Unfortunately all you guys are doing is solidifying the demise of our current one.

@Shaded121 @PaleoconGenZ @JoelWebbon Stoning whores and other such things were civil punishments within Israel's legal framework. A Christian nation today may or may not follow that framework. But the framework itself must be "holy, and just, and good". No direct provision of the Law is wrong in itself.

@Shaded121 @PaleoconGenZ @JoelWebbon One can do what God has explicitly and purposefully allowed (i.e., keep slaves) and still be in sin. I think that is an incoherent view of the Bible and of Christian ethics. As for the change in covenants, yes, the Church is not national Israel.

@totusjustice @yhazony Good to know that many of these men both opposed religious pluralism and interpreted the Bible to say that the Jews would one day return to their Messiah. I think that's a good and biblical approach.

My favorite part is where he replaces "Judeo-Christianity" with "Hebraic Christianity" in effort to seek common cause with Jews, which was clearly successful as it received public commendation from @yhazony. A word to the wise and those who would be: Some contemporary Protestants who champion retrieval have not yet honestly dealt with their radical departure from their own tradition on the matter of politics and the Jews. See: Voetius, Keckermann, Burgersdijk, Hoornbeek, etc. By all modern standards, these men were "antisemitic" in their political posture towards Jews. Voetius would indict us today for our judeopathy as something that hinders salvation of the Jews. @jonharris1989 in his recently posted lecture had a passing comment about how most (all?) of the Dutch Reformed fathers of the past looked forward to the alleged "revival" event of the Jews. But Jon never mentioned the position of Dutch Reformed men on the Jews politically, which is specially negative. In the interest of honesty, I can grant that many in the past looked forward to national Jewish conversion to Christ. Thus they had a "positive eschatology" concerning Jews. The question is: can the other side clearly admit the "negative politics" concerning Jews that is also dominant in the past? Reminder: Respected scholar Craig Carter has admitted that antisemitism is the majority report of church history. Again: retrievalists need to reckon with the demands of this fact and their own stated claims.

@Shaded121 @PaleoconGenZ @JoelWebbon The Sermon on the Mount can't be used to argue against slavery because Paul explicitly reaffirms it (Eph. 6:5,9; Col. 4:1; Philem. 14). And in Romans, he says the Law is "holy, and just, and good." Many abolitionists may have been Christian, but they ignored the Bible on this.

You should read Jesus’ sermon on the Mount. The enlightenment wouldn’t have happened outside of a Christian framework because Liberty is ultimately a New Testament principle. Either way the abolitionist movement was driven by a good majority of Christians though admittedly some used the OT to justify keeping it in place.

@Shaded121 @PaleoconGenZ @JoelWebbon The New Testament doesn't disagree with the Old, though. Abolition is an Enlightenment idea, not a biblical one.

@jaredsmithdgs @PaleoconGenZ @JoelWebbon The Old is different than the New for sure. Interesting thing about Jesus' teachings is that they never directly attack the status quo but they do directly address the heart of the individual. This is a far better tactic for long term change.

@Gnosisinformant @PaleoconGenZ @JoelWebbon @Queer_Niggard I don't think this is an unclear passage. They said they sold the land for less than they did so they could keep the rest and still look generous or holy. That was Ananias' lie in 5:1-2 and Sapphira's lie in 5:8.

@jaredsmithdgs @PaleoconGenZ @JoelWebbon @Queer_Niggard I’m asking where is the lie? What did they say that was dishonest? And keep reading. When Sapphira is questioned she is immediately honest about what happens and still dies. So again, where is the lie? What did they actually lie about?

@Shaded121 @PaleoconGenZ @JoelWebbon Whatever the Founders may have believed, the Bible is explicit in its permission of slaveholding. Opposition to slavery may be a higher principle, but it is not a biblical one.

@PaleoconGenZ @JoelWebbon If you know the history you’d understand they hated the idea of slavery but it was embedded so deeply culture. Regardless the American principles, like biblical principles, uphold a standard that is far higher than the norm.

@Gnosisinformant @PaleoconGenZ @JoelWebbon @Queer_Niggard is right about this. Acts 5:4, Peter speaking to Ananias: "Whiles it [the land] remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God."

@PaleoconGenZ @JoelWebbon What did they lie about? They literally just kept some of the money and then died for it. Stop lying to defend the Bible.

@realmattcarr @irishpresby Lev. 25:44-46 Eph. 6:5,9 Col. 4:1 Philem. 14 These are among the clearest verses in the Bible. There is no way around them. How is denying the Bible on this point any more reasonable than claiming it permits homosexuality?

@jaredsmithdgs @irishpresby lol

@realmattcarr @irishpresby Slavery is unequivocally permitted in the Bible, so no one should have an issue with that.

@irishpresby It's not a "sick burn," it's demonstrating the hypocrisy of endorsing and promoting openly racist, slaver theologians but decrying (and exaggerating) Keller's flaws.