In the early 80s, elementary school curriculum at my Christian school told us the number was 3 million. Were we all outside the faith until this was corrected?
@@oldcuster3873 I explained it to one of mine that Germanys laws regarding who was considered Jewish was first very rigid, but as the war raged on the definition included Jewish behavior (political dissidents.) If you loved Germany and your volk but your first cousin is speaking against the Reich? He is 100% German blood. Well, you label him a J to soothe your conscience about his removal. So does this German get counted as a J? Officially the records say yes, but he hasn't sniffed the wind of a seder meal. But he gets adopted into the official number.
My short take on the Antioch Declaration: I agreed with the first paragraph, was puzzled by the last paragraph, and I thought everything in the middle was ridiculous, ironic, clueless, or self-contradictory. I read the signers to find out from whose YT channels I should unsubscribe. The local churches are so bad, I can’t waste time on clueless YT content creators. Thanks for your video!
@@gentledove6804 I pray they repent to their brothers. It's not good to divide, at least not over trivial matters. Working my way through 1 Tim 6 and I'm worried the warning about false teachers stirring up division on useless dogmas is hitting real close to home right now. And I don't want to label folks false teachers, but at some point it becomes obvious.
I would love to see them repent, and take the whole thing down. It was great that Joel Webbon said (I think in the zoom call) that to put the church member under church discipline for sharing a meme on that topic would be nothing short of spiritual abuse. He’s absolutely right! You’re right, too, they really needed to define the terms they used in that Declaration, or it’s just confusing, non-sensical gibberish. I’m afraid you’re right about false teachers. I find it very concerning that there is a group of pastors and teachers who believe they can declare a Christian’s view of extra-biblical history or a Christian’s view of extra-biblical people (and I *in no way* agree with hating-or favoring-an entire people group) as outside Christian or Biblical orthodoxy, and bind the consciences of their fellow believers in Christ Jesus that way. I personally heard Dr. Joe Boot say that the Muslims have a goal of “global hegemony.” The inconsistency and double-standards of these men are off the charts.
So basically Apologia and Doug Wilson put together a declaration to condemn some internet trolls who have been bothering them. What a bunch of clowns. Anyone who signs this declaration shouldn't be taken seriously
I'm not in on "the joke" not being evangelical. But I like Apologia and Wilson even if I don't agree with their theology. Your post has actually provided the most info I can find on it.
Apologia didn't write it nor have a lot of input. But James White did sign. It does address a modern poison infiltrating the church and is worth dealing with.
It is so funny that they are the one's who published Stephen Wolfe's book on Christian Nationalism, Canon Press. Yet now they are attacking Wolfe as the one who started all of this!
@@TheChristianImperialist My thoughts exactly, Doug can be transgressive in-regards to the Civil War but forbids it for others who want to take the next logical step and address the next cultural sacred cow, WWII.
What's also amazing is James White doesn't seem to have even read R.R. Reno's book that many of us are referencing. As Steven Wolfe clearly pointed out, we aren't trying to resurrect and idolize certain figures from WW2, we want to disconnect from that mythology completely. In destroying these idols some of our guys on the right are going to seem harsh, some of it is harsh, but the idols need to be destroyed. Bonhoeffer was a horrible person who prayed for the triumph of communism, the MLK stuff was also was a communist psyop to liberalize race to be nothing more than skin color to prepare the way for open borders. Christianity also must be disconnected from Zi-o-ni-sm, and many are going to call us "extremists" for simply wanting to go back to our historic traditions. AH must be removed from being "the new Satan" which has created a victim hierarchy that's justified endless wars in the middle east, open borders, and persecution for heritage Americans. It's time we move past WW2 and bring back "the strong gods" of religion, nationalism, and family that Reno makes clear is already returning, as liberalism has failed; Popper was wrong.
@@BirdDogey1 Evangelical is fairly broad. This dispute is within the reformed/Calvinists camp, which is small minority of evangelicals, and only about 3-5% within that camp would even know anything about this. So when the authors take aim at H-deniers they feel is a growing trend in the American church, it's rationally less than a percent of a percent. Ergo, it makes even less sense to make a public declaration against something that equates to a thoughtcrime held by so few. Rather the point of the Declaration is to create a paradigm where if you question the postwar concensus or it's sacred cows, then you are outside of Christ (Nazi!)
@@nando7522 No curses were placed. But, indeed, some poor language was used; and I'm not talking split infinitives. Biblical categories are important and I intend to make another video expanding on point #2 about some of the language of the Declaration. And I promise not to use low language in that video. (Unless, of course, it's being exposited from Scripture itself; I'm talking to you Malachi, Ezekiel, and Paul.)
@@jonathanthebaptist Thank you. I just find them naming a demographic engaging in Alinskyite tactics. Example: the Nashville Statement. It is worded that these X things are universally good, these Y things are universally bad (sin). It doesn't take time out to say "in response to the number of gay black men we see in our society, specifically the E! Network..." No. The fact that Antioch drafters called out a specific group tells us how unserious they are about their claims and how vacuous are their aims.
@@hplunkett I have heard rumblings that Canon Press has been trying to expand its footprint. Idk if that's the motivation or not. But it seems like if attracting capital is their next step, they better make public consternations toward J-truthing.
@@greatbriton8425 That's only an excerpt. There were about 2 dozens affirmations and denunciations. But for the sake of the video, I chose this one to illustrate the haphazard logic employed by the drafters.
I gave this video about seven minutes. Your meandering monologue and word games aren't impressive. Also, logic is not your strong suit: "Anti-semitism in the dictionary means anti-jew, therefore Jews control the dictionary" is impressively bad, even in an alleged tongue-in-cheek way.
@@TheChristianImperialist Thanks for playing word games! I always love useless debates about whether or not "anti-semitism" should be defined exclusively for Jews: fascinating debate. That'll TOTALLY help further dialogue. I'm sure next you'll join Corey Mahler and talk about how based and trad and devout a Christian Hitler was because...dogs liked him. Yeah. In case you couldn't tell: that was sarcasm.
@@avaritt the Brits showed US soldiers morning "ablutions" were necessary for preparedness in WWI. You say ablution to a recruit and no one understands what you mean, so we americanized it to "shit, shower, shave." You do that every morning and you are ready for the day ahead. But obviously I don't shave. Some have added additional S's "say prayer" "suit up" etc...
Yo, pretty sure adiaphora doesn't mean “things that don’t matter,” at least not in the way you’re using it. The Bible doesn’t address things like Allied meeting times, paratrooper deployments, tank movements or what was for lunch. Our opinions about those things shouldn't be used as a measure of Christian orthodoxy. That doesn’t mean you can treat sin like it’s just a difference of opinion about things the Bible doesn’t specifically address. Malice, vain glory, race-baiting, antisemitism, treachery, bitterness, and hatred are not civic adiaphora. The Bible clearly prohibits these. So, it’s actually the opposite of what you’re saying: all those “muh feelins” need to be submitted to Scripture. If you’re harboring bitterness toward a particular person or group, no amount of historical context about an event will provide cover or can justify that sin and you need to repent. As for your “100 million” scenario, that falls under the “superabundant, diverse forms and veritable glut of evidence” point. To believe 100m, you’d have to ignore all that evidence they're talking about. So you were actually in line with the declaration when you said that denying it altogether and believing the 100m number are equally absurd. Keep going and you might end up signing it yourself😉
@@dittgog4253 Adiaophra is precisely "indifferent opinions." It's historical use within the church, iirc, was with Luther explaining opinions which are nonessential to the faith, thus are not salvation/anathema-worthy. So again, opinions on Allied transgressions are classified as adiaophra. Opinions on Axis transgressions they deny are adiaophra. Thanks for the view and the thoughts. I appreciate your candor.
@@TheChristianImperialist Sure, adiaphora can’t be used to measure someone’s Christian orthodoxy. But saying the declaration is claiming “history doesn’t matter” isn't accurate. The Bible doesn’t talk about paratrooper deployments or tank movements, and that applies whether we’re talking about the Allies or the Axis. You’re right though, they’re drawing a distinction between what qualifies as adiaphora and what doesn’t, and it’s not simply based on the names Allies or Axis or whatever. The declaration specifically calls out the sinful theories and doctrines behind one side’s actions. Those ideas aren’t adiaphora. That doesn’t mean the Allies were perfect. In fact, that’s exactly what the declaration is acknowledging. If you think the Allies got something wrong or messed up in a strategy or tactic, that’s fine. If you can recognize and even appreciate a clever move that gave the Axis a win in battle, that’s fine too. You can be orthodox in both situations. But if you go as far as to say things like, “the Axis powers were actually righteous and stood for freedom,” or “I think our side was truly and sinfully motivated by racism,” then you need to revisit: "We deny that it is possible to recover an ethic that honors our fathers and their momentous sacrifices while actively and openly dishonoring them." Also, you don’t have to land on exactly 6 million to be orthodox. But orthodoxy is tied to the hatred, malice, bitterness, etc. in our hearts. The orthodox position would be that those things have no place there.
@dittgog4253 The document regards opinions of Allied tactics, leaders, or strategies as adiaophra. The same "civic adiaophra" does not extend to opinions of Axis tactics, leaders, or strategies. Your last response is very charitable by including "Axis" actions as adiaophra. Unfortunately, the Declaration omits that word (which is more proof of the haphazard nature of this document.) What I find interesting in the list of proposed sins--"malice, race-baiting...bitterness, hatred." Those categories perfectly summarize the spiritual condition of most American Christians between Dec 7th, 1941 and Sep 2, 1945....not to mention the bitterness and malice harbored for years long after. If these "sins" are valid to question one's orthodoxy (being 'in Christ') then this Declaration has functionally anathematized anyone in the last 2000 years who died without forgiving someone. If you think I'm being too "extra" about that, let me remind you the charge of antisemitism is among those sins and is the linchpin of many other clauses regarding the Holocaust, Jewish conspiracies, et al. These sins are tests of orthodoxy and are the snare of the wolves that "a faithful Christian shepherd... [has] a duty to confront and rebuke."
In the early 80s, elementary school curriculum at my Christian school told us the number was 3 million. Were we all outside the faith until this was corrected?
@@oldcuster3873 I explained it to one of mine that Germanys laws regarding who was considered Jewish was first very rigid, but as the war raged on the definition included Jewish behavior (political dissidents.)
If you loved Germany and your volk but your first cousin is speaking against the Reich? He is 100% German blood. Well, you label him a J to soothe your conscience about his removal.
So does this German get counted as a J? Officially the records say yes, but he hasn't sniffed the wind of a seder meal. But he gets adopted into the official number.
My short take on the Antioch Declaration: I agreed with the first paragraph, was puzzled by the last paragraph, and I thought everything in the middle was ridiculous, ironic, clueless, or self-contradictory. I read the signers to find out from whose YT channels I should unsubscribe. The local churches are so bad, I can’t waste time on clueless YT content creators. Thanks for your video!
@@gentledove6804 I pray they repent to their brothers. It's not good to divide, at least not over trivial matters. Working my way through 1 Tim 6 and I'm worried the warning about false teachers stirring up division on useless dogmas is hitting real close to home right now.
And I don't want to label folks false teachers, but at some point it becomes obvious.
I would love to see them repent, and take the whole thing down. It was great that Joel Webbon said (I think in the zoom call) that to put the church member under church discipline for sharing a meme on that topic would be nothing short of spiritual abuse. He’s absolutely right!
You’re right, too, they really needed to define the terms they used in that Declaration, or it’s just confusing, non-sensical gibberish.
I’m afraid you’re right about false teachers. I find it very concerning that there is a group of pastors and teachers who believe they can declare a Christian’s view of extra-biblical history or a Christian’s view of extra-biblical people (and I *in no way* agree with hating-or favoring-an entire people group) as outside Christian or Biblical orthodoxy, and bind the consciences of their fellow believers in Christ Jesus that way.
I personally heard Dr. Joe Boot say that the Muslims have a goal of “global hegemony.” The inconsistency and double-standards of these men are off the charts.
So basically Apologia and Doug Wilson put together a declaration to condemn some internet trolls who have been bothering them. What a bunch of clowns. Anyone who signs this declaration shouldn't be taken seriously
I'm not in on "the joke" not being evangelical. But I like Apologia and Wilson even if I don't agree with their theology. Your post has actually provided the most info I can find on it.
Apologia didn't write it nor have a lot of input. But James White did sign.
It does address a modern poison infiltrating the church and is worth dealing with.
It is so funny that they are the one's who published Stephen Wolfe's book on Christian Nationalism, Canon Press. Yet now they are attacking Wolfe as the one who started all of this!
@@davidwile6793 I find it funny how questioning official narratives was ok with Doug when it was chattel slavery, but when it comes to WW2 "no no no!"
@@TheChristianImperialist My thoughts exactly, Doug can be transgressive in-regards to the Civil War but forbids it for others who want to take the next logical step and address the next cultural sacred cow, WWII.
What's also amazing is James White doesn't seem to have even read R.R. Reno's book that many of us are referencing. As Steven Wolfe clearly pointed out, we aren't trying to resurrect and idolize certain figures from WW2, we want to disconnect from that mythology completely. In destroying these idols some of our guys on the right are going to seem harsh, some of it is harsh, but the idols need to be destroyed.
Bonhoeffer was a horrible person who prayed for the triumph of communism, the MLK stuff was also was a communist psyop to liberalize race to be nothing more than skin color to prepare the way for open borders. Christianity also must be disconnected from Zi-o-ni-sm, and many are going to call us "extremists" for simply wanting to go back to our historic traditions.
AH must be removed from being "the new Satan" which has created a victim hierarchy that's justified endless wars in the middle east, open borders, and persecution for heritage Americans. It's time we move past WW2 and bring back "the strong gods" of religion, nationalism, and family that Reno makes clear is already returning, as liberalism has failed; Popper was wrong.
I'm not an evangelical. Lots of discussion on this document but everyone I come across online seems to believe I know what they are talking about.
@@BirdDogey1 Evangelical is fairly broad. This dispute is within the reformed/Calvinists camp, which is small minority of evangelicals, and only about 3-5% within that camp would even know anything about this.
So when the authors take aim at H-deniers they feel is a growing trend in the American church, it's rationally less than a percent of a percent.
Ergo, it makes even less sense to make a public declaration against something that equates to a thoughtcrime held by so few. Rather the point of the Declaration is to create a paradigm where if you question the postwar concensus or it's sacred cows, then you are outside of Christ (Nazi!)
@@TheChristianImperialist Appreciate the response. My own denomination is wresting internally with a similar situation.
Someone help me understand the need for the cursing. Legit question.
@@nando7522 No curses were placed. But, indeed, some poor language was used; and I'm not talking split infinitives.
Biblical categories are important and I intend to make another video expanding on point #2 about some of the language of the Declaration.
And I promise not to use low language in that video. (Unless, of course, it's being exposited from Scripture itself; I'm talking to you Malachi, Ezekiel, and Paul.)
@TheChristianImperialist
I'll be listening. Thank you for the reply.
Based and Christpilled
I think your point about them talking to a specific group was good but a little weak, the rest, though, was fantastic. Thanks for breaking it down!
@@jonathanthebaptist Thank you.
I just find them naming a demographic engaging in Alinskyite tactics.
Example: the Nashville Statement. It is worded that these X things are universally good, these Y things are universally bad (sin).
It doesn't take time out to say "in response to the number of gay black men we see in our society, specifically the E! Network..." No. The fact that Antioch drafters called out a specific group tells us how unserious they are about their claims and how vacuous are their aims.
The love of money is the root of all evil. Good video.
@@hplunkett I have heard rumblings that Canon Press has been trying to expand its footprint. Idk if that's the motivation or not. But it seems like if attracting capital is their next step, they better make public consternations toward J-truthing.
I agree with your central point.
Just remember to get a new whiteboard marker before your next video haha.
@@b.t.3406 Most definitely. Recorded another video analyzing "vainglory" and wasn't too happy with the sound quality so I'll rerecord Tuesday.
Even the poor dry erase marker doesn't want to deal with this idiocy
Excellent. Thank you.
I’ve never seen someone work so hard to strain out an amoeba while swallowing a camel. Impressive work
@@josephforster7381 thanks for the view.
What camel am I swallowing? An imagined sin? A thought crime?
Starts reading it at 09:45
@@greatbriton8425 That's only an excerpt. There were about 2 dozens affirmations and denunciations. But for the sake of the video, I chose this one to illustrate the haphazard logic employed by the drafters.
@@TheChristianImperialist Ah right. A good choice.
17:25 People like you, pal. People like you
@@elijahrittenhouse3943 "everyone who disagrees with me is a white supremacist" is a good slogan. You should definitely keep using it.
I gave this video about seven minutes. Your meandering monologue and word games aren't impressive. Also, logic is not your strong suit: "Anti-semitism in the dictionary means anti-jew, therefore Jews control the dictionary" is impressively bad, even in an alleged tongue-in-cheek way.
@@barelyprotestant5365 thanks for stripping the jest out of the context of Wilson's words.
You must be a blast at parties.
@@TheChristianImperialist Thanks for playing word games! I always love useless debates about whether or not "anti-semitism" should be defined exclusively for Jews: fascinating debate. That'll TOTALLY help further dialogue. I'm sure next you'll join Corey Mahler and talk about how based and trad and devout a Christian Hitler was because...dogs liked him. Yeah.
In case you couldn't tell: that was sarcasm.
Just sharing, the audio is tinny.
@@sallyfox2259 thank you!
What are the 3 S’s?
well, he did say that he didn't shave which was evident. No more is evident from the video alone unless...Oh, never mind.
@@avaritt the Brits showed US soldiers morning "ablutions" were necessary for preparedness in WWI. You say ablution to a recruit and no one understands what you mean, so we americanized it to "shit, shower, shave." You do that every morning and you are ready for the day ahead.
But obviously I don't shave. Some have added additional S's "say prayer" "suit up" etc...
Bravo 😂
Yo, pretty sure adiaphora doesn't mean “things that don’t matter,” at least not in the way you’re using it.
The Bible doesn’t address things like Allied meeting times, paratrooper deployments, tank movements or what was for lunch. Our opinions about those things shouldn't be used as a measure of Christian orthodoxy.
That doesn’t mean you can treat sin like it’s just a difference of opinion about things the Bible doesn’t specifically address.
Malice, vain glory, race-baiting, antisemitism, treachery, bitterness, and hatred are not civic adiaphora. The Bible clearly prohibits these.
So, it’s actually the opposite of what you’re saying: all those “muh feelins” need to be submitted to Scripture.
If you’re harboring bitterness toward a particular person or group, no amount of historical context about an event will provide cover or can justify that sin and you need to repent.
As for your “100 million” scenario, that falls under the “superabundant, diverse forms and veritable glut of evidence” point. To believe 100m, you’d have to ignore all that evidence they're talking about.
So you were actually in line with the declaration when you said that denying it altogether and believing the 100m number are equally absurd. Keep going and you might end up signing it yourself😉
@@dittgog4253 Adiaophra is precisely "indifferent opinions." It's historical use within the church, iirc, was with Luther explaining opinions which are nonessential to the faith, thus are not salvation/anathema-worthy.
So again, opinions on Allied transgressions are classified as adiaophra. Opinions on Axis transgressions they deny are adiaophra.
Thanks for the view and the thoughts. I appreciate your candor.
@@TheChristianImperialist Sure, adiaphora can’t be used to measure someone’s Christian orthodoxy. But saying the declaration is claiming “history doesn’t matter” isn't accurate.
The Bible doesn’t talk about paratrooper deployments or tank movements, and that applies whether we’re talking about the Allies or the Axis.
You’re right though, they’re drawing a distinction between what qualifies as adiaphora and what doesn’t, and it’s not simply based on the names Allies or Axis or whatever.
The declaration specifically calls out the sinful theories and doctrines behind one side’s actions. Those ideas aren’t adiaphora.
That doesn’t mean the Allies were perfect. In fact, that’s exactly what the declaration is acknowledging.
If you think the Allies got something wrong or messed up in a strategy or tactic, that’s fine. If you can recognize and even appreciate a clever move that gave the Axis a win in battle, that’s fine too. You can be orthodox in both situations.
But if you go as far as to say things like, “the Axis powers were actually righteous and stood for freedom,” or “I think our side was truly and sinfully motivated by racism,” then you need to revisit:
"We deny that it is possible to recover an ethic that honors our fathers and their momentous sacrifices while actively and openly dishonoring them."
Also, you don’t have to land on exactly 6 million to be orthodox. But orthodoxy is tied to the hatred, malice, bitterness, etc. in our hearts. The orthodox position would be that those things have no place there.
@dittgog4253 The document regards opinions of Allied tactics, leaders, or strategies as adiaophra. The same "civic adiaophra" does not extend to opinions of Axis tactics, leaders, or strategies.
Your last response is very charitable by including "Axis" actions as adiaophra. Unfortunately, the Declaration omits that word (which is more proof of the haphazard nature of this document.)
What I find interesting in the list of proposed sins--"malice, race-baiting...bitterness, hatred." Those categories perfectly summarize the spiritual condition of most American Christians between Dec 7th, 1941 and Sep 2, 1945....not to mention the bitterness and malice harbored for years long after.
If these "sins" are valid to question one's orthodoxy (being 'in Christ') then this Declaration has functionally anathematized anyone in the last 2000 years who died without forgiving someone.
If you think I'm being too "extra" about that, let me remind you the charge of antisemitism is among those sins and is the linchpin of many other clauses regarding the Holocaust, Jewish conspiracies, et al. These sins are tests of orthodoxy and are the snare of the wolves that "a faithful Christian shepherd... [has] a duty to confront and rebuke."