Because refutation from Scripture takes a backseat to majoritarian and appeals to the words of men. This whole video is disrespectful to Scripture. The Bible says “ALL the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ.” (Emphasis added). The Bible says that “fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Not the endpoint of rational autonomous arguments, but the beginning point and precondition of all true knowledge. Read Dr. Greg Bahnsen because, in one place or another, all of Wolfe’s points are refuted.
@@JessStanfieldIf you’ve read Bahnsen then you know his points are exegeted from scripture. Wolfe does not do exegesis nor does he seem to think he should develop that as a skill.
@trentcurtis7925 Doesn’t everyone Wolfe references (aside from Aristotle) also use scripture for their arguments? If I understand Wolfe correctly, the reason he doesn’t exegete from scripture is because the reformers he references already did that when they made their arguments, so he doesn’t see the need to do so himself.
@@BertoleyusSo in other words, he trusts the words of men over the Word of God? Did the Reformers not get things wrong? Did not Luther and Calvin both refuse to engage with the Mariolatry of their day and refute it? There are clear quotes from Luther that suggest he affirmed that Mary was born without original sin and was a perpetual virgin, yet I don’t see Wolfe quoting Luther and calling for us all to believe those things. Just because a reformer said it doesn’t make it right, and he does not cite all reformers, just the ones that agree with his preconceived notions. It’s a very papist way of reasoning to go based on tradition rather than God’s word.
The Westminster Confession is quite clear that Total Depravity means everything that we do is evil. That doesn't mean we stop being moral/rational creatures, but it does mean that nothing we do is good in the biblical sense of the term. “We are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil”
Right, then it uses Aristotelian fourfold causality to explain how unregenerate men’s works may be materially good though formally, efficiently, and finally evil. “Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others: yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God: and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.”
To his "just chill out" point: People freak out because they assume the reformers affirmed every single one of their cultural assumptions which informe their theological views. They claim Calvin yet do not understand, nor affirm much of anything he taught while believing they do.
Liberalism is so deeply engrained most Christians/Conservatives don't realize it's the lens they see the world and church history through. For many, liberal values are synonymous with Christian values (like pretending hierarchy doesn't exist in nature, therefore any outcome that's not equal must be from discrimination), so they end up opposing nature and only want to talk about abstract theological points that are safe, attacking those trying to snap them out of the spell they have been put under; as their idol is liberalism, and having liberals see them as good people.
As you began the discussion, this verse came to mind, If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? Matt 7:11
Very good talk. Lot's to agree with here. I'd say you're carrying the torch of RC Sproul in the deeper things of theology. 20th century innovators didn't appreciate him all that much either.
The problem with the Ezra institute’s article is that it does not consistently apply common grace to the picture. Which is where the postmil theonomic/one kingdom crowd goes astray. Ironically they’re not following Van Til in this, who wasn’t a postmil or theonomist and had a far more robust view of common grace.
Bavinck is helpful in understanding the difference between Calvin and Rome (Thomas): “Even when the ancient distinction between "image" and "likenes" was taken over by many and also applied in that sense. It soon became clear, however, that even where Protestants retained the expression "superadded gift” they meant something else by it. The idea among Roman Catholics is that one can very well conceive a human being without these supernatural gifts. Indeed, as a rational and moral being, man would also have some knowledge of God, the moral law, and righteousness. But according to Rome there is an essential difference among knowledge, love, and righteousness in a natural sense and these qualities in a supernatural sense, between the natural and the supernatural man, between a human being and a Christian, between the world and the church, between nature and grace. Grace is not merely restorative, but an elevation and completion of nature. It was this position that the Reformation opposed as a matter of fundamental principle. And so it had to come around, and in fact did come around, to the doctrine that the image of God essentially belonged to man by nature, and that without it man could only exist in an "impure nature," as a sinner.” Herman Bavinck, RD vol. 2, pg 549
@ I can identify when someone is reading Aristotle rightly, and when they’re propagating an old trite Hellenization thesis that’s been thoroughly debunked by historians. Boot is a biblicist who hates the vast majority of the reformed tradition, sans a few modernist Dutchmen.
I do have to say that Stephen is making his point very well here. These things are worth really discussing but it would be best if he, as representative, could have an honest debate with those who accuse him like Joe Boot. I mean if he is even challenging Boot's reformed position it is an open challenge. Biases should be set aside and the other side giving an honest inquiry into Stephen's views. If anyone knows whether or not this was done recently and fairly I would appreciate the resource.
It’s hard to stay away. I know he said he’s taking the month off but sometimes it’s hard to check out completely. Sometimes just have to comment on stuff.
They should all just be happy we have Dr. Wolfe to gently nudge them in the direction of rationality bc when Candice Owens gets ahold of something it’s a judgement from God. Absolutely ruthless… Dr. Wolfe is our mercy. Listen to him.
Though I am far from being a scholar, it appears to me that a point must be made. What people may see as good and beautiful from non-regenerate people doesn't mean it is good and beautiful to God. Unless one is elected unto salvation before the foundation of the world and regenerated, nothing they do is ever good or beautiful in the eyes of the Lord.
It’s strange that he never actually reads or refutes Van Til or Bahnsen, who argue with force that presupp and theonomy are core to being consistently Calvinist. So much of Ezra Inst. and other modern reformed churches credit Van Til with their presuppositionalism, and I have a strong doubt Wolfe has actually read his work or Bahnsen’s work. He calls Van Til unhistorical (as if that conclusively disproves his ideas) and thoroughly refuted, but never responds to any of his arguments specifically. Really it’s just Aquinas/Wolfe vs Van Til, and Wolfe never really interacts with any of Van Til’s philosophy and I doubt he has read him. Much less Bahnsen. If Wolfe was honest he would put his ideas to the test in a debate against Joe Boot. Open challenge to all the Thomists in the comments section. Explain to me how, without any reference or any assumption of scripture, using your natural reason, that homosexuality is evil. I’ll provide pushback in an effort to demonstrate that you’re latently assuming biblical truth even while claiming that you’re coming to that truth without the Bible.
Absolutely! Wolfe's entire case is based on what he considers a historical argument, not a biblical one. When it comes to Christian nationalism, he does the same. He admits he cannot defend it biblically. And as you noted, it is obvious that he has read little to nothing of either Van Til or Bahnsen.
@@mattdoyle6871 Thank you Trent and Matthew for your comments here. I'm glad Wolfe "proved" himself yet again. I do believe you Matthew made that case on X that Wolfe refuses to engage with these arguments from Theonomists.
@@trentcurtis7925 Matthew Doyle (who commented above) has encouraged me to read some Bahnsen. I have not done so yet but anything that keeps Christ at the Center is going to be good with me. This "movement", as other such movements by definition have to pull the center to the left.
I love the attention to history and the progress of ideas given in this podcast. It is refreshing.
Because refutation from Scripture takes a backseat to majoritarian and appeals to the words of men. This whole video is disrespectful to Scripture. The Bible says “ALL the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ.” (Emphasis added). The Bible says that “fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Not the endpoint of rational autonomous arguments, but the beginning point and precondition of all true knowledge. Read Dr. Greg Bahnsen because, in one place or another, all of Wolfe’s points are refuted.
@@trentcurtis7925 you would been more consistent if you hadn't suggested he read/study Bahnsen instead of scripture.
@@JessStanfieldIf you’ve read Bahnsen then you know his points are exegeted from scripture. Wolfe does not do exegesis nor does he seem to think he should develop that as a skill.
@trentcurtis7925
Doesn’t everyone Wolfe references (aside from Aristotle) also use scripture for their arguments? If I understand Wolfe correctly, the reason he doesn’t exegete from scripture is because the reformers he references already did that when they made their arguments, so he doesn’t see the need to do so himself.
@@BertoleyusSo in other words, he trusts the words of men over the Word of God? Did the Reformers not get things wrong? Did not Luther and Calvin both refuse to engage with the Mariolatry of their day and refute it? There are clear quotes from Luther that suggest he affirmed that Mary was born without original sin and was a perpetual virgin, yet I don’t see Wolfe quoting Luther and calling for us all to believe those things. Just because a reformer said it doesn’t make it right, and he does not cite all reformers, just the ones that agree with his preconceived notions. It’s a very papist way of reasoning to go based on tradition rather than God’s word.
The Westminster Confession is quite clear that Total Depravity means everything that we do is evil. That doesn't mean we stop being moral/rational creatures, but it does mean that nothing we do is good in the biblical sense of the term.
“We are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil”
Right, then it uses Aristotelian fourfold causality to explain how unregenerate men’s works may be materially good though formally, efficiently, and finally evil.
“Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others: yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God: and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.”
@@jacobcarne8316
"Aristotelian 4 fold causality..."
False, this is anachronism at its finest
😂😂 presupps are evidence that logic isn’t taught in schools
To his "just chill out" point: People freak out because they assume the reformers affirmed every single one of their cultural assumptions which informe their theological views. They claim Calvin yet do not understand, nor affirm much of anything he taught while believing they do.
Liberalism is so deeply engrained most Christians/Conservatives don't realize it's the lens they see the world and church history through. For many, liberal values are synonymous with Christian values (like pretending hierarchy doesn't exist in nature, therefore any outcome that's not equal must be from discrimination), so they end up opposing nature and only want to talk about abstract theological points that are safe, attacking those trying to snap them out of the spell they have been put under; as their idol is liberalism, and having liberals see them as good people.
I really appreciate you Stephen. First class.
As you began the discussion, this verse came to mind,
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? Matt 7:11
Very good talk. Lot's to agree with here. I'd say you're carrying the torch of RC Sproul in the deeper things of theology. 20th century innovators didn't appreciate him all that much either.
Good work, sir.
Thanks Stephan very helpful!
The problem with the Ezra institute’s article is that it does not consistently apply common grace to the picture. Which is where the postmil theonomic/one kingdom crowd goes astray. Ironically they’re not following Van Til in this, who wasn’t a postmil or theonomist and had a far more robust view of common grace.
Bavinck is helpful in understanding the difference between Calvin and Rome (Thomas): “Even when the ancient distinction between "image" and "likenes" was taken over by many and also applied in that sense. It soon became clear, however, that even where Protestants retained the expression "superadded gift” they meant something else by it. The idea among Roman Catholics is that one can very well conceive a human being without these supernatural gifts. Indeed, as a rational and moral being, man would also have some knowledge of God, the moral law, and righteousness. But according to Rome there is an essential difference among knowledge, love, and righteousness in a natural sense and these qualities in a supernatural sense, between the natural and the supernatural man, between a human being and a Christian, between the world and the church, between nature and grace. Grace is not merely restorative, but an elevation and completion of nature. It was this position that the Reformation opposed as a matter of fundamental principle. And so it had to come around, and in fact did come around, to the doctrine that the image of God essentially belonged to man by nature, and that without it man could only exist in an "impure nature," as a sinner.”
Herman Bavinck, RD vol. 2, pg 549
the chill of it all
It didn't have to be this way, by the way.
Friendly reminder. Never forget.
Thanks for this information.
This nation belongs to Christ
Amen.
The Ezra institute is embarrassing and Boot loves to double down on his ignorance
That only demonstrates your ignorance in saying that.
@ I can identify when someone is reading Aristotle rightly, and when they’re propagating an old trite Hellenization thesis that’s been thoroughly debunked by historians. Boot is a biblicist who hates the vast majority of the reformed tradition, sans a few modernist Dutchmen.
ROFL!!! REALLY? DOES IT NOW???
@@joeadrian2860 Yes, it does, really.
@@mattdoyle6871 I was agreeing with you sorry. I was responding to the unsubstantiated claim that Boot was ignorant LOL!
I do have to say that Stephen is making his point very well here. These things are worth really discussing but it would be best if he, as representative, could have an honest debate with those who accuse him like Joe Boot. I mean if he is even challenging Boot's reformed position it is an open challenge. Biases should be set aside and the other side giving an honest inquiry into Stephen's views. If anyone knows whether or not this was done recently and fairly I would appreciate the resource.
More chill pills please
What is meant by the distinction “religion” and the rest of life? What does he mean by religion?
Found it!
Stephen are you A-mil? or?
thanks
I had high hopes for your time away from twitter😂
It’s hard to stay away. I know he said he’s taking the month off but sometimes it’s hard to check out completely. Sometimes just have to comment on stuff.
Haha. I thought the same.
For the algo!
It's painful to watch someone claim to be closer to Calvins position...while completely butchering Calvin
They should all just be happy we have Dr. Wolfe to gently nudge them in the direction of rationality bc when Candice Owens gets ahold of something it’s a judgement from God. Absolutely ruthless… Dr. Wolfe is our mercy. Listen to him.
Though I am far from being a scholar, it appears to me that a point must be made. What people may see as good and beautiful from non-regenerate people doesn't mean it is good and beautiful to God. Unless one is elected unto salvation before the foundation of the world and regenerated, nothing they do is ever good or beautiful in the eyes of the Lord.
It’s strange that he never actually reads or refutes Van Til or Bahnsen, who argue with force that presupp and theonomy are core to being consistently Calvinist. So much of Ezra Inst. and other modern reformed churches credit Van Til with their presuppositionalism, and I have a strong doubt Wolfe has actually read his work or Bahnsen’s work. He calls Van Til unhistorical (as if that conclusively disproves his ideas) and thoroughly refuted, but never responds to any of his arguments specifically.
Really it’s just Aquinas/Wolfe vs Van Til, and Wolfe never really interacts with any of Van Til’s philosophy and I doubt he has read him. Much less Bahnsen. If Wolfe was honest he would put his ideas to the test in a debate against Joe Boot.
Open challenge to all the Thomists in the comments section. Explain to me how, without any reference or any assumption of scripture, using your natural reason, that homosexuality is evil. I’ll provide pushback in an effort to demonstrate that you’re latently assuming biblical truth even while claiming that you’re coming to that truth without the Bible.
Absolutely! Wolfe's entire case is based on what he considers a historical argument, not a biblical one. When it comes to Christian nationalism, he does the same. He admits he cannot defend it biblically. And as you noted, it is obvious that he has read little to nothing of either Van Til or Bahnsen.
@@mattdoyle6871 Thank you Trent and Matthew for your comments here. I'm glad Wolfe "proved" himself yet again. I do believe you Matthew made that case on X that Wolfe refuses to engage with these arguments from Theonomists.
@@joeadrian2860 Happy to see others agree with this. Wolfe has definitely proved he is ignorant of Van Til and theonomy.
@@trentcurtis7925 Matthew Doyle (who commented above) has encouraged me to read some Bahnsen. I have not done so yet but anything that keeps Christ at the Center is going to be good with me. This "movement", as other such movements by definition have to pull the center to the left.