Santorum on Bruce Jenner: ‘If He Says He’s Woman, Then He’s a Woman’

[Brian4Liberty]

I guess Bruce Jenner can throw his gold medal in the trash can because by his logic everyone has won the gold medal given that everyone wants to win a gold medal.

Obviously his medals are invalid as he competed in the men's category.

[dude58677]

Obviously his medals are invalid as he competed in the men's category.

That's not what I meant. So many people dream of winning a gold medal so doesn't that make all these people gold medalists? Every Olympian and every aspiring athlete is a gold medalist given that they dream of winning the gold. By his logic, why even have competition if everyone is a gold medalist?

[69360]

Maybe Frothy thinks Bruce is purty? That would explain a lot.

[erowe1]

I wonder what Jenner's opinion of santorum is.

[Brian4Liberty]

[osan]

I'll grammar NAZI ya right back. This is one of those rather rare instances in which word order allows a speaker/writer to be freer with declension. If the order was [...]considering from whom it's coming[...], I would agree. cajun's use of the nominative is, IMHO, grammatically correct. Also, "whom" is more of a bookism nowadays (for better or for worse). It has all but gone the way of "thou". Since forums are more like spoken language than written(in practice), "who" is a logical choice.

So far as GrammarNAZI knows, and GrammarNAZI may be wrong, hanging prepositions are never correct even though they are used all the time, even by GrammarNAZI on occasion. Thou may'st be correct... or perhaps thou art in error... GrammarNAZI may have to go look this $#@! up.

Sieg Fukkineth HEIL!​ Or as GrammarNAZI likes to take license with spelling: Zieg Fukkineth HEIL!, or "ZFH" for short.

[osan]

Santorum on Bruce Jenner

Conjures an image that belongs in Hot topics. (or not at all)

Oh sweet Jesus... My mind's eye just went blind.

Thanks a lot.

[osan]

I wonder what Jenner's opinion of santorum is.

Ask, but I warn you to don a wetsuit before doing so.

[Sola_Fide]

I think that Rousas Rushdoony had a fairly strong grasp of biblical law, but he struggled applying it consistently. I generally have more in common with the politics of some of the Reconstructionists than I do with the mainstream GOP, but they run into serious trouble in a couple areas, which is why I never identified as one. The main point that they miss the boat on is the historical nature of the Christian faith. Calvin's writings, along with Luther's, Knox's, and the Synods and Assemblies of the Presbyterian and German/Dutch/Other Reformed Churches has a testimonial character to them that provides very beneficial guidance to those trying to comprehend the scriptures and also how to avoid errors. The same basically holds true for pre-Reformation and Early Church writers, though as with any teaching authority subordinate to scripture, they are naturally not infallible, though I would argue that understanding them is of a hypothetical necessity if one wishes to engage in theological combat with the adversaries of the faith.

Probably the biggest commonality I have with the Reconstructionists is their Post-Millennial eschatology. I tend to have an optimistic view of what the future will hold for the church, but I take more of a Revivalist position than a Dominionist one when it comes to implementation.

I like a lot of what you said here. I am more amillenial because of 1st Timothy 3. But I don't think that Reconstructionists rightly divide grace and law. I was a Reconstructionist for many years.

[amy31416]

I just decided that I'm a man.

[hells_unicorn]

I like a lot of what you said here. I am more amillenial because of 1st Timothy 3. But I don't think that Reconstructionists rightly divide grace and law. I was a Reconstructionist for many years.

Amillennialism is a fairly common viewpoint in Lutheran circles, and it has a fair number of supporters in the Reformed Churches. I tend to view church history as a Historicist rather than a Idealist, so certain aspects of John's prophecy take on a very specific connotation. David Steele's pamphlet "The Two Witnesses" pretty much lays out the original Covenater position on the Eschaton in a very specific matter, so I think it would be better if I just offer a link to it for anyone curious about it rather than flooding this thread with a massive essay on my understanding of Revelation.

[idiom]

I highly suggest watching this entire documentary.

https://youtu.be/_Gyoq6tdlsE?t=1715

Sports bodies such as the IOC and FIFA have an extremely difficult time telling men and women apart. It isn't political correctness, its biology, and largely what one might consider birth defects.

Women can have XY chromosomes in every cell in their body, Men can have XX.

Sometime genitalia simply fail to develop the same way as the rest of the body.

These are much more difficult issues than one might initially assume.

[Brett85]

I'm way more socially conservative than he is, but far less authoritarian...

Me too. Santorum is a rabid authoritarian but also seems to be joining in with the moral relativism crowd.

[Christian Liberty]

I like a lot of what you said here. I am more amillenial because of 1st Timothy 3. But I don't think that Reconstructionists rightly divide grace and law. I was a Reconstructionist for many years.

I'm not actually sure what my eschatology is. Will look at 1 Timothy 3 now. Most recons are postmil as you mention. Of the "five points of reconstructionism" I accept four. The one I'm agnostic on is the postmil eschatology.

Regarding the division of grace and law, there seems to be some debate on those issues in the theonomic camp. I'd probably be more inclined to be closer to your position on those issues. I am curious precisely what areas you are disagreeing with recons on those issues. I agree that law and gospel need to be separated. Keeping the moral law (to which I include most of the civil law) is an important part of sanctification, but it doesn't save. I believe the OT laws are the most just laws ever created and should be implemented in today's societies, but doing so does not save. Salvation comes only through personal faith in Jesus Christ, and the death he died to save his people from his sins.

Many Reconstructionists have supported Santorum, like Douglas Wilson in the last election.

Yeah, that's irritating. I support Rand Paul.

[Sola_Fide]

Me too. Santorum is a rabid authoritarian but also seems to be joining in with the moral relativism crowd.

Here's the lesson: Authoritarians ALWAYS endorse moral relativism. Always.

[Sola_Fide]

I'm not actually sure what my eschatology is. Will look at 1 Timothy 3 now. Most recons are postmil as you mention. Of the "five points of reconstructionism" I accept four. The one I'm agnostic on is the postmil eschatology.

Regarding the division of grace and law, there seems to be some debate on those issues in the theonomic camp. I'd probably be more inclined to be closer to your position on those issues. I am curious precisely what areas you are disagreeing with recons on those issues. I agree that law and gospel need to be separated. Keeping the moral law (to which I include most of the civil law) is an important part of sanctification, but it doesn't save. I believe the OT laws are the most just laws ever created and should be implemented in today's societies, but doing so does not save. Salvation comes only through personal faith in Jesus Christ, and the death he died to save his people from his sins.



Yeah, that's irritating. I support Rand Paul.

It's irritating? Why? Reconstructionists are authoritarians like Santorum is. It's no accident that they support him.

[anaconda]

He's a woman, that likes women, but he's not gay?

Perhaps he will become gay if he follows through with sex reassignment surgery.

[Christian Liberty]

It's irritating? Why? Reconstructionists are authoritarians like Santorum is. It's no accident that they support him.

Most Reconstructionists want to limit government to the laws that are in the Old Testament (minus, of course, the ceremonial.) Most are close to if not completely non-interventionist on foreign policy, totally laissez faire, against the government spynet, against the drug war, etc. Many recons (although I'm not as comfortable saying "most" here, and I'm not really sure I'd agree myself although it would be nice) believe that theonomy should be implemented only after most of a population is converted. I guess recons are "authoritarian" compared to anarcho-capitalists. Everybody is. But they aren't really authoritarian compared to modern conservatives or liberals.

Covenanters may be a different story.

[Christian Liberty]

The thing is, they don't even hold up what can historically be called Calvinism. If Calvinism is what they say it is, count me out. I'll stick with the Bible.

The more I've discussed the philosophy behind it with people, the more I really can't accept the ultra-high form of Calvinism that you do. I used to just not like it and not really have a sound theological objection, but at this point I think I have a fairly strong theological objection.

That said, you could even deny common grace outright and be a theonomist. I don't see any issue there, at least not as such

[Sola_Fide]

The more I've discussed the philosophy behind it with people, the more I really can't accept the ultra-high form of Calvinism that you do. I used to just not like it and not really have a sound theological objection, but at this point I think I have a fairly strong theological objection.

That said, you could even deny common grace outright and be a theonomist. I don't see any issue there, at least not as such

Not really. Common grace is a component of the Reconstructionists philosophy of "redeeming the culture" and other such heretical nonsense. Gary North wrote a book about it called Dominion and Common Grace. "Culture" and government is not ever redeemed. People are redeemed, and when they are redeemed, they become pilgrims in a world that hates them.

[Christian Liberty]

Not really. Common grace is a component of the Reconstructionists philosophy of "redeeming the culture" and other such heretical nonsense. Gary North wrote a book about it called Dominion and Common Grace. "Culture" and government is not ever redeemed. People are redeemed, and when they are redeemed, they become pilgrims in a world that hates them.

I'm not sure how any of this is actually "heretical".

[Sola_Fide]

I'm not sure how any of this is actually "heretical".

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/commongrace.htm

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=28

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oaMoER7Vwxg

[Christian Liberty]

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/commongrace.htm

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=28

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oaMoER7Vwxg

You have to call things heresy based on what they actually say, not based on what they logically lead to.

[Sola_Fide]

You have to call things heresy based on what they actually say, not based on what they logically lead to.

You cant read that first link and say common grace isn't heresy? I'm amazed...

[Christian Liberty]

You cant read that first link and say common grace isn't heresy? I'm amazed...

I actually believe in common grace, but then, the fact that OTC calls me a heretic really, really doesn't surprise me. heck, they even call you a heretic.

Let's not overuse that word.

[Sola_Fide]

I actually believe in common grace, but then, the fact that OTC calls me a heretic really, really doesn't surprise me. heck, they even call you a heretic.

Let's not overuse that word.

There are tons of critiques out there about common grace. Read the other links if you don't like otc. Common grace is neo-calvinist garbage. It's a heresy because it's Arminianism.

[Christian Liberty]

There are tons of critiques out there about common grace. Read the other links if you don't like otc. Common grace is neo-calvinist garbage. It's a heresy because it's Arminianism.

I listened to the last one. I don't think there's any interpretation of Matthew 5:43-47 that really makes sense if you don't believe in common grace. Of course, God is rightly incensed at sin, and the fact that he has some level of compassion even on the perishing will not stop him from ultimately fulfilling his justice by sending these people to Hell.

You want to reject theological nuance, but its not really possible to lump everything in the same camp.

Arminianism is of much more questionable orthodoxy as compared to common grace, I don't really think Arminians are qualified as teachers, or that the majority of them are saved, however, I don't think being an Arminian automatically makes one unsaved.

[Sola_Fide]

I listened to the last one. I don't think there's any interpretation of Matthew 5:43-47 that really makes sense if you don't believe in common grace. Of course, God is rightly incensed at sin, and the fact that he has some level of compassion even on the perishing will not stop him from ultimately fulfilling his justice by sending these people to Hell.

You want to reject theological nuance, but its not really possible to lump everything in the same camp.

Arminianism is of much more questionable orthodoxy as compared to common grace, I don't really think Arminians are qualified as teachers, or that the majority of them are saved, however, I don't think being an Arminian automatically makes one unsaved.

Actually, in that video is a great quote from David Engelsma that I think will open up your eyes if you understand it.

[RabbitMan]

So there is a random religious debate raging with spats of back-handed remarks about sexuality in between.

Jenner said he is transgender, which is very different from being gay. Welcome to the 21st Century folks, where people can finally begin to be accepted for who they are as individuals, and not by the label society would like to place on them. If Frothy is coming around to the idea of acceptance--even for political reasons--why belittle him?

This in particular annoys me, like when Paul jr or senior reached across the aisle to work with Democrats and is rebuffed by the common liberal for "faking it".

[CPUd]