Machen and Segregation

Status
Not open for further replies.
A.Joseph

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Senior
https://oldlife.org/2018/09/05/machens-unpardonable-sin/

This is going to be used to further push social justice. Not sure why....? God uses flawed, imperfect men to preserve and advance gospel truth .....

This may be a stretch, but I wonder if Machen held to a more literal creationist perspective would he have been on the right side of this issue from the beginning... ?

Political activism is alive and well in today's church unfortunately... with the purpose of sowing discord and distracting from the gospel, theological clarity, and biblical orthodoxy... (?) Seems a bit orchestrated and deliberate...
https://twitter.com/tisaiahcho?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1036452900875063296&ref_url=https://oldlife.org/2018/09/05/machens-unpardonable-sin/
 
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion said:
I guess we may soon expect to see calls to remove the Machen name from any buildings on a campus.
Click to expand...

I almost rated this "funny," but it is not funny what is happening in our culture. Stalin et al. were big on getting rid of the past. This trend is dangerous.

Wow! was that ever off the subject.

BTW Patrick, are you still up? Or did you beat me getting up? :)
 
A.Joseph said:
https://oldlife.org/2018/09/05/machens-unpardonable-sin/

This is going to be used to further push social justice. Not sure why....? God uses flawed, imperfect men to preserve and advance gospel truth .....

This may be a stretch, but I wonder if Machen held to a more literal creationist perspective would he have been on the right side of this issue from the beginning... ?

Political activism is alive and well in today's church unfortunately... with the purpose of sowing discord and distracting from the gospel, theological clarity, and biblical orthodoxy... (?) Seems a bit orchestrated and deliberate...
https://twitter.com/tisaiahcho?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1036452900875063296&ref_url=https://oldlife.org/2018/09/05/machens-unpardonable-sin/
Click to expand...
he would just be a primary example to us that while he was a strong Christian, who resisted liberalism seeking to destroy the Faith, he still had real flaws in his theology. I would suspect all of us here have some area where either we have a bad theology, or else a misapplication of our theology.
 
I'm telling you, brothers, this isn't going to stop with just Twitter posts; this is going to go much, much further in the church.

Observe...

1) A Desiring God article is written lamenting the fact that Dabney's works are still even published and sold.

2) I respond, remarking that this is, in practicality, denying justification by faith alone.

3) The author (finally) responds. Even though he denies denying justification by faith alone, his rhetoric goes further, claiming, "I personally do not have utmost confidence in his salvation. […] [G]iven the evidence we have, it doesn’t look good." Notice the extreme escalation.

Don't think this will end well for anyone...
 
Taylor Sexton said:
I'm telling you, brothers, this isn't going to stop with just Twitter posts; this is going to go much, much further in the church.

Observe...

1) A Desiring God article is written lamenting the fact that Dabney's works are still even published and sold.

2) I respond, remarking that this is, in practicality, denying justification by faith alone.

3) The author (finally) responds. Even though he denies denying justification by faith alone, his rhetoric goes further, claiming, "I personally do not have utmost confidence in his salvation. […] [G]iven the evidence we have, it doesn’t look good." Notice the extreme escalation.

Don't think this will end well for anyone...
Click to expand...

What he “personally” reckons is irrelevant.

If we go by what is in scripture and the “evidence”, can we pass judgment on St. Peter? In his heart what did he truly think of the Gentiles as drew his last breath?
 
Last edited:
Taylor Sexton said:
I'm telling you, brothers, this isn't going to stop with just Twitter posts; this is going to go much, much further in the church.

Observe...

1) A Desiring God article is written lamenting the fact that Dabney's works are still even published and sold.

2) I respond, remarking that this is, in practicality, denying justification by faith alone.

3) The author (finally) responds. Even though he denies denying justification by faith alone, his rhetoric goes further, claiming, "I personally do not have utmost confidence in his salvation. […] [G]iven the evidence we have, it doesn’t look good." Notice the extreme escalation.

Don't think this will end well for anyone...
Click to expand...
"He is still quoted in our own books without caveat or qualification."

As R. L. Dabney (who was a racist, so watch out!) once said, ...
 
ZackF said:
If we go by what is in scripture and the “evidence” can we pass judgment on St. Peter? In his heart what did he truly think of the Gentiles as drew is last breath?
Click to expand...

You're right. Although Peter acknowledged Gentiles will be saved just as Jews will (Acts 15:11), is there any hard evidence he ever repented from the view of Gentiles with which he was no doubt taught to have due to his upbringing?

TylerRay said:
"He is still quoted in our own books without caveat or qualification."
Click to expand...

Of course, as I point out, this standard is not applied to Edwards. Yes, they have published several things that point out that he was a slaveholder, but I've never seen a "caveat or qualification" in a footnote citing Edwards—or about Calvin regarding Servetus, or about Augustine regarding some of his statements on women with which some take issue, etc., etc.

Of course, my issue is that, for Mr. Klevin (the author of that article), it would seem that, if someone held to a particular sin which our modern society hold to be particularly egregious, even their very salvation needs "caveat and qualification." In the words of Donald Trump, "Sad!"
 
It bears repeating, the Rev. Matthew Henry Commenting on Ecclesiastes 7:

“Make not thyself over-wise." Be not opinionative, and conceited of thy own abilities. Set not up for a dictator, nor pretend to give law to, and give judgment upon, all about thee. Set not up for a critic, to find fault with every thing that is said and done, nor busy thyself in other men’s matters, as if thou knewest every thing and couldst do any thing. Why shouldst thou destroy thyself, as fools often do by meddling with strife that belongs not to them? Why shouldst thou provoke authority, and run thyself into the briers, by needless contradictions, and by going out of thy sphere to correct what is amiss? "Be wise as serpents; beware of men.”​
Click to expand...

Brother, this is pure gold! Thank you.
 
Taylor Sexton said:
You're right. Although Peter acknowledged Gentiles will be saved just as Jews will (Acts 15:11), is there any hard evidence he ever repented from the view of Gentiles with which he was no doubt taught to have due to his upbringing?



Of course, as I point out, this standard is not applied to Edwards. Yes, they have published several things that point out that he was a slaveholder, but I've never seen a "caveat or qualification" in a footnote citing Edwards—or about Calvin regarding Servetus, or about Augustine regarding some of his statements on women with which some take issue, etc., etc.

Of course, my issue is that, for Mr. Klevin (the author of that article), it would seem that, if someone held to a particular sin which our modern society hold to be particularly egregious, even their very salvation needs "caveat and qualification." In the words of Donald Trump, "Sad!"
Click to expand...

I pray that Mr. Klevin realizes that Christ’s blood is sufficient to cover whatever sins he may be committing that future generations will deem unpardonable.
 
Taylor Sexton said:
You're right. Although Peter acknowledged Gentiles will be saved just as Jews will (Acts 15:11), is there any hard evidence he ever repented from the view of Gentiles with which he was no doubt taught to have due to his upbringing?



Of course, as I point out, this standard is not applied to Edwards. Yes, they have published several things that point out that he was a slaveholder, but I've never seen a "caveat or qualification" in a footnote citing Edwards—or about Calvin regarding Servetus, or about Augustine regarding some of his statements on women with which some take issue, etc., etc.

Of course, my issue is that, for Mr. Klevin (the author of that article), it would seem that, if someone held to a particular sin which our modern society hold to be particularly egregious, even their very salvation needs "caveat and qualification." In the words of Donald Trump, "Sad!"
Click to expand...
Sad? No--ridiculous!! If I ever have any reason to quote Mr. Klevin, I'm going to give him some caveats and qualifications of his own. See how he likes it.
 
Much as I loathe the Social Justice Gospel, we need to be wary of not veering off in the other direction. While "racism" is often wrongly seen as the unpardonable sin, we must also affirm that anyone advocating racial segregation among Christians is in grave error and is practically denying the catholicity of the church. The views of men like J. G. Machen and R. L. Dabney on this issue are not acceptable. And we should make no effort to atone for their errors on this subject, especially as to do so would give more ammunition to the Leftists.

Does that mean that such people were not saved? Or does it render everything they ever did or wrote worthless? I do not believe that it is either wise or necessary for us to make such pronouncements. The simple fact is that we do not know the state of other people's hearts and it is easy for us in our generation to be self-righteous on this issue. Had we been brought up in a "racist" or segregationist culture, would we have been any better? Still, that point does not excuse the church in the past for not discouraging such ungodly sentiments. And, by the way, that includes those arguing for racially segregated black or Asian churches nowadays.
 
I agree 100%, but also keep in mind that this is not wholly organic...I would dare to suggest pockets of this movement are funded....
The sins of our heart and the hearts of our brethren are personal and individual matters and should be dealt with accordingly. Take the celebrity out of the equation, the systematic out of racism, and promote the universality of our deep depravity...even if it hurts book sales and our social media status.
At the risk of illustrating the fool Henry references:

This cuts in all directions. Whether you're the "social-justice" type, its polar opposite, or somewhere in between, one should spend some time thinking about how to best user their time. It is my mere opinion, and my own anecdotal observation, that the modern "movements" of note, do little for secret, private, and local progress in the growth in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, and -instead- foment dis-ease, discontent, disregard for office of authority, etc., regardless of the earnestness or intent with which some may be executing this "duty."

I suppose -and I think it can be shown in the Scriptures- that if each from every direction were 1) Regenerate, and subsequently, 2) to spend time communing with their own hearts on their beds (Ps. 4), such would lead to 3) Self-examination and by God's Spirit, 4) identification of their own sins, needs, and existing graces, and they'd then 5) be humbled for their sins, entreat God for their needs, and thank Him for their current graces, and 6) resolve -according to their own place, station, circumstance, and sphere of influence (secretly, privately, churchly, and work-ly)- to a) rise where they have fallen, b) pick up where they have left off, c) do well where they've done ill, while 7) never trusting in such things for their merit, but -rather- trusting in God Who grants the progress and success in those things at His Good Pleasure, and in His Due Time, much of this mess could cleared.

Either way, perhaps while the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing (Ps. 2), let us take up the personality of the man referenced in Psalm 1, who:

1. Does not walk in the counsel of the ungodly, or
2. Stand in the way of sinners, or
3. Sit in the seat of the scornful

Why? Because his best efforts are spent meditating on the law of God day and night.

There are men whose purview these things fall under. There are men whose place, station, circumstance, and sphere of influence these things fall among. But I'd venture to say that it is far fewer than the numbers we see involved in every nook and cranny of this whole mess, looking for their pound of flesh (as they perceive it).
Click to expand...
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
Much as I loathe the Social Justice Gospel, we need to be wary of not veering off in the other direction. While "racism" is often wrongly seen as the unpardonable sin, we must also affirm that anyone advocating racial segregation among Christians is in grave error and is practically denying the catholicity of the church. The views of men like J. G. Machen and R. L. Dabney on this issue are not acceptable. And we should make no effort to atone for their errors on this subject, especially as to do so would give more ammunition to the Leftists.

Does that mean that such people were not saved? Or does it render everything they ever did or wrote worthless? I do not believe that it is either wise or necessary for us to make such pronouncements. The simple fact is that we do not know the state of other people's hearts and it is easy for us in our generation to be self-righteous on this issue. Had we been brought up in a "racist" or segregationist culture, would we have been any better? Still, that point does not excuse the church in the past for not discouraging such ungodly sentiments. And, by the way, that includes those arguing for racially segregated black or Asian churches nowadays.
Click to expand...

These are my feelings exactly, brother. I love Dabney, but I would never ask someone, myself included, to dismiss his sin as something light or inconsequential. It wasn't! My issue is not that we are noticing these things about our forefathers in the Faith. However, what I am asking is that we dispense, as you remarked, with our self-righteous attitudes toward others—both living and dead—as if we are any better before God without Christ as a garment of righteousness over our naked and exposed bodies. It is one thing to take note of our brothers' and sisters' sins; it is a whole different thing to begin the process of their public condemnation, even suggesting that these objects of our wicked wrath are now the objects of God's perfect wrath in hell. That, to me, seems not only over-the-top, but entirely out of the bounds of Scripture.
 
One time I yelled at my mother. As a clear violator of the 5th commandment who is not fit for the presence of God, should anyone listen to anything I have to say about doctrine?
 
De Jager said:
One time I yelled at my mother. As a clear violator of the 5th commandment who is not fit for the presence of God, should anyone listen to anything I have to say about doctrine?
Click to expand...
Too bad we do not have a Funny, yet Sad smilie. ;)

Contact Gloria Allred immediately. Hearings on the matter of your fitness are imminent.
 
Anyone else see the irony in there being a huge 2nd Commandment violation right on the page that's grousing about Machen's error?
"Let him that is without sin among you cast the first stone"
and then there's the bit about motes and beams in folks eyes....
 
"Finally, this episode is a good reminder of the importance of distinguishing between history and theology (or ethics). As a matter of theology and ethics we should reject Machen’s prejudices. We should determine to apply our theology (e.g., our doctrine the image of God) consistently. As a matter of Christian ethics, we should determine to love our neighbor as ourselves without regard to ethnicity. We rightly regard this as basic Christianity. As a matter of history, however, we need to interpret figures in light of their time, their circumstances, their location in history and not in light of ours. This too is a matter of basic Christian ethics. This is how Christian historians love their neighbor as themselves. Anachronism is the result of impatience and even intellectual laziness. This is an American disease. We tend to want results now. We tend to agree with Henry Ford, “history is bunk.” Christians, however, cannot afford to indulge their impatience and pragmatism. " - RSC
 
A.Joseph said:
https://oldlife.org/2018/09/05/machens-unpardonable-sin/

This is going to be used to further push social justice. Not sure why....? God uses flawed, imperfect men to preserve and advance gospel truth .....

This may be a stretch, but I wonder if Machen held to a more literal creationist perspective would he have been on the right side of this issue from the beginning... ?

Political activism is alive and well in today's church unfortunately... with the purpose of sowing discord and distracting from the gospel, theological clarity, and biblical orthodoxy... (?) Seems a bit orchestrated and deliberate...
https://twitter.com/tisaiahcho?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1036452900875063296&ref_url=https://oldlife.org/2018/09/05/machens-unpardonable-sin/
Click to expand...
This is NOT accurate. The University itself did not admit any blacks until World War II. When a black student showed up in 1935, Princeton ran him out under a vague supposition that southern students would not be comfortable. Mr. Machen grew up in Baltimore (which had more social mobility than just about any other US city at the time) and died long before dormitories housed blacks.

Note: the website in the OP is badly infested with mal code.
 
jwithnell said:
This is NOT accurate. The University itself did not admit any blacks until World War II. When a black student showed up in 1935, Princeton ran him out under a vague supposition that southern students would not be comfortable. Mr. Machen grew up in Baltimore (which had more social mobility than just about any other US city at the time) and died long before dormitories housed blacks.

Note: the website in the OP is badly infested with mal code.
Click to expand...
Intersting that the more socially liberal university was not allowing for diversity on their campus.
 
Tom Hart said:
No examples given or sources cited in this register of offences against "people of colour".
Click to expand...

This is one of the grievances I have with Mr. Klevin’s article against Dabney (see my first comment in this thread). In his response to me, his talks about “dismantling white supremacy” in “evangelical spaces and institutions,” yet not once does he cite any example of actual white supremacy (except criticizing MLK, Jr. in any way at all). This habit of accusation without hard evidence example is a common theme among these types, I have found.
 
Dachaser said:
Intersting that the more socially liberal university was not allowing for diversity on their campus.
Click to expand...
That's just it. At the time, many of the top universities did not admit blacks or women, and capped the number of Jews. In many places, especially on the West Coast, people with Asian ancestry could not own land. In Alaska, it was OK to post signs that said no Indians could enter a place of business. This is a part of our past that should not be forgotten.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A.Joseph
  • Locked
Hart on Machen and Evolution
Replies
23
Views
2K
A.Joseph
A.Joseph
B
  • Locked
Machen Plug
Replies
2
Views
1K
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
Backwoods Presbyterian
  • Locked
Great (and slightly comical) J. Gresham Machen Quote
Replies
7
Views
2K
JennyG
J
scottmaciver
  • Locked
Machen on Christian Fellowship
Replies
9
Views
2K
Afterthought
A
B
  • Locked
Mencken's Obit for Machen
Replies
7
Views
3K
bwsmith
B
Back
Top