[Vision2020] Confusing One's Identity

[Art Deco]

The following is a comment appearing on Douglas Wilson's web blot in
response to Wilson's contention that Jesus is against Obamacare:


"I think it is good for you to try and make arguments like you do in the
preceding paragraphs. You should try to apply Scriptural principles to the
various aspects of public policy.

But I would be willing to hazard that you don't stand by your arguments too
firmly. You think they are good and sound, but you also can step back from
them, and recognize that you may have made a mistake, that I may be able to
come in and debate your points with you, and that I (or another) may
actually win that debate with you.

Though you ground your understanding of policy in Scripture, as you ought,
you recognize that your view is only your view, and so would, I hope,
hesitate to pronounce all that in the name of Jesus. Your opinions are
grounded in what Jesus says, but they are still your opinions, not the ones
of Scripture.

And so, for instance, I think you would be reticent to tell someone that
disagrees with you that Jesus tells them they are wrong. Are they not
allowed to also read and attempt to interpret Scriptures, and to come to
different conclusions than you?

This is seen most clearly in one of your paragraphs, the one that begins
"Lastly, I believe as a sociopolitical outlook..." Everything you say in
that paragraph may be true. But you disagree with Christian luminaries
throughout history, including Protestants like Calvin, Luther, and Hooker.
I believe, given that disagreement, you would be reticent to pronounce your
interpretation as if it is in fact *the* interpretation.

This is all very closely tied together with the Reformation. At Worms, the
Catholics told Luther that he must agree with their authority--with their
interpretation of Scripture. He replied, rightly, that He was captive to
the Word of God, and not their private interpretations of that Word. But
when we pronounce our interpretations as if they have the force of Jesus,
we make the same error Luther's adversaries made. Our conscience is bound
by the Word, not by your, or Pr. Wilson's, or the Pope's interpretation of
the Word of God.

We see a similar phenomena regarding Luther's response to
transsubstantiation. He thought that Aquinas made a minor error, and
definitely not a Church dividing error. However, when the Catholics
insisted that it was in fact a Church dividing error, and that Luther was *
required* to agree with it--that is, when they said "Jesus says
transsubstantiation is true"--it thereby became a Church dividing error
that must be resisted.

But the same thing holds when we say "Jesus says Obamacare is wrong." That
Obamacare is wrong is a theologumena a Christian is free to hold. But it is
not a theologumena a Christian may pronounce with the voice of Jesus. Jesus
did not say it was, Doug Wilson did. *Doug Wilson is right to try to apply
the Scriptures (though I may freely dissent), but wrong to do so as if He
were Jesus."*

Does not the writer understand that as far as Wilson is concerned he is the
only true voice of Jesus, ever?  Not only that, but at times Wilson writes
and speaks as if he were an incarnation of Jesus or God (they are the same
for Wilson).  Example:  A few years ago Wilson claimed that criticizing him
was an insult to God and the same as criticizing God itself.

It's too bad that Idaho citizens, especially those like Wilson, have such
poor access to mental health care.

w.



-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120807/34e66991/attachment.html>