Calvinism?, Christian Hedonism, John 1

The following post contains two conversations between myself and a good friend of mine about some stray thoughts of mine. The conversation got to a point through text that I was not willing to spend 30 minutes using my thumbs to respond, and so I asked him permission to post it on the blog and respond to it here. The context to the first conversation is that we were talking about John Piper and I was pointing out the kind of insane statements that he likes to make (Christ's Fingers as Tornadoes comes to mind). Friend will be characterized as C, and I shall be T.



C: There is no doubt that God will be the cause of the end of evil and suffering. What is God's relationship with its origin and it's activity in the present has always been an ongoing question. Again, the Bible does have to be the primary source on this, and it is actually difficult to sort out. For example, the story of the exodus, God is obviously causing suffering when he sends the plagues on the Egyptians. In fact, God's judgments throughout the Bible up until the cross itself (assuming a doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement) indicate that God can cause suffering. Obviously, in whatever sense God is related to suffering, it is not capricious though - it is founded in his righteous judgment which then, in the gospel, is exhausted on the cross. Think of the warnings Jesus gave Jerusalem that judgment would come upon them, which it then did in AD 70, proving Christ's prophecy (Matthew 24:1-2, but the whole chapter really). But Jesus also weeps over the city, as if they were the cause of their own suffering (Matt. 23:37-24), which shows a deeper reality, that whatever God's relationship to suffering and death is, its reality lies first in human sin. Without sin, how could God stand in any relationship to evil and suffering, since it seems that judgment of sin is the way in which the Bible presents God's relationship to suffering and death (think Sodom and Gommorah, also the book of Lamentations is mournful poem about suffering under God's judgment).

T: If His judgment was exhausted on the cross, then does that mean that He will not longer judge? The idea that suffering and death lies first in human sin does not contend with the reality that evil, in the form of Satan, existed before sin entered the world through the fall. Logically, God existed in some sort of relationship to evil and suffering without sin in the world.

I very easily can attribute John Piper, Peace Be Upon Him, to have mistakes. Fingers of Christ scraping across the land to bring death? He is not immune to replacing logic with emotion, as he explicitly states within his doctrine of Christian Hedonism. Quote: "My shortest summary of it is: God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him. Or: The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying him forever."

C: As for Christian Hedonism (CH) there is a theological framework behind the statement you quote. It is somewhat of a paraphrase of the answer to the first question of the Westminster Catechism "What is the chief end of man? The chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever." Also, think of Piper as simply explicating in the modern day the theology of one Jonathan Edwards. If there were a fault in CH it would first be there. The basic proposition of it would be that goodness is the inclination to share happiness with another. God is supremely good and happy (happiness in this sense means something like "blessed" or "completely joyful"). Thus, God will share his happiness, his complete joy, with others, because he is good. It is essentially a Trinitarian logic hidden here. For God has always been sharing his compete joy within himself, between the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Thus, when God creates and also then redeems, he is drawing up humanity into his own joy by joining people to Christ so that they are "which precisely just is the fact that is conceptually identical to his love for humanity. Read John 17
John 17 is a scriptural portion that provides some of the logical and exegetical force of thinking this way.

T: If the fault in Christian Hedonism lies in Jonathan Edwards, and so Edwards is very misguided, then John Piper would not only be misguided but be unable to properly discern theology. If the Westminster Catechism concluded that which you have told me they claimed, then I would claim that they are wrong. I propose that the chief end of man is to do what man wills to be done. It is the decision to follow God through Christ that is glorifying to Him, and that may mean that we will go through times where we do not enjoy following God. In fact, Jesus says that it will not always be enjoyable to follow God (John 15:20). That is where faith comes into play. It is almost as if the existence of suffering is a precondition to being a follower of Jesus. The basic proposition that goodness is the inclination to share happiness with another is absolutely absurd. If you believe that, then you should consider distributing antidepressants and marijuana to everyone you see. You don't get to use happiness and then obfuscate the meaning of the word. God --->can<--- share His "happiness, complete joy" with others, and that is not dependent on the axiom that He is Good. It is only a factual statement. Hidden logic is not an argument. God has been sharing his joy between his Trinitarian self if you accept that his nature is Trinitarian. John 17 leads me to believe that if Jesus is referring to himself within the context of the Trinity, then that must mean that Jesus is also referring to his followers becoming a part of the Trinity, thus creating a Potential Infininity nature of God, made up of Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and You, and I, and Paul, and John, and every Christian who ever existed. We simply must be consistent.



T: Do you have a Greek bible?

C:Yep

T: What does this say?

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

C: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
Of course, that's not what it says per se. It's a translation.

T: So why do people tell me that it means Jesus is God?

C: Because it does, given what the context of the rest of John's gospel and the grammatical construction of the passage. I told you that's not what it said,
 per se, but if you translated that as "the Word was a god," as the NWO translation does (Jehovah's witnesses), then you are most definitely not represen
ting the Greek of the passage.
I could explain it, but look up Colwell's Rule for Greek grammar, that will answer at least the main issue.

T: I accept that the grammar is in reference to a definitive Theos, ergo "the Word was God". What I'm interested in is exactly what is meant by Logos, and if it is in reference to Jesus or to a more complex philosophical idea.

C: There is a complex philosophical background to use of the term logos. It was an ancient technical term, I would think of the Stoics primarily as well as
the Middle Platonists, including the Jewish philosopher Philo.
However, I would be careful looking for a " more complex philosophical" perspective, when John's point is that the logos is Jesus. "The logos became fles
h." In other words, we are to not be informed about Jesus by the ancient philosoher's notion of the logos, but instead about the logos in terms of the Je
sus we see revealed in history, particularly in John's gospel itself.


T: Then what does this say?

θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε: μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

C: No one has ever seen God. The (and here's the tricky part) unique God, who is in the bosom (or belly of you like it literally) of the Father, he has made
 him known (that verb at the end of the verse might be better translated "explained," or "made sense of.")
The reason for the translation of monogenes as "only-begotten" in times past comes from its association with the verb gennetos, or "to beget" "to father.
" It likely rather derives from genos, or "kind," from which we get the word "genus," which has its own technical uses today in different fields. In the
ancient world, it was a technical term of Aristotle's and his followers.

T: And why did you just translate it as "unique God"?
That would indicate there is more than one God.

C: One of a kind.
Nope, what Jesus is he is uniquely would be the only force here.

T: That last text was incoherent

C: The context is key here. The context is that there is no other like with reference to revelation and relationship to God, or "the Father." This does not
mean that Jesus' unique status is in conflict with his Father's. But you do see here the tensions that make trinitarian thought, along the way, become so
 difficult to make full sense of.
John 3:16 is another place where this adjective is used of Jesus, that time with the term "Son" rather than "God." There is actually a textual variant in
 John 1:18 that reads "son" instead of "God" as well.
It most likely is the first variant that is correct still though.
There is a practice among textual critics to accept the most difficult reading. In this case, that means that it is easier to imagine a scribe changing 
theos to uios rather than uios to theos. 

T: All I see is a jump to conclusions which are impossible to conclude from simply quoting the verses literally. I have never met anyone who was able to explain to me the Trinity without using analogies. Now, it is self-evident that Analogies are not a replacement for Logic. They are only useful in explaining to people a concept that they have never heard before, or within the field of persuasion. To respond to this assertion with "Well, we cannot ever fully comprehend God" is a blatant intellectual cop-out, and I can just as easily assert that in the reverse. The fact of the matter is that if we are to take John 1:18 authoritative, we can only conclude that "No one has ever seen God". If the Trinitarian claim is that Jesus was God, and that John is referring to Jesus when he is talking about Logos, then they must also conclude that either all of the people who saw Jesus are classified as theological "no ones", including the Apostles, or that there was no one who saw Jesus, and therefore the Gospel is made up. I propose that those are not good conclusions to draw as a Christian.




To Be Concluded,
Theodore Brave
Twitter: @RealTheoBrave
Gab: @TheRealTheo
TheodoreBrave@gmail.com

Cartels as Terrorists

Here is a useful Idea that I have advocated for in the past.

BRANDON DARBY: One of the things that’s very interesting about Texas on the border, as you know, there’s nine sectors on the Southwest Border, five of which are in Texas. Part of the problem that we have in Texas is that two of the most brutal criminal groups south of the border, which actually operate north of the border as well, as you know, are Los Zetas and the Gulf Cartel. But unlike most of the other criminal organizations in Mexico along our border, which would be Sinaloa, Juarez Cartel, Tijuana Cartel. Los Zetas and the Gulf Cartel are extremely brutal. In fact, the videos they release resemble ISIS videos. We try to challenge them as much as possible, but what more could the U.S. do? There’s talk of declaring certain factions as foreign terror organizations so you could appropriately go after the money and the politicians. Again, Tamaulipas, a state below Texas, the last two governors are fugitives from U.S. justice for being surrogates of the Gulf Cartel. Several of the governors in Coahuila are now in trouble because they were Los Zetas. What more could the U.S. do to to challenge Mexican transnational criminal groups who operate in our country, who kill our kids? What could we do to challenge them?

SEN. TED CRUZ: We could do a great deal more. What has happened in the last decade with Mexican drug cartels has been nothing short of tragic. Mexico is a great and wonderful country. The Mexican people are wonderful people. Growing up in Texas, we spent a great deal of time in Mexico. Most Texans have long and deep commitments to Mexico. Whether family ties, or business ties, or cultural ties. Where Texans vacation in Mexico. Mexicans vacation in Texas.

In the past decade, we have seen the control and reign of terror of the cartels wreak enormous damage to the nation of Mexico. Where ordinary citizens are terrified for their lives. Where crime and kidnapping becomes almost routine and the corruption that goes hand and hand with billions of dollars of illegal narcotic trafficking resources combined with vicious violent transnational criminal cartels has done enormous damage to Mexico and enormous damage to America.

What can we do about it? One of the things I think we should explore very seriously is something along the lines of what we did in Colombia: Plan Colombia. Where President George W. Bush worked with President Uribe to target the cartels and take them out. It was treated less as a law enforcement matter than as a military matter. Where our military went into Colombia and helped destroy the cartels.

It did so on the invitation of the Colombian government. Look, we should not engage in a military action in Mexico without the active cooperation of the duly elected government there

Proposition: We label the Drug Cartels as Terrorists.

Why?

Because they are.

Note that I am not advocating for  a military invasion of Mexico. The modern iteration of warfare is not conducive to that type of warfare, and it is too darn expensive.

What I am advocating for, is precision special operations to go into specific compounds identified as Cartel hubs. The drug trade from the south has observably caused more death and terror and has destroyed more lives than all of the combined terror attacks from Islam to the United States in the past 100 years.

One of the driving forces of the Mexican migration/invasion into the United States has been the lack of incentive to stay in Mexico. Heck, I wouldn't want to stay in a country where there exist no effective rights of the people because all aspects of life are governed by the Cartels who control the politicians.

Imagine a marketing campaign to persuade Mexicans to take action into their own hands and take back their country from the corrupt and evil leaders of the Cartel. The strike forces that the U.S. will use can be populated by ethnic Mexicans, the U.S. politicians who support the effort wholeheartedly can be Hispanic, and there can be voluntary programs introduced which are funded and ran by Mexicans.

Just a little idea that I've been throwing around in my head.

Tell me what you think of it, and in what ways it can be improved.

Twitter: @RealTheoBrave
Gab: @TheRealTheo
Email: TheodoreBrave@gmail.com

John Q. Adams on Islam

I do not harbor a Founding Fathers fetish, as I have observed many right-wing Americans to have.

That being said, they were at the forefront of intellectual thought in their Time.

Curiously enough, some of them had some things to say about Islam.
Being a former Muslim, I am curious about what they said.

This is John Quincy Adams' talking about Islam.

In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.

This is not an analyses of the truthfulness of JQA's thoughts on Islam.

This is to show that the Founding Fathers most definitely did NOT subscribe to this false doctrine of Equality and Diversity that has been propagated throughout America.

The proper response to this post would be to find a Founding Father who was Muslim.

Good Luck.

Twitter: @RealTheoBrave
Gab: @TheRealTheo
Email: TheodoreBrave@gmail.com

Analysis of SBC Resolution

Today is a sad day.

"Resolution for the 2017 SBC Annual Meeting - Condemning the Alt-Right & White Nationalism"

   It is important to be precise when delicate situations like this exist. As I begin to write this response to the Southern Baptist Convention's Resolution that was posted on May 28th, 2017, I pray for the Holy Spirit to guide my thoughts and to convict those peoples who happen to lay their eyes on my words to be convicted and see the truth within them.

It is time to dissect this resolution and introduce some context.

The Southern Baptists have been in decline.

1. Their Birth rates are down.
2. Their Evangelism rates are down.
3. They don't have an accurate grasp on the condition of their organization, statistically, as they are missing data from 1/4th of their congregations.
4. People are giving less to them
5. In contrast to their decline in population and wealth, they have been steadily growing the NUMBER of churches for the last 18 years, with another 479 (1%) net growth last year. This indicates a tendency to focus on Churchianism instead of being Followers of Christ.
6. More liberal churches within the convention contain the largest amount of baptisms.

   I've only been a Christian for about 9 months. Within those months, I have hopped around Central Virginia trying to find a church which is not Social Justice Converged nor lacking in truthful scriptural backing. Initially, I felt a draw towards Baptist churches. Disturbingly, I also felt an intuition that there was a disharmonious spirit in the air within these churches. I concluded that I simply did not have a large enough sample size to formulate a coherent reason why I felt that. With this new resolution, I now have enough information. The corruption has spread to the top.

   In their attempt to appeal to the masses, the same masses which would condemn Jesus Christ to Death, they have rejected Him and have become blind.

   Now for the line-by-line analysis to back up my rhetoric.

Resolution on The Condemnation of the "Alt-Right" Movement and the Roots of White Supremacy
Submitted to the Resolutions Committee for the SBC Annual Meeting, Phoenix, AZ, June 13-14, 2017
By William Dwight McKissic,Sr.

   The use of air quotes indicates that the author does not understand what the Alt-Right even encompasses. Bait and Switch snake-tongue tactic used, swapping out White Nationalism with White Supremacy, even though they are different conceptual models. Note: I do not endorse White Nationalism because it is an incoherent model, seeing as there is no such thing as the "White Nation". White Supremacy is also dumb, primarily because the differences between the white nations are too substantive and broad to categorize as a single entity of supremacy, although there are also ethical conclusions which are foolish in regards to the supremacy of any people over another. I am not up to date on church politics, but it appears that the Resolutions Committee has an opportunity to reject this resolution on June 13-14, 2017. I advise that they do so due to the lack of precision detailed within this document. The author, William Dwight McKissic, Sr. has not taken the time to understand exactly what the Alt-Right ideology is, and therefore is not making correct conclusions. Although he has already been caught in snake-tongue tactics and I haven't even begun to look at the body of the resolution. A couple minutes of intensive research reveals that he has not been known to make wise decisions in his expression of his theology, and I would posit that this resolution is within that same category.

WHEREAS, Scripture teaches that from one man God made every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation (Acts 17:26); and

   This piece of scripture is relevant only in pointing out that nations do, in fact, exist, and that they were made by God himself. It is important to note that directly following Genesis 10 to which Acts 17:26 is obviously referencing, The nations then unified in the story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. One can properly infer that this has been the most diverse place in regards to nations, in the history of the biblical story. What did God do? He dispersed them and confused their language. It is God-willed that the nations exist separately from each other, and not mixed together in Unity and in the name of Diversity and speaking the same language. The natural objection would be Galatians 3:28 where Paul says that there is neither Jew nor Greek. If you stop the analysis there, then I would agree with the objection. But we do not stop the analysis there. In context, Paul is talking about how we are not held captive under the old law due to our justification through faith in the Lord Christ Jesus, and because of this, the faith is not limited to any singular nation, class, or sex. If we are to take Paul's words as an indication that when one becomes a Christian, they immediately lost all nationality, then we must also conclude that the concept of slavery and freedom are no longer in existence when one becomes a Christian (thus rationalizing slavery) and that there neither female nor male Christians exist. Now, Acts 17:26 also gives a hint to how we should conceptually model the nations. This verse says that God determined the boundaries of their habitation, which would lead to the conclusion that the nation is not talking about the legal structure above a people, but instead about the people themselves.

WHEREAS, the prophet Isaiah foresaw the day when the Lord would judge between the nations and render decisions for many people (Isaiah 2:4); and

   The only comment I have upon this reference to scripture is the fact that we are observably not in the day when nation shall not lift up sword against nation, and I also propose that, as the scripture says, be God who determines that day, not us.

WHEREAS, the Psalmist proclaims the Kingdom is the Lord's, and He rules over the nations; and

   Yes, but a nation can refuse to follow his commands

WHEREAS, the promise of heaven includes the eternal blessings of the Tree of Life for God's people, which includes the healing of the nations that comes from the leaves of that tree; and

   Do not fall into the false song of utopia on Earth, for it is in Heaven that this healing will be done.

WHEREAS, the supreme need of the world is the acceptance of God's teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of His law of love; and

   Yes, which must necessarily include a stringent adherence to the Truth, the Logos. Which is why the author's complete ignorance of Alt-Right philosophy is worrisome, in the least.

WHEREAS, all Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society, opposing all forms of racism, selfishness, and vice, and bringing government and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love; and

   Racism is not a coherent idea, and has no applicable definition. The cause of Racism as we conceptualize it is rooted in sin which is deeper than simply a buzzword. Opposing all forms of selfishness? Is this guy following the same Jesus that I claim to follow? You know, the one who said to the Canaanite woman that It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs. Additionally, His law of love as described in Matthew 22:34-40 is dependent on selfishness. The command to love your neighbor as yourself is dependent on the idea that you have a selfishness inherent within you, and that it is to be used in the functionality of empathy in order to love your neighbor in the same selfish manner in which you would love yourself. Yes, oppose Vice. The next statement is where he goes even further off the deep end. Bringing government and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love? I would love to see the justification for that statement. Christianity has an individualistic philosophical foundation. There is a reason that Jesus said to give to Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is Gods. Note that he does not say to make Caesar righteous, to give him truth, or to give him brotherly love.

WHEREAS, just societies will order themselves as free men and women and organize at various times and for various purposes to establish political order and give consent to legitimate government; and

   Depends what you mean by free. and political order. and consent. and legitimate government. Lack of precision indicates sloppy thought processes, possibly an emotional reaction, partly caused by his confusion of the incoherent ideology of White Nationalism/Supremacy with the Omninationalist ideology of the Alt-Right.

WHEREAS, the liberty of all nations to authorize such governments will, at times, allow for the rise of political parties and factions whose principles and ends are in irreconcilable conflict with the principles of liberty and justice for all; and

   This is actually a completely truthful statement. The only problem is that the context of the rest of the resolution points towards the idea that he is referring, at least partially, to the Alt-Right. This would more accurately be attributed in the context of ideologies which are cradled with Marxist undertones.

WHEREAS, there has arisen in the United States a growing menace to political order and justice that seeks to reignite social animosities, reverse improvements in race relations, divide our people, and foment hatred, classism, and ethnic cleansing; and

   Wow, I did not expect him to pivot towards attacking the BLM movement, Post-Modernists, Feminists, and Neocons. Alt-Right philosophy is designed as anti-Marxist. More evidence that he has no idea what he is talking about, and is simply virtue-signalling, or conflating White Nationalism/Supremacy with the Alt-Right, which is inaccurate.

WHEREAS, this toxic menace, self-identified among some of its chief proponents as "White Nationalism" and the "Alt-Right," must be opposed for the totalitarian impulses, xenophobic biases, and bigoted ideologies that infect the minds and actions of its violent disciples; and

   I have now concluded that this man is either not well-read, or has a low IQ, or both. The Alt-Right arose from an opposition to all of the accusations he is throwing at the Alt-Right. Holding the gun backwards in your hand is not useful to shooting your enemy. What part of OmniNationalist does he not understand? The right for all nations to have sovereignty over themselves under God is a fundamental right which he is denying due to its "xenophobia" and "bigotry".

WHEREAS, the roots of White Supremacy within a "Christian context" is based on the so-called "curse of Ham" theory once prominently taught by the SBC in the early years - echoing the belief that God through Noah ordained descendants of Africa to be subservient to Anglos - which provided the theological justification for slavery and segregation. The SBC officially renounces the "curse of Ham" theory in this Resolution; now be it therefore

   Not necessarily true, but I agree with the renunciation of the curse of Ham theory, as it is not based in truth. I would also suggest that a separate resolution be made for the renunciation of that theory, due to the potential gravitas of the idea. Although, I have not met a single person in my 20 years on earth that actually subscribes to this theory.

RESOLVED, that the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Phoenix, AZ, June 13-14, 2017, denounces every form of "nationalism" that violates the biblical teachings with respect to race, justice, and ordered liberty; and be it further

   To denounce every form of nationalism, which he air quotes due to his inability to grasp the concept, is to embrace globalism and all of its subsequent consequences. This NeoBabelism that has taken over this man's mind is dyscivic. Sad! I will take this moment to make the claim that OmniNationalism does not violate the biblical teachings of anything, let alone respect to race, justice, and ordered liberty.

RESOLVED, that we reject the retrograde ideologies, xenophobic biases, and racial bigotries of the so called "Alt-Right" that seek to subvert our government, destabilize society, and infect our political system; and  be finally

   Right here he exhibits another instance of snake-tongue. He has attributed retro-gradation to the Alt-Right, which is a modern movement which is harmonious with historical reality, and he does not distinguish the concepts of race vs nation in his mind. It is almost as if the author is incapable of seeing anything except the color of peoples skin. Societies which have fallen to the Prince of Lies should be destabilized, and the modern day political system is worse than a joke, it is fulfilling the agenda of Neobabelism and Anti-Christianity. The author sees a needle enter into the political system and assumes that a virus is about to be injected, when in fact the vaccine is being administered for the infection which already exists within the system.

RESOLVED, that we earnestly pray, both for those who lead and advocate this movement and those who are thereby deceived, that they may see their error through the light of the Gospel, repent of their perverse nationalism, and come to know the peace and love of Christ through redeemed fellowship in the Kingdom of God, which is established from every nation, tribe, people, and tongue.

   I appreciate the call to prayer. In the same way that I appreciate the Islamic call to prayer. If one is praying that his resolution goes through, then one is not praying to the Creator God of the Universe, the Logos who is Lord Christ Jesus. It is not the Gospel which brings light, but the Word Himself. It is humorous that he claims that the people who are fighting for the sake of Christendom are deceived. I seem to recall a saying by someone important about taking a log out of your own eye before taking the speck out of your brother's. His last statement is particularly troubling, as he claims the the Kingdom of God is established from every nation, tribe, people, and tongue. This is false. Christendom is established by the Christians. By definition, if a kingdom is established by any other people, then it is not the Kingdom of God.


Conclusion: William Dwight McKissic Sr. Should immediately resign from all of his positions within the Church due to:

His Lack of understanding of the concepts to which he purports to write about.

His blatant endorsement of the destruction of a Pro-Christian movement.

His bearing of false witness to brothers in Christ.

His snake-tongue presentation of this resolution.

His being a Social Justice Warrior.

If the SBC makes this resolution permanent, that institution shall be fallen to the Prince of Lies. To prevent this, all members of the SBC must get a copy of SJWs Always Lie and to clean up the convention of any Anti-Christian offenders. No matter how big they are, or insignificant they seem.

Thank you for taking the time to read this,

Theodore C. Brave

P.S. You can follow me on twitter @RealTheoBrave  and on Gab.ai @TheRealTheo
Feel free to E-mail any long-response at TheodoreBrave@gmail.com