Who do you turn to for your religious scholarship needs? Thomas Aquinas is always a good choice, though a little clichéd. Francis of Assisi is probably much the same way: one of the first names that have popped into the heads of those interested in gaining clarity about doctrine for so long that it's almost eye-rolling when somebody (wisely) names him. Obviously if you can't recognize all 95 of Luthor's Treatises if you saw them in isolation than you haven't actually read anything about Christianity at all and should shut up until you've immersed yourself in at least six additional Protestant philosophers. The middle-aged Johns (Knox, Hooker, Milton, and Calvin) really have to be part of this conversation, and of course John Wesley is an important one to understand how evil the NDP's manipulation of the school system really is.I’m sorry Grace Life folk but Jesus is busy at icu bedsides in Alberta today so he sent a snowstorm to try, yet again, to keep you all from being in that icu bed next month.
— Shawna Gawreluck (@ShawnaGofABPoli) April 11, 2021
Prove me wrong.#ableg
Maybe you really need to understand the good and bad (mostly the latter) of more contemporary scholars and are one of these people who thought Kierkegaard was profound. C.S. Lewis and Pope Benedict XVI are some good palate-cleansers, and you'll probably learn at least something from Schweitzer or Stott or Barth. The point is there are lots of options to choose from.
Picking a guy who's pro-abortion and thinks that Alberta isn't land belonging to the British Crown isn't probably your best bet.
Steve Gawreluck is confused about several things, but let's concentrate on the most relevant two:
- Jesus Christ controls the weather. This is basic stuff here: the Council of Constantinople settled this sort of thing back when Christians could meet at something called a Council of Constantinople. Philosophical underpinnings of the trinity fall into two general camps: Athanasian and Aquinian (a third, obviously, is Unitarianism which really shoves Mr. Gawreluck under the bus). In the former understanding of the trinity you cannot break the divine trinity into "parts": sameness of concept means when Noah endured the Great Flood, the rains were caused by God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit simultaneously and as one. In the latter interpretation while God and Jesus are both part of the Trinity and all equally divine, they also fall into the three primary functional roles of Creator/Redeemer/Sanctifier. In that interpretation Jesus' divinity does not include snowfall.
- Jesus Christ takes actions to keep people out of ICUs. We can take the Athanasian Creed at its word here but it doesn't really matter. Our bloated and evil public healthcare system is the entity who built and assigned people to ICUs. There could be zero ICU beds (as indeed there have been for millennia) or two ICU beds for every person on the planet. In this, there's even more consistency in Christian scholarship than on the trinitarian debate: Jesus-as-God redeems souls, and the actions human beings take which determine when those souls are brought before Him are our own. We could have privatized healthcare thirty years ago so ICUs weren't a public policy concern and it wouldn't matter. While He is concerned if you take immoral actions (ie. engage in prohibited same-sex acts) which precipitate an early hospital/morgue visit, the decision by all of Canada's left or centre-left leaders to not build enough ICUs to handle minor waves of Chairman Xi's bioweapon ultimately doesn't make the cut.
There are other silly things Steve Gawreluck thinks (Jesus can be "too busy" to visit us, or that He acts in accordance with wishes of "Treaty 6" blatherers who endorse baby-murder rather than His Flock), but really it's those first two.
I guess Gawreluck needs to read up on his Robert P. George. The flock at Grace Life have.
