Lots to Talk About Tuesday

Hear Hear to the whole thing. But you could have added an explanatory sentence that one of the nefarious things the husband in the play did was to turn down the GAS slightly, so the LIGHT was dimmer. When the wife would comment, the husband would say that it wasn’t getting darker. Hence gaslighting. Just thought if you were going to explain the term you might want to take the final step to make the connection unmistakable.

I sent you the same email last week. Don’t you remember?:-)

Jeffrey

Would you consider discussing the matter of modern textual criticism in a future episode of the sweater vest dialogues? Along with the growing interest in textual criticism, many are realizing its inability to produce a definitive text. As you know, textual critics have made disparaging remarks toward those who favor the received text (and vice versa). I would like to hear this disagreement discussed in a more congenial manner.

Blessings,

Joe

RE A Brief Rejoinder to Preston Sprinkle. In reading another interaction with a Revoice-supportive pastor, I find myself agreeing with your take though not having much contact with that world, I must say I find it a little difficult to maintain interest in yet another engagement.

I am a young man from the Midwest who came to Presbyterian conviction with help from your own writings, so many thanks for this. Having joined a congregation in the OPC to put these convictions more into practice, I find myself extremely frustrated with the seemingly comprehensive subscription to radical 2-kingdoms theology, expressing itself from denominational literature to the points of sermons.

Recently, the denominational magazine, New Horizons, ran back-to-back pieces by DG Hart with another by Richard Gamble, who together with David VanDrunen appear to be the de-facto church-culture prophets for the denomination. Dr Gamble’s piece specifically addressed the mistake of prominent Presbyterian support for early-20th century Prohibition, highlighting the misplaced fervor of Presbyterian involvement. From my experience, OPC members are generally the last citizens to come out for activism, and I find myself wondering what purpose such a piece serves if not to reassure us in cultural indifference and irrelevance.

No consideration is given to the possibility that such a stance was simply theonomy with all the details falsely applied. A review of the OPC’s officially listed works on cultural engagement features works by both VanDrunen and Hart, though prolific and influential former OPC pastors Rushdooney and Bahnsen are conspicuously absent, perhaps suggesting they are beyond the pale. See here.

I feel the zealous distinction of a secular-sacred divide leaves those of us who work in places that would pressure us to move along with the secular pressures (for myself, a large secular university) without support from our shepherds or church.

Is my concern overblown or do you think this is significant? I feel that the opposing views have pretty much settled their camps in opposition, but living in areas with limited Reformed worship options; it is difficult to know what should be brought to leadership attention and made into an issue of importance. Do you have advice for those of us worshiping in places that speak of an emphasis on general-equity theonomy as a false teaching.

Thank you,

Grant

Re: An Evangelical Case for Four More Years

“Unless something drastic changes, like the Democratic convention going completely off the rails, becoming the Mother of All Brokered Conventions, and resulting in them nominating Ted Cruz on the 28th ballot, I intend to vote for Donald Trump in the fall, as I did not do in 2016.”

I would love to see a “The Mother of All Brokered Conventions” short story from you with this plot. Reminds me of Flags Out Front. Good humor to be mined there.

The thing that really makes it funny is that it would not be even slightly more absurd than what happened in 2016. The idea “Donald Trump is the president of the United States” still floors me with its authorial audacity, but even that pales next to “after 3 years, my main reaction is profound gratitude”.

Thanks for your work, as always.

Blessings

Keith

My Dear Friend

I think if we search the archives of your blog, we will find you made the case that, to use the idiom of your current volley, to vote for either the one who will not tear down the high places or to vote for the one who will set up new high places is in both cases to vote for sin, and we can’t vote for sin. Before I ask my actual question, let me say frankly that I agree with your conclusion in your current “case for 4 more years” and abhor the alleged moral purity (thank God I am not like that republican) and high-handedness of the old reasoning which says that we can’t vote in an election in which we are choosing the lesser of two evils. The reality of human life is that we are always choosing the lesser of two evils because we can never in a circumstance where all the outcomes of our moral choices are known to us and are all without the stain of this world. The choice not to vote is actually the least of 3 evils, yes? If our choices are actually to vote for Jezebel, or to vote for Saul, or to not vote so that those who can’t tell the difference between Jezzy and Saul decide, we have to see that we are actually still choosing what we see as the least-evil choice.

So then my question: what gives? Why have you suddenly come to the public square ready to make a choice which is not good, but not hardly as bad as the other one — and are ready then to abandon the “sin is still sin” paradigm of which you have made a lot of hay in the past?

Frank

An Evangelical Case for Four More Years Just curious.

I have heard N.D. Wilson mention two different times on Cross Politics that he has routinely voted for the comedian Dave Barry. I wish he would elaborate more on this position i.e. would his position be different if he lived in a swing state, etc.

I am curious what you think about his position. I picture lively family debates as both of you are well trained in the art of persuasion. Perhaps I am wrong about that? Do you as a family tend to stay out of these types of discussions?

Chadd

I appreciate your helpful thoughts on voting, especially your warning against treating the vote as a sacrament or confession of faith. We should treat the vote simply as a practical way of loving our neighbor. Is my neighbor’s well being (as defined in the Bible) better served by a vote for Trump, or for Bernie, or by some sort of protest vote? Seeing it through that lens simplifies things.

Brad

I asked a question at the end of NQN about accreditation and seminaries; so I am sure that you remember my situation exactly and replay the fond memory of answering my question often in your mind.

Anyhow, here is a follow up: I pulled the trigger, and I am an in seminary. However, I am located in a fairly theologically starved area of Alabama, and I own very few commentaries to aid me in my research. I am also married; the economical implications often all of this are obvious. But with all of that said, here is my question: If you were stranded on an island, what is the one commentary set that you would want to have with you. Or, to ask it in another way, what commentary set to you find yourself returning too more often than any other? Thanks,

Gage

Re: A Brief Rejoinder to Preston Sprinkle: I hoped you would address Dr. Sprinkle’s admittedly effective and witty sarcasm regarding the testosterone level of his detractors, and I was not disappointed . . . at first. You give him (deserved) credit for his polemic skill, but you didn’t actually deal with the point of his observation: most sound churches (my own is no exception) are led by men who devote massive energy to their spiritual state while seeming to completely neglect their physical conditioning. To use an O.T. analogy, before you can do battle with the enemy, you have to get to the battlefield in a timely manner . . . with the energy to fight. Surely the scope of 1 Tim 4:8 does not include ignoring everything your doctor says about exercise at the annual check-up . . . Is this physical neglect simply a respectable sin in our age, or is it just the least critical subject to address? I remember hearing Albert N. Martin address this . . . once, a long time ago.

Brett

“Wait! Is this pointed sarcasm I detect? Even more . . . I would even say that it is pretty good sarcasm. Not only that, but I suspect that — and I am actually kind of proud of him for it — he was attempting to body shame me. “

So . . . . . . do you suppose that Preston Sprinkle is a “flat girther”?

Jason

Re: A Brief Rejoinder to Preston Sprinkle.

Well done, Mr. Wilson.

So I read Preston’s response before reading yours, per your advice. And I should note I also read his original CT piece just before reading your initial response. All that to say I’m chronologically and logically in sync with you both.

I think your latest response is fine, I particularly enjoyed the “body shaming me” snark; well played, Sir, well played.

But I do have a couple complaints or points I think you failed to make and should have. The first is, Preston’s response reminds me of the Times printing their wild accusation under the malicious headline on the front page, then printing a half-hearted, lame non-apology apology retraction deep in the birdcage flooring a week or so later. Preston: man up and do another CT article.

The second is, Preston failed to address what was arguably the most honestly revealing thing they said in their original piece:

“And in churches that idolize marriage and the nuclear family, polyamory’s focus on hospitality and community can be an attractive alternative. “

And yes, you called him out on it in your original response, but you let him slide here. This is the nub of it, imo, he thinks the traditional family is passe and upholding it or reinforcing it is a problem. My appeal is, don’t let him get away with it, don’t ignore that.

Love your work and appreciate your keen mind. Keep on keeping on.

David

Sprinkle Rejoinder response:

This exchange has the feel of the debate between RC Sproul and Greg Bahnsen about apologetic method or for that matter any debate over world views in conflict. Two people looking at the exact same facts and coming to conclusions that are diametrically opposed. The only way to proceed is to identify and call out, as necessary, the presuppositions of each position.

In our emotion driven society (Christian or secular) to take a hard (Biblical) line where warranted will be subject to immediate and in no uncertain terms pushback. Just try using language such as “Our God is a consuming fire” or “Don’t fear him who can hurt the body but fear Him who can put body and soul in hell.” You will swiftly get the response that you are being “judgmental” or be asked “Where’s the love?”

The second layer of objection in their one-two punch approach will be to question what your reasons are for this harsh “tone.” Could it be that you are secretly wrestling with the very issue you are opposing? Do you have homosexual thoughts that are driving your “hardline” attitude? Maybe you should join with us in our acceptance approach and put down your armor so love can find its way into your heart. You see, ultimately, you don’t actually have a different, maybe legitimate, point of view, you are the problem. If we could all come to see that, next stop, Utopia. This convoluted reasoning is reminiscent of a conversation in a garden a longtime ago. Ah, come on, you want to be enlightened, don’t you?

Thank you for sticking to your guns and not only calling sin sin but being one of the few voices willing to openly and seasoned with salt state the consequences of sin as portrayed in Scripture. The warfare on culture never starts with atomic weapons but with the proverbial camel’s nose in the tent. You have more “hardliners” supporting you than you realize.

David

It was a nice gesture for Preston to offer a response. I wonder if he has any sense of the difference in your pastoral voices? Comparing your respective “tones,” his exhibits a wholesale capitulation to the triumph of the therapeutic, to borrow Philip Rieff’s phrase, and equates making sure no one’s feelings get hurt with being “pastoral” and even being gracious. This seems like a serious blind spot, and he is definitely not alone in this. His failure to register and express shock is clearly a virtue in his own eyes. His initial response was so carefully couched and cushioned that any sense of the horror and shock of the sin was deeply buried in layers of therapeutic goo. For all that your own tone can be bracing at times, I appreciate the clarity and zeal with which you seek to awaken the sleepy and decadent church in America, slumbering as we are on innumerable therapy couches.

Michelle

I’m listening to episode 8 of your Plodcast and chewing on your just war theory analysis. Perhaps I’m being nit-picky, but it seems to me that the soldier is given too much slack in committing acts of violence. Take the war in Yemen for example; the US govt is assisting the Saudis in this horrible war (thousands have died/are dying for seemingly no just cause that I can see). Is the US or Saudi soldier not responsible for killing these people? Is claiming ignorance really a good enough excuse?

If we as Christians rather held hired killers to hire standards perhaps the military industrial complex would fall apart? How would wars of aggression continue if Christian soldiers understand they were responsible for their actions?

Thank you! I really appreciate your podcast and your new show on Amazon Prime (full disclosure, I’m a paleo-libertarian influenced by the Austrian school of economics so it is great to hear a reformed pastor push against the progressive push that is infiltrating the church).

Darrell

Doug, In your response this week you said:

———————–

“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:11–12).

So the circumcision “without hands” corresponds to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, also accomplished without hands. Imagine a square, with spiritual circumcision at the lower left and spiritual baptism at the lower right. You can draw a line from one to the other, each representing heart regeneration. But you can also draw a line from spiritual circumcision straight up the left side to physical circumcision. The Jews were told to circumcise their hearts, meaning that the internal reality ought to line up with the external sign. And Peter, when he sees the household of Cornelius baptized in the Holy Spirit, asks, “Who can forbid water?” So we draw a line up the right side of the square also.

Now, why should we not be allowed to draw a line from the upper left to the upper right, completing the square?

————————-

So if you’re saying that the right side is spiritual baptism and leads to a physical manifestation of physical baptism, which of course I would agree since regeneration and spiritual baptism are coincident. But does that mean that you think that young Presbyterians are regenerate in the womb like John the Baptist? While I know there are some paedobaptists that believe that I didn’t think it was the majority, and wasn’t thinking that was your take.

Lance