Sometimes Really Agitated
Tut, tut. He gets us.
“The reason we drift into presenting “Christ the option for your felt needs” instead of “Christ the risen Lord” is because this latter approach, being biblical, creates moral obligation. And when this happens, people get agitated.“
Jeff
Jeff, yes. This broadens the scope of “he gets us,” does it not?
Red Pilled Is Not the Best Way to Describe It Though
10 years ago, I would have read this and thought, “Doug isn’t being loving” and I’d probably side with French, though I wouldn’t say it out loud of course. I’d be neutral. You know the stuff the Martyrs are made of. Today, my eyes are open to what’s actually happening. God is giving up people to their sins. This is terrifying.
I’ve seen a glimpse of what happens to a Christian when he goes down the road of one foot in and one foot out in my own life.
God saw fit to allow me to repent. But Pastor Doug, it was hand over my mouth terrifying once I did repent, truly. I couldn’t see it fully when I was in sin. David seems to be in this same place.
We live such fleeting lives. Our lives are but parables being played out. Mercy and wrath types parables with real consequences. I pray God allows him to see and repent. This is no game. While the effects of his views have a real consequence in our lifetime here on earth. It pales in comparison to meeting King Jesus on that day. Now praise God for his mercy on that day for vessels of mercy. But Scripture tells us not everyone will have that same meeting by saying the name of Jesus. Fruit must be borne and our abiding in Christ is critical to this.
Anyways, 10 years ago I wouldn’t have seen the value of this article. Today, I see the value of it as one would see the value of an OT prophet. Truth must be told, regardless of the outcome. Truth must be told, because we are told to tell it. I’m genuinely sad over what’s happened the last decade plus. I’ve only been a Christian 20 years. Haven’t experienced all that you have been allowed to experience. But I can say, mercy is so sweet once you are allowed to have it.
I know you have people praying for you to not fall into that same trap. You can count on me for another prayer for you and David once I’m done typing. You need it if you keep poking the dragon.
Take care, Pastor Doug.
Freddy
Freddy, thanks very much.
CRT definition
You seem to have spent a lot of time, and patience outlining the terminology around Christian nationalism. In my opinion the agreement around terms and definitions regarding CRT is just as messy, if not more. Some definitions and working ideas seem perfectly in line with biblical foundations, and others not at all. So can you either point me in the direction of where you’ve discussed this at length or maybe put it on the docket for future posts? My guess is that if you asked 100 people to outline the argument for or against this topic your answers would be all over the place. So its just hard to place your rage into proper perspective without more info . . . And I’m guessing that if you can’t come up with anything charitable to say about CRT we likely are not using the same working definitions or you shouldn’t be trusted on the topic. Thanks for your time
James
James, yes, I am sure I will be developing it more in future posts. But the basic metric is the antithesis between oppressor and oppressed, with additional intersectional points garnered when someone belongs to two or more oppressed categories. Take me, for instance. I am both white and male.
The Jordan Peterson interview with Dave Rubin was good as you said. I was struck by Dr. Peterson’s praising of truth and its pursuit, while the man next to him, currently one half of a sodomite mirage-fresh off a uterus rental, shook his head in agreement. That kind of irony would make the authors of Greek tragedy envious. Stand fast.
Coram deo,
Brian
Brian, yes. We live in bizarro-times.
You may have asserted that the hard left is running a game on us, that they know we know, and that they will rub our face in it whenever they please. If you haven’t, then maybe you should.
It doesn’t get clearer than this situation about a witch being the grand jury foreman to opine on the legality of Trump’s assertion that the 2020 presidential election vote in Georgia was rigged.
Not only a witch, but unemployed and giggly. They literally have a witch leading a witch-hunt.
It’s as if the Babylon Bee were writing the news. On the other hand, maybe that’s where the left gets ideas
John
John, yes. We need to stop saying “now I’ve seen everything.”
I appreciate your ministry and have been encouraged by your teaching. Thank you.
How might the “rules” of gender ideology be applied to the DEI initiatives?
Not sure which article or book it’s from, but I’m thinking specifically in terms of making your opponents adhere to their own rules.
Should I or other government employees self-identify our race according to whatever has been decreed by the DEI overlords? Or, what kind of tactics ought to be used to apply the “rules” consistently?
If identity for our rather binary DNA is fluid, why not the race spectrum as well?
I imagine a groundswell of new “self-identities” would have interesting implications.
Sam
Sam, the tactic is from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals—make the enemy live by his own rules. But in order to do this kind of thing from within Corporate America, you need to have a lot of money and time to burn, as well as a sense of humor. That said, the rules would basically be the same as Calvinball.
An Unhappy Sitch
I attend a dispensational bible church pastored by one of the foremost proponents of that theological system in the country. It is a wonderful church and the Lord has blessed us with many dear brothers and sisters in Christ, but after a long season of study I have finally become convinced of the truth of Post-Millenialism, Theonomy, and Covenant Theology (thanks in large part to you, as well as James White, James Durbin, R.C. Sproul, Greg Bahnsen, and Gary Demar).
I need help with two things:
1. How do I pray about remaining or leaving our church? We are deeply connected there as a part of the early adulthood group (married couples with their first kids) and the teaching is solid as far as it goes on primary issues but I find myself longing to be part of a Reformed congregation and to raise my daughter (and one on the way) in that tradition as well. It is the first church family my wife and I have ever known together and I’m grieved by the thought of leaving.
2. In the meantime, I am still a novice, and am trying to back into a few centuries of thought without any (human) guidance beyond YouTube and my own reading. Can you suggest an organized course of study that I might follow?
Matt
Matt, here would be my advice. God bless your openness, and your studies. First, don’t lurch. Don’t make any decisions about which church you are going to be part of in the first flush of new theological convictions. Give it a year before you even think about it. Second, in the meantime be respectful of the theological convictions of your current church. Don’t hide what you think, but don’t be disruptive either. And last, going back to the top, read lots of books, especially those written by those who got you into this jam.
While we have different congregational backgrounds, I very much appreciate your content. It is a refreshing respite from the madness.
I recently got into a heated (online) discussion with one of my older brothers concerning revival. I expressed heavy reservations about the “revival” meetings that have been popping up in my area, based on the general obsession with emotional catharticism. He became very upset by this, citing the “lack of unity” being perpetuated by condescending and judgmental church people like me. I showed him your article on “The Authority of True Revival,” which I thought would be unassuming enough for his palate. To that, he cited a hit article on you that was done in response to your views of women voting and said he cannot listen to someone with those views.
My brother and I have generally been able to have very good discussions about almost anything, but lately, we have not been on the same page at all, whether in person or online. I’m twenty-four and have experienced a linear change over the last several years favoring classical theology. He has experienced a similar linear change in the opposite direction. It is somewhat discouraging for me to watch my relationship with my favorite brother change. It seems as though no one in my family is on the same page theologically anymore. My parents are somewhere out in left field with QAnon, and now two out of four of my brothers are steadily headed over the progressive abyss.
I’m troubled by the tone that my relationship with my brother has taken, and I’m wondering what (if anything) I should do about it. I know it’s normal to outgrow your younger heroes sometimes, and I’m wondering if that’s the case here. I’m not close to my father or particularly close to any of my other brothers and would be sad to lose this male figure in my life. I am married to a man that I deeply respect and who shares the same values as I do. Have you had similar experiences? I’m ashamed to admit that I’m having difficulty not obsessing over it, as I do anytime conflict arises between myself and anyone. How can I learn to be unbothered by these growing pains and do you think it’s time that I veer slightly away from my family and burrow further into my household with my husband to find rest there instead?
Elle
Elle, unfortunately the Lord said that faithfulness to His Word would be disruptive to families. The one thing you want to make sure of is that you are not contributing to the disruption in any unnecessary way. But that is not measured by a complete absence of tension.
Church Government, Always a Fascinating Topic
I am reading Frame’s Systematic Theology. In his section on church government, he states that Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Congregational systems are (1) all supported in Scripture and (2) all function the same in best-case scenarios (as in, the Bishop seeks checks and balances, the presbytery respects local congregations, etc.). Seeing the CREC accept a differing ecclesiastical structure, I was wondering your thoughts here.
James
James, I go along with Frame if he is saying that three forms are lawful. But I don’t think we can say that all three forms are right. One of them has to be closest to how the churches in the New Testament were governed. So every man should be convinced in his own mind. I find myself convinced by the fact that the archangel Gabriel was a Presbyterian. Not many people know this.
A Creedal Question
I was looking through the CREC documents and I noticed the CREC does not include in their affirmations the Definition of Chalcedon or the Athanasian Creed. Is there a specific reason for this?
Thanks,
Devin
Devin, the problem with the Athanasian Creed is not the doctrine, but rather the fact that it pronounces on the eternal destiny of anyone who doesn’t get the creedal formula exactly right. But the CREC does have the Definition of Chalcedon as one of its foundational statements, and all CREC churches have to have the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, and Chalcedon in their approved documents.
Daily Timewaster Question
First of all, I and my family really love your blog, especially the humour, and I have a Canon+ membership and really enjoy all of the content there. That should put what I’m about to ask in context ;-). I was wondering about the Daily Time Waster images you regularly include in your ‘Content Cluster Muster’ posts. The blogger in question sometimes includes images of women in somewhat questionable poses and attire. I really enjoy many of his other posts, especially the humourous ones, but I wonder if it’s a good idea to promote his blog, even if it’s just with a link next to an interesting ‘Friday Open Road’ picture, seeing that he *does* have inappropriate content on occasion.
I’m asking for a friend. ;-) Keep up the Lord’s work, by-the-way.
Mark
Mark, reasonable question. I link to his Open Road features and not the blog generally—but as he sometimes has cute girls in trucks, I try to be careful there. I hadn’t thought of the blog more broadly—although I hasten to add there is no raunch there.
Polygamy Once More
Regarding polygamy, there are pastors in countries where this is a live issue. I once spoke with an Indonesian pastor who had a case where a man converted who had multiple wives (he had previously belonged to a religion that allows up to four). The way this particular pastor handled this, was he required the convert to divorce all his wives but the first one, but to continue supporting the others and their children. (He would also have new converts renew their vows in a Christian marriage—essentially get remarried—when they joined his church, but that’s a conversation for another day.) I have heard of thorny cases in Africa where high-status men have multiple wives living in their housing complex, and are required to be chaste with them if they want leadership in the church. The problem is that this creates an intense sexual temptation and sets these men up for a fall.
I don’t have a proposed solution. Just observing that some of our brothers and sisters elsewhere in the world may have done some thinking on this issue that we could benefit from.
Jennifer
Jennifer, thank you. Yes, the issue is going to be on our doorstep pretty soon.
It was opportune for me to find letters you responded to about polygamy a couple of weeks in a row on Mablog this month. A Sunday school class at the PCA church I am a member of recently went over the Of Marriage and Divorce section in the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), and this sparked a discussion outside the class about what does and what does not constitute marriage. I read your comments on this section in your Westminster Systematics book as well as an old blog post entitled What Polygamy Can Teach Us About Marriage you published back in 2016. If you’ll indulge me with another whack at this dead horse, I have a question I’m still trying to find an answer to. First, a qualification, polygamy has no weird autobiographical interest for me—I’m happily married x1. With that out of the way . . . As far as I can tell from reading my Bible and trying to put things together, when the USA legalizes everything as marriage and lawful polygamous families become a thing then these unions should be recognized as marriages by faithful churches since God recognized polygamous marriages as marriage (Exodus 21:10), but the husbands in these polygyny marriages should not aspire to church office (1 Timothy 3:2) since polygamy is not the ideal (Genesis 2). If this is the case, did the divines overstate the case when they wrote?: “neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife […] at the same time.”
Just to clarify, am I correct in thinking polygamy is unwise and not the ideal, but not a sin if it is permitted by the civil magistrate? This seems similar to slavery in the Bible in that slavery is not a good institution, but it is not in and of itself sinful for someone to have slaves and slavery should—in time—go away with the spread of the Gospel.
One interesting thing that occurred to me while thinking through this polygamy hot potato is how scandalously it highlights the distinctions God made between men and women, i.e., a man can marry more than one women and it can still be called marriage (albeit a fallen example), but a woman cannot marry more than one man and call it a marriage (Romans 7:3). I’d imagine this disparity will grate on modern egalitarian sensibilities like nobody’s business.
Sam
Sam, I would call polygamous marriages sinful, but not at the same level that adultery is. I think Westminster was assuming a Christian law order, in which polygamy would in fact be against the law. If the magistrate allows it, I don’t think that the church should just follow in lockstep. For example, under those conditions I would admit a polygamist to membership, but only on the condition that he would never add another one—no matter how legal it was.
Moral Therapeutic Deism
I am writing with a question I cannot clearly articulate because the issue I am having is thinking clearly about something specific. Therefore forgive the imprecision; I hope you can see what I’m driving at. I live in the UK and am an elder of my church. Wider discourse here has become ‘theraputised’ (my word/not a word). By this I mean ideas of broadly/ill defined “harm” being pervasive and a near reverence for the standing of people who “have mental health” (not my phrase/means the opposite of what it says).
Both in the culture and the church there is an apparent desire to act with compassion towards people reporting these experiences. Fair enough; compassion is a good thing. That is, actual compassion is a good thing. An externally-visible, virtue-signalling, being-seen-to-be-compassionate compassion is not a good thing. This latter I see more in the culture; in churches it is godly men and women struggling to know what kindness looks like because they can’t see the water they swim in.
We end up exceptionalising particular people with particular experiences (mental ill health, experience of abuse, children with various disorders like ASD, ADHD, etc) to the point where their life and choices are unassailable. They are the unpastorable class not only because (in some cases) they won’t be pastored but because the “caring” and “compassionate” onlookers view any challenge to or critique of these folks, their view of themselves, their condition, their decisions and their sin as attack on the vulnerable. In some of this I can see clear links back to wokeism et al (special classes of people beyond impeachment, victimhood, etc).
So my questions are these—what are the battle lines here? As you might have it, is a play being run? I can’t quite get to the roots of the thing in terms of the error at the heart of matters and how therefore to respond. Any wisdom/suggested reading would be deeply appreciated. I dearly want to respond with true Biblical compassion towards those who need it but true Biblical compassion is all truth and all love with a ditch on either side of the road; it’s not the hugs and affirmation breakfast, lunch and dinner that our culture would hand out to these folks.
With thanks for your work and ministry,
MC
MC, yes, a play is being run. I don’t think you can fight it by responding to a particular case in the church, but rather by trying to alter the climate of the church generally. I would suggest starting a book club that works through books like Idols for Destruction, and The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self.
Following up on Resistance to Tyrants & Obedience to God and getting your kids out of government schools. I am grateful for your emphasis on that point over the years. I’d be interested to see a blog post or Doug reacts video to this Gospel Coalition “Good Faith Debate” on public schools. It is an hour long so I don’t mean to give you homework but Wilkin is a big name amongst evangelical women. Thanks!
Samwise
Samwise, thanks for the suggestion.
Aligned Voices
I’m currently listening to “Wordsmithy”, and you said something I thought was very helpful. You encouraged getting your writing and speaking voice in line. I have noticed that my writing voice is much clearer than my speaking voice. Practically, how can I go about making my speaking to be as clear as my writing?
Thanks in advance,
Chaz
Chaz, I think the best discipline for this is the writing itself. The more you write, the more you form sentences that way, even when you are just speaking.
A Gluttony Question
What advice do you have for men or women seeking to determine whether or not satisfying their appetite for food is gluttony? Is a second helping of dessert gluttony? Is eating more when you’re full gluttony? What is gluttony, and how do we know? What does the Accuser sound like versus the Spirit as it pertains to this sin?
Many thanks for your ministry.
GH
GH, in Scripture gluttony is always found in orgiastic company (Prov. 23:20-21; Deut. 21: 20; Luke 7:34). Gluttony is the drunkenness of food. It is not another dab of mashed potatoes. This doesn’t make extra eating a good idea, or ideal stewardship. Just like a second glass of wine is usually not a good idea, but is not drunkenness, it is the same kind of thing with food.
Matt, I had the same exact experience you have had but in the opposite direction, reformed to non-reformed and mostly due to my study of the Word of God but also reading authors and their critiques of each others positions. I even attended RC Sproul’s church for 5 years. Doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate some of the reformed teachers. John MacArthur is a hybrid of sorts as I understand his teaching. All this is neither here nor there, as far as pointing out how different we understand theology reading the same “Book” but, I would advise that you move slowly… Read more »
Agreed. I’d go further to say though that most of these theological issues are probably not worth changing a church over. Depending on where you are, finding a church of genuine believers who care about living for God beyond the surface level theatrics can be difficult in and of itself. The overwhelming majority of church functions (that is, fundamental purposes of the church, not “functions” as in potlucks) are not effected by these theological distinctions. The more I’ve read of reformed positions over the years, the more strongly I disagree with them. Beyond that, I think the behavior of many… Read more »
I’ll call your James White and raise you a PCA elder named David French, whose Tweets have aged like stale buttermilk. Or Prebyterian Francis Collins and Russell Moore who chuckled at those dumb conservative Christians who believed in now-not-so-crazy lab leak theories. I was once convinced that a “solid PCA/OPC” or even Baptist church wouldn’t fall for something like COVID hysteria or woke madness, but here we are. Feminism, Revoice, CRT, etc. have made inroads, too. When I heard Aimee Byrd shouldn’t be criticized because she goes to a confessional OPC church and if her elders were okay with her… Read more »
I think I’m on record in the letters columns on Tuesdays more than once ripping into French. I also have no love whatever for the PCA. When I say antics, I don’t mean White’s positions. I mean his behaviors. He has an observable history of posting things in heat, off the cuff, that are either questionable or just plain factually inaccurate. Then, when someone points this out, he blocks them. I first noticed it when I ran into him having minor scuffles with secular D list internet celebrities. He would say things without thought, blunders he would never make in… Read more »
Since I left on a pretty blatant attack, I thought I’d leave one more clarifying comment.
The point I made against White initially was that his original claim was knowingly incorrect. Not that it was rude.
I am being rude towards French here, but nothing I said is measurably not true.
Thanks. I’ve seen White’s Tweets and blog posts here and there but have never followed him closely. I know some Orthodox and Catholics have questioned his views of the Trinity based on one his books. I don’t know if Reformed or Protestants would have the same concerns. I agree 100% on French.
No telling how many people you infected along the way. Your love for your fellow man and woman is about as far from Jesus as you can get.
That’s not a compliment.
Lots of lying and projection there, Bob. You’ll probably double down next time for the trifecta. You probably believe in a hippie Jesus who was cool with the accepted sins of our culture and couldn’t define what a man or woman is, cause, you know, gender fluidity, dude…or dudette.
That’s not a compliment.
Typical dodge. You should tend to your own multitude of sins, before you tell others how they should live.
More projection and a double down! BTW, you can use one of your former 35 screen names. “Bob” is really lame and kind of gay.
Bob, No criticisms here since I can’t judge purely from what was said. I only want to mention a word regarding love. IF you read the words that Jesus spoke and placed him in the “here and now” in the same scenarios He acted on then, it would surprise most of us just how insensitive and unloving He sounded. We can be assured however, that He was acting with pure love. He knew what the “sensitive” kind would get us- a world gone mad. Remember, Jesus was speaking to sinners in His time although mostly sane. Today, He would be… Read more »
Matt: Apparently you’re going to get advice to stay or leave that depends on whether the advisor is Reformed or not. I’ll weigh in as a former Nazarene and then fundamental Baptist who became convinced of the primary tenets of Reformed theology in my 20’s, with much influence from R.C. Sproul’s books, videos, cassette tapes, and in-person conferences, but remained in IFB churches for much of my marriage for the sake of my wife. We raised 4 children for much of their lives in a very solid IFB church. For the last 7 years, I have been a member of… Read more »
David, I believe it was Pastor Wilson, a reformed minister himself, who advised Matt to slow down and not “lurch” too quickly. There is so much more to our spiritual lives than a denomination. As I stated above (see my reply to Matt) I was deeply in the reformed camp but was persuaded otherwise. It’s been said that even Calvin would not be considered calvinist by todays reformed standard. Calvinism has become the gospel itself by many calvinists from my experience. It’s almost cultic for many. When speaking to calvinists you can always tell what is most important by what… Read more »
When the “revival” broke out a few weeks back, I immediately wondered how long it would be before Christians started disagreeing and fighting about it. Didn’t take long. Never does. Same thing happened in the “Jesus Movement” but there was no internet to watch it on. Same probably happened in the Great Awakening, and further back till the day of Pentecost. There is nothing new under the sun and nothing Christians won’t fight and divide over.
That’s because all of them are mixed bags. When the enemy sows tares among the wheat, it’s our job to sift through them. That doesn’t mean we should be given to silly bickering, but we shouldn’t uncritically support everything going on at Asbury, either.
Precisely. The NT contains the don’t judge in Matt 7 or James, meaning beware of setting yourself up as judge and jury over others behaviour with I think a hint of selfrighteousness, but also the explicit instruction to judge in the sense of test, examine or discern. Confusing these two is disastrous when it leads to the acceptance of aberrant doctrine and behaviour under the guise of ‘not judging’ in the Matt 7 sense. Any true move of the Spirit will lead men into conformity with the Word he inspired not confirm them in being rebellious against it (“God is… Read more »
This isn’t an issue of Christians. This is an issue of humans. Any group of humans over a given size will have substantive disagreements about *anything*. Make the group large enough and you won’t be able to get them all to agree on gravity or hunger.
Since the goal here is to make everyone a Christian, all 7+ billion of them, this is just the tip of the ice berg in terms of disagreements to come.
Right. But Christians are supposed to live and act differently than unbelievers.
Right. So they should be critical of parts of Asbury that aren’t Biblical.
Woke Evangelical Org Claims Asbury Revival is Moving School Toward Affirming Queers (disntr.com)
Same did happen in the Great Awakening, and it’s documented, because back then they did their fighting through pamphlets.
The difference is, in the First Great Awakening, the critics had a problem with the emotional excesses of the people in the congregation, not with what was being preached. (And we know what was being preached, because we have the sermons.) Today, the criticisms I’ve heard are of the teaching – or lack thereof – at these revival events.
Who would employ a giggly witch? I ask you.
Jessica, there are a couple of problems with the Indonesian situation. If the multiple wives really are married, then they really become divorced and God hates divorce. What happens when one of these divorced women find someone else? All arguments for divorcing Wife Two assume the woman won’t find someone else. Then these kids with the Christian father have the unbeliever stepfather competing for attention. Christianity becomes the religion of divorce in the kids’ eyes and the stepfather represents the way things were before Dad left.
It’s also a problem in that additional wives are owed not only financial support but conjugal rights (Exod. 21:1). So the divorced women are being punished but not freed.
Good point
Hi, my name is Jennifer.
The context was a Muslim man with multiple wives converting to Christianity, and the pastor required him to continue to support his other wives and their children. I don’t know for sure that this was the perfect solution, but it’s an example of a pastor who had put a lot of thought into this because he’s had to.
Unlike in the American context, a formerly Muslim man’s multiple ex wives, with children, are unlikely to remarry. They don’t have the widespread serial monogamy culture that we do.
I don’t think it should be handled any differently than it was back when the church first started.
The man is obligated to support the wives he already has (per Jewish law on the topic), but can’t add more, and is completely barred from leadership because multiple wives means he doesn’t meet the criteria for leader in 1 Timothy 3.
P.S. And while God does hate divorce, divorce is not the ultimate evil. It’s an extreme remedy for extreme hardness of heart. I know that’s not an open-and-shut case for “divorce wives 2 – 4,” but it’s something to keep in mind.
Regarding forms of church polity, if all three are lawful, i.e. there is no commandment prescribing or proscribing any of them, then it is not particularly important if any one of them appears closer to what “we” take the 1st century arrangement to be.
Calvinball, the progressive version of Christianity.
I’ve only been reading Doug’s blogs and such for a few months, but I can’t imagine ever reading a better nonbiblical reference in any of his works than the Calvinball reference.
“He gets us.” So much, that he died for us.
“We”, were irredeemable by our selves. Get it? ; – )
When I looked into that “Good Faith Debate” I saw that Jen Wilkin had mentioned on Twitter she recruited Jonathan Pennington into doing it and that he was a reluctant participant. He and the moderator let her get away with defending the position she was assigned and turn it into “should the Wilkin family children have attended public school.” She tries to have it both ways in her comments throughout the debate. AD Robles has posted a couple of good videos on it.
“He gets us”, they say…
…in a context that makes it clear that they don’t “get” Him.
DDD
MC/Moral Therapeutic Deism: I’m currently reading “The Truth in Both Extremes” by Robert S. Rayburn. He says God sometimes gives us two truths that seem contradictory/paradoxical, both clear in Scripture, and we should pursue both rather than try to absorb one into the other, because our finite minds can grasp both separately but we’d have to be God to understand how they fit together. Eg. God’s complete sovereignty and our complete duty to choose wisely. Maybe compassion on one hand and calling to repentance and to be-ye-holy-for-I-am-holy on the other would be an example. Our Lord Jesus Christ on one… Read more »
Sam, I would call polygamous marriages sinful, but not at the same level that adultery is. Doug Wilson, by what authority would you call polygynous marriages sinful? Scripture defines sin as “lawlessness” (1 Jn. 3:4) or the violation of God’s law (Romans 7:7). Adultery is sinful because God has clearly prohibited it in His law – “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). Therefore, in order for polygyny to be declared a sinful practice on any level, there must be a clear prohibition of it somewhere in God’s law. Unfortunately, for your sake, there’s no such prohibition anywhere in… Read more »
Though polygamy may not be called out as “sinful” in scripture, it can certainly be said to be grossly insensitive, selfish. I can’t imagine any good that comes from it and anyone that espouses such has to be suspect just because the “bible” does not expressly condemn it. In addition, we should always be careful to elevate the “letter of the law” over and against the spirit of the law. It seems before any argument can be mounted for the proposition of a polygamist marriage/culture one should argue for its undeniable good that it serves in that culture. Am I… Read more »
Though polygamy may not be called out as “sinful” in scripture, it can certainly be said to be grossly insensitive, selfish. While it may be your opinion that a man having more than one wife is “grossly insensitive, selfish,” we are not permitted to impose our personal opinions upon a form of marriage that God has clearly authorized by way of regulation (e.g., Exodus 21:10-11; Deuteronomy 21:15-17) and nowhere prohibited. Notice how God’s law explicitly acknowledges both women in a polygynous marriage to be legitimate wives with irrevocable rights that must be protected. This would not be the case… Read more »
If divorce wasn’t a “good” form of marriage dissolution, God would never have authorized it and would have clearly prohibited it.
I agree. That’s why God authorizes the divorce of a wife who’s guilty of sexual immorality in His law (Deuteronomy 24:1; Matthew 5:32; 19:9), and prohibits or “hates” the divorce of an innocent wife (Malachi 2:14-16; Matthew 5:32; 19:9). It’s bad in one context, and good in the other – that of a wife breaking the marriage covenant by having sexual relations with another man. That’s also why God portrays Himself as divorcing Israel for her adultery (Jeremiah 3:8), because it was a good or righteous response to her unfaithfulness. Our holy and righteous God does not portray Himself as… Read more »
With all sincerity, Roger, these two passages seem to allow for polygamy but neither seem to “authorize” it as you say. The use of the word “IF” as in “if a man takes a second wife.” or “if a man have two wives” (King James), would seem to suggest God was dealing with the reality of sinful man and allowing for such. As you stated, polygamy was to minimize the collateral damage of fornication and bastard children. Much like the allowance of divorce though God hated it. I remain as before, polygamy is “selfish and insensitive.” I am teachable so… Read more »
With all sincerity, Roger, these two passages seem to allow for polygamy but neither seem to “authorize” it as you say. Rob, the words “allow” or “permit” or “authorize” are all synonyms meaning essentially the same thing – that God places His stamp of approval on a particular action, such as polygyny, as being lawful. Moreover, while a distinction can be made between lawful acts that are mandated as duties and those that are merely authorized as voluntary, it remains that both types of lawful acts are indeed righteous just as all lawless acts are indeed unrighteous. That’s what… Read more »
Roger, I knew I should have become a linguist to better argue these points. The use of the word “authorize” seemed more active in nature such that God was “encouraging” polygamy as the ideal. My use of “allow” was meant to be more passive, suggesting God was contending with the ramifications of selfish men. God was bringing His elect, but sinful nation, into maturity during the period of Exodus and Deuteronomy. The “authorization” for polygamy was possibly one stop-gap measure. But it was not so from the beginning when He created the first man and first woman. In addition, His ideal… Read more »
Roger, I knew I should have become a linguist to better argue these points. The use of the word “authorize” seemed more active in nature such that God was “encouraging” polygamy as the ideal. Rob, the fact that God has clearly authorized (or allowed or permitted) celibacy, monogamy, and polygyny in His law, means that all three are lawful or righteous options that a man may choose from. Therefore, assuming that God’s “ideal” for mankind is monogamy, as you seem to be doing, is simply not warranted from the totality of the Scriptural evidence. God’s ideal for each man… Read more »