Is the Zodiac a Thing?
I am currently reading through James Jordan’s book, “Through New Eyes,” and I was quite surprised at his discussion of the 12 zodiac signs in chapter 5. I had always assumed they were a thoroughly pagan superstition, but Jordan argues for their spiritual significance as they relate to the heavens declaring God’s glory etc. He even says “the 12 signs of the zodiac may have been designed by God as 12 portraits of humanity”; then, on the basis of their connection with the 12 tribes of Israel, suggests they may be “humanity in 12 dimensions, both as revelations of sinful Adam, and as adumbrations of Christ”. (I must clarify, however, that he clearly objects to the pagan practice of fortune-telling based on these signs, and many other common astrological practices).
Having successfully drawn me to the edge of my seat with intrigue, Jordan let me down big-time by effectively saying ‘we don’t have space to discuss this further’. Try as I might, I have not been able to track down anywhere else that he discusses the topic.
The reason for my intrigue is that I have many Christian friends and family who are rather immersed in the world of zodiac signs (specifically, using one’s date of birth to predict personality traits and interpersonal compatibility). They are mostly women (would you believe it), and I and my mates have always playfully mocked them for their adherence to pseudo-science, whilst secretly being slightly worried about the pagan influence on their lives.
Is this something I should be concerned about? Or (to do a complete 180) is there some truth to it, and I’ve been the fool the entire time?!
Also, since (as I understand) you know James Jordan personally, can you possibly clarify what his position is on this? I imagine not, but worth asking.
Blake
Blake, I am afraid I am not going to be much help. We can crowd source one part of this though. Do any of you denizens of Internetville know if Jordan discussed this in greater depth anywhere? But the use that your friends are interested in really should be considered worrisome, so I don’t think you need to eat crow there. As for more material on it, I would check the commentaries on those passages that allude to aspects of this—e.g. the Star of Bethlehem, the woman in Revelation 12:1, and so on.
Chestertonian Calvinism
Happy Lord’s Day: I listened to and enjoyed your appearance on August 28th’s Pugcast re: Chestertonian Calvinism. I’m currently reading his book The Everlasting Man. I add that Chesterton’s antipathy to Calvinism likely stems from his belief, though not mentioning Calvinism, that determinism not only ruins “the story” but by definition cannot tell a story because determinism denies “the ordeal of the free man” (p. 246, Everlasting Man). He seems unwilling to consider an absolutely Sovereign Author whose storytelling both dictates every detail yet engrosses the interactive participants with the unfolding of the most creative and compelling story. He accomplishes this despite having told His audience how the story ends. Chesterton’s misunderstanding of Calvinists may have added to his antipathy but I think it’s his misunderstanding of God and His sovereignty that is at its root.
Christian
Christian, agreed. For the sake of saving the protagonist he lost the author.
On the Hatred of All Things Wilson
As you are well aware, some people hate you. Many of those are people who are saved, but who fail to see the danger that comes from preemptively throwing your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ under the bus. I can’t say I haven’t done the same with those on the “other side” of the theological aisle. I can see that what drives the haters to this is a sort of paranoia towards church leaders. It seems there is a church scandal lurking around every corner, and we desperately want to avoid being a part of it. Instead of proceeding with caution, they decide to enter into the World of Douglas Wilson with their swords and guns already ablaze, with no intention of ending the war. So I thought I’d ask- what would you have us do when we’re faced with people we know who hate you? On one hand, I get angry on your behalf when I hear the slanderous nonsense they say. After all, they’re attacking your beliefs, many of which I share. The things they accuse you of are very well the things they’d accuse me of if they really knew.
I’m not convinced that my anger is righteous, and so most of the time I just stay silent out of fear of my own capacity to ruin an otherwise good opportunity for conversation. On the other hand, I feel a sense of guilt for failing to stick up for the reputation of a fellow believer. The online conversation around your ministry is reminiscent of a gossip-fest disguised as a ladies’ church luncheon. Shouldn’t it be my responsibility to break up the hen house? And yet, I cannot trust my temper.
I know that you hold your own fairly well, and probably don’t really need my help. I also sometimes feel as though my efforts might be better spent defending the Gospel itself, rather than the theological intellects who talk about it. I admire your ministry very much, but I also understand that I cannot put pressure on you and assume that you know everything there is to know about Scripture (though you certainly do know a LOT).
I’m hoping you are willing to speak on this, from the perspective of the main character. I want to avoid being a “cult follower” of yours. Hopefully, you understand that does not mean that I don’t still love your work and ministry.
L
L, thanks for the question. Galatians 6:1 says that if a brother is caught in a trespass, he should be corrected by someone who is spiritual, someone who is guarding his own heart. So when we are highly motivated to correct someone, we are frequently not qualified. And when we are qualified, we don’t feel like it. If you think that you might lose your cool, the obedient thing would be to remain silent. And if the Lord ever gives you the opportunity to say something, say something like “I heard Wilson say once that if his adversaries knew just a fraction of what God knows about him, he’d really be in trouble.”
Infant Baptism
I did not follow your Plodcast regarding infant baptism very well. What I did find very convincing was a debate between John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul on the topic. I have come down on the Baptist view. I would be interested to know if you feel R.C. Sproul could have defended his position better and if so, what you would say differently and/or what you feel is the weakness of John MacArthur’s argument. I expect you could find it or know about it already but here is the link to it
Peter
Peter, sorry, no, I didn’t have chance to follow that debate, so I am in no position to comment on it one way or another. But it is my general experience that this is one of those debates that I call paradigm bumper cars. The covenantal bumper car and the individual bumper car cannot occupy the same space, and hence there is a good bit of bouncing.
A question regarding paedobaptism, coming from someone leaning more and more that direction.
One hurdle I’m having a hard time overcoming with covenantal paedobaptism is that it seems to be an invention of John Calvin. Not paedobaptism itself, of course—that clearly goes way back in church history, for better or worse. But my understanding is that every church father before Calvin talked about baptizing babies with respect to baptismal regeneration, not as a sign and seal of the covenant akin to circumcision. What would you say to persuade me around this particular pothole to paedobaptism?
Brandon
Brandon, I would say it is the combination of two things, both equally obvious in Scripture, but not obvious that they go together. But when someone puts them together—like chocolate and peanut butter—the results are magical. I take it as obvious that an evangelical soteriology is on the surface of the New Testament, in multiple places. I also take it as obvious that infants are not excommunicated from the people of God just because the Messiah had come. Both are scriptural data points, and covenant thinking harmonizes them. That harmonization process does not trouble me because that is what the maturation of the church is supposed to look like.
The Election That Isn’t Happening
I applaud your pointed argument about the election we are not going to have. I agree that everything underway in plain sight should mortify the populace. I also agree that there are far too few people with the intellectual capacity to digest these circumstances much less act on them. The public is mollified with promises of free stuff, no cost foreign policy and a general disconnect from the burdens of any sort of public service. Sadly, a “return to Christ” is not going to solve this issue. We may find some redemption there, but it will only come in the form of an abandonment of tribalism, narcissism and self indulgence. Christ’s teachings certainly point to this as a desired outcome, but the church has long ago lost its relevance and failed to maintain its currency in society. Too many years of polarizing sermons, scandalized priests and a failure to adapt to a hyper evolving society have left it bankrupt of credibility.
I look forward to continuing to read your work, it is refreshing, insightful and quite entertaining.
Best regards,
Jonathan
Jonathan, I think it is time for us to turn away from the lessons about how we lost our credibility, and start to study those eras where we gained our credibility in the first place.
I discovered you a while back and thought I’d respond to the blog, “Let’s you and me fight.” I appreciate the insight on blessing our enemies, not something natural to me or I suspect anyone else. In fact in the middle of 2020, the election, and all other shenanigans, I started praying just that. It’s interesting that our current president didn’t seem to feel the need to repent, but I left that in God’s hands. It’s also interesting though, as one who grew up in a historically peace Church (Mennonites) I’d never heard this. Also the pacifist bent has been in play since the 1400’s, so I’m curious about your statements regarding pacifism as being able to only exist in certain situations. Flourish, yes. Exist? Not so sure, although without a doubt there’s a price to be paid for such a stand. Full disclosure, I no longer attend Mennonite Churches, since many have become much to liberal for my taste. Anyway, I’ve come to appreciate your insights, and would be interested in your response. Thanks!
Richard
Richard, if I understand your question correctly, I would say pacifism can only exist in societies that tolerate that kind of thing. Totalitarian societies do not. Following an argument made by C.S. Lewis, this means that pacifism does nothing long term but weaken those societies that make room for them.
Re “The Kind of Election We Are Not Going to Have”
You used to say “sins come in bunches.” Does that apply to Trump? Or, does he have a unique insight into the depravity of the voting system which runs counter to his otherwise perverse, philandering, quarrelsome, faithless, striving, scoffing behavior? Not only the depravity of the voting system, but also the depravity of the system of judicial review which examined the claims of cheating?
You clearly think so, or you wouldn’t accuse the GOP establishment of turning a blind eye to the corruption of the system. Donald has the gnosis; the GOP has the blindness.
You say that the GOP’s desire to nominate a normal candidate indicate a naive trust in the system, but that running a normal candidate will be a waste of time, because the fix is already in.
“When a man’s ways please the LORD, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.”
That’s a promise. I know that such simplicity in our political affairs is not as attractive as conspiracy theories. Or believing that a worthless man is the only one wise enough to see the level of depravity in the system.
But, it has the benefit of being true. Whatever other fecklessness the GOP might contain, I’m not about to start believing that ardently trying to find a righteous man, and ardently hating the ways of a worthless man, is a liability. Conservatism is boring in that regard. Just find the man who loves his wife, works hard, has some intelligence, and he can be president. Yawn.
If Proverbs is true, “the system” would behave a bit better if a righteous man were at the head. You once said, not entirely unappreciatively, that Trump was like chemo; not without some lament that it had come to that. Well, I’m proposing that allopathy isn’t the only medicine on the table. How about simple faith?
Regarding the soundness of the suffrage system; Alexander Hamilton tried to steal the election of 1800. And suffered no consequences! Talk about a broken system. Is the GOP naively pining for such days of yore? Or are you? I think the only way your appeal works is if nostalgia is true.
Despite your signaling moderate distaste for Trump, you seem to believe the same things Trump believes about where the most pressing political problem lies in our Republic, and furthermore that the answer is a singular man who will tackle them head-on.
Oh, I forgot your gospel appeal at the end. Yes, there’s that solution also. Unfortunately, in this blog post, the gospel appeal felt more like a tack-on at the end rather than the main deal.
It may be that I’m too simple a man, in the pejorative sense. I may have too much faith in “the system” (not really, but that’s another discussion). But don’t forget there’s a simplicity in the other direction; one which ends up agreeing with Donald Trump, a worthless man, about what’s really wrong with the Republic.
I’d urge no Christian to be simple in either direction.
Judd
Judd, I have no objection to the GOP searching for a righteous man. But if they find one, he would be in the front rank of those condemning this dog’s breakfast of a justice system. And if he wasn’t condemning it in a full-throated way, then, well, the GOP didn’t find their righteous man.
Thank you for your ministry which has greatly edified me. In “Lets you and him fight,” we have a timely and convicting word, and a great challenge. For many of us, loving our enemies seems like just about an impossibility, but for the grace of God to help us. We are reminded that God loved us even when we were His enemies. Many of us are still working on loving our FRIENDS. After all, at the moment we say, “I do,” the person we are marrying should be our greatest human friend. Yet, half of all marriages end in divorce?
Blessings,
Doug
Doug, yes. We have two problems. The people we must love, and the person who must do the loving.
In “Let’s You and Him Fight” I would like to point out that you have taken a passage of Scripture completely out of context, and also completely misinterpreted the passage. In 2 Corinthians 10 and verse 4 where Paul tells the Corinthians, “The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world” he is not in any way saying, “the weapons we as Christians fight with.” This becomes abundantly clear as you read the whole of the chapter. Put another way, there is no way in the world the Corinthians would have, or even could have understood Paul to be saying such a thing. Rather, it is abundantly clear the Corinthians would have understood this as a clear warning to them as a Church. This is also the case in the very next verse where Paul says, “and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” Again, the Corinthians could not have possibly understood Paul to be commanding them to “take every thought captive.” They would have understood this to be a clear warning to them as a Church. Moreover, Paul is warning the Corinthians of judgment inside the Corinthian Church, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with being a command to take this sort of thing outside the Church in order to judge what may be occurring outside the Church. Therefore, if it is not possible for the Corinthians to have understood this passage in that way, then we as Christians today cannot take the liberty in order to make the passage say anything we please.
Jack
Jack, as someone once said to the Corinthians, don’t you know that we will judge angels?
Re “Let’s You and Him Fight” (resentment):
(1) On Biblical opposites that may seem contradictory, read Robert Rayburn’s book “The Truth in Both Extremes,” or enough to get his point: God knows how, say, divine sovereignty and human choices fit together, but it’s too big for us now, so pray hard since God is pulling all the strings and choose rightly because we do choose and are responsible. Etc.
(2) In at least one psalm, the psalmist prays, God, you know I prayed and fasted for this guy when he was sick (bless your enemy), but now, O God, GET HIM!
Example FWIW.
(3) When praying for enemies I do sometimes ask such blessings as won’t hurt their neighbors.
(4) McCheyne liked to tell people: for every look at yourself take ten looks at Christ. Re “examine himself,” we paedocons think it means what it says—not ‘let the elders pre-examine a man’—as even Phil Keyser’s examples in “Children and Communion” show—but such examination should drive us to Christ. At the brass snake, examine yourself—I been bit—and look at the brass snake! At the table, I’ve sinned—I need the Lord’s death and His coming for my life “until”—thank God He gives me those!
Andrew
Andrew, thanks.
I’ve just finished watching/re-reading “The Kind of Election We Are Not Going to Have” and I have a few scenarios I would invite you to entertain:
1. Perhaps John Doe serves as President for a single term and does not get re-elected unto a second term. John Doe commits a crime during his presidency. If there is sufficient evidence of his crime, can the government bring charges against him and try him in a court of law? Or, because the crime was committed during his presidency, is John immune from any prosecution?
2. John Doe was a member of party A during his presidency but the current President is a member of party B. If there is sufficient evidence of John committing a crime during his presidency, can the current President bring charges against John? Or does the difference in party pose some irredeemable impropriety?
3. John Doe decides he wants to run for a second term as President. Does the existence of John’s political campaign prevent the government from bringing charges against him (again, provided sufficient evidence)? Or is the government free to bring charges against John?
I know the reality of the current situation is far murkier than the above hypotheticals (especially since #2 and #3 are somewhat intertwined), but breaking things into smaller pieces and building from there is far easier in my opinion.
I welcome your thoughts and await your response.
Your brother in Christ,
Daniel
Daniel, I believe that the mechanism for dealing with all such things ought to impeachment, and not criminal charges. There would be a limit to this of course—e.g. for murder—but otherwise we risk weaponizing the justice system and putting it in the arsenal of politicians. If we don’t do this, we wind up with the corruption we are witnessing now.
Re: The Kind of Election We are not Going to Have Thank you for your analysis. I’m going to beta test this argument in my conversations that the surest sign the Dems will cheat in 24 is that they already are.
I am not yet convinced, however, by your argument that the baddies are prosecuting Trump SO THAT he’ll win the primary SO THAT he’ll lose the general. Here’s where I’m struggling to see that point:
(1) It assumes that the Dems believe without a shadow of a doubt that he is the weakest candidate in the general. But why would they believe that? They see the polls. They see his crowds. And what would have changed regarding their fear of him as such a foreboding challenger that they spied on his first campaign and still lost?
(2) I think you would agree that the deep state is frightened of a Trump presidency more than anything at the moment. It’s hard to imagine that they would let him get one step closer to the oval office rather than stopping him in the primary phase. In other words, it is more plausible to me that they are prosecuting him in order to stop him from winning the primary, not in order to help him win it.
(3) They have tried unceasingly from the start of his first campaign, in the words of Alan Dershowitz (who, by the way, fits the description of a man that despises Trump but sticks up for him), to GET TRUMP. Your hypothesis suggests that their unceasing interference shifted 180 degrees in purpose from Trump getting to Trump helping. But nothing in their behavior changed, so it just seems odd to conclude that their purpose is now opposite. I suppose one could argue, “Well, they finally figured out that their Trump-getting was having an opposite effect, after which they figured out that perhaps helping him was to their advantage all along.” Maybe I’m wrong, but I think that gives too much sight to those who are blinded by their hatred for the man.
(4) I’m still on the fences with this one, but there are some early indications that Vivek might be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. See here: . Assuming for the sake of argument that he is a dirty politician working for the deep state globalists, that would seem to be at cross purposes with their other strategy. Either the baddies want Trump to win because they think he’s the weakest candidate or they want Vivek to win because he is controlled opposition. Then again, maybe I’m talking myself out of this. Maybe Vivek is their backup plan. Never hurts to have a few options on the table.
JPH
JPH, you write like a reasonable man, and all of your points are worth pondering.
Women in Authority
I have been trying to understand Paul’s prohibition of women teaching and having authority over a man in 1 Tim 2, as there is a lot of this in my city. What looks like an obvious interdiction is explained away in any number of ways. I am having a hard time understanding Paul’s word choice of authenteo for authority. He didn’t use exousia, which he and other Biblical writers used many other places for authority. Instead he uses authenteo which, I have learned, is only used in the Bible in this place, and even in antiquity we only have 7 other surviving references of its use. After doing a deep dive on the word, I learned it had morphed by the time Paul used it to mean something like ‘domineering, or to get one’s way’. However, originally the word meant ‘murder’, then softened to ‘master’ or ‘master-mind’ and then was rounded off to the usurping kind of authority. I think it is interesting that by Paul’s day, even though the word had morphed it still carries the smell of murder. Paul ties his reasoning for this command to creation and the subsequent fall. It seemed to me that this kind of authority Paul talks about is similar to the kind God warns Eve and then Cain about, that consumptive desire that she will have for her husband and that crouching sin also has for Cain. So its no bueno.
I found all that fascinating, but then that seemed like it could also be an argument FOR women in authority. Like Paul saying he doesn’t want women to have that bad kind of authority over men, but the normal, good kind of authority is okay. It found several papers where that is exactly why people think Paul chose autoenteo instead of another word.
Is saying all authority that women have in the church is necessarily of the rotten kind—that there is no alternative good kind that women can hold? And why do you think he chose this word when others were available?
Secondly, trying to make sense of the women being deceived. Taken on its face, I think it is hard not to assume that women, as a sex, are not in some way more prone to being deceived than man, while man has his own issues. In what way are women more prone to deceit?
Thanks
Tim
Tim, to your second question first, yes. Women are more susceptible to manipulation and deception. Eve was deceived. Adam sinned with his eyes open—he was a rebel, which is a masculine weakness. On your first point, this is the reason why some translations say that a woman must not “usurp” authority over men. One way to take it would be to say that women can have authority over men, just so long as they don’t get there by usurpation. The other way, and the way I would take it, is that when women exercise authority over men that is the usurpation.
Optimism Baked In
Postmillenialists tend to be more optimistic than premillenialists. Is that only because every generation believes the end is nigh? If the church age continues for another ten thousand years, you could have millennia of Christendom 2.0 before a great apostasy and rapture, or America could descend to millennia of paganism before it and the other nations turn to Christ. Why should that eschatological difference affect your mindset and behavior if we’re still possibly in the early days of the church?
Brian
Brian, my answer would be that the Scriptures do not just predict that the church will eventually win, but also that it will steadily grow toward that end. The mustard seed is growing the entire time.
Representative Church
There are several themes that you’ve been working with for years that seem to come together, and I was wondering if you are inclined to write a book or recommend one that does tie them together.
He’s the list as best I can describe: The Church in America needs to show the apostate nation how to repent. Authority is the glad assumption of sacrificial responsibility. A husband is responsible for his wife’s sins. The churches in America that would receive a bill of good health from the apostles are covenantally united with the baal-worshiping churches. Individualism is the great sin of the last 500ish years that we need to repent of.
These seem to be deeply interrelated. I also know that there’s a great danger in becoming the mirror image of whatever we react against. I don’t want to say in any way that if I confess the sins of my community then vicariously the whole community is forgiven. But Daniel 9:1-19 surely means something to the need of our time. And Jesus healed the paralytic when He saw his friends’ faith.
John
John, yes. I agree with all of that.
Quick Question
Not so much a letter, but an enquiry;
I am reading ‘Back to Basics …’ (David Hagopian et al) and your chapter Part I: Back to Conversion had me desiring to have it as a booklet, through which I might evangelize my Arminian friends ;
Have you codified this chapter as a booklet and if so, where might I acquire it. Thanks much.
Brian
Brian, interesting idea, and we will check. But in the meantime you might want to use my Easy Chairs Hard Words.
Covenant Cosplay
God bless you richly!
Couple of questions. I have a dear friend who labels himself “messianic Gentile”, meaning he has the views of a messianic Jew but he says, he is not a biological Jew, thus, he is a messianic Gentile. Confused yet? The difficulty when discussing biblical definitions and issues in general, is that fundamentally we have a different view of what comprises the canon of Scripture. His view is that the Torah serves as a divinely inspired document, from which “everything else builds upon,” it seems as if the prophets, the writings, and the New Testament, is an authority, but less authoritative than Torah. All that to say, how would you navigate that with him? When pointing to verses like in 1 Peter 1 or 2 Timothy 3:16. he is quick to remind me that the God-breathedness of those verses speaks of the Torah not the New Testament documents. I have suggested to my friend that he and I work through maybe a book on the canon from Michael Kruger or even Mathison’s book on “The Shape of Sola Scriptura.” So! Two follow-up q’s, do you have any resources to better understand the view of messianic Jews? or any good biblical critiques? And what other books aside the ones I mentioned would you recommend on the issue of canon or sola Scriptura? Blessings.
Ben
Ben, sorry. This is a unique one, and I don’t think there are a lot of resources. At least not that I know of. I would start by talking about what he thinks of Jesus. I would make Jesus the issue first.
Scientifiction
I have a weird request from my wife that I don’t know how to answer because it’s outside my normal book genres. Do you know of good quality science fiction/fantasy books written from a Christian worldview outside of the Space Trilogy? My wife would like to share them with our adult son. Any ideas that you might have would be very appreciated. Thank you sir.
Vernon
Vernon, I think the most fruitful place to look is in the YA market. The good stuff there can be enjoyed by adults as well as by kids. I commend my son’s Cupboards series as a good example. Others may chime in here . . .
Leading Women into Battle
Thanks for posting your thoughts on conscription. As a guy just married and then told I’m getting deployed in half a year, what you said really resonated with me. I plan on getting out as soon as my time is up. But I’m really wrestling with what you said here:
“A Christian officer cannot in good conscience send women into battle, and should not lead them into battle himself.”
As an LT in the National Guard, I have women under my command, and I quite honestly never had any qualms with it until this blog post. I should add I recently finished the “warrior wuss” chapter in “How to Exasperate your Wife” as well.
My minimal thoughts on the matter prior to this was along the lines of, “Well the Bible more or less teaches women not to be the protectors of men, but these women here aren’t Christians so it’s actually understandable. And the women who are Christians have their heart in the right place or something, so I’m off the hook.”
I find now that I am having to choose between being a “good officer” and a secret hater of woman and of God’s word, or being a “sexist” and a God-fearer and an actual protector.
Just wanted to let you know that your post was heard by an officer somewhere, and it’s appreciated. Shoot up some quick prayers for me if you will on this matter. Courage comes slow to a tired soul.
Michael
Michael, thanks. And everybody out there, say a prayer for Michael.
But Was He Right?
The other day I posted this quote to Facebook: “There are only two things wrong with our schools: everything that our children don’t learn there and everything they do. The public schools, with their vast political and bureaucratic machinery, are beyond reform. That does not mean that persons of good will should not offer themselves up as missionaries of truth and goodness and beauty, to teach there, as 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘴 𝘧𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘴. But we should be quite mad to send our children there. We send missionaries to cannibals. We do not serve the cannibals our boys and girls.”—Anthony Esolen, Out of the Ashes: Rebuilding American Culture
As you may guess, it has gotten a good many folks in my church quite worked up. I’m being told by church leadership, in so many words, that it is not a winsome thing to say.
I do admit I have failed to attain to Oscar Wilde’s standard of a gentleman in this matter, as it has offended some folks I didn’t intend to offend. How do you suppose I can bridge the gap with those offended, without being a coward?
Kyle
Kyle, on something like this, learn from it, file it way, walk more carefully next time. You really don’t want to start a firestorm accidentally. But whatever you do, don’t apologize for it.
The Abortion Battles
You wrote recently (a few months ago) about a template for downsizing the 4th branch of government. You said to start with an obscure, defunct department and just get rid of it. Not defund, not combine it with another, but completely crossing it off the books. You compared this strategy to the operation in Nicaragua in the 80’s that was the catalyst to the overthrow of the Soviet Union. No one thought communism could be stopped, much less rolled back. Then it was done in a small area that lead to folks realizing, “Hey, it can be done!”.
How do you think this compares, if at all, to the abortion conflict? No one thought Roe v. Wade would ever be overturned; it was established law (by 9 black robes); then it was no more. Pro-lifers were ecstatic; a victory we never thought would happen but had prayed for for decades had happened. But now, a year later, we see supposed pro-life leaders still not wanting to engage and seek to further the wins to protect the unborn. We seem to have reached a status quo of it’s states rights (heard that before, didn’t go over well for those States[I’m from GA]). Why can’t we seem to find the will to fight at a national level, or state level, for the unborn? Why can’t the overturning of Roe be a catalyst for your smash-mouth incrementalism leading to the complete eradication of abortion?
Just morning musings on my run.
Nathan
Nathan, the one big war turned into 50 smaller battles. But those battles are still pretty big. But still, abortion is now severely restricted in about half the states. You are right, however, in that there is a long way to go.
Early Date for Revelation?
Concerning a Preterist Dating of Revelation
First off, I am a committed partial preterist post-mil! And much of that due to the work you and others in the CREC/Canon Press have done. So praise the Lord for that! Now, that conversion is based entirely on the text of Scripture (as it should) which I believe points very convincingly (from Daniel to Revelation) to the destruction of Jerusalem being the apocalyptic event foretold in Revelation (with of course other, future horizons, being foretold in Revelation as well.)
There is one last sticking point that I have not been able to fully understand. That is the dating of the book of Revelation. Scholarly consensus (not the be all end all, but still its there) seems to be behind the late dating of the book, 90-95 AD. Obviously if this is true then the preterist positions falls apart (both Gentry and Sproul admit this). However, as stated earlier, Scripture I believe clearly points to Revelation being about 70AD so they majority opinion must be wrong. So what are the proofs/arguments for Revelation being written pre 70AD? Do you have any resources/quick guides to help answer that question?
Thanks for all you do!
Andrew
Andrew, yes. Try to get a hold of Gentry’s book on this, Before Jerusalem Fell, which I found to be slam-dunk conclusive. The evidences are both internal and external. The external evidence (basically Irenaeus) is dubious on several counts. And the internal evidence (things like, “five were, one is, and one is to come”) seems to me to be conclusive.
Intersex Questions
In the last set of letters, in response to a question about so-called ‘intersex’ individuals, you said “I think the biblical thing to do there is to pick one, and make the best of it.” I’m curious how much you’ve researched this. My understanding is that the idea that we “don’t know” about some people is really a pseudo-scientific myth by academics who have been liberal for the last century. Birth defects can be physically androgynous, and even chromosomes can have abnormalities, but every body is still set up for the production of either male or female gametes, NEVER both or neither. Thus, it is never actually a mystery.
If that is the case, then it would still be wrong to “pick one and make the best of it,” rather one (better yet one’s parents when they are still a baby) should find out which they truly are.
Some of this is from The Genesis of Gender by Abigail Favale. The book isn’t 100% great (she is Catholic, and several funny positions are in her book), but she is writing for young Christians against the Alphabet cult and their lies, and sees that there is a great deal of ignorance on what ‘intersex’ conditions actually are.
Jonathan
Jonathan, I agree that our current medical establishment is ethically rootless and no longer has the moral credibility to speak to any of this. And thank you for the note on gametes. I was not referring to physiological presentation, but rather to chromosomal oddities (XXY or XYY). But you are right that there would not be anything there that would enable the parents to “pick one.” I stand corrected.
The Pastoral Tithe
In response to your recent Saturday sermon post Honoring God in Personal Finances, I was curious about how the principle of tithing applies to pastors/elders. If the exhortation to generous giving applies to all members of a local congregation and the tithe is at least customarily reserved for the work of the local church, is it recommended for the “worker worthy of his wages” to tithe back to the church in which he serves or should he direct part or all of the tithe to other ministries or mission endeavors? It seems that the shepherd should be leading his flock in this spiritual discipline/act of worship, but the dynamics are a bit different and perhaps the expectations vary across denominations. I am not yet a pastor, although I hope to use my seminary training to that end at some point in the future. With your long tenure pastor and your mentorship of many so inclined within the Greyfriars Hall, you might have some personal insights and practical applications.
FMS
FMS, my assumption is that in the OT, the people tithed to the Levites and the Levites tithed to the priests. I don’t know who the priests tithed to, but I assume they did. Throughout our ministry, Nancy and I have always tithed, and some of it was to our own church and some to outside ministries.
My Master’s Thesis
You mentioned studying free will and determinism for your Master’s thesis, was it? I only did a philosophy course at Biola, but the prof had us dig deep into Hobart’s soft determinism versus one of the James (William?) boys and random chance. I always thought that to be a bit esoteric and wondered at its value to a Christian. Since rejecting my Too-Hip Calvinism lite (couldn’t hang with that “L”) and embracing the whole shebang, I’ve wondered about said soft determinism as an apologetic. I can’t remember Hobart’s real name (he used a pseudonym), but he was a contemporary of James and, maybe, Jose Ortega y Gassett (Meditations on Hunting- good read if you’re a hunter, but not Godly). Any thoughts?
Chris
Chris, it has been many years, but all the hard/soft distinctions seemed to me to be rhetorical and stylistic.
*Vernon, I think the most fruitful place to look is in the YA market. The good stuff there can be enjoyed by adults as well as by kids. I commend my son’s Cupboards series as a good example. Others may chime in here . . *
Pastor Wilson,
I hope you all are able to create the Cupboards movie..?.one day.
I learned about the Christian symbolism of the Zodiac decades ago from James Kennedy, it’s a neat concept: https://www.amazon.com/Real-Meaning-Zodiac-James-Kennedy/dp/1929626142
Henry Morris has a cautious appendix on it in “Many Infallible Proofs,” as I recall.
@Kyle – You did nothing wrong with your statement about public schools, that is exactly what is happening. My Church has several public school teachers in it that take offense when my wife and I say that our children are not going to public school because I don’t want my daughter thinking she’s a man. That offends my Brothers and Sisters. Unfortunately for my Brothers and Sisters in this case, I don’t care. My children take precedence before the Weaker Brother doctrine, and if protecting my children offends some spineless Brothers and Sisters then so be it. The alternative, as… Read more »
I agree. We’ve tiptoed around this issue for decades and it has led us to the educational monster we have today.
Sometimes you need to be a Phineas.
Jesus deliberately offended lots of people (such as scribes and pharisees) without opening Himself to the charge of stumbling a weaker brother. The “weaker brother” isn’t offended by the notion that they are weaker, and more prone to stumble in an area that the strong are not so tempted, such as drinking wine. This weaker brother acknowledges a Christian liberty, and also their individual temptation to sin in partaking. For this kind of weaker brother, it’s an honor to abstain in their presence, so as not to tempt them, even though we have liberty, and even if their conscience is… Read more »
Blake, think of it this way. The pagans looked up in the sky, saw the created reality that there are identifiable constellations (whatever names you choose to give them) that cycle seasonally through the sky in a predictable pattern. They named them, assigned qualities to them, and had a pagan theory of how these seasonally cycling star clusters affect reality and function within it. They did this in a pagan way, because they were pagans. But it’s not pagan to notice these identifiable constellations that actually exist and behave (from our perspective) in this observable manner, and consider whether God… Read more »
I’m reminded of Yoga, originally an evil religious practice meant to invite possession by spirits.
That having been the case in its original context does not mean that’s what Jenny at the local YMCA is doing as she attempts to tone her tummy after her caesarian.
Vernon, here is a site that has a couple of Christian themed fan fiction stories. The Copy Boy and Sandman. Put your cursor on my name and you will go to the stories.
A recommendation for Vernon: “The Chocolate Prophecy” by E.L. Ward. The author is a dear friend and I very biasedly promote his book wherever and whenever I can. It is a ridiculous world on the order of Terry Pratchett’s Discworld – full of Franciscan Dragons, paperwork-loving jellyfish, and prophetic heron dictators – but without the agnosticism. It is self published and can be found on Amazon and Kindle.
Vernon— I used to frequently read in the sci-fi/fantasy genres. Some memorable and recommended reads by Christian authors would be the following: The Lamb Among the Stars series by Chris Walley The Mars Diaries by Sigmund Brouwer Wingfeather Saga by Andrew Peterson (TOP REC here) The Seven Sleepers series by Gilbert L Morris The Passages Series by Paul McCusker (Adventures in Odyssey writer) I have also heard good things about the writings of Stephen R Lawhead, who has written fairly widely but is most known for his series around Arthurian legends. However, I can only commend most of his work… Read more »
Some cautions: Mars Diaries are kind of fun for teenagers, but I don’t know that they would really be deep enough for an adult. Stephen Lawhead’s books seem to ride the edge of an R rating for no entirely adequate reason, and they also had an awful lot of borrowing from apparently pagan Celtic legends and customs that I didn’t see the point of. Most of Madeleine L’Engle’s books are good, but a couple (maybe The Arm of the Starfish?) veer sharply in some shockingly explicit directions. So you really can’t just buy a bundle and turn ’em loose. The… Read more »
I too commend the Cupboards and Ashtown Burial series by N.D. Wilson.
The George MacDonald edits by Michael Phillips are also quite good…Sir Gibbie (The Baronet’s Song) being on my regular reread list.
@Ben Check out The YouTube Channel called The Beginning of Wisdom. It’s an apologetics ministry with a lot of helpful content about the Hebrew Roots movement. The Beginning Of Wisdom – YouTube
Blake, regarding potential interpretations of the Zodiac, I know that Presbyterian pastor D James Kennedy did a sermon series back in the day exploring a sort of proto-evangelium in the starry host (based on the smattering of Scriptural texts mentioning stars, constellations, and the wise men, as well as the intriguing creational account of the stars being fashioned for signs—cf. Gen. 1:14). You can Google old videos of that series hosted on YouTube and Coral Ridge Presbyterian’s webpages, or you can purchase a book summary of his sermon argument in “The Real Meaning of the Zodiac.” My parents owned an… Read more »
Vernon, Andrew Peterson’s “Wingfeather Saga” is wonderful Christian fantasy!
Ben, this is a fast-growing movement and not everyone agrees on definitions. The Messianic Jewish Alliance of America says the following:”Messianic Judaism is a Biblically based movement of people who, as committed Jews, believe in Yeshua (Jesus) as the Jewish Messiah of Israel of whom the Jewish Law and Prophets spoke… The foundation of Messianic Judaism, therefore, is each individual’s personal relationship with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob through Messiah Yeshua. In the Hebrew Law God clearly demands a blood sacrifice for the remittance of sins. Each Messianic Jew recognizes his or her own sinfulness and has accepted that… Read more »
I hit send too early; here is the rest of the comment. Because Jewish identity is derived from having a Jewish mother, the early messianic Jews soon had the problem of dealing with intermarriage. When Jewish Joel marries Baptist Sally,she may belong to his messianic congregation but she does do as a messianic gentile and so do their children. Subsequently other gentiles joined because they were drawn to the movement for any number of reasons. Messianic gentiles have been defined as “those from non-Jewish backgrounds who have a confirmed call to participate fully in the life and destiny of the… Read more »
Thanks for clarifying. Paul told Gentiles not to get circumcized (or otherwise bogged down in Torah, tho all of it is instructive, and even corrective, for them one way or another), and told Jews not to get de-circumcized (they did have a surgery for that even back then). So I have no problem with Messianic Jewish congregations flourishing, and if I were visiting one I’d comply with its customs best I could. I’d hope they’d be eating with Gentiles–interchurch fellowship dinners?–and not pushing specifically Jewish practices on Gentiles. (Andrew Bonar has a commentary on Leviticus, basically Christ in Leviticus, without,… Read more »
I am sure that anyone would be welcome as a guest at a Messianic Jewish gathering or meal and that no one would be pressured to accept or participate in anything outside his own cultural traditions and religious beliefs. Hebrew Roots is another story. I find an element of play-acting in gentile Christians with no connection to Judaism suddenly deciding to build sukkot in their backyards and address their pastors as Rabbi. But, as the number of HR people increases, it is becoming a divisive issue because they are certain they’re right and everyone else is wrong. I thought this… Read more »
Re infant baptism: God saves people (hallelujah!), and He does this in no other way whatsoever than by living, active faith in our Lord, Jesus Christ. He saves some infant and preborn children. Therefore He gives such elect children faith, ordinarily by hearing (which develops before speech, even in the womb.) So infant baptism is believers’ baptism, and infant communion is believers’ communion. As J. C. Ryle shows in “Knots Untied” on “Regeneration,” (tho some, often without answering him, deny this), the baptism of infants presumes, until evidence to the contrary may appear, that they are regenerate. But of course… Read more »
I’m not a credobaptist any longer, though I was for quite some time. Take this response not as a rebuttal, but as what my rebuttal would have been a couple years ago. Not arguing with you, rather, iron sharpening iron. “He saves some infant and preborn children. Therefore He gives such elect children faith,” You’ve just undercut the argument to anyone who is not a Calvinist, which is a very very large portion of credobaptists. While I’ve changed positions on infant baptism, I’ve only become more convinced that Calvinism doesn’t hold together as a coherent view. I’ve always believed children… Read more »
Blake, I know that Alistair Roberts has made some references to OT writers apparently being familiar with the zodiac as part of the ANE cosmology that also includes the Firmament/the four corners of the earth, the divine council, and stuff like that, and employing its symbolism.
I have also seen somewhere a sort of graph of redemptive history starting with creation in about 7000 BC and moving through the different zodiac signs that dominated each era – Ram, then Bull, then Fish … but I can’t give you a source, sorry.
Michael, here are a few generic thoughts since you didn’t let us in on which branch or what position you hold. If you are a platoon commander, you have authority to run your platoon as you wish. Your commander may not like it, but if God gives you good results, typically you don’t get hit with a sledge hammer. During Vietnam, one unit was tasked for extended operations in Indian country (Not LRRP). A commander, using the same thought process as John Paul Jones, told his men that they were going to kill communists, they were going to use communist… Read more »
You might also want to check out Gene Wolfe’s “Book of the New Sun”, though I think the Christian themes in that one are less obvious. Gene was a devout Catholic.
You can see an interview with him here where he quotes Chesterton in the first 2 minutes of the interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGov82cX4hI
Vernon, check out my epic trilogy:
The Long Guest
The Strange Land
The Great Snake
which traces the journey of one particular family group from the Tower of Babel to the ends of the earth. I call it “epic fantasy that is light on magic.” Available on Amazon, Bookshop.
Re: books about the zodiac
https://www.christianbook.com/adam-the-lost-history-their-lives/ruth-beechick/9780940319073/pd/19071?event=Homeschool|1005481
I think this is the one, it’s been a while since I read it. She has an interesting concept of the signs being originally set in the sky to show the salvation message. The Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the Ram as the Lamb of God, Virgo being the virgin birth. I think Michael Heiser talks about it some as well, but from a slightly different perspective and his writings are old earth and not preterist.
Tim: “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.” I would suggest the following analogy helps in understanding this; ‘learn’ is to ‘teach’ as ‘submissiveness’ is to ‘authenteo’. Whilst in general women do seem more prone to spiritual deception I would suggest in the church this is true when they attempt to exercise authority they shouldn’t. A combination of teaching and authority. Otherwise it is difficult to to see why Paul was glad Timothy had inherited his faith from his grandmother and… Read more »
How about modern civic life across the pond, Ken? Is this what a good pluralist, anti-Christian nationalist state looks like? Diversity is our strength!
Ian Miles Cheong on X: “Cops struggle with a suspect in England as bystanders pose for selfies or help the suspect. How is any of this acceptable? https://t.co/c0R8ClsAqy” / X (twitter.com)
I’m not sure what that has got to do with correctly interpreting and implementing 1 Tim 2! Britain is increasingly a Rom 1 society, but it is a pity that all too often the chapter is used only to critique homosexuality. The rest of the chapter shows the package of evil that occurs when the truth about God is suppressed. There is no hope in the Conservatives holding this in check as they are just as godless as everyone else, material greed in particular. ‘Foolish faithless heartless ruthless’. There may be some residual Christian influence left, but overall a society… Read more »
The point is that you always find a reason to bring up your pet issue (“the patriarchy is keeping women from praying and prophesying!”). Of all the problems the church is facing right now, that’s nowhere near the top of the list. Yet you have some monomaniacal attachment to it. You completely discredited yourself recently when you said it was okay for a female “pastor” (no such thing) to take part in a service in the house of God. And I brought up the civil realm because you seem to put more faith in your lying government and media than… Read more »
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote … Someone else brought up 1 Tim 2 in the letters. If I have a ‘thing’ about this it is to avoid giving men a sense of entitlement and that excesses by complementarian men can drive evangelicals into the egalitarian camp, many of whom have a history of succumbing to LGBTQ. I saw no objection to the female ‘pastor’ speaking at a funeral in a private capacity not, however, if she wanted to use it make a point. I spent the entire covid period living in Germany and my views on this… Read more »
@Blake
I heard Dr. Kennedy’s talk years ago on “the Gospel in the Stars” and it is compelling. However, I now find it bunk.
Dr. Danny R. Faulkner at Answers in Genesis has 2 articles you can read. The first is a summary of a much larger paper he wrote.
The Gospel Message—Written in the Stars?
A Further Examination of the Gospel in the Stars
John MacArthur makes critical mention of Kennedy’s book in this sermon and comments briefly on Henry Morris’ take. Just search for zodiac.
Judgment of the Rebellion at Babel, Part 2
If you all will notice above, I call out Doug for completely misinterpreting 2 Corinthians chapter 10 verse 4 by clearly demonstrating beyond any doubt that when Paul says, “The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world”, he was not in any way saying, “the weapons we as Christians fight with.” Moreover, when Paul moves on to verse five where he says, “we take every thought captive” he is not at all referring to Christians, nor is it in any way a command to Christians to “take every thought captive.” I bring this to Doug’s attention,… Read more »
Jack, you persist in not understanding the claims I am making, and I think that it is because you are not getting the timeline I am assuming, which extends over centuries. The one who is faithful in a little will be faithful over much. Ten pennies, ten talents, then ten cities. We are to labor to exercise dominion here and now, which may seem like small change to Christians centuries from now. But that’s all right. We do not see everything subject to man yet . . . but we see Christ.
Doug, While I do not agree with your idea of “dominion”, this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The discussion at hand is, it is my claim that you have misinterpreted a passage of Scripture in order to support a certain agenda. In response, you do not even address the fact that I made such a claim, but rather appeal to another passage of Scripture in order to make the point. However, as we have seen, this passage does not support your cause in that it is confined to judgement inside the Church as well, while having… Read more »
Jack, I don’t believe those two alternatives are the only two I have.
Doug, You are absolutely correct in that I did in fact leave out another option. In fact, I have been sharing our correspondence with other Christian friends, and I actually explained to them the options you had. The first two are the options already discussed, which is to acknowledge that you had indeed misinterpreted the passages or attempt to defend the way in which you had interpreted the passages. However, I did in fact explain to them that you had a third option, and the third option I explained would be avoidance. It seems as if this is the option… Read more »
“However, as we have seen, this passage does not support your cause in that it is confined to judgement inside the Church as well, while having nothing whatsoever to do with judgement of those outside the Church.” How are you defining the boundaries of the Church? ” You need to acknowledge that you have indeed misinterpreted these passages, or you need to defend the way in which you have interpreted them.” He doesn’t NEED to do anything whatever. He doesn’t owe you his time. I’ve disagreed with him more than once before, and occasionally gotten some glib non-answers in the weekly… Read more »
“He doesn’t NEED to do anything whatever. He doesn’t owe you his time.”
I don’t get that either. People hijack someone else’s blog by repeating the same argument on multiple posts or flooding it with comments (thinking of a certain person who had over 100 comments on some of DW’s old posts)…then accuse DW of having an agenda and demanding he change his views or answer all their questions. How about starting your own blog/Substack instead?
“ (thinking of a certain person who had over 100 comments on some of DW’s old posts)”
The only person I have ever advocated to be banned from anywhere.
Cherrera, Again, you are correct in that Doug does not owe me any time at all. However, when I write a letter to the editor, and Doug publishes this letter along with a response, it is perfectly legitimate for me to post a comment below. I did this with no expectation that Doug would have anything to say about my comment below, but the fact of the matter is that Doug did respond to what I had to say below. With this being the case, I went on to give a response, not at all insisting that he continue to… Read more »
Jack, the difficulty in answering you has to do how much you are assuming about our project here in Moscow that is manifestly incorrect. “Taking every thought captive” could mean a naive person thinking that ramming through a resolution at city council would do it. Someone else, like me, might think that it will take 500 years of gospel preaching and church planting to do it. One of the things that the leaven in the loaf shouldn’t be doing in the meantime is debating what particular shape the loaf will be after it is baked. Here is the short form… Read more »
Doug, You really need to stop because you are only digging yourself in deeper. First off, I do not recall saying a word about Moscow, or any so-called “project” you all have going on there. Therefore, how in the world could I be so “manifestly incorrect” concerning this “Moscow project” since I am not assuming anything at all about this so-called project? So then, I do not have a problem with this Moscow project, because it does not interest me in the least. I have a problem with Christians who are preaching Christian nationalism. Since you are indeed one of… Read more »
Jack, here is the problem. Two problems actually. Your ignorance of the Moscow project means that you are entirely unaware of all the things we are doing that refute some of your key objections to Christian nationalism, and the impact it will have. It hasn’t had that impact here, in other words. In the second place, you are muddling up the distinction between interpretations and applications. Would you have the same violent reaction if someone used Paul encouragement to Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach in order to refute a teetotaler? Paul didn’t have teetotalism in mind,… Read more »
Doug, So, on the one hand you claim I am assuming certain things concerning your project in Moscow, and then on the other hand I am ignorant of what is going on? I mean, which is it? You seemed so confident I was assuming, and now you want to say I am ignorant. But I do not want to get off topic debating such a thing. So then, what you are telling me is, you all have Christian nationalism in full force in Moscow? Does this mean you all have the “general equity” of the Mosaic law in force? Is… Read more »
Justin Parris, You asked, “How are you defining the boundaries of the Church?” Well, that would be the same way in which Paul defined the boundaries when he asked the question, “what do I have to do with judging those who are outside?” You are correct in that Doug does not have to respond to me, and I understand that he more than likely has more letters than he can respond to. However, the fact of the matter is, he has responded to my “letter to the editor” along with responding to my comments below. Therefore, my response is, he… Read more »
“However, when he decides to respond I do not think it to be unreasonable to hold his feet to the fire.” Well Mr. Hanley, while I don’t agree with you on the topic, and I don’t think you’ll win out on this point, suddenly I have a horse in the race. See if you can force him into seeing the point through, well suddenly by precedent I get to dig up old letters about failed football analogies, failing to define horror movies in an article about horror movies, and demand satisfaction. Or I suppose I could go read a book… Read more »
The resistance to Christian Nationalism really seems overwhelmingly focused on this idea that next week a tiny minority is going to try and enforce Leviticus on the 98% majority. If we do our job as Christians with consistency over a large time scale, we won’t need to push at all for God to be enshrined in the nation’s institutions. The people will champion the change and complain that it did not happen quickly enough. Who’s forcing anything on those outside the church? The entire point is to grow the church such that it includes the institutions, not to force the… Read more »
Greetings Jack…I”m not sure I’m understanding the differentiation about the audience that you’re making. Who is Paul communicating to in Romans7:23 or 12:2? Or Colossians 2:8?
Seems there’s a lot of personal responsibility in who captivates us…as Christians…meeting together in churches…and how we fight being made captive…Full Armor of God and all.
J. F. Martin, I have other folks in line to respond to in front of you, but I wanted to respond to you first since you seem to be asking a sincere question. I will attempt to answer in this way. All you have to do is to read 2 Corinthians chapter 10 from the first verse and you will discover that Paul is not in any way including the Corinthians when he says, “the weapons we fight with are not worldly weapons”. Rather, what you will discover is the fact that Paul is giving a warning to the Corinthian… Read more »
Jack, thanks for attempting to add clarity. There are a lot of pronouns in my ESV…so I went back a few chapters from 2nd Corinthians 10 as well. I read all the “You”s in verses 1 and 2 to be the Corinthian Church. If I understand you correctly, you suggest the “us” in verse 2, and then the “we” in verse 3 are Paul and his companions, instead of the Corinthian Church. Is this what you’re saying? I’ve found other discussions about Paul’s usage of ‘we’ and ‘you’ and I’d argue that it’s not always clear who he is referencing,… Read more »
Please include indented paragraphs in lengthy posts.
I’ve refuted this “Jack” character multiple times. He keeps using the same stale arguments in stream of consciousness rants, hoping it will stick with enough repetition or something. Forget young children being encouraged to change genders at an early age, big cities where crime/looting has gone off the charts, drag shows for kids, a completely politicized “justice” system or a myriad of other problems. The really scary thing is what Christian Nationalists may do if they come to power 100 years from now! He’s basically a Marcion-style heretic who has called the OT law “hell.”
“He’s basically a Marcion-style heretic who has called the OT law “hell.”” I dunno, as someone who’s spent a large part of his adult life clearing out medical debt, the ‘ol Jubilee system sounds pretty solid to me. I understand the aversion. I grew up under the same notion that the US had cleverly invented the safeguards that create a perpetually free society that is totally neutral in the public square. Ha. The good news is its a delusion with a hard expiration date. As soon as that neutral public square decides that you in particular no longer qualify, you’re… Read more »
True. And neither our founding documents nor many state laws (anti-sodomy, anti-blasphemy, blue laws, etc.) were 100% neutral. On the contrary, they were heavily influenced by Christianity. As John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
My friend, you have indeed attempted to refute what I have said, but you have not been successful. Moreover, you continue to bear false witness by saying I have referred to the OT law as hell when I have never said such a thing. What I have said was something to the effect, “it would be a hell-hole to live in a society where the Mosaic law was infused, and or enforced into our civil law”. This is a far cry from referring to the OT law as hell. You claim that I am “using the same stale arguments” when… Read more »
“it would be a hell-hole to live in a society where the Mosaic law was infused, and or enforced into our civil law” Which is essentially the same as saying the God-given Mosaic law is “hell.” And it makes it pretty clear what you think of the Lawgiver, who’s the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb. 13:8). “when the real problem is the fact that the Church has involved itself in the culture wars for some 5 decades” That’s a classic post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. Christians got involved with the culture and as a result culture became… Read more »
I am afraid it is not the same as saying “the Mosaic law is hell”. If we could go back and look we would see that I tied this to those who would be in charge of enforcing this law. So then, you can continue to say the same things over, and over it you wish but all you are doing is to avoid the real conversation. However, let us take a different tact. Are you familiar with the Jerusalem council as recorded in the second letter addressed to Theophilus? As it is recorded, Peter stood up to address the… Read more »
Ok, so in 2 Cor 10 Paul is addressing the disparagement of his authority on the part of some in that church. However, is Paul’s warfare limited to the church he established? Are the strongholds, arguments, and lofty opinions he fights only in the church? Rather, his ministry opposes every falsehood about God, and every idea disobedient to Christ, whether as an evangelist outside the church, or as an overseer within the church. Are there still evangelists to the world and overseers to the church today? How are they to serve except by following Paul’s example in casting down erroneous… Read more »
John, What I am arguing is, we as Christians cannot use this passage as if Paul was commanding us to “take every thought captive” which would include taking captive the thoughts of those outside the Church, when this would not have been on the mind of Paul in the least as he penned the words, “we take every thought captive”. Clearly Paul had no such thing on his mind, and we cannot take the liberty to apply the text any way we please. This not only does damage to the text, it also prevents Christians from interpreting the rest of… Read more »
“Paul could not have possibly been commanding us as Christians to ‘take every thought captive’ when this would not have been on his mind in the least.” Assertion is not proof. How do you know this? How does the text show it? When there is error in the church today, do we let it run loose, since you say that only Paul (who is long since in heaven) had the calling to “take every thought captive”? It seems your definition of “rightly dividing” is to divide Scripture from its application to us, whereas Paul says “all Scripture is profitable for… Read more »
My friend, we can know what was on the mind of Paul as he penned the words, “we take every thought captive” by reading in the context. If you are saying we cannot do this, you are doing damage to our ability to interpret any passage in the Bible. It is absolutely clear from the context that Paul meant these words to be a severe warning to the Corinthians in that Paul was saying, “if you Corinthians do not straighten up your act, you will discover that the weapons Paul & company employ are not the weapons of the world”.… Read more »
Vernon,
I’m surprised he hasn’t been mentioned yet, especially since James Jordan is referenced in this week’s letters, but he always commended Cordwainer Smith. In fact, I bought the complete short stories (and read them) from Biblical Horizons back in the day. Two other interesting tidbits on Smith that I learned from James Jordan- he essentially invented psychological warfare during WWII and his conversion happened in the midst of his career. So some stories were written pre-conversion and others post. I cannot recommend him enough.
Re: Scientifiction. Years ago I was introduced to Cordwainer Smith and his science fiction novels:
Re: Early Date for Revelation?
Theopolis has a series going re: dating controversies in the New Testament, which began around the 19th century:
Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: by Ralph Allan Smith
A Response to Ralph Smith: by Stanley E. Porter
Dating the NT: A Response to Ralph Smith: by Dr. Ian Paul
Losing More Than We Gain: A Response to Ralph Smith: by Mark Garcia
Leaving the Old and Entering the New World: by Jeff Meyers
Philippian Faith and Dating the New Testament: by Ralph Allan Smith
Blake, you might try looking at The Witness of the Stars by E.W. Bullinger and The Gospel in the Stars by Joseph Seiss. Both are available on Amazon and in pdf format on the web.
Show us on the doll where the Bad Orange Man touched you, Judd.