Contents
So, Wife Spanking?
Hello dear brother Doug, I thank God for you!
I have a fellow pastor who is working through how to discipline his wife. He believes that as he spanks his children (not in anger, but in the fear of the Lord), he may also spank his wife. Can you help me understand the spheres of authority in all of this and if indeed my friend is right that he should spank his wife for repeated wrongdoing?Iowa Pastor
IP, three things. First, spanking a wife would be assaulting her, and in violation of the Sixth Commandment (Westminster Larger Catechism, Q136: “striking”). Second, exceptions (i.e. corporal punishment of children) are plainly noted in Scripture, and there is no passage of Scripture that would justify corporal punishment for a wife. And last, there is biblical justification for dealing with men like this (e.g. “a rod for the back of fools,” Prov. 26:3), and so you can tell your friend that he does have permission to spank his wife if he in turn gives standing permission to the church to have him flogged in front of the synagogue (Matt. 10:17) if he ever were to try it.
Time to Think About Colleges
Would you mind suggesting 5 colleges in America that I can be comfortable won’t try to destroy my daughter’s faith if I send her there (if there are that many left). NSA is my first pick, but are there 4-5 more that still can be trusted?Sim
Sim, a lot depends on how you frame the question. I do think there are a number of places that “wouldn’t destroy” your daughter’s faith, places like Hillsdale, or Grove City. The point, however, is to build and shape the student’s faith.
Women and Self-Defense
This is not related to any recent post, but I would be interested to hear your thoughts on women and self-defense, and women and guns, if you care to comment. You have pointed out that combat sports are not fitting for women. I don’t disagree. You have also expressed a dim view of women in the military, with some exception for certain non-combat roles as I understand. What do you think about women learning martial arts for self-defense? Or learning to shoot and carrying, or having at hand in the home, a firearm for personal defense? Or, on a different note, women target shooting and hunting? Do you see these as things that always and only pertain to a man?John
John, I don’t see any problem at all with target shooting and hunting, unless she is doing it trying to be one of the guys. And I absolutely don’t have a problem with a woman knowing how to defend herself, or with having a firearm at home that she knows how to use.
Cut Flowers
Regarding “Classical Charter Schools as a Cut Flower Display,” thank you for this article. It was a banger! Straight to the point about the folly of leaving out Christ. This is why Hillsdale college makes me nervous even as they talk about transcendent truth, goodness and beauty. The more true things they say, the more nervous I get about the true things they don’t say; such as Christ being the Son of God, and all men owing him honor and obedience.
I should clarify the above paragraph. When I say “this” makes me nervous, I mean the impending doom that necessarily stalks those who deny Christ makes me nervous for Hillsdale. I don’t mean I get worried about rising ethnocentrism. I don’t see that happening.
Perhaps you could clarify what you mean when you say that maintaining a Western curriculum without Christ is necessarily ethnocentric. Looking for definitions of ethnocentrism, I find three: 1. Belief in the superiority of one’s own ethnic group. 2. Overriding concern with ethnicity. 3. A tendency to evaluate other people, activities, cultures, etc. primarily from the perspective of one’s own as being superior. None of these seem the only Christless (shudder) option for maintaining the curriculum, although they may be more likely than other options.
I would never want to accuse a person, community or institution of ethnocentrism simply because they are, well, ethnic. For a group of Portuguese immigrants to speak Portuguese, tell Portuguese stories and read Portuguese authors isn’t an “ism,” it’s called “being Portuguese.”
I guess we agree that “being Portuguese” is a perfectly moral thing for Portuguese people to do in a Christian framework. It’s even implied by “honor thy father and mother.” How is it that similar virtuous behavior necessarily becomes an “ism” when knowledge of Christ is absent? Or do I misunderstand you on this point?Nathan
Nathan, what I mean is this. If you take out the ways in which the Christian gospel shaped Western culture, and made possible all its achievements, you are in effect taking credit for those achievements yourself. “Look at what we white people did.” And if in that circumstance, you reject the requests to have people of color included in the curriculum, it lands you in an ethnocentric position.
Envying Couples
This is a general post about marriage. Pastor Doug, I would like to confess a sin problem to you. To get straight to the point, it involves envy toward married couples.
As a young man, I’m in the time of my life where many of my peers are getting married. Over the past two years, I have frequently seen engagements, marriage announcements, and wedding ceremonies on social media. I seem to hear about a new married couple every couple of weeks.
The correct response to such announcements is to congratulate these couples for embracing the covenant of marriage. But unfortunately, I can’t help but feel sad and frustrated when yet another couple is getting married. I suspect this is because I have never been in a relationship myself before. My envy is usually not toward the woman, but rather the fact that this couple gets to be in a relationship and I don’t.
Envy is a sin and I need to repent of it. But to be honest, I don’t know how to do that in this context. What do you suggest I do?
Thanks,Brandon
Brandon, this context would be the same as every other context. Treat it as a deadly sin. React as though someone just handed you a poisonous snake. Resolve before God that every time you see the motions of this sin in your heart that you will mortify it. But the second thing is also important. You are the guy and are in a better position to take the initiative in a relationship than a girl in your position would be. Be asking the Lord to reveal in you any sin that might be holding you back from taking that initiative. And be even more aggressive about attacking that sin.
Footwashing
Maundy Thursday is coming up and lately I have been at churches that practice feet washing. I have not practiced this earlier in my Christian walk and it has always made me uncomfortable. But John 13:14 (ESV) seems quite clear: “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.” Does your church practice feet washing, or do you consider this to be more symbolic; that is, washing the curse of the dust off of one another?David
David, we don’t practice foot washing because we don’t consider it a sacramental action that Christ instituted. Rather, it was a sacrificial demeanor that He was modeling. In that culture, when you went to someone’s house, a servant would wash your feet on arrival. This was because everybody wore sandals, and their feet were dirty. In our culture, the servant would take everybody’s coats. The issue was service, not sacrament.
Satan Released
What is your position on Satan being released at the end of this millennium. If the nations truly come to Christ, how can they be deceived when Satan is loosed?
Thanks,Levi
Levi, I don’t believe that the elect will be deceived, but I do believe that there will still be non-elect individuals at that time who would be vulnerable. But then again, the revolt will be very short-lived.
Covenants and Name Changes
Once again, I hope you’re doing well. I have been thinking with my husband much lately regarding covenantal faithfulness, as mentioned in my prior letter. In so doing, I’m reminded of when my family immigrated from what was the Russian Empire in 1917. When they did, they had to pass through Ellis Island. As was the norm back in the day, they changed the last name, or perhaps the government, changed their last name, from Martinuk to Martin. This occurred because of anti-Slavic sentiment, as well as it opened up more opportunities for jobs. Would you consider doing this a violation of the fifth commandment? More specifically, because we know the fifth commandment is more than merely respecting ones immediate parents, and is revering and honoring ancestors in a proper manner, is changing one’s last name in this way considered violating this commitment? Grateful for all you do, thank you!Olivia
Olivia, I would regard this as more of a translation and/or transplant than as a rejection or dishonoring. When you come to America, you speak a different language, and that would naturally include your name, which is expressed in language. My co-grandfather is descended from Ukrainian Jews, and they went by something like Grskksdhf, you know, lots of consonants. At Ellis Island, they became Garaway. Presto, you’re Irish!
Anticipating Temptations
I attended the Christendom 2.0 conference that you spoke at recently and I appreciated it very much. One of the reasons for my attending, apart from listening to the teaching, was to figure out 1) in what ways will the enemy attempt to steer this movement (for lack of a better word) into a ditch, and 2) are people generally aware of what that ditch might be so they can avoid it. Based on the few sample conversations with other men, this awareness seems to be lacking.
I have become convinced of the truth of kingdom theology, postmillennialism, and all that, and I am very much excited to be a part of magnifying the Lord as King in all areas of life. Many young men are, like the Ents, waking up and finding that they are strong and that God has a grand destiny for his church. This is all good.
Because it is so good, this is where it seems the enemy will attempt to attack – though the over-correction.
The drift of a misaligned car tugging left can be stopped by an equal amount of right-ward force. But to steer the car back to the mid-line takes a correcting force stronger than the leftward tug. This correcting force is certainly present in the preaching of the young pastors and in the valiant spirits of the men and women represented at the conference. But do we see the ditch on the right? Is there the awareness that this is most likely the angle of attack the enemy will take? These men are not in danger of pussyfooting. Not a bit. But it must be acknowledged that the correcting force can steer towards the ditch on the other side.
And this leads to a potentially complicating issue. There seems to be a hypersensitivity to anything that might smell like it is thinking of compromising, even sober warnings against over-correcting. I understand why. It has been our recent and repeated experience that our Christian leaders have embraced the cancer and it seemed to all start with a small lesion on the nose. As such, it seems there is an anaphylactic reaction to minor things. I believe the back and forth between Stuckey and Conn (I think it was Conn . . .) is an example of this. I think this is one reason why you suggested a ceasefire between the two on your twitter recently.
To say it another way, building a house with a blueprint is necessary—getting the doctrine right, making sure the HVAC systems lines up, and the stairs are where they should be. But we have to do all this understanding we are trying to build a home—that is the point of a blueprint, after all, so that the house can be a home. There is a paradox at the heart of Christianity and we must be able to preach to the nations to kiss the Son lest he be angry, but also lay our head on his breast, like John, and be near his gentle and lowly heart.
So I was wondering if you could tell us what an over-correction would look like, warning signs that we are doing it, and what to do if we find ourselves in that situation.
Thanks,Tim
Tim, I believe that you are right. Over-reaction is going to be the temptation. If I were to ask myself, what would I do with this if I were the devil, the answer would be to try to keep people as complacent as possible for as long as possible, and then when they finally do act, to have them go nuts.
All Things Are . . .
Doug—what are your thoughts on so called “vices” such as smoking or chewing tobacco? Are these sinful? To be used in moderation? What kind of liberty do Christians have here?JJ
JJ, I believe that such things are lawful, but not wise. “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any” (1 Corinthians 6:12, NKJV). “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify” (1 Corinthians 10:23, NKJV). If a man has his hands full resisting things his body wants to do but which the law of God forbids, I don’t think it is wise to give that body an extra set of cravings.
Eschatology in a Strange Land
First, my family appreciates your diligence and faithfulness to God in the many things you and your team does.
Second, we currently attend a great small church associated with MacArthur and Grace. They are very keen on digging exegetically into the text. They are premill and pretrib rapture,but don’t carry the baggage of different dispensations. Definitely, they believe we are going to quote “lose.” That being said I am trying to discern the scriptures and exegete but I am having trouble find clause by clause, contextual based post mill books looking at Rev 20, Ezekiel, 1 Cor 15, etc. Mostly, big picture implication discussion. The search is hard as there is much clutter, do you have a recommendation?
Third: You guys must be doing something important, as we keep getting unsolicited advice to avoid Moscow from random friends and acquaintances in our far off corner of Florida. For the part of our actual church family, the Grace crew seem to view Moscow as coworkers of the Gospel.
God Bless.Randy
Randy, the best in-depth study, passage by passage, would be Keith Mathison’s From Age to Age.
To Whom It May Concern, It’d be pretty wild to get ahold of Uncle Doug for this question, but here it goes. Due to Uncle Doug’s bad influence on this poor Baptist I am now inclined to take side with Post-Mil eschatology. Point is, I have to type up a 10 page paper on the “Kingdom of God” for a seminary class I am taking at Spurgeon College MBTS’ online platform. I am reaching out because I need to consult 5 books. Problem is the material I have is sort of mixed and I do not think I have a resource that is strictly Post-Mil/Partial-Preterist. I have great materials (Vos, MacArthur, Calvin, Grudem) but it seems to be a mixed bag of views. Does Uncle Doug happen to have resource recommendations that have a Post-Mil stance? I shall be using some dougwils blogs to inform my paper, but was curious about a full book if you have any advice?
In Christ,Cody
Cody, see above: From Age to Age. Also He Shall Have Dominion by Gentry, and Heaven Misplaced by me,
Sinful versus A Sin
Hello, I’d like to thank you for all the work you’ve done. It’s absolutely incredible, the Canon plus app is goldmine of educational information for a homeschooling mom like myself.
I had a question for you. In the last published debate on gay marriage, which took place in Idaho university, At the very end you said , that “you don’t believe, that homosexual orientation is a sin.” I’ve never heard any of your messages prior to that comment contradict the Word of God, and I deeply respect and appreciate your teaching. But that comment doesn’t seem to align with the Word, when the rest of your material certainly does. Could you elaborate on that ? Do you really think homosexual orientation is not a sin? Doesn’t James describe the lifecycle of sin that leads to death and starts with our own sinful desire? Again, maybe I misunderstood something, or the debate was ended too abruptly, and you didn’t have a chance to explain your statement.
I deeply appreciate all your work, and if you ever consider having your material interpreted into Russian, I would gladly do so.
With much respect,M
M, thanks for the question. I believe that a homosexual orientation is certainly sinful, and is the result of our race’s fall into sin. But it is not “a sin,” as in a particular act. The passage you cite from James begins with desire, and then when desire has conceived, it brings forth sin (Jas. 1:15). The active sinning starts there. The sinful condition resides in our whole nature, our whole being, and the only thing that can deal with that depravity is the imputed righteousness of Christ. This matters because if I am pastoring someone with homosexual temptations (which I do), they need to know what about their condition needs simply to be receptive of justification, and what things about their life they need to confess as sinful actions or thoughts.
The Covenanters
I searched your blog for Richard Cameron and didn’t find a single reference to him! It seems like with all your teaching about limited government over the years his story and position towards the government could have something edifying in it to share with us all. I’m sure there will be many people in the coming troubles who would benefit by thinking through in advance the position he took, especially if they would disagree with what he did.Mitch
Mitch, you are of course right. My knowledge of that period is not as detailed as it should be. But if it were, I would have plenty to say! In the meantime, Canon Press has published this book.
A Challenging Work Situation
I find myself in a funny work related situation.
I’m an accountant full time but I also do freelancing on the side helping companies automate their processes.
I was approached by a company for a job and we go through all of the initial steps of introduction etc. and it came time for me to write a proposal outlining costs and details. I normally put the company’s logo in the header so I google the name and find their website.
This is a holding company that owns another finance company and that finance company does the books for multiple businesses. I click into the companies page out of curiosity and lo and behold those multiple businesses are all up to no good; live cam porn, psychics and online sex toy shops.
They require my services to automate their bookkeeping tasks for the online sex shop. My immediate response is no way, I’m not doing it.
They keep following up for a proposal so I write a shoddy email quoting a price 5 times what I was thinking of charging, partly because I want them to go away and also because I’m new to the industry and I’m curious how much people are willing to pay.
I hear nothing for a day or two so I presume it did the trick of scaring them off but I get an email this morning more or less proposing a contract.
One of the reasons I’m doing freelance part time on top of my regular work is because I’m trying to kick loose from my current employer—Pfizer. They aren’t exactly a model of righteousness themselves but at least with them it’s not the industry, it’s the way they go about it.
This all has me considering where, as Christians, we ought to draw the line concerning our employers and customers? The money could help me kick start my move to full time freelancing and I could wave sayonara to the vax peddlers.
Sex toys aside, if the vax is killing people, surely I ought to leave them? I do plan to leave but in the meantime I’m providing financially for my pregnant wife and our two kids.
Your thoughts?Reza
Reza, I do agree with you that you are in what Calvin would have called “a stuck place.” I would not sign the contract if the tawdry businesses are the bulk of the business. I say that because I don’t believe you have the responsibility to chase down every possible use of the work you do. But from what you describe, I would turn it down. And I would be praying that God give you a clean exit from Pfizer also.
Menstrual Cycle and the Law
I recall that in one of your books (I don’t remember which one) you said that you believe that the prohibition on sex while the woman is menstruating in Leviticus 18:19 and elsewhere still applies today because it is in a list of sexual sins and that all the other prohibitions still apply today, so it would be arbitrary to say that this one does not. Is this a correct summary of your position? If so, since this text refers to not uncovering the woman’s nakedness and Leviticus 20:18 refers to not uncovering her fountain, does this mean that the husband must literally not uncover her nakedness and so not even look at her nakedness while she is menstruating, or is this a euphemism for sexual intercourse with other sexual activity outside of intercourse still being permitted while the wife is menstruating? If that is your position, what would you say in response to the argument that this prohibition was based on the woman being ceremonially unclean during menstruation, and since the ceremonial uncleanness no longer applies today, this prohibition would not longer apply either?
Thanks in advance for addressing this not-often-discussed issue!Will
Will, uncovering nakedness is an idiom referring to intercourse. So the thing at issue would be intercourse itself. And you did not describe my position exactly. I believe that the prohibition had to do with ceremonial cleanliness under the Mosaic law, and Christ fulfilled that aspect of the law. But I also believe that there was good sense in some of the ceremonial requirements. Staying away from pork in a desert climate is a good idea. The ashes of the heifer that were used for ceremonial cleanliness were used in the manufacture of soap, and so ceremonial cleanliness also resulted in actual physical cleanliness. Which had a great deal to do with how the Lord would protect them from the diseases of Egypt. That said, there are health disadvantages that attend sexual intercourse during a woman’s period. See this book for more details.
Disposing of Bibles?
How do you recommend Christians dispose of Bibles that are tattered and in too poor of shape to donate? I have one and feels wrong to just throw it away in the trash. I’ve read that some burn or bury them. What is your opinion?
Thank you for all you do!Mallory
Mallory, I don’t see the need for special treatment, which might verge on superstition. But if it bothers you to just throw a Bible away, I think the best way would be burning.
Interaction with Sexton
RE Sevenfold to Sexton: texts are postmil. (Psalms 2, 22, and 110—most NT-quoted Psalms?—among others); from end to end the Bible has passages featuring sin, suffering, conversions, disease, and death along with God’s victory. The game ain’t over till the final whistle, but at some point it may become clear “A rout is taking place” (Miladin, Is This Really the End?—I think he changed his mind later.) Prayer is postmil, asking God (not tech or ‘progress’) to make things better; if God isn’t, overall and thru troubles, making things better, then every prayer would have a kink in it, asking for good in an age of evil.
God is a history-loving winner (read Bible: good story, God wins), so theology is postmil re the person of God, re what God likes.
Postmil, my/modern version (“Tri-mil”?—see below) expects more people to be converted before Jesus comes back than are converted now, and a higher percentage, and more culturally influential. Mt 13: sower, four soils, 100x-60x-30x yields (Mk & Lk, 30-60-100); wheat and tares; mustard seed (Daniel’s 4 beasts’ leftovers are now mere twittering birds; note also Dan 4); leaven; net (of a type that takes awhile to get full, an amil tells me). Growth until the end. If, where we are now, we expect more gospel victory before Jesus comes back, that’s postmil. (20% unconverted out of 7 billion or more would make a respectable rebel army for Rev 20 . . .?)
“Tri-mil” reads Leithart’s Kingdom and the Power saying premils are right because Christ’s first coming kicked off the millennium; amils are right about its indefinite duration (and imperfect character); postmils that it features worldwide gospel victory before Jesus comes back (tho however good it gets, His 2nd coming is GREATLY to be desired—Murray’s The Puritan Hope has a great chapter on this, as I’ve said here before.) So “Tri-mil,” rejoicing in what each has noticed. Eh?
(And Joel Beeke’s ‘argument’ against a preterist reading of Revelation has less to it than any argument that runs to mind. He said given preterism, Rev doesn’t apply today. But most of the Bible was written for situations in our distant past—”preterist”—yet every bit of it is useful today, says Paul (II Tim 3:16-17). Surely Rev Beeke is preterist about Rev 2-3, yet applies them today.)Andrew
Andrew, thanks.
Dabney and Slavery
I have interacted briefly with your writing and comments on the Civil War and Southern Slavery and have found your analysis compelling. I refer here to the Controversy Library, online interviews, and the following specific blog posts you have made:”Slavery and Atheism,” “On Ending Slavery,” and “Is Slavery Good?”.
Are you familiar with RL Dabney’s “A Defence of Virginia”? How would you respond to Dabney’s argument in defense of the institution of slavery as congruent with Christian ethics (both in the Old and New Testaments) and conducive to social and economic order? Dabney points to the lack of condemnation for slavery in the Scriptures as an apparent or tacit approval for it.
Defending slavery as the ownership of personas as property seems quite indefensible from a Christian worldview, but Dabney argues from a different perspective I had never come across. He asserts that Southern slavery is lawful because “the thing, therefore, in which the master has property or ownership, is the involuntary labour of the slave, and not his personality, or his soul.”
If Dabney’s view represents that of many like-minded Christians at the time, then it seems like the contemporary defense of Southern Slavery has been grossly misrepresented in the mainstream view of American history. It would be unsurprising if the anti-Christian establishment in the media, government, and academia thus sought to discredit our forefathers.
I look forward to hearing your response.
May the Lord bless you and your house,M.D.
M.D. yes, I have read Dabney’s Defense of Virginia, which has many strong points, particularly when he is pointing to Scripture, but also some glaring weaknesses. But what you are pointing to was a significant factor in the debate between Southern slave owners and Northern industrialists, and had to do with their respective “theories of labor.” Dabney said that the slave owners had a monopoly on the labor of the slave, but did not own their persons or souls. Some of his argument there is interesting, and some of it I think is special pleading.
An Awkward Sort of Question
If “the worst part of being the smartest person in the world is dealing with all the idiots,” how do you do it so well? I’m referencing the classic joke but I’m only half joking. Years ago, you convinced me to start reading and thanks to your Ploductivity method, I’ve consistently read more than a book a month for years. But this has had an unfortunate side effect in that I’ve researched and read more than virtually everyone I know.
My question is how do you personally handle that? You make my reading look like a Pizza Hut Book-It effort, so surely you must sit in mixed company conversation biting your tongue the entire time, no? I think it’s my pride but I don’t know how to handle it. Sitting in small group while another parent talks for 10 minutes about “how important it is to validate all our children’s emotions” or “how we really need to keep religion out of the public sphere and just practice it at home” is causing the insides of my cheeks to have callouses as I mentally flip through the list of books I’d recommend they read. I’ve “graduated” to not telling people their opinions aren’t backed up by the facts but I can’t stop the opinionated judging and internal eye rolling. It’s breaking my heart and affecting relationships. How do you do it?Jeff
Jeff, I would encourage you to write a little statement for yourself, and memorize it. Whenever you find yourself biting your cheeks, recite it to yourself. Something like: “Just a few short years ago, I thought exactly like that. And if it hadn’t been for the unmitigated grace of God, I would still be doing it. Please God, slap me down.”
This is not related to a particular post, but I would like to ask for your advice regarding a situation at the school that I attend. I am a high school junior attending a Christian homeschooling co-op twice a week, and I have gotten into multiple small arguments with my teachers over various contentious subjects. The problem arises when one of them mentions some patently false idea (say, that eating dogs is inherently morally wrong) and when I bring up in response how that idea is false, the argument succeeds. This has happened many times over many subjects, and my relationship with my teachers (and some of my fellow students) is becoming strained. Am I being prideful and need to keep my head down, or do I need to be more tactful in turning away false ideas? I would be obliged for your advice.
Thank you and God be with you.Peter
Peter, my advice to you would be the same as I gave to Jeff, just above. If you are only a high school junior, I would make it your highest priority to learn as much as you can about all these things, and to keep as much of it to yourself as you can.
Satan’s Dominion
Re: Postmillennialism General
I have been persuaded of a postmillennial eschatology for a few years now and, like Reformed theology, I have found it to be a helpful framework in assisting with biblical exegesis. Can you help me to understand the role/dominion/authority (not sure what to call it but I’m sure you get the picture) of Satan prior to the ascension of Christ and after Christ’s ascension?
In Matthew 4:8-9 where we have the account of Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness, we see our Lord offered the nations. I used to scoff at this attempt by Satan as a wild one because doesn’t God possess all things as its Creator already? But, I realize now that there is more going on in the spiritual realm than I had given credence to earlier in my faith. Based on Psalm 2 and the inheritance Jesus is to seek from the Father, I no longer think this temptation was completely empty. Jesus was tempted in real ways as we are, yet without sin.
Lastly, I co-lead a weekly small group and we are planning on doing a study of certain Psalms and their usages in the New Testament. As of now that plan is to hit the most quoted Psalms (2, 8, 22, 69, 110, 118) and understand their usage and purpose. It has been a fascinating study so far as we are making preparations. Do you have any resources which you think would be of help to us as we prepare these lessons?
Your friend in Christ,Tyler
Tyler, on the psalms you are studying, the best resource would be to look up all the New Testament passages that quote those psalms, and note in the margins of the psalms where they are quoted. It will be illuminating.
On your other question, the Ascension of Christ accomplished a cosmological revolution. In the Old Testament, God was sovereign over all, of necessity. But under Him, the world was run by various mediatorial princes, mostly fallen. So it was God/angels/man. In the Ascension, we see a reversal. It is now God/Christ/man in Christ/angels. Christ bound Satan, and then He took all his stuff.
On your other question, the Ascension of Christ accomplished a cosmological revolution. In the Old Testament, God was sovereign over all, of necessity. But under Him, the world was run by various mediatorial princes, mostly fallen. So it was God/angels/man. In the Ascension, we see a reversal. It is now God/Christ/man in Christ/angels. Christ bound Satan, and then He took all his stuff.
“ Any ethnic slur or misogynistic slam that the FBI bots forget to include will be thoughtfully contributed by Elias One Tooth, YouTubing live from the capitol of his Republic of the Ozarks, which happens to be a double wide on ten acres with a satellite dish from the eighties, a dish the size of the north end of the double wide.”
You seem to be fine with ethnic slurs depending on the ethnicity. Are rural Whites still buying homeschool curriculum from this clown?
Are you sitting at home on your couch in your parent’s basement, eating Chee-tos in your underwear, watching televangelists ask for your money? (Ron White)
If your dad walks you to school because you’re both in the same grade…you might be a Redneck. (Jeff Foxworthy)
If you have one tooth, a double-wide trailer, a C-band satellite dish and create online content for YouTube…I’m offended for you and have an odd definition of clowns. (Barnabas)
If your porch collapses and kills five dogs …
If you’ve ever been too drunk to fish …
If you go to family reunions to pick up women …
If you mow your lawn and find a car …
You should paternity test those kids.
Oooh. Double down and get personal. I only commented on something you said. And thought was funny, perhaps I didn’t make that clear.
But continue to disparage our proprietor. It sharpens the tune of our otherwise melodious echo chamber.
That was a cultural slur. There is no ethnicity to which it applies that does not also include people the slur did not mean to target.
OK, I don’t agree that ethnicity replaces Christ when people maintain an ethnic identity in the absence of Christian faith. I don’t think that position can be logically maintained. Idolatrous attachment to ethnicity is one of the innumerable temptations of men, and I don’t think it has any special inevitability or even significance to the Western curriculum. This idea gives far too much credence to the leftist notion that ethnicity is some superpowered vice.
What’s the argument for “inclusivity” that can only be refuted by either Christ or White people are the best? Are we not allowed to have any traditions, any common way of life?
Either the doctrines of inclusivity are morally wrong, or else they are physically wrong. They can only be morally wrong by being opposed to Christ. Since the physical premise of the doctrines of inclusivity is that all groups are of equal material worth, it can only be defeated by claiming all groups are not of material worth, necessitating that you claim some groups be better than others.
The catch was in the terminology of “maintain an … identity”.
If you’ve chosen it to be that core to your being, and I don’t mean your body I mean your conception of your being in the Platonic sense, then you’ve already chosen to make that specific sin your idol.
No there’s nothing about that particular sin that makes it inevitable, but without Christ one of your sins will eventually become an idol, and since we’re talking about ones who have chosen a sin for an identity, we already know which one they’ve chosen.
Can you clarify why “maintain an ethnic identity” is sin? What is it about being ethnic Japanese (for instance) that is in itself a sin?
Peter would not have had the reaction that he did if Jesus took his coat. I have taken part in a Maundy Thursday service where foot washing was done. We did take a slight cultural change and used hands instead of feet. It was kept only to a few men. No women. This was done as part of the service. Participating will make you uncomfortable, but probably no more uncomfortable than the apostles were and that is part of the lesson.
Hi Zeph, I think I get where you’re coming from…but I think you missed the current cultural and service aspect of Pastor Wilson’s reply. It’s hard for me to even come up with a current example that equates to foot-washing. I was once an Admiral’s Aide as a junior officer. Jesus washing Peter’s feet would be like my Admiral bussing my table and washing my dishes. Or maybe plunging my toilet or taking my trash to the curb. The Admiral was in command of thousands, it was not proper for him to do the work of a seaman. Jesus lowered… Read more »
I got Doug’s cultural reference. I disagree with taking one’s coat is a cultural equivalent. Doug said that when he went Reformed, he started getting the arguments that Paul addresses. That is one of the ways that he knew that he was on the right track. If you think of participating in a foot washing and you get the same reaction as Peter, then that indicates you are on the right track.
Yeah, I think the problem is that Doug’s example pertains to a subset of our culture several generations ago. Still “our culture” in the broad sense that is western and just about within a century of us, but not really in the sense that it pertains to what we would do in this century among ordinary people, to the same end
He’s not thinking of a modern middle class host taking a guest’s coat, but of Lord Grantham doing it in lieu of the footman.
The admiral bussing the table is an example that works better.
It does fit better but even that doesn’t reflect the intimacy of the act. The thought of anyone outside a medical clinic washing my feet is seriously creepy which is why I always prayed hard that I wouldn’t get chosen at church.
That’s a modern sensibility. In Jesus’ earthly time, getting your feet washed by a servant was no big deal. So “intimacy” isn’t needed to create a modern parallel.Sitting there being the recipient of a high-ranking person’s manual and somewhat dirty service for your benefit is what’s really in view.
The uncomfortable feeling is part of the lesson. That is why it needs to be only done with men.
Assuming same-sex interaction, it was NOT inherently uncomfortable in those times. It was the normal thing that happened when you visited someone’s home. That was not part of the lesson for the apostles, except insofar as the discomfort arose from the superior doing it for the inferior.
Remember, Jesus stripped to do the foot washing. That would not have been common for a normal foot washing done by a servant. How uncomfortable would that kind of intimacy, your leader, with only something around his waist doing a foot washing?
“Your leader” and possibly the stripping thing are the point. But not the almost-inherent revulsion we have for foot-washing itself now, which arises from an entirely different cultural understanding of the practice.
I don’t mean to change the topic, but “Doug said that when he went Reformed, he started getting the arguments that Paul addresses. That is one of the ways that he knew that he was on the right track.” This strikes me as really terrible reasoning. When I started seriously studying Calvinism and the alternatives a couple years ago, I ran into many bad arguments and even sinful arguments for every position. Taking a bad argument for one as a positive indicator for the alternative is at a minimum irrational and most likely outright dangerous. No criticism of Doug meant… Read more »
Paul anticipates specific counterarguments to some of his specific teachings (“you will say, who resists His will?”). If our expression of Paul’s teaching consistently produces the very same objection that Paul anticipated, then that is valid and strong evidence that we’ve understood Paul’s original teaching correctly.
If our expression never produces the objection that Paul anticipates, then that is strong evidence that we haven’t quite understood Paul correctly, or fully.
So the quality of counterarguments are not how we determine the validity of our own position, but specific counterarguments can help determine if we’ve correctly captured Paul’s original argument.
Those who say that the achievements of European civilization are primarily because of Christianity must consider that, at the time Christ was born, Rome and Greece had already built full-blown civilizations, which had been maintained for hundreds of years. The megalithic civilization in Europe seems to be on the highest level of preliterate civilization, it was they who invented the wheel first, according to the current evidence. The Germans of the time of Christ were on the threshold of full civilization too, while they were poor and rural, they had the wheel, metal weapons, and were generally faithfully monogamous. They… Read more »
OK, this is part of what I was talking about last week here. The idea that Christianity is required for either civilization or morality is first, absurd, and second, only possible by thoroughly cherry picking and carefully interpreting your data. No one believes it except the already converted. Do you really need God to understand the concept of cause and effect, or to recognize the natural laws that govern the universe? It’s fair to argue that God created the concept of cause and effect, and the laws the govern the universe. But not that God is required for those things.… Read more »
If you define morality in such a way as to make it contingent on societal preference, I suppose you can “explain morality without reference to God.” But that just reduces to pure subjectivism, and by that logic, slavery (for example) was “right” in the antebellum South. Regarding your second point, if the Christian view that everything depends on God for its existence is true, it logically follows that “God is required for those things.” Your dismissal of the universe’s necessary dependence on God seems to presuppose the falsity of Christianity and merely assume that the universe is somehow self-governing and… Read more »
Except I don’t define morality in terms of societal preference, nor do I know anyone who does, for the very reason you give: There is no behavior so vile that some benighted society somewhere wouldn’t embrace it as moral. What I have found (and this is not the first time I’ve had this conversation) is that those who say God is necessary to a basis for morality tend to themselves define morality in such a way that, well, God is necessary to a basis for it. I won’t be able to come up with any non-theistic basis for morality that… Read more »
I do define morality in such a way as to entail God’s existence, because I don’t think any adequate definition of morality can be made independently of God. Circularity is always unavoidable on some level – the laws of logic, for instance, presuppose themselves. It seems to me, though, that nontheistic definitions/foundations of morality either a) are inconsistent with other typical nontheistic beliefs (e.g., ultimately leading to subjectivism), or b) subtly presuppose God’s existence in some way. Obviously I can’t prove this of your foundation, for the simple reason that you haven’t provided one. As a side note, I’m happy… Read more »
Well, non-theists, like Christians, are not a monolithic group in which there is perfect agreement on every point. The only point on which all atheists agree is the lack of evidence for any deity, but other than that they are philosophically all over the map. So it’s a little dangerous to make broad statements about what atheism would say about this or that issue. But in general, a non-theistic basis for morality would look something like this: Morality is based on human flourishing and human happiness, informed by human nature. Therefore, ABC assumptions about human nature lead to XYZ as… Read more »
Yes, of course atheists are a varied group philosophically. As I clarified in my previous comment, I can’t criticize your foundation of morality before you’ve provided it. I’m not sure how carefully you read my previous post. Yes, I do accept God as a prerequisite for morality, but I am not going to try to refute your foundation for morality by circularly attacking it solely for being nontheistic. I explicitly stated that my concern was with the coherence of your definition, not its compatibility with mine. So, regarding your definition — I certainly grant that grounding morality in human flourishing… Read more »
First, I want to thank you for your courteous response. And yes, I did misread your earlier comment about acceptance of my definition being a different issue from whether my definition is internally consistent. Morality must be consistent and universal, which means I only accept slavery as moral if I would consider it moral if it were done to me. Obviously I don’t, so I cannot accept it as moral for anyone else, in any other time or place, even if the local culture found it acceptable. The existence of slavery meant that those cultures either didn’t have a good… Read more »
I personally prefer to not share my Gmail address with people I don’t know — sorry about that, and nothing personal, of course! :) I do agree, though, that the thread is getting lengthy, so I’ll make one more response and leave it at that. (You’re welcome to follow it up, but I may or may not get around to responding.) I’ve really enjoyed the discussion, but I’m fairly busy and don’t really have the time to continue. I initially thought you were arguing that an action was moral if and only if it contributed to societal flourishing, but now… Read more »
Anonymous, understood and no offense taken. Just a couple of quick points in response. First, we are not just aggregates of atoms or clumps of cells. We have consciousness and the capacity to think and reason. The very fact that we are able to think about morality means that we are a very special organism, and places us in the position of being able to choose how to behave. You and I may disagree about whether that’s the result of creation or evolution, but ultimately humans are unique to biology. Second, with respect to Hitler and Stalin, individual humans are… Read more »
I think doubt is something most Christians have a battle with at some time or other, but is difficult to admit. I certainly remember after I was filled with the Spirit – a definite event – going through a period where God no longer seemed to be there, although I had absolutely no reason to doubt his existence. I came out of this wilderness experience having read Evidence that Demands a Verdict, realising that there are objective reasons for believing in God, not just the very real but subjective ones I had experienced. Fullfilled prophecy was a big thing for… Read more »
I know you hate gays, but maybe your AIDS point would be better made with individuals out of wedlock since most transmission is between heterosexual couples.
Your god commanded death, destruction, how to make slaves and broodmares out of their wives. Does this spread, joy? Good vibes?
What makes you think I hate gays?
If you want to comment on slavery or war brides in the Old Testament you really ought to find out what it actually says first.
I can read just fine. I’m worried you can’t though. Unless you agree with slavery? So long as god says it’s OK? Some morals you have.
I did a bible study once for the family entitled ‘Does the bible and its God condone slavery’? It took about 15 hours to prepare. I learned that enslaving was a capital offence for OT Jews, and that where ‘slavery’ was allowed for Hebrews as the people of God it was limited to 7 years and the relationship between slave and master was initiated by the slave or their family. You need to find out what the Hebrew word translated ‘slave’ means, not look it up in an English dictionary or simply assume it means what Wilberforce and his allies… Read more »
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022%3A28-29&version=NIV
The NIV’s use of the verb rape here is contentious. If a man takes a girl is likely more accurate. The passage more likely refers to seduction as is the case in the parallel legislation in Exodus. So if a man risked getting a girl pregnant he had to take on the responsibility of being a husband to her, subject to her father’s approval is accurate. I might also add there is case in Genesis where the father asked his daughter if she wanted to marry her suitor, so the oft touted mantra that ‘the bible says a rape victim… Read more »
Cool story, sounds like you used your own intuition and morality to find a way out of what the words say.
Thank you for proving my point that you are more moral than the Bible 👍 You do have to mention the woman has no power here and is subject to her rapist AND father. Thank you secularism for moving beyond this barbarism.
You have yet to show that rape is what is in view in the verses you quoted. Within the culture of the day the legislation is designed to afford some protection to women. Their reduced chance of marriage. It regulates what would happen with the pregnant schoolgirl of modern secular society, where the Romeo can just ride off into the sunset and be free of the consequences he has created. It makes young men take responsibility for their actions. They have assumed the role of husband, they have to step up and provide for the girl they have used, for… Read more »
Chris, it isn’t hating homosexuals to understand that your information isn’t correct. The CDC plays word games with their statistics and reporting and tags AIDS as HIV Stage 3. The CDC reports homosexual or bisexual infections in 2021 at 22,400 cases. During the same period heterosexual cases were reported at 1,700. The clear winner in this sordid contest are homosexuals and bisexuals. Yes, fornication, adultery, and homosexuality are all sinful actions. Homosexuality is especially condemned because it is an unnatural use of sex. You may think that the God who created the entire universe and knows the hairs on your… Read more »
In THIS country. There are other places on earth my friend.
And I don’t worship anything, or tied down to any dogma. It’s great. True freedom. Keep reading your book that condones slavery and for rape victims to marry their rapists. I have the power to say those things are wrong. You don’t.
Chris, you are tied down to dogma. The dogma that homosexuality and the resultant diseases that come from that activity are OK. You are tied down to the dogma that you can tell God that He isn’t right and you are spot on correct.
You are tied down to the dogma that God can’t change the most heinous individual into a new person and that God has endless mercy and kindness for that new person.
If god asked you to murder your son, would you? Would you be conflicted at all?
I, on the other hand, would direct him to some nice rocks at the bottom of a cliff to go kick, and have zero guilt or conflict.
P.S. If you want some more fun statistics, look up domestic violence rate among police officers. Also underage sexual abuse. Not looking good for those folks. But wouldn’t surprise me if you were a boot licker like most of the CN freaks.
Chris, you seem to be unclear on the concept of “god,” and keep in mind that I myself am unsure as to whether one exists. If the all powerful Lord of the Universe told you to kill your son, you most definitely would not be telling him to go kick rocks, because one of the perks of being God is the capacity to cast you into hell, strike you with some miserable disease, or do some other terrible thing to you to express his displeasure. Also, another of the perks of being God is that he doesn’t answer to you.… Read more »
The point is no one knows, and the absurdity of pretending to know is laughable.
And I’ve read the Bible. God is immoral. His reasoning to Job is pretty much, “oogah boogah.” He has commanded the deaths and enslavement of potentially millions. Not to mention the cruel joke he played on Issac.
Let’s put it this way, even if he did create the universe, it does not mean he is the arbiter of morals and how to behave. I don’t see how that comes as a package deal other than might makes right I guess?
Chris, suppose for the sake of argument that God does not exist. Now, also suppose for the sake of argument that there were a cult that worshipped Little Red Riding Hood, who also doesn’t exist, and that to amuse yourself you decided to show up on one of their blogs to ridicule them. So you say, “Let’s talk about Little Red Riding Hood. HE is six foot five, weighs 300 pounds, plays football for the New England Patriots and has no living grandmothers.” Everyone there would say “What are you talking about?” Because, even if the character is fictional, discussing… Read more »
Look, I’m an agent of chaos, not here for hearts and minds. If anything, I’m for the people reading not commenting. And to take time away from N**is like Barnabas. My man likes Nick Fuentes, need I say more?
All right, my apologies for having fed the troll.
In other words, wicked as secularism can be–Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot–triune Jehovah is not unable to give it some competition?
Chris, thank you for more of your dogma. It’s not looking good for the homosexuals who keep pushing for drag queen shows, library books and training in school to further their grooming agenda as Americans, even those who only attend church on Christmas and Easter are turning against the unnatural agenda of the homosexuals. We are talking about America, not African countries and here the majority of HIV 3 individuals are either homosexual or bisexual. Consider how quickly the Monkey Pox story showed up and disappeared in the news. We were told that Monkey Pox was going to sweep the… Read more »
Cry about it. Your superstition is dying.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/
Ken, honest question: Who created all of those irredeemably evil people knowing they would be irredeemably evil? If you know that your creative act is going to result in massive pain and suffering, don’t you have some kind of a moral obligation to do something to at least minimize it?
Keeping in mind that those irredeemably evil people mostly have no real choice about being irredeemably evil. You can’t really fault a rattlesnake for being a snake; God made it a snake. You can protect yourself from it.
I don’t think they were created irrredeemably evil, over time they chose to go down that road. I listened some time ago to a series including studies in God’s judgements, and before judgement fell they were always warned first, thereby being able to avoid the judgement. The Canaanites had the opportunity to flee and there is some archaeological evidence they did so. The bible teacher doing the series was won’t to make the point that God ‘owns’ life, and having given it in the first place has the right to take it back as he sees fit. I have found… Read more »
Kathleen, I’ve had many many many many variations of this debate, and overwhelmingly the most common Atheist response is to define morality by societal preference. They do this because they lack viable alternatives. If they reference any abstract value, it is simply pointed out that this is a faith based unprovable value which is precisely their objection to religion.
Justin, square what you just said with my earlier response to Anonymous. The idea that morality is nothing more than societal prejudices is silly on its face. If you look long enough you might find an atheist who believes that. You might even find some who don’t believe morality exists at all. But I doubt you’ll find many who say that the South liked slavery and therefore slavery was moral.
Kathleen I don’t disagree with you that its ridiculous. The issue is that they keep making the argument. You don’t have to look for them at all. If you discuss the basis of morality with an Atheist, not a tiny minority, but a great big giant batch of them will pop out of the woodwork and say “Of course morality is subjective”. We can all stand around and agree that even 3 seconds of thought makes that an unsupportable position, but that doesn’t stop us from having to make the argument because the opponent keeps using it. I have an… Read more »
When you remove God from the concept of morality, the logical outworking brings you way more than you bargained for. Even the fact that you would try to alternatively define a basis for morality is proof that 1) God exists and 2) you are created in his image–that is: morality must have some place in your life and our existence. But, absent God, there is no basis for morality–as someone once said “You can’t logically get from ‘is’ to ‘ought’ ” Moreover, having no basis for morality, you certainly have no basis for an authoritative morality. Don’t want some random… Read more »
David, does the fact that someone might try to define an alternative basis for morality that doesn’t include the Easter Bunny prove that the Easter Bunny exists and I am created in his image? Because I have to say, you’ve made easily the most ridiculous argument so far in this entire thread.
Comparing the Easter Bunny to Van Tilian apologetics doesn’t work as being an authoritative source of morality isn’t inherent to the definition of the Easter Bunny. You’re taking about 12 steps too far ahead into specificity with your retelling of the morality argument. The morality argument doesn’t show Abrahamic religions or Jesus Christ or any of it. It simply shows that their must be an authoritative source for the morality of humans that is not itself human. If you want to show that you can provide an objective basis for morality without an authoritative source that is above humanity, be… Read more »
Justin, in my exchange with Anonymous yesterday, I made the argument that your side — if I may call it that, and no offense intended by the use of the term — tends to define things in ways that nobody else defines them, and to then try to win arguments using novel definitions. Respectfully, that is what you have done here. I’m not aware of any definition of God that includes arbiter of morality. And I’m not aware of any definition of morality that requires that it come from outside humans. Those are both terms that you include in the… Read more »
Apologies if I need to get long winded. You have made claims that require some unravelling. “tends to define things in ways that nobody else defines them, and to then try to win arguments using novel definitions. ” This is, objectively, a substance free accusation. Even if it were true it bears no relevance to the circumstances. Words are but a means of communicating ideas. If we’re using different definitions, all that amounts to is we’re failing to communicate, not that either side’s ideas are any more or less correct or incorrect. So if you like, sure, lets say this is… Read more »
Justin, I already explained my basis for morality in this very thread, in the conversation I had with Anonymous. Just go back up the thread and read my answer to Anonymous’s question about my basis for morality. If it’s still not clear after that, tell me what about my answer you don’t understand and I’ll try to rephrase. And you’ve basically acknowledged the truth of my claim about your use of definitions. In your Christian paradigm (or at least your specific branch of Christianity), God is the arbiter of morality, so any moral system that doesn’t invoke God is, per… Read more »
I have enjoyed reading your discussion with the few who have engaged you and it has been pleasant on all sides. I would like to add two cents: God is the arbiter of morality because he is the self-existent creator of the universe, by definition. The self-existent one is self-defined. That is, there are no definitions outside of him and his nature. There is no reality underlying God: he is the ground of being and that includes Platonic Ideas such as mathematics and objective morality. If there were an underlying reality for God, then he would not be the Creator… Read more »
I too have gained from reading the discussion here. Perhaps I’ll have to chalk it up to confirmation bias, but I do follow and agree with Justin’s line of thinking…and I appreciate it’s something he’s given extensive thought to. Kathleen, I appreciate how you’ve presented as well, especially when knowing your argument isn’t favored by the general audience of the blog. As I read through both sides a few times to try to understand the finer points…I couldn’t help but think of many AA meetings I’ve attended and the discussion of “a Higher Power” or power greater than ourselves. The… Read more »
J.F., thank you for your gracious reply. I think everybody, including me, could use a higher power, but that’s a separate question from whether a higher power is actually there. If I could choose between Christianity being true, or Christianity being false, I would choose for it to be true. I’m just having a hard time convincing myself that it actually is true, although I am still going to church. And I’m not a hater of Christianity, unlike some others who sometimes comment here; I’m having a good faith struggle with the issues. Part of the reason I’m commenting is… Read more »
Would you rather be ruled by Doug Wilson or (Stalin and Mao aside) Richard Dawkins? Wilson would happily let anyone in, and if he put anyone to death they’d have a fair trial first (which is more than the US justice system can claim, tho it’s above average.) Given triune Jehovah, Creator of all (except himself), perfect in love and justice among other glories, what He calls good is good (obviously we argue about what he says). Given polytheism, including secularism (if there’s nothing above man every man is a god, as supreme a being as there is), the argument… Read more »
I don’t want to be ruled by Doug Wilson, or Stalin, or Mao, though if those really are my only choices I’ll go with Doug. I want people who aren’t hurting other people to be left alone to the extent compatible with living in civil society. Because at the end of the day, there is no way to conclusively prove that anyone’s religious views are right, and I don’t want people to suffer for belief systems that may later turn out to be wrong. All those Protestants that Bloody Mary burned at the stake turned out to be right but… Read more »
Read the rest above, not just to (…Mao)? We all live some worldview; can consider; can change…I think the resurrection of Jesus in historical, biographical fact (or we’d never have heard of him) reason to reject secularism–along with other Christian miracles, and if they weren’t rare, they wouldn’t be miracles–and reason to rejoice in hope. I remember as a teenager weighing Ayn Rand’s atheism against the resurrection and finding it wanting.
Ayn Rand? Lolol. Loser stamp collector and F tier writer.
I actually think Richard Dawkins is useful here, with this famous quotation: The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. If you believe the universe exists because of random things happening over time i.e. chance, then there is indeed no evil, no good, meaning no universal morality at all. Everything just is, you can’t make an ought out of it. An atheist universe provides no basis for morality, although that doesn’t mean atheists and agnostics don’t try to have… Read more »
Perhaps that convincing logical argument exists somewhere. Or perhaps looking for it is the wrong approach. Christianity is reasonable enough, but the truth comes down to something you won’t know via an academic exercise in reason. If you want to believe you’re not wrong.
To make things clear, I believe Christianity does help make places safer and nicer, but it is not the only factor, and it may not be the most decisive factor. It is plausible that most seemingly nominal Christian countries of Europe have proportionately more believers than the highly ballyhooed Christian countries of Africa. But that cannot easily be proven, and it was that way, to some extent, before either was Christianized. But to be fair, I don’t want to live in an Aztec society any more than I do a primitive African society, and a redeemed African society would be… Read more »
The apostle Paul says that God’s qualities are “clearly seen” (in His creation) – which actually leaves man without excuse. Romans 1:18-27 is instructive.
Yes, you can learn God’s moral code from His creation (and to a lesser extent, from what He has written in your heart, though the fallen heart is deceitful), but that fact is enough to *condemn* you, to leave you without excuse, not to save you.You can’t keep His law through sheer effort, and neither can your civilization.
Romans 1:20-32 sounds like a future history being written of Rome, lol
Do you know how bad–evil–Greece and Rome were? Read Paul Among the People, by Sarah Ruden; I don’t think she’s a Christian, but she’s very impressed with Paul’s alternative to what Greece and Rome took for granted. Doug’s also mentioned a book called Dominion, by an atheist who thinks the doctrine of God crucified for men worked a revolution in human dignity. And hear, or read, Peter Leithart’s Did Plato read Moses?
Good point. Greece and Rome made the trains run on time, so to speak, but it took Christianity to keep those trains from just running you over …
The question really was absolutley bonkers! The last thing his wife needs is a spanking…the very thought of it should be repented of..man o man! This is not what a wife needs for discipline…. Excellent reply from Pastor Wilson to a provacative and troubling question! “IP, three things. First, spanking a wife would be assaulting her, and in violation of the Sixth Commandment (Westminster Larger Catechism, Q136: “striking”). Second, exceptions (i.e. corporal punishment of children) are plainly noted in Scripture, and there is no passage of Scripture that would justify corporal punishment for a wife. And last, there is biblical justification for dealing… Read more »
Any chance someone reprint From Age to Age (Matheson)? Kindle, $10; hardcover, $180; paper, $250. 812 pages. Lowell Roggow has a long review on Amazon. (I divide Mt 24-25 at sheep and goats; all before that is tied together by “you,” etc, and sheep-and-goats starts with an indefinite time word, more “whenever” than when; besides the obvious content (sure LOOKS like Judgment Day.) / Freely use thots and some wording, just not all exactly; do unto others as you’d have done–let proprietor understand.
Doug’s answer to the wife spanker is exactly the kind of quality content that I come to Blog & Mablog for.
Wilson’s take on “wife spanking” is completely conventional in 2024 and at odds with every human civilization in history including 2000 years of Christendom.
Can you cite any Bible verse that says it is permissible to strike your wife or to use any physical means to enforce your authority over her?
I can’t cite a verse to support any means to enforce authority. I would posit that the concept of a father’s authority was so fundamental that no one at that time could fathom having to justify it. All authority ultimately rests on coercion and violence. No one has done away with that, authority has merely shifted to the State. Really an alliance of a woman and the state against the patriarch. Western society was far down the road of decadence and decline before the subsidiary authority of the father was usurped. So how’s pulling up that Chesterton fence working out?… Read more »
Barnabas, I’ve been reading your stuff for a while, and I must say it doesn’t surprise me that you’re the kind of man who would beat his wife.
My husband and I have been married for over 30 years, and in all that time, neither of us has ever struck the other one. If either of us did, the marriage would most likely be over. I wouldn’t stay after that, and I doubt he would either. There are other ways of resolving conflicts.
I’ve been reading your comments for a while as well. All of these conservatives insist that they might have their cake and eat it too. I appreciate your intellectual honesty in embracing the down stream pathology associated with liberalism.
To give a pre- or anti-revolutionary case against wife spanking, do you want to be a European monarch or an Oriental despot? You are the king of your house, and therefore have the highest authority, but your wife, while subordinate to you, is still the queen, and should be treated as such. Doesn’t it seem rather odd for a queen to get spanked? (Though Alfred the great was unwittingly slapped by a peasant lady who didn’t know who he was, for burning cakes!) Also, there is a time when you get too old for spankings, especially if you’re a girl.… Read more »
Yep, sounds pretty strange…like capital punishment and a hundred other harsh measures that have been universally required to establish and maintain a civilization. But I’m sure you know better.
I know like 20 people read this blog but if any of them is from some semblance of a traditional society let this be a lesson to you. The most “conservative” of Western Christians is infected with ideas that would destroy your family and your society. Keep them out.
Even I the atheist say, be gone groyper. Your incel ways while entertaining, are so 2016.
Barnabas, I think the underlying issue is that God has us under multiple kinds of guiding authority and you are only taking reference to one and not the other. We have strict rules of structure, and broad rules of spiritual guidance. The strict rule of structure is that the husband is the head of the household, and the wife must obey him. Broadly speaking, the board agrees on this. This strict rule of structure gives the husband a very very wide berth to administrate and execute the business of his family within his purview. There’s virtually no action related to… Read more »
A judge only has authority in that he can employ violence against a defendant. You are just talking around the issue.
Its difficult not to roll your eyes when your opponent is so nakedly ridiculous.
Barnabas, you ignored direct quotation of Scripture to instead inaccurately misconstrue an analogy drawn to describe a broad concept, not be the issue itself, and yet you accuse me of talking around the issue?
Grow some integrity, put down the clown nose, and maybe people will take your condemnations of us more seriously.
I said that I’m not sure that there’s less domestic violence under the current system of DV laws and no one has piped up with evidence to indicate that. Also no one has suggested a non-violent means to compel submission to patriarchal authority. What this tells me is that none of you is upset about domestic violence. You’re incensed at the concept of patriarchal authority.
The NT writers never use the word ‘authority’ to describe a husband’s relationship to his wife except where mutual.
You come to the heart of the issue. Doug Wilson should just fess up that he doesn’t think husbands have authority over wives instead of post hoc floundering around.
You are a jerk Barnabas….
Sorry, I’m taken
Exactly ha!
Do you think Alfred the great, Charlemagne, and Justinian slapped their wives? I know William the Conqueror was rather rough to his wife before he married her, but he didn’t stay that way. I don’t think wife slapping should be cause for divorce,as some do, but we don’t need to reject something or support something just because of the left’s view on it. You know by now that I am pro-white, royalist-ish, anti-revolutionary,anti-immigration, and more for Palestine than Israel. And I do support the death penalty for murder, rape, and highest, or rather most ignoble, sort of high treason. But… Read more »
In the late golden age of blogs Dalrock did great work resurrecting CS Lewis’ takedown of Chivalry.
These Dalrock posts can still be searched up in archive form. They’re not at all organized in this format but still very much worth reading.
Takedown? His essay “The necessity of chivalry” said both chivalry and pacifism failed to tame sin, but pacifism failed worse. Chivalry takes note that some people need ridden over by armored horsemen, and tries to teach the horsemen to do so ONLY when necessary. Some policemen should take note.
We can discuss Chivalry if you want to do the reading. You probably have a a vague favorable notion about what it was without ever putting a lot of thought into it.
Takedown? Lewis was pro chivalry.
https://theredarchive.com/blog/Dalrock/courtly-love-the-origins-ofcuckchivalry.7314
Googling for the source material brings up this nice scan.
https://gynocentrism.com/2013/08/10/c-s-lewis-on-courtly-love/
Giving a man license to slap a grown woman is unthinkable. Strapping a man to a chair and running electricity through his brain while he convulses to death is unthinkable. Locking someone in a cage for shoplifting is increasingly unthinkable. Look, you guys got what you wanted. Paternal authority carried the potential for abuse and it was removed. Now live with the consequences though they seem much more widespread and dire than the supposed original problem.
Please don’t be a cop. You seem to have a distain for humanity only matched by god himself.
People around here see Feds under the bed. It’s an excuse for moral and intellectual cowardice.
I have a realistic view of humanity. I want to see them succeed through use of the evolved social technologies we refer to as tradition not subjected to risky social engineering schemes.
So you an Alex Jones guy, or more a David Icke fellow?
Or just a groyper?
I’m a Keith Woods/Joel Davis guy. I also enjoy the 2 Bit podcast and JFG for a daily rundown of the news.
I like Nick Fuentes but I haven’t gone through the trouble to find his content in a while.
What’s an atheist doing camped out on a Jesus fanfic site?
Observe the lunacy and pester the cranks.
Which looking at some of your references, you’re right up there with the most torqued up of crankery. Never thought an actual N**i would be lurking. Probably after that chubby mustached Minnesotan pastor showed up…
Great flock you got here, Doug!
Do you get your daily programming from the MSNBC or laughingly bad hack sites like Salon and the Daily Beast? The incel comment (talk about 2016) is ironic since you’re starting to come across as a flamer with your silly AIDS comment. The one group who never has to look for action are bundles of sticks. Any bathhouse or party will do.
Perfect timing! I needed a nap. You never fail 🥱😪😴
Criminals owe reparations to their victims–say basically 2x for time and trouble, with variations–or else to suffer equal but not greater harm, e.g. life for life. The laws God gave Moses favor reparations; the only prisons He called for, ‘cities of refuge,’ allow inmates family and business life. I’d like less prison than we see. Some criminals might prefer a flogging (God’s limit: 40 lashes) to prison.
I don’t think there’s any obligation that the American judicial system adhere to Mosaic law. I’d like to see you collect on those reparations. lol
I dunno. Do you want to be the wife of an Oriental despot or the wife of Henry VIII?
Henry VIII was an outlier. While not all European kings were unanimously faithful to their wives, they all had only one, she was a queen rather than a servant, and there were many kings, such as Henry III of England, Louis XVI of France, and Nicholas II of Russia, to name a few, who really loved their wives, and Nicholas II, from what I’ve heard of him, is the sort of husband I would like to be.
But definitely not the sort of tsar one should aspire to be.
And yet the Puritans were, I believe, the first western society to expressly forbid it. In 1641 the Massachusetts Body of Laws and Liberties stated “Every married woman shall be free from bodily correction or striped by her husband unless it be upon his own defense against her assault.” They didn’t have a problem with whipping married women but only a court could decide whether it was warranted and administer it. Yet I would say that the colony was undeniably patriarchal.
And Massachusetts remains the global ground zero for bad ideology to this day.
Not taking issue but I honestly wonder: if a man has authority over his children and has “the right” (even the duty) per the Bible to spank, then why would he not have the right to discipline his wife? If he is in authority in the home, and if she is to submit to him in all things, etc, and yet any real means to punish or correct has been stripped from him, isn’t his “authority” really just nominal at best, and at worst a joke? And what about wives who want to be spanked? And not just in some… Read more »
I remember that it happened in domestic comedies and I think most people at the time found it funny. I am not sure it happened that much in daily life. I mean, I think of my parents and their friends and my mind boggles. When Christian Domestic Discipline was in the media, I wandered over to a website and read for a bit. The tone was really not morally healthy! Very ritualized and almost pornographic in the descriptions. I would say that, if these people think this isn’t sexual, they’re deluding themselves. And I would suspect the same thing about… Read more »
Thanks for your reply. The last bit about women reverting back to childhood, etc, really makes a lot of sense. After the spanking, the slate is wiped clean and she can start over. That would be much easier than facing character flaws and actually having to change. The topic showing up in comedies back in the day does show that it was in the public consciousness, though. Taboo subjects can often only be brought up by making jokes about them. It would be hard to get any actual data on how much wife-spanking happened back then, mainly because you’d likely… Read more »
For ever woman who wants to be spanked by a therapist there must be thousands shacked up with violent men.
Clearly power differential plays a role in normal erotic relations between sexes. DV laws and the entire panoply of social measures aimed at gender equality likely lead to social ills like declining marriage rates, declining fertility and increased gender confusion through undermining this adaptive erotic relationship.
Did you cry when Coach Redpill died? Or any other MTOW freaks you idolize?
It was a terrible thing that he was murdered by the Zalenski regime. I think you mean MGTOW and I’m pretty sure Gonzalo Lira was married…so not MGTOW. I’m only familiar with his Ukraine content. You do a lot of lumping in opposite schools of thought like PUA and incels. Reminds me of a functionally illiterate conservative using Communist and Fascist interchangeably.
Not really. I just know you wouldn’t miss a chance to correct the record on some freaks. Almost like, you are a N**i about it?
Plus I know some other whacko on here mention him like he was a martyr or something and I haven’t thought about him since 2017.
You’ll break out of this my guy. Or you’ll be at the Capitol.
As far as I understand it, the Bible does not say that husbands should discipline their wives, as it does say that parents should discipline their children. (Prov 13:24, 19:18). The Bible says that husbands should sanctify their wives by washing with the water of the Word. (Eph 5:26) There were other passages cited by Justin above that show the attitude that a husband should have towards his wife. “Husbands love your wives and do not be harsh with them” “In the same way, Husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves… Read more »
Show me a Bible verse that says a man should withhold household money from his wife.
Like you care a part from Romans 13, N**i?
And yo boi sooo broke.
I admit I am in a similar situation to Peter and Jeff. It feels very frustrating because there is so much falsehood out there. I often feel like I am living in a sea of lies. The question I have is, if you do not challenge false ideas, how will people hear the truth?
Peter is totally right about the issue of eating dogs, for example. We do not do it here because we have better food and most dogs are pets, but it is not Biblically prohibited from Acts onwards.
“It is beyond pathetic that someone should ever think of spanking their wife.”
I’m fairly certain that question was submitted by a troll, and I’m fairly certain that Doug is fairly certain of that as well.
Feature, not a bug.
The reason for the weekly Tuesday columns was to filter this all to one place. So here it sits.
I would hope a distinction would be drawn between those of us with a different point of view who are looking for an exchange of ideas, versus people who show up just to stir the pot.
I think you can tell from Doug’s responses that he does just that.
I’ve been been here for what has now been a long time (2016 or so). While I disagree with you on a lot, you are far, far, far, from the troll territory. I think it was a character by the name of Mimi (Meme?) who necessitated the switch from every post being open for comments to the weekly comment section in the first place. Every blog post on every topic was just a long train of accusations of conservative Christians being wicked evil nasty monsters with sharp horns and pointy teeth who steal candy from babies. Then Jill would come… Read more »
Then ther was Ian who fed the trolls constantly, was glad to see that end.
She has her own blog which I glance at once in a while and sit on my hands so I don’t add my two cents worth in the comment section. She’s much more rational on her own blog.
There was another guy who would sometimes have like 100 comments on a 200-comment post–and most weren’t short comments. He seemed to have endless time for commenting. At one point Doug removed or censored one of his comments and he pitched a fit like a hangry toddler. Mind you, said person didn’t have any problem with conservatives being censored, deplatformed, fired, cancelled, debanked, etc. in other places. I don’t know if he was booted like a few others (Mimi, 40 Acres and a Kardashian) or left on his own volition. That said, I don’t get why people want to tell… Read more »
If its who I’m thinking of, that is the only person I’ve ever advocated for getting banned from anything, anywhere.
You just couldn’t read the comment section anymore. He wrote on the site more than Doug did. I’m long winded but yeesh.
I wasn’t implying that you’re a troll. I was referring to the author of the first question above in response to people being shocked that someone would be considering that. .
I saw a Twitter/x post asking if Doug was known to promote this practice and I said that I knew for a fact that he does not. The person seemed a little disappointed.
Unsurprising.
God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac; does A hear “God is telling me to do something evil”? Well, I’m sure A asked God for three forms of photo ID, so to speak, but in context, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called,” so if God orders Isaac sacrificed, God’ll have to raise him up (Hebrews says A was thinking thus); and Genesis says A told Isaac God’d supply the sacrifice, which maybe A deduced. Not like the Canaanites sacrificing their kids to win Ball’s favor, or abortuaries these days to win Mammon’s favor; and I suppose the Canaanite kids heard… Read more »