Septembeletters

Interesting argument; but maybe a bit sophist?
I’m not a full preterist because of passages like you use to make a standard argument against preterism under the solipsism heading (which, BTW, seemed a little off argument).
So, I have no dog in this fight.
The essence of your argument seems to be that a presup must grant some authority to synods and creeds in order to have something to presup with. You argue also that this authority is challengable, which you do yourself at 2Nicea, which seems to imply that the authority of synods and creeds decays with temporal distance from the birth of the Church. But, if we agree that this authority is challengable and decays, why not a decay that’s issue-based instead of time-based.
As a presup, I grant that synods and creeds (S&Cs) were granted at least enough authority to determine the canon. All other issues are subject to review. So, analogous with your challenge of 2Nicea over the 2nd commandment, the preterist grants the S&Cs its authority to determine the canon but challenges it at the point it denies full preterist, rejecting this determination for the same reason that you reject 2Nicea: because (at least to the preterist) this determination violates the “clear” teaching of Scripture.
There’s a whiff of circularity in the argument; but when has good presup ever been scandalized by a little circularity?

Allen

In “Presupp and Preterism,” have you not conflated infallibility with inerrancy?

Robert

FWIW, an illustration of how church relates to Scripture. When the crazy millionaire Howard Hughes died, a dozen or so documents popped up each claimed to be his Last Will and Testament. Now it was not the business of the courts (the Church) to write a new document and declare their writing Hughes’ Will. It was the duty of the courts to sort thru the claimants and see if any was, in fact, Hughes’ will. Similarly it is not the duty of the church to write Scripture and say “We’ve written Scripture.” It’s the duty of the church to acknowledge what writings are Scripture and which are not.
(Couple points we might agree less on. When the church acknowledges “This is canon,” it might also have to say, And this is prophecy, but not Canon–if anything from Philip’s daughters was available, for instance. Or Hermas. Since the Bible acknowledges the existence of non-canonical prophecies.)
(And not to argue, just to ask your position if you care to set it forth: parts of the church call the Apocrypha canon [while excluding some old writings; I don’t think any Bible includes 2nd Enoch as canon]. Maybe you’ve already set forth why you think it’s not?)

Andrew

My typical experience with anything written on Sola Scriptura makes me feel as if I’ve gone back to my high school cafeteria, took a seat at the old table where I ate lunch, and listened to my friends say that same stupid nonsense they said back in 1979. If I hear another Catholic say “what good is an infallible Bible without an infallible church?” it will be the death of my liver.
Your article did a good job with the topic, although one point you might have added is that Sola Scriptura is meant as an explanation of present circumstances and is not meant to apply at every time in history. When Jesus was preaching the Sermon on the Mount, there was infallible information about God outside of Scripture.
In case it’s not obvious, I’m referring to this article.

Greg

Re: presup and preterism
Last week creation.com published an article
“World’s oldest hymn rediscovered”
In it is this line:
“As we sing our hymn
To the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”
Now we know the Trinity was revealed in Scripture when the Son was in the river and the Father’s audible voice spoke and the Spirit descended upon the Son in the form of a dove.
Neither does the Bible leave any wiggle room for the deity of Christ.
However it is like a glass of cold water on a hot day to learn that almost a century before Nicea the Trinity was expressed in a hymn and Akeptous’s mosaic spoke of the deity of Jesus. People got it all along for God knows how to reveal things to the fallen.

Murk

The intro montage at the beginning of the “They’re Losers” episode of Doug Wilson and Friends is 10/10 and I laugh out loud with joy each time I watch it. To your video editors: please keep doing what you’re doing. To anyone who hasn’t gotten a Canon+ subscription yet but is considering it: you will have only one regret, which will be, “Why didn’t I subscribe sooner?”
Thankful beyond measure,

Laura

Re: your video response to the CT smear. I noticed the “Christ Is Lord” signs all over the place and it reminded me of a question I had when that project first came out. Why didn’t you use “Jesus is Lord” (I Corinthians 12:3)? Just curious …

David

Hello, Douglas. I will preface this by saying that I disagree with just about everything you’ve put out on a sociopolitical basis. However, I can’t help but be intrigued by your work and obvious success. In a world that’s so commonly complacent with injustice and worsening conditions, it is up to the most outspoken to change it.
Now, I went through the effort of reading your article ‘Larry Arnn and the Hillsdale Half Step’ and I’m intrigued to delve further into your idea of states as ‘moral agents.’ My question to you is how do you expect Christian nationalism to take on the gauntlet of the Internet?
Suppose Christian nationalism takes hold in America. You can amend the truth of the Bible into the Constitution and whatever else, that still leaves the rest of the world. A world that is rapidly developing if nothing else economically outside of the sphere of the American sphere of influence (Take China, India or BRICS in general for that matter, none of which are Christian-majority).
The Internet obviously serves as the global forum whereas anybody with a capable device and a connection can participate. Now, as a Christian nation, you can most definitely legislate away immoral content, you can invest funds in promoting your own viewpoints but that doesn’t ultimately change what the rest of the world puts out on the Internet which could damage the spiritual/theocratic basis of your society. In short, my point is that you can make an effective morality shield for your own nation but when dealing with problems of the magnitude and speed of the Internet, its impossible to build a sword to swing at other nations.
So my final question to you is if any one nation can’t be an effective moral agent against the Internet, how do you plan to topple that? Do you believe that the rest of the world can be convinced on reason or moral appeal alone? Do you believe that the theoretical Christian American model will become something for other nations to emulate via economic strength or otherwise?
I appreciate it if you’ve read this far. I’m not looking to debate or get some sly ‘gotcha’ for a blog, more I’m trying to understand how people who see the world in a completely different light to me would deal with the same global problems.
Take care,

Samuel.

Re: Larry Arnn and the Hillsdale Half Step
“What we don’t like to do is cooperate whenever somebody starts to exhibit the implications. Hence our difficulties.”
I think you are really onto the crux of the thing here, and I think it’s true in both directions. For those of us who have misgivings about Christian Nationalism, the implications are a crucial part of it. For many, it may even involve implications that we haven’t given conscious consideration to.
Unlike the early church and the authors of the books of the New Testament, we live under a representative system of government. We have a degree of agency. The preamble to our Constitution claims that it is we, the people, who establish justice, promote general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty, etc. Christians, as a very large subset of We the People, are included in this constitutional responsibility.
However, it seems that to be a Christian Nationalist means to also believe that the Church has these same duties (and more), but in such a way that precedes and supersedes any charge given by founding documents. The Church has its own duty to establish justice and promote general welfare. Those duties come not from any purely man-made document, but they come directly from the Lord himself, in the form of “make disciples of all nations”. And this commission from the Lord must, naturally, override any other prescription from any other governing authority.
From this perspective, the Church has a duty to deter and criminalize evil, such as abortion for one example. We are to do this via the state. The mission is the Church’s, and the state is merely the instrument for getting it done.
With all of the preceding in view, the question for me becomes, what happens if We the People become, by majority, an entity in direct opposition to the Church? Would we not then have a duty to—by force if necessary—dismantle our representative form of government? After all, we have no reason to believe that the U.S. form of government has a special sanction from God and that all other forms of government are prohibited from the American people. So if we come to a point where democratic processes are leading us further and further away from justice and the ways of the Lord, why would we not consider ourselves duty-bound to institute a different form of government?
Christian Nationalism then is, by definition, at odds with representative government. It values it not as an inherent good, but only as a means of establishing other goods, and only for as long as it is effective for that purpose. Christian Nationalism implies, whether its adherents recognize it or not, that revolution, maybe even violent revolution if necessary, is always on the table.
Of course, precisely how amenable a Christian should be to possibly violent revolution is another topic that I won’t add to this already lengthy response. But I guess the main thing I’m wondering for now is if you agree that this could be a big part of the reason that many Christians have an intuitive aversion to Christian Nationalism?

Kenneth

Re: Larry Arnn and the Hillsdale Half Step
Can a nation be said to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ without any individuals doing so? If no one in a country believed, would not the wrath of God remain on every person in that country, no matter what the government did and the people approved? Since the answers are No to the first question and Yes to the second, our task is to preach the gospel and fulfill the Great Commission, so what we want to call “our”project is not Christian nationalism but . . . preaching the gospel and fulfilling the Great Commission. Same as we have always called it.
Christian Nationalism is not really what you promise it simply is, or there simply is no need for the term. Maybe marketing is the problem. Or maybe it is planning.

John

Re: the restoration of the American household
I’m on board with the repeal of the 19th Amendment, though I suggest it is only a small step toward the restoration of the American household. Much more needs to be done. But before we get to that some other day, I’d love to know some specifics on how Christ Church handles congregational voting by household. Let’s say a young man and a young woman come to Moscow from other states to attend NSA. And by some miraculous occurrence, both graduate without getting married or finding their soon-to-be future spouse. And both decide to stay on in Moscow in pursuit of God’s will for their lives—including marriage. As they attend Christ Church as singles, do each of them get to vote as the head of their single member households? Also wondering how you might apply Gen. 2:24 (a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh) to this situation). Thank you.

Bill

I was wondering if I could have a list of authors/commentaries that Pastor Douglas Wilson used on his commentary about the book of Revelation?

Johnathon

I have a question I hope you can provide clarity on. Four years ago, at 14 years of marriage, I engaged in an extramarital affair. I’d been seeing a Christian therapist on and off for 9 years, trying to become the husband my wife thought I should be. I’d allowed myself to be a people-pleaser, allowing myself to be emasculated, disrespected, and to quote my ex-wife “the third child” in our home. The adultery is absolutely wrong and I knew that, and have since repented of it. But I was so angry and hurt I chose to file for divorce. I see that it is the worst thing I could have done and it’s been worse than I imagined.
At this point, I’ve asked my ex-wife about reconciliation four times to which she’s replied, “I don’t want to say never, but it would take years before I even consider that,” and “it will take years of consistency before we even have that conversation.”
Since then, I’ve met someone and we’ve been dating 3 years (she has never been married). We at one point moved in together but have since moved back out, recognizing this is not something God can and would bless. I’ve been reading your Family Series books and want to be the “Federal Husband” in a reformed marriage. But my ex-wife does not have much of any interest in reconciling. Meanwhile, I want to be the husband God has called me to be, if not for her than with someone. I don’t want to abuse God’s grace by, as the apostle Paul would phrase, “sinning more so God’s Grace can abound all the more.”
What are my options moving forward? Thank you.

Aaron

Thanks very much for your ministry and challenging us take God at His Word and let what He says inform how we live, including how we respond to suffering. I think a lot of people understand the concept of giving thanks IN all circumstances, but the concept of giving thanks FOR all circumstances is a bit different. Could you provide some clear examples in the Bible, whether from the Psalms, or prayers of believers in the Bible, where the faithful are specifically thanking God for the evil or difficult thing that has befallen them? It seems to me, if there aren’t some really clear examples of that, we might do better to interpret Eph 5:20 as meaning we ought to give thanks to God for all things that it is fitting to give thanks to Him for. It seems a believer could hold fast to God’s sovereign rule over all circumstances, receiving even the hard providences as from the loving hand of their Father, while also having a category for not thanking Him for the evil itself he permitted to befall them, but rather thanking Him for His promises, His goodness, etc. in the whole thing. Just to put a sharp point on it, where the rubber might meet the road. It would be hard for me to imagine as a pastor the following scenario: a woman has been raped or a child has been molested, and they come seeking counsel from me. Would I be instructing them, along with the proper sympathy, laments, and reminders of God’s promises, to spend some time thanking God for the rape/molesting?

Nick

So here is a question way out of left field, apropos of nothing recently discussed. I have a good friend who is now a priest in the Anglican Catholic Church, at which I attended prior to my current membership in a PCA church. They have a “Society of King Charles the Martyr” and celebrate King Charles. I, on the other hand, have long considered Oliver Cromwell to have been the more godly in his efforts to counter King Charles’ traitorous efforts to drag England back to Rome. Alas, most of my opinions were built on offhand comments in books and blogs posts (and on the 1970 movie “Cromwell,” starring Richard Harris and Alec Guinness, Hollywood being a celebrated source of accurate history). Do you know of any books or information sources where I may get a balanced and accurate depiction of what actually went on back then?

David

“Christianity & Liberalism (& Rebaptism)”
I have long followed your blog, and I have appreciated your commentary on a number of theological and cultural topics. Even though we belong to somewhat different denominational alignments, your insightful thoughtful engagement has challenged and shaped my understanding and beliefs in several realms.
Though I remain convictionally credobaptist, I have been greatly convicted and encouraged by the confessional standards of the CREC and the scriptural teaching on “one baptism” (Eph. 4:4-6) that would seem to cut against the prevalent practice of rebaptism in my own circles. While Scriptures such as Acts 19:1-7 (in the Ephesians encounter with John’s disciples) suggest there may be some permissible occasions for such action, I suspect it should be far less common than it currently is.
Your exchange last week with Mr. Mike (in “A Liberal Set of Questions”) made me wonder how these principles might apply to converts/congregants from certain branches of liberal Protestantism. In his seminal work, Machen seemed convinced that liberal theology was ultimately a different religion than historic Christianity, because of the radically different dictionaries at play and the deviation from fundamental doctrines. If someone was to come into the CREC (or other evangelical churches) from various rainbow denominations (such as the UCC or the ELCA) that verbally affirm the same creeds and scriptural canon but come to drastically different operating principles or open organizational commitments to affirming theology or other apparent evidences of a divinely removed lampstand (Rev. 2:5), would you permit or encourage such folks to pursue rebaptism? Or is such an action reserved only for those cults and sects that abandon and neglect Trinitarianism in their official doctrine and/or baptismal rites?

a musing Midwesterner

This does not pertain to anything I’ve seen you write about recently, but . . .
I have a friend who is about to have his first child. My friend was raised CRC, and believes in the virtue of infant baptism, however . . .
He currently is a member of an admittedly solid Alliance church, which does not support infant baptism.
Now for the question:
If my friend does ardently believe that infant baptism is what God desires, and he also believes that the church he is in is the best fit for his family, can he take his child to be baptized in a Lutheran or Catholic Church, and then resume attendance at the Alliance church?
I understand the church at-large has discerned that it doesn’t matter who you are baptized by, but rather who you are baptized into.
Is it okay to make this tactical move? If we confess a universal church, what would be wrong with it?
Very curious to read your thoughts, thanks

William

This is a comment on the “Demonisising for Fun and Profi” post. I’m interested in taking a look into Christian Nationalism, specifically the biblical basis for it. What free resources would you recommend for it?

VK

Do you think you could possibly write an article addressing non-legislative theonomy? I’m asking because one of its main adherents just wrote an article criticizing your in-his-view vague stance on biblical law.
Thank you,

Samuel

Here’s a definition of an itinerant preacher/traveling evangelist: “An itinerant preacher is a religious minister, typically Christian, who travels from place to place to deliver sermons and spread religious teachings, rather than remaining in a single location. These traveling preachers, also called evangelists or circuit riders, focus on sharing their faith with diverse audiences in various communities within a relatively short timeframe.”
Of course the immediate response from many is that Paul the Apostle fits this description. But, I tend to conclude that what he did was actually quite different. I’m not so sure there is a Biblical precedent for the kind of itinerant preaching we see today.
Paul of course traveled, but I think that’s where the similarity may end. For one, Paul traveled to check on churches he had started or oversaw. He was deeply involved with these churches, writing them letters, etc. And when he traveled to visit them, he didn’t preach for 3 days and leave. He lived there for YEARS. He knew the people at these churches, and was known by them. One further note is that Paul was not married.
The itinerant preacher I see today travels a lot. But they aren’t establishing churches, and when they visit a church it’s for a very short period of time. He’s also able to have somewhat of a “celebrity status” because he doesn’t stay at these churches long enough to be truly known by them. In fact, these churches really have no way of knowing if he’s truly qualified. An itinerant preacher is also often absent from his local church, due to traveling so much. And on top of all that, many itinerant preachers are married with children still at home, that they leave for weeks at a time throughout the year.
(Of course I’m not thinking of people who occasionally travel to speak somewhere. I’m thinking of people whose whole life is traveling and preaching).
I imagine my son someday, telling me that he wants to be an itinerant preacher. In my head right now, I’m leaning towards thinking that just shouldn’t even be an option. Instead I see the options being 1. Being the pastor of a local church who has chosen you because they know you and your family and know you are qualified. You get to dedicate your life to shepherding a particular flock of people, flaws and all. You don’t get to simply preach and leave. And your family is with you most of the time, because your life’s work is not constant traveling. And then option 2. Being a missionary to another country, which involves moving your whole family and life to a new location, and then staying there for at least a long time. Establishing a local church, etc. Pretty much the same as option 1, except it’s in another country.
Correct me if you see it differently, but itinerant preaching seems to include the positives of ministry, but without the heavy responsibility that is supposed to come with it. It involves travel, and preaching, but doesn’t include the dirty work of having to truly tend dirty sheep. And the nature of it seems to lead to the neglect of a man’s first responsibility, to his wife and children, because of being away so much. It appears that the married Apostles, like Peter, stayed in Jerusalem. That’s not to say he never traveled anywhere. But, I don’t think there’s any reason to think he did what Paul did.

SA

Recently Tucker Carlson did an interview discussing the shroud of Turin. My dad recommended I watch it and we both think it is very interesting to say the least. From what I understand you are skeptical about the authenticity of the shroud. Are you skeptical about the shroud being Jesus’ shroud at all, or just the image found on it? We would love to hear your thoughts on the interview.

Hannah

I’m not writing this letter in response to any particular post. Instead, this is more of a nod to some of your statements about the Civil War, MLK, Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement. Allie Beth Stuckey interviews Chad O. Jackson in this episode and there’s plenty of contraband thought (to reference something you said about a book during the Covid craze). Nothing Chad O. Jackson says causes any consternation on my part, yet it does cause me to sit back and marvel over how effective propaganda is regardless of who wields it. Here’s the link for your edification:

Matthew