April Letters May

You said:
“In times like ours, when deliberate efforts are underway to erode or otherwise destroy our national and civic identity, it is not unlawful for Christians to defend their people. The secular globalists want to swallow up our families, tribes, and nations, intending to homogenize all of humanity. They want all of humanity to come out as a light brown puree.
We must fight them, but we must do it in the name of Christ, and with His mark upon us. That mark is baptism, and water is thicker than blood. When our ethnic identities are defeated by or surrendered to the Church of Humanity, they are simply digested, like so many dainty morsels. When they are surrendered to Christ, as Christ requires, they are crucified, and raised to life again.” — The Surpassing Worth of Knowing Christ

GKC said:
“That nursery tale from nowhere about St. George and the Dragon really expresses best the relation between the West and the East. There were many other differences, calculated to arrest even the superficial eye, between a saint and a dragon. But the essential difference was simply this: that the Dragon did want to eat St. George; whereas St. George would have felt a strong distaste for eating the Dragon. In most of the stories he killed the Dragon. In many of the stories he not only spared, but baptised it. But in neither case did the Christian have any appetite for cold dragon. The Dragon, however, really has an appetite for cold Christian—and especially for cold Christianity. This blind intention to absorb, to change the shape of everything and digest it in the darkness of a dragon’s stomach; this is what is really meant by the Pantheism and Cosmic Unity of the East. The Cosmos as such is cannibal; as old Time ate his children. The Eastern saints were saints because they wanted to be swallowed up. The Western saint, like St. George, was sainted by the Western Church precisely because he refused to be swallowed. The same process of thought that has prevented nationalities disappearing in Christendom has prevented the complete appearance of Pantheism. All Christian men instinctively resist the idea of being absorbed into an Empire; an Austrian, a Spanish, a British, or a Turkish Empire. But there is one empire, much larger and much more tyrannical, which free men will resist with even stronger passion. The free man violently resists being absorbed into the empire which is called the Universe. He demands Home Rule for his nationality, but still more Home Rule for his home. Most of all he demands Home Rule for himself.”—G.K. Chesterton, A Miscellany of Men
God bless,

Todd

Thank you for your ministry! I came to Christ ~6 years ago and have been greatly influenced (especially when it comes to epistemology) by presuppositional thinkers such as yourself, Bahnsen, Van Til, etc. There is one question that I can’t seem to find a good answer to though: how can a person know that the Bible is the word of God? Even leaving aside specific questions about textual criticism and the formation of the canon, I don’t see a way to prove that the Bible is God’s word. I personally believe that it’s true (based on lots of evidence), but my personal belief isn’t a sound epistemological foundation and doesn’t justify a statement like “this is certainly God’s word”.
I feel like a seeking agnostic in this area, and I’m curious if you have any thoughts or resources you’d recommend.

Jared

So incredibly good.
Thank you.
May the current crop of professing freedom fighters, who are on the side of truth, see and recognize those who have been doing it as per the Lord’s way for decades—and come under them
And may those who are not on the side of truth, quickly expose themselves in such a manner that all can see.

Murk

Thank you for your ministry; your wisdom and wit are unmatched. I’m a member of a rather small PCA church (fewer than 50 attendees per week). There is a female member in her late 40’s who has a serious problem with drug addiction and displays all the typical behaviors of a person dealing with addiction—habitually lying and manipulating others at the forefront. This lady, sadly, also has a history of severe abuse from childhood at the hands of her father. Our pastor and the elders have bent over backwards to get her the help she desperately needs but also, aside from one elder, relentlessly make excuses for her every time she relapses, claiming, “She’s repentant.” This is literally at least once a month, and the attention she receives has taken away from needs of other members.
As a side note, at one point the pastor drove this lady to a detox facility two hours away from our small town to [the] big city alone, which I felt to be highly inappropriate. Also, he shuns any advice from members who have actually dealt with addiction or have close family members who thus far have conquered addiction. So there’s that. In the interest of brevity, I will conclude here. I fear there is more going on than meets the eye, but that is simply speculation. At what point do you feel 70 x 7 should turn into, “Hey we need to censure this lady and stop feeding into the situation?” Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks much for your time,

J

Amidst the cacophony of responses and information related to the actions of the Trump administration when it comes to immigration, the judicial system, spending cuts, etc., it is hard at least for me to discern whether we might be approaching the line where a thoughtful Christian might believe that Trump has stepped over the line. Not the line where we might say, “Trump was right here but wrong here,” but the line where we say, “Trump is now doing exactly what his opponents were doing to him and to us. This has got to stop.” I don’t think we are approaching it right now, but I want to keep a liberty vigil on the administration while being appreciative of many of the things that Trump has done to secure our liberty. A major part of the problem of working through this, of course, is that many of the traditional sources and institutions we might turn to for clarity are a mess. The legal system, for instance, has so butchered the constitutional and biblical perspectives on this that we more often than not can’t rightly use the courts as the standard to judge Trump. Sadly, the National Review crowd and even several libertarian thinkers that I’ve respected are often defaulting to the “courts (and everything else) good, Trump bad” argument; I can’t buy into the concept of judicial supremacy and that duly elected constitutional office holders must comply with whatever the courts say. Yet we Christians need some help in working our way through and understanding from a biblical and constitutional perspective some of these technical legal arguments stemming from rather complex laws relating to immigration, spending, etc. And we need protection from jumping up and down with glee when our opponents are defeated by means the administration should not be using. Some of my trusted non-Reformed sources like Mark Steyn, Margot Cleveland, and Julie Kelly are not sounding an alarm. And I haven’t heard you, Rich Lusk, or Uri Brito do so either. So that’s good. But I would love to hear your thoughts on what we Christians might work our way through all this. Maybe a forthcoming column on this topic?

Bill

I’ve heard you mention in several of your books that the original covenant God established with man was grace, not law. This makes a lot of sense to me. It seems to fly in the faces of the WCF. How do you reconcile this?
Thanks for all you do.

Michael

I read your article about aging and was gonna reply but by the time I had gotten this far I forgot what it was I was gonna say.
Thnx. Pretty sure that was probably it

Guy

I unfortunately do not personally know any older Christians to ask, so I’m curious: as someone in the last stretch of his race, how do you feel about the prospect of entering heaven soon? How have those feelings evolved since you were younger?
God bless you brother, and as always please keep doing what you’re doing!

Tony

What a timely post about aging. I recently realized that I am nearly the age my mother was when I got married.
You approached this with your paragraphs about “finishing well,” but I would like to hear more about assurance—for the aging, and for their loved ones. Several threads here.
A friend’s husband has terminal cancer and is talking about wanting to be baptized “again.” He was baptized as a young adult, but doesn’t remember it.
I recently finished Ellen Vaughn’s 2-volume biography of Elisabeth Elliot. It was very disturbing to watch her second husband, as he was dying of cancer, apparently lose all his Christian character: become angry with God, angry with her, even say things like the concept of Christ as a shelter “is no use to me now.” I don’t believe that he repudiated his faith, but is it really so easy to get people to say things that sound as if they are denying Christ? Just put them through a few months of pain and sickness?
Finally, I know of some dear older relatives who seemed to show the fruit of the Spirit in their lives, but never left behind a clear statement of personal faith. I very much wish they had. I would encourage everyone who is a Christian to write out a clear personal testimony and leave it for your loved ones, so they know that you died trusting in the Jesus of the Apostles’ Creed.
Thank you,

Jen

After reading your last piece on growing older, I started to wonder what your view is on Isa 65:20.
“No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.”
Do you take this literally? Will there be a time prior to Christ’s return where the age spans of people are possibly similar to that of people you read about in the early generations of Genesis from Adam to Shem? (I’ve always wondered why the life spans became so much shorter after the flood.)
And if so, do you think this will be a downstream result of widespread revival? Or maybe a possible medical breakthrough in our understanding of aging? Or maybe both?
Thanks,

JC

Two questions:
1- I’m approaching 50, and given my current situation, it is likely that I will end up with no family or offspring. How would your advice change for those who already are or likely to be “elder orphans”?
2- I grew up with these general principles in your article as a goal of mine from a young age. And yet, I have failed to attain to them. How would you mold this advice to young people so as to steer them toward successful aging later in life?
Thank you.

grh

I had a thought/question in regard to abolition vs incrementalism. This thought was prompted by some reading in Calvin’s commentary. These are his thoughts on Matthew 5:31, Jesus talking about divorce . . .
“Whosoever shall put away his wife. As a more suitable occasion for discussing and explaining this doctrine at greater length will afterwards occur, (Matthew 19:9,) I shall now state briefly what Christ says in this passage. As the Jews falsely imagined that they discharged their whole duty toward God, when they kept the law in a national manner, so whatever the national law did not forbid, they foolishly supposed to be lawful. Divorces, which husbands were wont to give to their wives, had not been prohibited by Moses as to external order, but only, for the sake of restraining lewdness, he had ordered that “a bill of divorcement” should be given to the wives who were put away, (Deuteronomy 24:1.) It was a sort of testimonial of freedom, so that the woman was afterwards free from the yoke and power of the husband; while the husband at the same time acknowledged, that he did not send her away on account of any crime, but because she did not please him. Hence proceeded the error, that there was nothing wrong in such putting away, provided that the forms of law were observed.
But they did wrong in viewing as a matter of civil law, the rule which had been given them for a devout and holy life. For national laws are sometimes accommodated to the manners of men but God, in prescribing a spiritual law, looked not at what men can do, but at what they ought to do. It contains a perfect and entire righteousness, though we want ability to fulfill it. Christ, therefore, admonishes us not to conclude, that what is allowed by the national law of Moses is, on that account, lawful in the sight of God. That man, (says he,) who puts away his wife, and gives her a bill of divorcement, shelters himself under the pretense of the law: but the bond of marriage is too sacred to be dissolved at the will, or rather at the licentious pleasure, of men. Though the husband and the wife are united by mutual consent, yet God binds them by an indissoluble tie, so that they are not afterwards at liberty to separate. An exception is added, except on account of fornication: for the woman, who has basely violated the marriage-vow, is justly cast off; because it was by her fault that the tie was broken, and the husband set at liberty.”
In your debates with abolitionist, if I recall correctly, they argue that any law that does not 100% reflect the perfect will of God is a perversion and evil. So, a heartbeat bill is evil.
But, I wondered if the laws about certificates of divorce can show that, as Calvin said, national laws are accommodated to the manners of men. There appears to be the concept that a national law may allow something that does not absolutely reflect God’s perfect will.
Moses instructed them about giving a certificate of divorce. But this was not because God’s perfect will for mankind includes divorce. Jesus said in Matthew 19 that it was because of the hardness of men’s hearts that Moses allowed divorce, but that from the beginning it was not so. Calvin seems to be saying that this certificate of divorce was required to protect women whose husbands were divorcing them for not pleasing them, not because of something like adultery. It was a testimony to the fact that the divorce was not for some heinous crime, to protect women from becoming damaged goods.
So in the same way, could we argue that while a heartbeat bill does not 100% reflect God’s perfect will (because some babies will still die), that doesn’t make it an evil law. Of course we can lament the fact that we even have to make laws preventing people from murdering their babies. But . . . it is because of the hardness of men’s hearts that we have to make such laws . . . laws that accommodate to the manners of men. We know that God hates divorce and it was not a part of his original plan for marriage . . . but because of men’s hard hearts, an imperfect law about divorce had to be made, to protect the victims of divorce (women). In the same way, abortion is of course not a part of God’s plan…but because of mens’ hearts, an imperfect law about abortion can be made, to protect some of the victims (babies with a heartbeat). Can we conclude from all of this the concept that something can be allowed in a national law that is not a perfect reflection of God’s perfect and righteous character? We can lament that God never intended divorce or abortion . . . of course He didn’t. But Moses had to deal with men divorcing their wives for unfounded reasons. He had to deal with it in a way that accommodated the sinfulness of men’s hearts.
So can we promote a heartbeat bill (because the hardness of men’s hearts will not allow an abolition bill at this time) . . . while also gladly and wholeheartedly saying “but from the beginning it was not so” ?
I was curious on your thoughts about this line of reasoning, or if you think it falls apart at some point.
To be clear, the point isn’t really to say that abortion and divorce should be dealt with in the same way. It’s more just a question of whether this concept from Calvin can be applied to laws like heartbeat laws: “Christ, therefore, admonishes us not to conclude, that what is allowed by the national law of Moses is, on that account, lawful in the sight of God.”

Stephanie

I was once asked how a professing yet unrepentant son should be handled by their Christian family. Details were scarce, but from what I gleaned, we’re talking about an ambiguous situation where an active homosexual son of college age is in that transition from being in the father’s home to being on his own. So the question is: In this transitionary state, should the family provide food, but refuse to eat with him? Should they be as normal with him as possible, except they refuse to take him to the church which ought to have nothing to do with him? Does any of this change once he finally leaves his father’s house completely? And what is the basis for a decision here?
I lean towards thinking that the family (and its obligations) remain in place even for an unrepentant son, so he would be welcome as any other member in family interactions. Obviously taking him to a church that is or ought to be excluding him would be off the table. But once he leaves the home, and the obligation to discipline and provide for him is gone, things become less clear to me. Though perhaps I’m way off base on the whole thing. I’ve not found commentary on this exact issue elsewhere, so thought I’d probe your thoughts here.

Brandon

In my church there’s been a newcomer for the past month who has consistently expressed interest in joining and being baptized, My pastor has said he’s been talking to this person, asking them questions about their understanding of Scripture and commitment to the Lord, and to make sure they’re aware of what this entails. From personally talking with this person, they sound genuine, they understand the gospel and importance of being apart of the church, etc. My question is: should the church membership process be this drawn out to make sure it’s genuine? Is this expecting too much out of newcomers to Christianity? But I also understand church membership is a serious commitment. Would like to know a wise way to balance this issue. Thanks!

CO

What is your take on the view of Jesus dying on Wednesday of 31 A.D., rather than Friday of 33 A.D., with the High “annual” Sabbath based on the lunar calendar falling on Thursday, which would account for the gospel references to the day of Preparation and Sabbath?
This seems to help not only with the debatable literalism of Jesus’s prophecy about the sign of Jonah in Matthew but also with the variance of the women buying the spices between Mark and Luke, which would otherwise be an inaccurate detail in one of the accounts. It also can account for John’s call out of the High Sabbath need to remove the crucified as it would be mid-week.
Thanks!

Stephen

I am a young father with two children. My son is almost two years old and my daughter is almost a year. We have been working on disciplining my son and having good results. We had an incident where he would not give in and his will wouldn’t break. I stayed calm and administered 3 sets of spankings with a fairly long time out in between to let him calm down. Once he saw there was no other option he calmed down and obeyed. While my wife was getting him ready for bed she let me know that he had some bruising from the spanks. I understand it was an accident but my confidence is shaken. I don’t want to break his spirit. This is the first time this has happened and I was wondering if you have any advice for spanking in the future.
What is a good way to gauge how hard is too hard of a spank?
How do I know if I am exasperating my child and not loving him?
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,

Colin