Contents
Which Zechariah?
I just finished watching your debate with Joe Heschmeyer on Sola Scriptura and had a question about Zechariah.
In Joe’s cross-examination of you (around the 1:33:40 mark), he pointed out that Zechariah the son of Barachiah is not the same Zechariah (the son of Jehoiada) mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24. You acknowledged that was a problem, but it seemed like you both ran out of time to expand on the issue further. Is there a resource you can recommend that expands your argument and clarifies the issue of the two different Zechariahs?
Regards,Nathan
Nathan, thanks. The son of Jehoida is martyred in 2 Chronicles. The son of Berechiah lived a few centuries later, and gave us the book of Zechariah. One thing to keep in mind is that there are almost 30 Zechariahs in the Bible, and one of the harmonizations suggests that the author of the book of Zechariah was martyred in a similar way as was the son of Jehoida, only with that martyrdom not recorded in Scripture, but that the Jews of the first century were aware of it. That solves the problem of whether Jesus made a mistake in Matthew 23:35, but it loses my argument about the Old Testament canon. That would not be the end of the world, but I think the simplest harmonization is that Jesus was referring to the son of Jehoida in 2 Chronicles, but that Berechiah, a different Berechiah than the father of the prophet, was a grandfather or ancestor upstream.
Pretty Lazy Indeed
I listened to a podcast this am called Calmversations, host Benjamin Boyce. The guest was Fr. Emmanuel Lemelson. He had several interesting things to say and the topic of Christian Nationalism came up. Fr. L lumped Pastor Wilson in with Hagee and Paula White. Maybe he was conflating Christian Nationalism with Christian Zionism. Pretty lazy. I would encourage Pastor Wilson to get in front of both of these guys and straighten things out. I await.Mark
Mark, yes, that is pretty lazy. I wish I had the time to chase these sorts of things down . . . on second thought, I am kind of grateful that I don’t.
New Member Questions
My wife and I moved recently and as a consequence have been attending a new church for a few years. We have delayed formerly joining this PCA church (we were members of a PCA church in our old home town) while we have been getting to know this church and its leaders. It’s been a couple of years and after too long of a delay we are now about to make it formal. What are some good questions, if any, that a wise Christian should ask of a session in a new membership interview? Our goal is not to be disrespectful or controversial but we do want to be wise. Any advice?
PS—Loving your collection of Communion devotions in “So Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ.” Gave a copy to the minister and he later told me it is becoming one of his favorite books. My theology of the Lord’s Supper was obviously weak and this book has been of immense value. Highly recommend it to everyone.Allen
Allen, I would ask about the church’s antibodies. What errors, mistakes, or heresies has the session identified as threats to the body, and what measures have they taken to protect the flock from them.
Facts of Life
My oldest is a boy who just turned 12. He has been in a conservative Baptist school since pre-k which has never discussed sex. How do I best approach having “the talk” with him? I know he is at the age or maybe even beyond it where it is appropriate to discuss and while I’ve tried to protect his innocence, I don’t wish to keep him ignorant about important matters that he will naturally have questions about. Furthermore, I also know that if I don’t teach him about it, someone else will! Please advise on what you see as the best way to have this conversation and what to include or not include at this age and stage.
Respectfully,JRH
JRH, first, I would give him advance warning that the talk is coming. I wouldn’t just drop it on him one day—that would only enhance the awkwardness for both of you. I would say something like, “Next Saturday I would like to have a talk with you about an interesting phenomenon that you have no doubt recently noticed.” “What?” “You know, girls. Have your questions ready.” You are right, now is the time. I would explain the basic facts of life, and be prepared to spend the bulk of the time instructing him on guarding his mental purity, and how to navigate his relationships with the girls he knows.
AI in Middle Earth
Thanks for mentioning the problems of AI and worship, It can seem so massive and intimidating, even scary. However, one comforting thought is that it’s happened many times before. Some idol or another sets up to be unstoppable and creates quite a stir. Reminds me of the Dead Polka Dogs song, Nu-god, “Turned from the one who is faithful and true, to follow a thing that is shiny and new . . .”
By all appearances it looks like they’re really gonna reach to heaven this time… and then God says let’s go down, and next thing you know the whole enterprise collapses in a ball of confusion.
I’m so glad that He who sits in the heavens still laughs. One way or another (and we can have fun imagining a few), He will have them in derision.
Thank you,M. Brandybuck
M. Brandybuck, thanks very much. Wonderful reminder. But I don’t believe that’s really your name.
Bible says children of believing parents are holy.
My question is of the nature of the infants. In Christ, we are new creation (2 Cor 5:17); the heart of stone is taken away and a heart of flesh is given. I understand the already but not yet status of our salvation, however, I need a biblical case to understand why the children of believing parents are not born again already at birth? Aren’t both the parents saved? How is it that the original sin is passed on (which I agree) but the salvation of the soul is not? Can a biblical case be made against this thought? It would be great if you could point me to something you’ve written on this or if it deserves a blog post for some heresy of the future, that is up to you.
P.S I’m not sure if it is Pelagianism.Sam
Sam, the children are saints, true enough. But this holiness is a federal holiness, meaning a covenantal holiness. It means that the children of believers are part of the visible church. As they grow up, they are instructed to walk in faith, just as their parents walk in faith. And as we know that some parents fall away, not being elect, so also some of the children do. A covenant child can be saved in the womb, that child can be saved when he is two, and he can be saved as a teen. But the catalyst for that salvation has to be his faith, not his parents’ faith.
Israel’s Territory
This is a response to your Fair and Square podcast episode. You mentioned Israel had acquired its land from wars of self-defense and through conquest making it legitimate. Does that mean what they are doing now in Lebanon blowing up homes is legitimate? Comparing what we did to the natives 150 years ago who weren’t using the land to what Israel did recently and is still doing seems problematic. Your history of how Israel got their land is very limited. There was the political part that set some borders politically but there were already people who had lived on that land for 100s of years. Those people had the land they had lived on sold out from underneath them and mercilessly thrown off. It was worse than how greedy mining companies lied to purchased land from the illiterate Appalachian people who had no idea what they were signing. There is no justice in any of this.JSM
JSM, I am not maintaining that there were no injustices as the result of the plantations that Zionism produced. I am sure that there have been. But as a war measure (WW1), the British promised the Arabs territory in response to their aid in the war, and they did the same for the Jews. They made a point of keeping their promise to both groups. As this was being implemented, it became messy very early on. In that mess, the Arabs consistently have resorted to violence first as a way of settling scores, and have consistently lost territory over the years.
American Casualties & the Iran War
Re: your scoring our involvement in the Iranian conflict a 7 out of 10 . . .
“Iran has been behind the deaths of many Americans (as has been pointed out many times by advocates of this war), but many of these deaths were soldiers in active war zones over there. So, our claim here is strong, but not as strong as Israel’s (7).”
One could argue that nothing less than 10 justifies our military response, but even 7 seems overly generous to me. Can you clarify if you are also giving a 7 to our presence in the war zones where these Americans were killed by Iranian proxies? That would essentially be the 1000 or so killed between the Lebanese civil war in 1983 (~300) and the Iraq war in the early 2000’s (~600). I would think these get a very low grade. And a soldier who is killed in a place they have no business being should not give us justification for a 7 against Iran now.
Another way to ask is, if we weren’t in Iraq and Lebanon, there wouldn’t have been Iranian proxy-on-American deaths. Would you still give this present conflict a 7 on its own merits?J
J, there is always something. Remember that I quoted from an old piece I wrote opposing the Iraq war, so I am with you there. The Lebanon situation was quite different, which is where the 7 would come from. And I didn’t mention, the attempted assassination of Trump by Iran, which would also be sufficient grounds.
Regarding the justice of the Iran War
It would be unfair, as you note, to use what happened in one war as justification for starting a second. If this admirable principle holds, why does it not apply to the Iran situation as a whole? Iranian hostility toward America since the seventies was provoked by America’s interference in Iran in the fifties. If the Shah’s regime which the ayatollahs overthrew was an American puppet state, imposed for our national interest and without provocation from Iran, the status quo ante was America behaving unjustly. In light of this, don’t we have a first responsibility to pursue peace by leaving them alone?
If I invade a man’s house and lock him in the closet, it is pretty rich for me to complain after he finally escapes that he is being a hard to live with.Joel
Joel, a lot rides on the phrase “if the Shah’s regime . . . was an American puppet state.” That’s at least debatable. And if the prime minister of Iran nationalizes all the oil companies, contrary to all the negotiated agreements, would that be an act of war? In other words, the situation was not as simple as an irate man escaping from the closet.
You can trust the media to try to say we have lost the war, no matter what happens.Jake
Jake, that is at least a safe bet.
What About Israeli Spies?
Okay, asking you to rapidly be glancing through both dispensationalist and covenant theology lenses . . . even if Israel IS the chosen nation, we’re commanded to seek the welfare of the nation in which we’re planted.
What should devout American Christians, loyal patriots of their country, think about Israeli spies who steal U.S. military secrets?Ian
Ian, I assume that you are thinking about something like the Pollard case. I believe that American Christians should support the arrest and prosecution of such spies.
Hostility to Calvinism
The more I study Reformed theology the more I am humbled and completely blown away at the beauty and love of God. Knowing He is completely in control of all things, even the bad stuff, is so comforting, especially during times like today. The reason I am writing is because I have a good friend who I believe is regenerate but he absolutely hates Calvinism. If the subject comes up and we turn to the Scripture it seems like he twists any verse in order to protect his theological framework. I know that even my own understanding of the doctrines of grace is a gift of God and I can’t boast in understanding it because I am smarter than the next guy. That being said, if it is true that someone can be regenerate and have inaccurate views of God (I’m sure everyone does in some way) why do you think God does that?
sincerely,JC
JC, I believe God does that because we are not justified by our works, and the doctrines of free grace are doctrines that need to be impressed upon us. This would include our intellectual or theological achievements, and God does this so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:8-10).
Vid Filters
I’ve heard some people at Canon talk about watching various films with a filter. It sounds like a good solution, and I wanted to ask if there is a filter solution that you folks recommend.
Obviously, there is a large category (I believe a vast majority) of Hollywood movies that are irredeemable—filter or not. But there is also a good number of films worth watching if filtered, which would otherwise be unwatchable.
Any input you have on the subject would be appreciated.
Thank you,JD
JD, I believe that the guys are referring to VidAngel. Other readers can chime in with filters they have found helpful.
Hegseth
Secretary Hegseth is a leader.
Speaks clearly about military objectives, thanks military members, serves the president very well. Honours God publicly.
Is skilled at his position.
How he conducts himself in press briefings in the face of reporters who mask indictment attempts as questions brings it home.
Just as the one he serves—the one not from here who walked among us—Pete is fully aware that the battle is on more than one front.
The enemy may be 10000 km away and have access to the button of ICBM’s or may be 10’ away and have access to a smart phone.Murk
Murk, thank you.
Stories and Obeying the Law
You and your son have helped me see the importance of story. Many of the greatest stories suggest that there is more to life than rule-following. In fact, there are moments when doing the right thing seems to require breaking the rules. Scripture itself appears to reflect this tension in accounts like the Hebrew midwives in Exodus and Rahab in Jericho.
It seems that what is often at work is the idea of choosing the lesser of two evils, or acting for the sake of a greater good. In a fallen world, choosing the lesser evil is not truly evil—it is, in fact, the right thing to do. This line of thinking also seems relevant in debates over pro-life incrementalism.
But if we grant that it is sometimes permissible to do what would otherwise be considered “wrong” for the sake of a greater good, then more questions arise.
In our modern context, how do we discern which situations justify such decisions? Since I’m writing to you, I might ask: By what standard?
Biblically, one might argue that deception is permissible in order to preserve life. But are there other scenarios where doing something technically “wrong” is justified? If so, what principles govern those decisions?
I’m also curious how this applies to law. For instance, is it morally permissible to exceed the speed limit slightly, or to jaywalk in a quiet town? Say, Mayberry? You once wrote, in your beautiful reflection on your affection for America:
“And tonight, up on our hill, when I sit out on my deck, I will have a perfect view of all the illegal fireworks being set off to the discomfiture of the minions of the current King George. I love that too.”
This all raises another question: are churches morally obligated to comply with every governmental regulation, code, and policy, especially when such policies seem to hinder a familial, relational model of ministry?
I believe order, structure, and law are important. But going back to the importance of stories: I believe there is a difference between Andy Taylor and Barney Fife, Argus Filch and Dumbledore. All care about order, structure, and law—yes—but some care more deeply about the good. They know when to look the other way, when to find another way, and even when discipline must be carried out, to do so with a quiet, knowing smile—understanding exactly why Harry Potter was sneaking around the castle after curfew. After all, there was a serpent to hunt.
So how should I think about this tension? Christians often seem to land firmly on one side or the other. Is this ultimately a matter of conscience? Or is there a clearer framework I’m missing?
Thanks for your help.Moses
Moses, you have laid out the problem neatly. And it should not be surprising that I think the answer is to be steeped in the right kind of story. Caspian does not turn himself into Miraz. Trufflehunter submits to Caspian right away. Trumpkin obeys the orders of Caspian even though they run contrary to what Trumpkin believes. If they had brought in the hags and ogres, Trumpkin would have been down the road. When they are trying to find Caspian, Trumpkin says that he will do whatever the high king decides. And that’s just one story.
Anything to Astrology?
hope you’re doing well on these splendid spring days! I grew up in a Christian household, and I learned that star charts, horoscopes, and all of the rest of those things are really just pagan LARPing holdouts from before Christ’s rule and reign. Any attempts to read the Stars to know one’s destiny is effectively just telling God that you don’t really care that He said witchcraft is something He abhors. I am curious come however, is it wrong to notice constellations, or even to recognize some sort of significance to such things? The reason for my mild confusion, and my interest in your thoughts is that God seems to take note of constellations common in the biblical era (Job 9:9, 38:31-32; Amos 5:8). Well Daniel was clearly not a pagan or an astrologer, he did rub elbows with other magicians. On top of that, I am curious about how the Lord used such pagans (whom Daniel influenced long after his death) to come and seek the Lord through using stars. Often times, the Lord uses signs in the stars and in the cosmos too show that something supernatural is happening, or to be prophetic signs for the future. Lastly, I also recognize that in Revelation, John mentions that a third of the stars were swept down. I think I agree with your son in that a third of the Angels fell and became demons, which I believe are considered watchers in Dr. Heiser’s terminology. I’m curious as to what the correct point of view a Christian ought to have about the stars, astronomy and astrology, as well as how to understand what the Stars really are?ON
ON, I believe that trying to tell personal fortunes through astrology is at best superstitious nonsense and at worst pagan and demonic. At the same time, it is also a pagan and unbelieving cosmology to think that the stars are just the debris left over from a huge explosion. That’s pagan also. We have many scriptural examples, some of which you cite, to show that God has revealed some of His purposes and plans to us through the stars.
Trusting Our Leaders
One of the things I was taught in the military is that we must trust our leaders. I believe this is vital to any civilization as well. Because the average citizen has only “one one-hundredth of the information that Hegseth has” (and any other leader in any other era, for that matter), we have little choice but to trust them. We cannot operate as a functioning civilization without trusting our leaders at every level.
You stated, “On the basis of the publicly available information, we either trust him or we don’t. The same thing goes for his elders and pastors. We either trust him or we don’t. It should be obvious that I do.”
My question is: Shouldn’t we all trust our leaders regardless of what information is publicly available?
I understand that, in practice, we can refuse to trust a leader to be faithful to his wife if we know he is an adulterer, while still trusting him to execute his leadership responsibilities faithfully—because in the first case we have enough information to remove our trust, but in the second case we don’t have all the information. It’s the second kind of trust I’m referring to.
Also, if we trust the Lord who appointed the leader, wouldn’t that trust be demonstrated by trusting the leader himself?Michael
Michael, I agree that our default mode should be to trust our leaders when it comes to those things we don’t have access to, and even shouldn’t have access to. But it is not an absolute, and I think a great example would be Joe Biden’s obvious cognitive decline. That was a case of “Who are you going to believe? Us or your lying eyes?” And unfortunately, in recent years there have been many such cases.
Tradition in the Bible
Doug, why didn’t you bring up Matthew 15 in the debate with Joe?Matt
Matt, the answer would be time. I am sure it would have come up if we had had more time.
Regular Attenders & Discipline
Re: “Fencing the Table” Q&A.
You noted that the term “excommunication” only applies to those who are church members. I’m thinking of categories of membership and communion status: there are communicant members, communicant nonmembers, and those who are excommunicated (barred from the Lord’s Supper and presumably losing membership status).
What label would you use for a regular attender who refuses church membership (to avoid excommunication) but after dialogue with church leadership, has been barred from the Lord’s Supper because of ongoing sin? How would your church handle such a situation if the person continued attending worship services?Jack
Jack, I would allow him to continue to attend so long as he was not disruptive, and if he complied with our desire that he not partake of the Supper. But this would not be excommunication proper. He is only being barred from the Table at this congregation.
Financial Support Question
I have a question in regard to financially supporting ministers of the Gospel. Whether it be a pastor, evangelist, or missionary, the Bible says that “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” It of course makes sense that someone whose “work” is ministry related, just like anyone else, deserves compensation for their work. We all have to make a living, whether you’re a doctor, a preacher, or a garbage collector.
My question has to do with the entitlement mentality that some involved in “ministry” seem to have. I have known of some, when their house needs repairs, or they have some other kind of larger expense come up, they let others know in a way that seems to be asking for extra help. There seems to be some kind of idea that if you’re in ministry, you don’t have to plan ahead (have emergency money) like the rest of us do. I do not mean to imply that there is not a time and place to offer extra help to someone in need, as we help bear the burdens of our brothers and sisters in Christ. But it seems to me like there wouldn’t be a difference amongst the church, meaning, I may offer financial assistance to my brother who is a plumber, if he finds himself in a sticky financial situation, or someone in ministry (who we already support regularly by the way). But honestly, I’m not even usually as aware of the financial burdens others are going through, except for those in ministry who post about it on Facebook. Is there a biblical concept I’m missing, that would make it acceptable for someone in ministry to make their financial burdens known in a way that most others do not? Or is the way we pay someone in “ministry” not supposed to really differ from the way we pay our doctor? We pay both for their “work.” But our doctor doesn’t usually post on Facebook about his car issues, so we don’t even know about it.
(And as a side note, I’m not sure I even like referring to some as being involved in ministry, which seems to imply that everyone else is not doing “gospel work.” The plumber in my church may evangelize to every house he goes in to, but he’s not “officially” in ministry. Sometimes I think there is a distinction we make that we shouldn’t? A plumber can be serving God just as much as a pastor. Their vocations are different, but they’re both serving God. I hope I’m making sense).Hezekiah
Hezekiah, yes. Your question makes sense. And the answer would be “it all depends.” If a person in ministry is being supported well, then everything you say above would apply. He should only make his needs known if it were an extraordinary situation, the same way that a plumber would. But if the person is in ministry, real ministry, and they are not being supported adequately, and things are kind of hand-to-mouth normally, and the transmission of the car goes plooey, I don’t mind at all if they put that fact in their monthly newsletter.
Thank you for your hard work for the Kingdom. You’ve been a great blessing to me and my family, and you’ve been instrumental in my coming around to Reformed theology out of a Pentecostal/Baptist background.
We have a young daughter who is not quite old enough to talk, but old enough to be fascinated by books. She’s not even a year and a half and she will regularly crawl to a bookshelf or stack of books and start pulling them down and flipping through them on her own to look at the pictures, or even better, hand them to someone to read for her. My Mom gave her a very simple, cartoon-like picture book of the Easter story. While I’m not too worried about navigating this particular book and situation right now, I’m curious what advice you have on how to interact with generally well-meaning depictions of Christ in the context of raising young children, because obviously this is not a problem that will go away.
I want my children to have a solid understanding of why we aren’t on board with most pictures of Christ, without creating an unhealthy legalism, or unnecessarily offending other believers.
Thank you,Father of a Bookworm
FB, I think you are approaching it in a right spirit. I would avoid books that are heavy on that kind of thing, and when she gets old enough, use the occasional instances where it comes up as teaching opportunities. “You know, honey, nobody knows what Jesus actually looked like.” And “make sure that when you close your eyes to pray, you are not thinking of this picture.”
A Class Action Thing
This isn’t about a specific post. It’s an ethical question I thought you might have some insight on. I was made part of a class action suit for a medical device. The device was recalled and replaced. I was happy to accept the replacement because I accepted their word that there was some kind of flaw in the device. But now I’ve been sent a check too, and it doesn’t feel right, because my device never malfunctioned. This company never harmed me that I can tell, so why should they also have to pay me an extra penalty? I can understand that they should have to pay damages if they were negligent and somebody got hurt, but why should they have to pay the customers who didn’t get hurt? Am I thinking right about this or being overly scrupulous? Should I cash it or tear it up?Gloria
Gloria, this is the sort of thing where I think you have to trust the process. Unless you know for certain that the class action lawsuit was bogus, I wouldn’t have any problem cashing the check.
School Choice
Thank you for your ministry. It has been a game changer for me from a distance.
There’s a lot I’d love to ask you about, but I’ll stick to just this one. It’s a dilemma my family is currently facing: Should we send our kids to a conservative (but not distinctly Christian) classical charter school nearby (the “cut flowers display”)? Or a true Christian Classical school a few towns over? To make the dilemma spicier, the school nearby (which is affiliated with Hillsdale) would, in all likelihood, be the more rigorous education than the Christian school.
The Christian school simply represents a number of added challenges for our family logistically, if the locations were swapped, it’d be a no-brainer.
Can “the center” be something we supplement? Or should we aim to supplement some rigor?
Thank you and God bless you.Travis
Travis, I don’t know how many logistical hurdles you would have to get over to go to the Christian school, but I would place a high priority on that. If that were impossible, or nearly so, and it would be less effort to supplement the Hillsdale curriculum (which will not be hostile to Christian faith), then I believe that could be a lawful choice.
Power of Persusion
I have noticed in many of your interviews that you emphasize that everything you desire ought to come from persuasion. So as I understand it, you essentially want the natural outcomes of a christianized nation with a representative government. Any new rules ought to be duly passed through state and federal legislation. Constitutional amendments go through the rigorous process. Etc.
For now, the action is preach, train up your children in the Lord, plant churches, evangelize, disciple. Is the main practical difference between you and say, a John Macarthur or Mark Dever (besides obvious theological differences) that you say (and as postmil, expect) this Christianization to happen?CU
CU, I think that would be the main difference, yes. And once the Christian consensus has shaped the laws, it is of course the case that enforcement of the laws does not rest on persuasion. The criminal outliers will never be persuaded, and so they must be restrained.
Trouble Fitting In
I’m a new Christian and I’m having trouble seeing if I’m wrong in this situation. Recently I’ve developed a chronic illness that has been debilitating. I haven’t been able to attend church for the majority of the last three months. My husband continues to attend and updates people on my condition when they ask him, but no one is reaching out to me. When I am able to attend church, I’m mostly ignored or people act like the last seven absences haven’t happened. We’ve been at this church for almost four years. We are very involved but have very few close connections with people. We’ve talked to our pastor about this and he said that it’s our fault we aren’t closer to people because we don’t engage enough with them. But I don’t think that’s true. We attend potlucks, evangelism events, we’ve hosted several families from the church more than once, we arrive early and stay late, and even attend the weekly evening service. We are friendly with almost everyone, but now that I’ve been missing from church life for months, I realize I actually have no friends. I’m very, very lonely and confused. Friendliness has been an issue for our church in the past. More than one family has left because they were ignored, isolated, or couldn’t get “in” with the friend groups. Visitors have passed up our church in favor of a more friendly one down the street because, when they visited our church, no one even said hello. Again, I’m a new Christian and I’m growing in my people skills and learning how to love others. I don’t think I excel yet in showing the same kindness to my church family that I’d like from them. But I’m feeling very hurt and disillusioned. Am I wrong to feel this way? Is it my fault that I’m alone right now? I’m worn down from my long physical struggles and so my wounded feelings are telling me I don’t even want to go there anymore. What is the right response to all of this?Megan
Megan, I am very sorry for your plight. No, it is not wrong to notice things like this. The wrong would come in when it turns to resentment or bitterness. It would be better to try another church than to give way to resentment. At the same time, I think it is wise for you to budget for the fact that you are feeling lousy, and that this might color your interpretation of all these social interactions, or lack of them. Your church might need to grow in this area, but it also might not be as bad as you sometimes feel it is.
Re: video filters, I used vidangel for a while but found that there were too many titles missing. Due to them be early ground breakers on the whole idea, they got sued pretty hard by Disney and Universal. The consequence is that they can’t filter any of those titles, which is quite a lot of movies I found myself wanting to watch with the kids. Currently I use Clearplay, which I like quite a bit. It works well with Amazon Prime video anyway. It is a simple browser plug-in. The downside is that you have to watch through a browser,… Read more »
He’s dabbing on you, Doug.
Trump thought he looked like a doctor…seems rather blasphemous. Anyone going to, want to or able to defend this?
Defend? Lol, no. The only question is whether this is yet another area where we shake our head, roll our eyes, and move on because Trump is being… well..Trump, yet again. Or do we beat on his doors until he goes further than just deleting it and actually says, “Sorry, that was over the line” and doesn’t just offer flimsy excuses.
Averting your gaze is a defense of whatever you’re averting your gaze from. Grab them by their pussy’s (misogynistic/abuser). Annihilate a civilization (genocidal). Mexico will pay for the wall (bold faced lie). Chicago about to find out why it’s called the department of war (insurrectionist). It’s a good thing to have a lot of losers. I always like to hang around with losers, actually, ’cause it makes me feel better (egotistical). I am not sure I have. I just go on and try to do a better job from there. I don’t think so,” he said. “I think if I… Read more »
“Averting your gaze is a defense of whatever you’re averting your gaze from.”
Obvious lie is obviously a lie.
In order for it to be a defense, you need to……
you know,
defend it.
Not everyone has convinced themselves that civilization itself depends on them broadcasting their opinions across the internet.
If that wasn’t the strongest condemnation of Trump you could muster in this situation, I wouldn’t believe you were still Justin Parris.
lol I wrote a gigantic post on facebook this morning rebutting an old friend of mine who *was* defending Trump, and did so with a laundry list of Trump’s many, many, many very public anti-Christian activities.
You’re showcasing my point. Assuming that someone doesn’t condemn this because you didn’t personally see it is the height of narcissistic absurdity. Do I need to copy paste it here to pretty please get everyone else’s affirmation that I do in fact condemn the thing I condemn?
You know what “in this situation” means, Justin?
Obviously you do:)
Moses–we humans are analog creatures with digital capacity, NOT digital creatures. So trying to write a rule for every single exception strikes me as wrongheaded. (I see this in business in corporate rules and SOPs, not just church.) Love God, love your neighbors, let God define what love is in the cases He does define, meditate on (think about) His law–and use your head.
(Precise rule for every exception–didn’t Godel prove that that’s impossible???)
“the attempted assassination of Trump by Iran, which would also be sufficient grounds.” In that case, all reprisals against any and all people or property in the US by anyone associated with or allied with Venezuela or Iran is fully justified. By the teachings of the Oracle of the CREC. And if they target the persons and property of the theological advisors of Secretary of Maximum Lethality then those attacks are even more justified. Are you really sure this is a game you want to play? Because it is not one you can win. So far every single position you… Read more »
Yeah, that was a crazy claim. As well as “In that mess, the Arabs consistently have resorted to violence first as a way of settling scores.” Not only is that false (Pastor Wilson is apparently unfamiliar with a great deal of Jewish terrorism in the early years of the Israel question, before they took the land), but it is also inconsistent with his side-picking in previous wars. For example, the South resorted to violence first in instigating the Civil War, but Pastor Wilson finds a convoluted rationale to declare the South’s violence justified….a rationale which would also justify much Arab… Read more »
Trust our leaders:
You mentioned Biden’s decline…shouldn’t we also note trumps decline? We have a LOT of information about his leadership and personal life, most of which is abhorrent at best, but you choose to point out Biden? How can you continue to “trust” a megalomaniac like trump?
“Put your trust in the earthly king” say zero Bible verses. Trust the man who lied about the Epstein files. Trust the man who used campaign funds to pay off Stormy Daniels. Trust the man mentored by a mob lawyer who died of AIDS. Trust the man who boasts of ripping people off. But do not trust the Biden, who has done none of these things, because he is an elder and elders are not to be trusted. This is the argument. Doug is delivering children to the gaping maw of the wolf, he’s not a Christian leader and frankly… Read more »
“But do not trust the Biden, who has done none of these things, because he is an elder and elders are not to be trusted. This is the argument.”
lol Wait, you actually are unaware of moral claims against Joe Biden’s character?
I am aware of them, and they are not anything like the ones described.
There is no possible equivalency b/t Biden and Trump, and attempts to pretend that there is demonstrate a pathetic lack of moral recognition.
Which is why no one thinks you have any moral credibility whatsoever, and no one ever will, ever again.
These are dire claims indeed.
If only they weren’t utterly ridiculous to hear from a stranger on the internet, who has no idea how I am perceived by others in real life, they would indeed cause me serious concern.
So got it, I’m to pretend that Biden isn’t a career racist treasonous insurrectionist because Trump is also bad. Just so I know where I’m supposed to be standing.
I think you have Biden and trump reversed…
I think Calvinism is indefensible and something that people really need to grow out of. It is in origin a Roman Catholic heresy promulgated by St Augustine and later by the Jansenist Cistercian order at Port Royal abbey outside Paris in the 17th cent. It is based on a form of biblical literalism and faulty logic. It lacks nuance particularly in its failure to recognise the use of literary tropes in scriptures where issues to do with God’s sovereignty and predestination are concerned. So, for example, Calvinists literally believe that their “election” took place before the foundation of the world,… Read more »
You are presupposing that God is limited to time as we are. He is not.
Just posing the question whether God’s election is eternal and if so whether as ideas or plans creation, fall, redemption are co-eternal with God and what the implications of that might be for God’s freedom, so to speak. The eternality of the concepts of creation and redemption is a bit of a sticking point–but must be presupposed if we are to argue that God’s triune fulness and glory “preceded” all else. Perhaps we could say that God’s freedom is utterly preserved in his divine counsels and therefore it is not out of necessity or compulsion that creates and saves the… Read more »
All Christians believe in God’s eternal decrees, and that these eternal decrees include salvation, whether or not those decrees contain the salvation of certain individuals on grounds which are unconditional in respect of anything in or done by those individuals. Which is to say, if it’s problematic for Calvinists to speak of eternal decrees concerning individual salvation, then the reason for that can’t be because eternal decrees, or even eternal decrees concerning salvation, are problematic to speak about in general. The question of how to understand the relationship between time and eternity exists regardless of what you think the *content*… Read more »
Tozer was a dude and and I loved Knowledge of the Holy when I read it 45 years ago. But having been exposed to Calvinism (though not having come to any conclusions, though, at the time, I did not like it), I found his chapter on God’s sovereignty great in general, but pretty thin stuff when he dealt with God’s sovereignty in election. Every human-centered take it going to violate some supposed constraints (if only constraints in understanding) somewhere. But taking the verses on these things as straight up Augustinianism/Calvinism don’t violate God’s character or sovereignty, or glory, but rather… Read more »
“ I know that even my own understanding of the doctrines of grace is a gift of God and I can’t boast in understanding it because I am smarter than the next guy. “ If Calvinism is true, you have no way of knowing if Calvinism is true or false, as if you are incapable of understanding Scripture without direct divine intervention, then you have no way of knowing if you have the true interpretation or your neighbor does, and you are the one who God has not given true understanding. To affirm Calvinism to be a functional Biblical relativist, as there… Read more »
I totally agree with you. It’s a type of autism.
This response is a kind of Bulverism.
Saying it is autism is perhaps a bit mean, but it does seem to take over the minds of its more devoted adherents to the extent they see it in the text when it is not there. And you don’t need to be a prophet to predict what replies you will get to which passages if you enter into discussion with Calvinists! However, I did recently comment on Ken Ham and his willingness to split the church over the ‘days’ of Genesis being literal 24 hour periods as akin to mental illness. It is strange to make so much out… Read more »
Well said
Note that Calvinism doesn’t claim that “you are incapable of understanding Scripture without direct divine intervention”. This is a misunderstanding of Calvinism which any standard treatment will identify. Calvinists confess that unbelievers are well capable of understanding the truth, and that many do. The devil himself understands the truth. Calvinism distinguishes between understanding the truth, and loving and embracing the truth.
“ Calvinists confess that unbelievers are well capable of understanding the truth”
Someone forgot to tell all the Calvinists this, because the opposite is claimed with great regularity, including by Douglas Wilson on this very page.
You haven’t produced any quotes to interact with, and I’m no particular Douglas Wilson fan, but given the lack of context, most likely you’re failing to appreciate different possible shades of meaning of “understand”. I understand Calvinism, I understand computer repair, I understand my wife, I understand God, but in quite different senses and limitations, some of which are obvious without even needing to explain further.
“ most likely you’re failing to appreciate different possible shades of meaning of “understand”.”
It would be more accurately said that I’m uninterested in playing whack a mole with whatever particular branding of Calvinism you’re trying to defend. I care not for the label, but for the doctrines. If the doctrines I’m attacking aren’t the ones you hold, then don’t bother defending them. If you object to the name “Calvinism”, then your complaint is with those claiming the title, not the one disputing the doctrines you also disagree with.
This criticism applies to yourself and everyone. Everyone’s understanding is a gift from God, either naturally, in mind and reason; spiritually; or both. What do you have that you did not receive? (1 Corinthians 4:7)
That’s true.
It just falls apart entirely the second you try to apply that meaning to the statements of said Calvinists.
They do not simply mean that everything we have is a gift.
They’ve gone over that in great detail. They write books about it.
You can either deal with what they claim honestly, or you can pretend that I don’t agree with you that all good things around us are sent from heaven above. The choice is yours.
“Everything we have” includes our doctrine. In 1 Corinthians 3 and 4 Paul is not talking merely about “all good things around us.” He is talking about ministries and doctrines. All true ones, whether Paul, Apollos or Cephas belong to every believer. Factionalism puts us in danger of missing truths.
Understanding that the doctrines of grace taught by Paul and Cephas/Peter are true is a good gift “from heaven above.” It appears you do not agree.
Coming DougWils post: “It isn’t particularly material if we elect the Anti-Christ as president and continue to support him, so long as we reiterate that we are only electing him as a secular president, not as a pastor.” That’s tongue in cheek, but only slightly. In the span of a single week, Trump: * Posted a picture of himself as Jesus performing miraculous healings while people pray to him. * Openly lied about the picture, claiming it was a picture of him as a doctor, and then declared that his mere presence heals people. * Signed off a post with… Read more »
Well said and good questions…I wonder myself…
I think the Calvinism issue can be settled quickly and simply.
Election or choosing is never to salvation but service and character for service. There is no passage where God chooses a man for salvation let alone an ‘unelect’ who were never so chosen.
Predestination is not unsaved to saved, but the destiny of the saved once they have put their faith in Christ.
Calvinism really ought to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
“Calvinism really ought to be consigned to the dustbin of history.” It has already in practice, just not in rhetoric. Calvinists do not argue or behave as thought Calvinism is true. If Douglas Wilson were a Calvinist, he would see no purpose in being a Christian Nationalist, as Christian law would depend upon Biblical understanding. But of course, he doesn’t claim to believe people capable of understanding the Bible on their own. So, if he were actually a Calvinist, which he isn’t, the last thing in the world he would want is a government of people incapable of understanding Scripture… Read more »
That’s a good observation–Calvinism doesn’t work in practice, in the day to day real world. I think Calvinism is quintessentially sectarian, hence the “us” and “them” fixation, which in turn is rooted in politics and race, at least in its Protestant 16th & 17th century iteration.
Anyone who thinks that Calvin’s thought is “rooted in politics and race” has not read Calvin. Sweeping, nonsensical generalisations on complex topics written without the spade-work to get a 101-level overview of the topic are not useful to advancing mutual understanding. I have no reason to believe that you are anything other than an honest person of good faith. But that being so, given the immense impact of Calvinistic thought down to the modern day, you owe it to yourself and others to at least begin. The Institutes are likely one of the 10 most influential books of the last… Read more »
P.S. This is quite good: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07943X3NL?psc=1
Anyone who thinks Calvin’s thought was not rooted in politics does not understand the context in which Calvin wrote.
He published the Institutes as a political refugee. He organized the church’s government in order to maintain political power in Geneva. He engaged in widespread political contention and political activity throughout his career.
Buster, you’ve committed a fallacy of verbal equivocation between the two quite distinct things, specifically “his Institutes were written in a political context with political hopes” and “the ideas that constitute his system of thought are rooted in politics”.
I’m really sorry, but saying the same thing in two different ways is not a demonstration that they are “quite distinct”.
Calvin’s work was rooted in real-time political considerations. That was in Geneva, a highly politicized environment. That is why he wrote about governance (and practiced it).
Calvin was a political actor as much as he was any other thing! His political role(s) are not neatly separable from his political ideas, and pretty much all of his ideas are political (i.e., they are about the location of authority).
Thank you David. Back in the late 1970s as a teenager I was corresponding with the Cambridge historian, G R Elton about Calvin. He argued back then that Calvin wasn’t in fashion and enjoyed little sympathy among academic scholars. I would say that is very much the case today–at least outside North American Neo/New Calvinist circles and seminaries. Over here in Britain and Ireland, and I dare say most of Europe too, Calvin does not command academic attention on a par, say, with Martin Luther. I have a couple of editions of Calvin’s Institutes which are essentially crisp and clear… Read more »
You’re some decades behind, then. There have been numerous Calvinistic philosophers and theologians taken plenty seriously in recent times, even supposing that we had to grant presence in conversation in the academy as an important standard. e.g. Wolterstorff, Plantinga, Webster, Vanhoozer, Carson.
Though, if we’re Christians, we recognise that God has explicitly revealed that he’s deliberately made a choice of the weak and despised, to humble the clever and mighty. So, men like Paul, amongst the best of their own generation, had to descend to become thought of as contemptible. So, this can never be a relevant standard for us.
The recently deceased Paul Helm would be another.
Yes, but he taught in Liverpool and Kings college London University as a Philosopher, then philosopher of religion, and later at Regent, Vancouver. He didn’t lecture in Theology or Biblical studies.
Sorry, David, just spotted your post. Again, most of these are/were largely associated throughout their careers with Evangelical institutions in America (Carson, Plantinga) or Evangelical leaning faculties in Aberdeen (Vanhoozer) or Presbyterian Reformed contexts in Edinburgh University (Vanhoozer). It would be fair to say that the academic publications of somebody like Vanhoozer or Webster do articulate specifically “Calvinist” concerns–this is particularly true of Plantinga who was is a philosopher of religion. These are fine scholars, by the way, (especially Vanhoozer on Hermeneutics and Plantinga with his volumes on God and Other Minds and Freedom and Evil, which align with mainstream… Read more »
That should read: “don’t articulate”
> “If Douglas Wilson were a Calvinist, he would see no purpose in being a Christian Nationalist, as Christian law would depend upon Biblical understanding.” Here, you seem to be confusing Calvinism with 1970s- theonomic reconstructionism. Calvin’s version of theonomy (even if we are going to fold that into what’s meant by “Calvinism”, which isn’t what people usually mean by it) was to do with wise governance of small city-states, and had precious little to do with modern Reconstructionists ideas for the governance of much of a continent. Also, as per my comment above, your belief that Calvinism either claims… Read more »
“where did you get it from?” Numerous professional Calvinist debators such as James White, but more relevantly for the conversation than either James White or Calvin himself, what the people we are talking about directly said on this very page. ” I know that even my own understanding of the doctrines of grace is a gift of God” -JC “and the doctrines of free grace are doctrines that need to be impressed upon us.” -Wilson You can categorize the No True Calvinist position however you like, I discuss the concepts of Calvinism that self proclaimed Calvinists I interact with preach. You… Read more »
For one thing, James White is also a reconstructionist.
“” I know that even my own understanding of the doctrines of grace is a gift of God” -JC” – is this being offered as a proof that Calvin believed that nobody could reach an intellectual understanding of Calvinism unless they were converted? See my earlier reply, about equivocation fallacies.
No. Its being offered as proof that the letter writer who chose the moniker “JC”, which is comment thread is supposed to be about, believed that nobody could reach an intellectual understanding of Calvinism unless they were converted. As stated, I don’t care what the historical John Calvin believed. I’m talking about still living people in this very conversation. Scroll up. I took the quotes from this website, not from a history book. As stated slightly above, if you wish to object to these people calling themselves Calvinists, take it up with them. Its none of my business. But if… Read more »
In the letter, JC doesn’t use the term“intellectual.” He nowhere implies that non-Calvinists can have no “intellectual understanding“ of the doctrines of grace.
JC says he can’t boast of understanding and confessing that the doctrines of trace are TRUE. Non-Calvinists don’t have THAT kind of understanding, or else they would be Calvinists. (Even so, it’s possible that a person actually knows the doctrines are true but deceives himself, suppressing this knowledge for sinful motives, suppression of the truth being a common enough temptation to us all.)
Interesting take. I fear Calvinism is alive and kicking. I do find it strange that when James White quite rightly berates the activities of the woke and perverted he does so most eloquently, yet his own theology entails God having passed over all or some of these unbelievers who are bahaving as unbelievers from before the foundation of the world.
It that is the case it seems to me inconsistent to bemoan their rebellion and lack of repentance when repenting is something they are unable to do.
Do you personally believe that there are *no* people in the world that God has passed over? For example, people who lived in China 500 years before the gospel came? There are, of course, a very large number of people in analogous situations. Presuming that you believe that there are people in history who have not received the gospel even outwardly, then you must have the same “problem” in your belief system as you think Calvinists do, unless you invent some extra-biblical doctrine of post-mortem salvation, or salvation without the new birth through sincerity, so some other teaching (heresy) of… Read more »
Although I would not be dogmatic about it, I have a strong suspicion that, provided we keep the faith, when we are in the new heavens and new earth in which righteousness dwells we will find that every human being who has ever lived has had some opportunity to be reconciled to God through Christ. Since no-one deserves mercy this does not come from any notion of ‘unfairness’, but there are one or two passages which at least leave the door open to this as a possibility. I understand the arguments against this especially by evangelicals, but I do have… Read more »
“Do you personally believe that there are *no* people in the world that God has passed over? For example, people who lived in China 500 years before the gospel came? “
Why would you baselessly assume that God never came to the chinese?
You’re creating a purely fictional dilemma. You need not believe in post-mortem salvation unless believe the baseless, Scripture free assertion that God has made no provision for the deserted islander.
Yep!
Especially TULIP, which apart from being illogical is totally unecessary.
The petals fell off my TULIP a long time ago … :-)
> “Election or choosing is never to salvation but service and character for service.” You can find a good refutation of this common modern scholarly viewpoint in https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07P5V7TSZ?psc=1, which demonstrates in detail that 1) it is an example of the fallacy of presenting a false dichotomy, and that 2) accurate exegesis of many things in Paul demonstrates that election in his writings is consistently an election to salvation as well as to service. Your post above states your conclusions, but are you aware that those conclusions have been critiqued in detail by Calvinist scholars? How do you respond to their… Read more »
My couple of sentences on Calvinism are the conclusions to years of thought, reading, listening, thinking and study of the subject. My way out of believing Calvinism began subjectively, namely in my case the observed gracelessness of so many (not all!!) of its adherents, and the effect this was having on me. I then noticed its interal contradictions which I couldn’t unsee. I also came to realise (or maybe more accurately it was revealed to me) that I had lost any notion of a God who is kind. The main and only real reason for rejecting it though can only… Read more »
> “and that such election was to service – the elder shall serve the younger.” This would mean that God’s “election” was not of Jacob, but of Esau. Esau was chosen to serve Jacob, and that is the meaning of the doctrine of election, that the unsaved serve the saved? I confess, I’ve never come across that one before. But even if you don’t take that view, I think you’re making a false dichotomy. In the Romans 9 passage, the election in view *includes* service (nobody denies that God’s people are chosen to serve him), but that service is downstream… Read more »
The call and election in the case of Jacob and Esau as I understand it was nothing to do with two individuals, and nothing to do with their salvation but rather which of the two God would use to found the nation who would bring forth the Messiah and fullfill the promise to Abraham that all the families of the earth would be blessed. Jacob I loved but Esau I hated came a thousand years after the two individuals lived, and means Jacob was preferred over Esau for this purpose. I don’t see anything to do with salvation here. Later… Read more »
“Joel, a lot rides on the phrase ‘if the Shah’s regime . . . was an American puppet state.’ That’s at least debatable.” First off, no, that’s not debatable. The Shah was installed with American help, and proceeded to agree to America’s bidding in return. That’s undeniable historical fact. Even if it was “debatable” as you say, you can’t just ignore it and start the justifications wherever you want to start them. If it’s debatable, then you have to consider it, not just claim ridiculously “Iran started this whole thing” without acknowledging that Iran has never come to America to… Read more »
King Ahab was very wicked, but in a couple battles with the Syrians God used him and even helped him; and I don’t think anyone puts him in Heaven. So our current president is a very wicked man, and has non-evil faults atop his evil ones. Unless he repents he will go to Hell. I doubt brushing off his prayers keeps God’s broom very busy. But he’s still a less bad president than our previous one: he has done some good things, along with some bad ones, and worked with some good people, which his predecessor did not.
What did Biden do that was worse than what trump has done?
As a person, Biden sins against greater light–he goes to church a lot, eh? Might be less corrupt and less adulterous than Trump, but not innocent. As a president, worse on the border, worse on the courts, worse on lawfare (got farther than president Trump has), worse on prices tho president Trump’s tariffs and war may change this, no better on budget/entitlements/deficit, worse on religious liberty, worse on supporting Israel when she’s right (OK to critique her; her Bible prophets did), worse on dealing with Iran’s evils, worse on general competence from Kabul (bad tactics of defensible withdrawal strategy) to… Read more »
“Preferring Mr Trump as president to Mr Biden as president is a reasonable conclusion.” No it isn’t, and I will simply note that this crowd seldom makes appeals to “reason” unless they are badly losing the argument in all other ways. “God can use evil for good” is not a reasonable argument for supporting evil men doing evil things, it is an argument that Christians should not care about sin (only gratification). As it happens, “reasonable” people analyze these questions using the tools of reason in places called “universities,” which have more of a historical tradition than Reformed Christianity (which itself… Read more »
Mr Biden was an evil man doing evil things: expediting abortion and gender confusion, for instance. If two PhDs support president Trump, will you be happy to join them? Reason is not a monopoly of professors. The ‘Gospel’ (no good news) of Thomas ends having Jesus say if Mary becomes a man she can enter the kingdom of Heaven. A Ph.D. who takes that post-synoptic (2nd century) gnostic nonsense seriously has forfeited any claim to be taken seriously himself as an authority. Someone who can’t tell boys from girls, and, worse, wants to impose this ignorance on people who know… Read more »
Doug, you slip the statement, “a covenant child can be saved from the womb” into his answer as if it were an established fact. Can you provide Biblical support for that belief? Otherwise, it strikes me as a happy superstition in support of your Federal Vision construct.
Thanks
John the Baptist leaping for joy in the womb.
Most if not all babies “leap” in utero…joy was the description written about it since we can’t know what the in utero baby was thinking. Definitely doesn’t seem like a biblical defense of being saved in the womb if that one phrase in the whole Bible is all you’ve got.
And if this is the case, why do you have such a problem with abortion since the babies are either saved or unsaved and going to heaven or hell accordingly?
Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit when she said the baby leaped in the womb for joy. Not just composing poetry.
Thanks for your response, but I see nothing in that passage about the baby being saved, so your answer is unconvincing. The passage in Luke explains why the baby leapt, mentioning nothing about the baby’s salvation, but actually explaining it as a reaction to hearing Mary’s voice. So at best the baby’s reaction was recognition, perhaps even prophetic recognition of the unborn Messiah, but not a suggestion of the baby’s personal salvation.
Clearly unrelated to your claim about unborn babies being saved.
Do you agree, or can you point to better proof texts?
Thanks.
The leaping was for joy, Elizabeth said.
OK, I’ll take that as a “no.”
Thanks again.
I mean, reprobates leap for joy after touchdowns, etc…….
Yes, and they even thank God for granting them the ability to score the touchdown. Doesn’t mean God actually prefers the Giants over the Jets, it just means that the speaker is self-interested.
Praise god! All babies are saved, then!
Yes, and all reprobates, too!
Good point.
While I appreciate any interaction with the comments, which you absolutely do not owe us, you have to know this is an insufficient answer to the claim at hand. I don’t even disagree with you in this instance. Its just, you know perfectly well 7 words don’t cover the ground that needs be covered. Over the last decade of my reading, you’ve developed a track record both responding to me and others of de minimus deflection rather than answering a tough question. It would go a long way for your reputation if you ever interacted with substance, rather than uncontested… Read more »
Well said, thanks.
Only the saved can rejoice at the presence of Christ. To all others, He is a stench and a terror.
Do r know that the baby “rejoiced” because of the presence of Christ? That’s quite the (immaculate) assumption…
This is just factually not true. The othe rmurderer on the cross was tolerant of Christ before he was converted.
Cornelius undertook good things that were pleasing in the sight of God prior to his actually being saved. This is as much scripture as Paul in say Rom 3.
But “damned in the womb” is self-evident?
Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost, a material miracle. But the Holy Ghost can’t doe spiritual miracles as well in young babies, especially such as are hearing the Gospel? Hearing starts pretty early–well before speech.
Andrew, respectfully, you’re arguing a nonsensical viewpoint. Jesus clearly said no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he has been born again. AGAIN, meaning a subsequent birth after an initial birth. A spiritual birth following a physical one. An unborn infant hasn’t even been born the first time, so could hardly be born AGAIN. Seriously, friend!!!
Based on that clear Bible teaching, unsaved in the womb is a sure bet. Don’t fall for the Federal Vision errors and superstitions.
“An unborn infant hasn’t even been born the first time, so could hardly be born AGAIN. Seriously, friend!!!”
This is a real contortion of context. Our King was talking to grown adult humans about grown adult humans. To extend that choice of grammar to another topic is a stretch under even the most generous interpretation.
Doesn’t that type of interpretation extend to anything in the Bible? Why are Christians so against homosexuality if Jesus never even mentioned it? Our King taught us about humility and love…so why all the hate?
Christians believe that Jesus is God and that all of Scripture is breathed out by God. Thus, a Christian will not limit Jesus’ words to the “red print” in the New Testament.
Ok, what about polygamy or incest to name a few things “breathed out by god” in the bible?
Theologians distinguish between something in God’s Word being descriptive or prescriptive. There are lots of events described in God’s Word – incest, polygamy, etc” that are not prescribed by God. In fact, God explicitly forbids incest and in 1 timothy 3 he describes the ideal (necessary for elders, but which all Christians should strive for) as being a “one-woman” man. It’s true that prior to Israel, God allowed for even brother-sister relationships – who else would Cain and Abel have married…? But this can be explained by where they were in the history of the world – the gene/mutation pool… Read more »
No, the context was where our King was teaching on the issue of how one could enter the kingdom of heaven. On what do you base your assertion that He was talking “about grown adult humans?” That assertion is the real stretch in this conversation!
FV? I say babies are saved by faith, same as anyone else, just younger. No faith, no salvation. (And some babies are lost by unbelief, same as anyone else.) I don’t really know what FV is, and I kinda think I don’t like it much, tho I’m pretty sure the PCA treated it unfairly, and I have FV friends.
When Jesus says “you must be born again,” he’s actually using a play on words/ambiguous phrase. Unfortunately, it is often impossible for English translations to capture the subtilities and double meanings of the original Greek and Hebrew. Jesus does this more often and is subsequently misunderstood. In this case, I think Jesus’ point is primarily “you must be born from above” – just as he goes on to explain – “you must be born of the Spirit.” If so, the question becomes “can the Spirit give rebirth to an infant?” Also, “what qualifies as faith? Can an infant have faith,… Read more »
We can’t be and aren’t perfect like Jesus…I would say he’s in a completely different category…
Correct. In respect to his divinity we will never be like Jesus. But with respect to his humanity, he is like his brothers in ever respect (Heb.2:14,17). And chalcedonian orthodoxy declares that his divinity does not mix with his humanity. Jesus is fully human like us. And he believed/had faith as a human. So if he believed as an infant, that at least tells us it’s possible that the Holy Spirit can give faith to other infants (i.e. faith is possible for infants of human nature like Jesus).
I think John the Baptist leaping in the womb was a supernatural sign wrought by the Holy Spirit for the benefit of the mothers. A confirmation of God being at work.
As Jesus had not yet been born, crucified and raised from the dead, and the Holy Spirit had not yet been poured out I don’t see how John was relevant to the question of the status of the unborn and babies in the sight of God and the issue of saving faith in the church era.
Exactly. And the same error is true of those who cite Jesus Himself to support their superstition about the salvation of unborn babies .
Thanks.
The New Testament explains clearly what it means to be a child of God under the New Covenant. The category “covenant child”, apart from the new birth, is one that the New Testament explicitly and repeatedly contradicts. See: https://david.dw-perspective.org.uk/da/index.php/a-question-for-baptists-answered/
Well I certainly agree with you on that!
@JRH: it is highly likely that your 12-year-old son already knows things about sex that you did not tell him. You might appreciate the book series “God’s Design for Sex” by Stan and Brenna Jones.
And Time For The Talk by Zolos.
Gloria,
I have been in the situation of receiving a settlement in a class action lawsuit and thought it was frivolous. When I received the check I donated the money to a local crisis pregnancy center that I support.
Just while I think of it–can anybody name a serious contemporary academic theologian or biblical scholar who is a Calvinist? The only names I hear tend to be of of noted American Evangelical bible teachers or apologists (e.g John White, John Piper, et al), but never of renowned scholars in top universities. One thinks of Karl Barth in the middle of the last century–but he was very much a post-calvinist who rejected TULIP doctrines and by Evangelical standards was theologically liberal.
If those are the names you’re hearing, it’s because you’re asking average Joes in churches, so you get answers in terms of the people that average Joes interact with (virtually!), which is perfectly reasonable. Have you asked evangelical *academics*? You’ll get some names if you merely ask ChatGPT….
Can you list any?
Tom Schreiner, Wayne Grudem, Lorraine Boettner, Jim Packer. A W Pink – not so sure!
I get the impression that many current Calvinists get their doctrine from reading the old Puritans and the confessions of faith. Getting more recent there is Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones.
Good point. Spurgeon and Lloyd-Jones of course were not scholars (the latter knew no Greek). Boetner belongs to a bygone century and would be unknown in academic circles (he also didn’t know what ‘transubstantiation’ is). Pink and Packer are essentially unknown devotional writers. Thomas Schreiner is a Reformed Baptist at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary–he is otherwise unknown. Calvinism is dead in the water and has no future resurrection because it can’t hold up under the pressure of serious theological critical examination.
Well, someone is bringing out a new English translation of the Institutes; there was one in the 1500s, two in the 1800s, one 1900s, and one upcoming. Why? Because he deals with the Bible, which does not change, and with human life. Faddish liberals come and go; he stays.
I’d prefer Calvin to liberals or faddish liberals any day.
In devotion to Christ, ability, hard work, experience, and wisdom Lloyd-Jones outshines most university professors. And he was trained as a medical doctor, a rigorous, scientific background. I myself have corrected a ThD who said Proverbs 16:9 when what he quoted was 16:4, or something like that. A professional may be missing something a lesser men sees, and when so, he had better listen to the lesser. (Let the 2nd prophet speak.) My notion of ‘reason’ is to offer reasons, as Peter requires. Yours seems to be to claim authority.
My original question was about how many contemporary academic biblical scholars and theologians (university based) are Calvinists outside Reformed Evangelical circles? To offer names like Martin Lloyd Jones, A W Pink, J I Packer, etc only proves my point: there aren’t any. By the way, I’m not questioning the integrity of Lloyd Jones, etc., just pointing out that Calvinism is now dead intellectually.
Not sure I’m understanding you here. I am not a Calvinist myself, but could you explain why academic biblical scholars and theologians have to be outside Reformed Evangelical circles to count? If they are Calvinists, in what other circles would you expect to find them?
Yes, what I’m saying is that Calvinism is a niche “sect” largely confined to American Evangelical circles. It has little or no influence in the wider Christian world and hence there are no internationally recognised Calvinist theologians or bible scholars to speak of today (not even in America–not at Harvard, Yale or even Princeton!–nor in distinguished European centres of learning). I’m not saying there aren’t Calvinist lecturers in US Calvinist seminaries or bible colleges, I’m just saying you’d be hard pressed to name one that is known and respected in the globally scholarly world.
Can I ask you to clarify your original comment? What do you mean by “top universities”? If you mean universities like Harvard/Yale, by definition there probably won’t be any Calvinistic scholars there – they won’t tolerate most Christians in general. Can you also explain what your criteria are for being a “scholar”? There are many brilliant Reformed theologians who study Greek and Hebrew.
About a hundred years ago, two of the most brilliant minds in the Netherlands were Reformed. Abraham Kuyper became the Prime Minister after pastoring a Reformed church for many years. Herman Bavinck is another brilliant reformed mind.
Yes, by “top universities” I’m talking about renowned global, historical centres of intellectual excellence where most of the world’s leading bible scholars and theologians are based–be they Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. I don’t deny there are Calvinists who can read biblical languages or that a hundred years ago–as well as back in the 16th & 17th century–their were people like Kuyper and Bavinck (whose volumes I have). But let’s be honest, who has heard of them today? Who reads them outside Evangelical Reformed circles (mainly in the US)? I don’t think it’s fair to say that places like Harvard and… Read more »
Brendan – I’m not trying to awkward but you have forgotten Wayne Grudem whom I would classify as a Calvinist academic. Carl Trueman perhaps should also be included.
Your basic point that Calvinism may well be a spent force is probably right. I think it might have become more widespread in Engalnd post Spurgeon as a reaction to increasing liberalism. There seems to be a circuit of celebrity preachers in the States who have been plugging it, and they may well be responsible for giving it a public face out of proportion to actual numbers.
I agree with that Ken, yes. Wayne Grudem is Reformed Baptist, but he doesn’t and has never held a post at a top university only in Evangelical seminary’s or institutions in the US. The same applies to Carl Trueman. Neither are in the top league of influential scholars, and to be fair, would be relatively unknown outside Reformed circles in America. But you are right: Some celebrity preachers in the US have drawn attention to Neo/New Calvinism–but their sphere of influence is largely confined to niche circles in the US.
Travis, think of the check as compensation for the fact that the malfeasance of the manufacturer put you at risk.
As Doug says, if the lawsuit was bogus, then this doesn’t apply. But if the risk was real and actually caused by the actions of the company, then yes, it’s reasonable that they owe you something for putting you in that position.
Thanks for your response. But I’d like to press the point: reneging on a business deal does not provide, in any sense, just cause for one nation to subvert another’s government and install a client regime. A broken contract is not good cause for war. That is an improper standard, and even if it were a good standard, the US not uphold it for itself, and therefore cannot be justified by it. We hold as sacrosanct the idea that one Congress cannot bind another. So to pretend that some other country acting as we regularly do justifies a hostile takeover… Read more »