Already Started
The article at this link is a case in point to your argument in “Suppose for Just a Moment That Trump Takes It Walking Away”:
The process has already begun.
Craig
Well, Craig, would you look at that.
“As mentioned above, I did not vote for the president in 2016. I did not vote for him because character matters, and because I did not trust him to do what he was promising to do . . . I have to acknowledge I was wrong in my evaluation of what would happen if Trump were elected . . . Not only wrong, but flat wrong.”
Same here and thank you for saying so. I’m sure there are those who did vote for Trump and would eagerly jump at the chance to say “I told you so!” (even though I would argue they most likely have no basis to say so), but, ultimately, I don’t even care about that.
The thing that put me over the hump has been the absolute derangement of the liberal God-haters, best described in your “Suppose for Just a Moment . . .” article: “I will interrupt you and say that these people don’t operate on the basis of evidence. They operate by weaving a narrative, and once the narrative is set, there they are—booted, spurred, and ready to ride.”
That living illustration of a Romans 1:28 way of thinking caused me to re-examine the actual facts surrounding their claims made about Donald Trump, and lo and behold, most if not all of them proved to be simply smoke in the wind. Very, very few people broadcast this in a publicly accessible way. Most simply advanced sub-par solutions to an imaginary dilemma, and all that did was end up causing confusion and angst among well-meaning, godly voters. Another example of modern evangelicalism ceding the battlefield and waging war on the world’s terms.
That has been an incredibly freeing discovery: turns out there’s not really a dilemma after all of having to hold your nose to vote for someone like Donald Trump. Praise God!
Guymon
Guymon, thanks.
The Sin of Recycling
I love how your insights always challenge and inform me, and I’m grateful for your willingness to plod on week after week in knocking us off balance when necessary. Perhaps this question is too far out of the current conversation, but here goes. I was reading Chapter Four of Angels in the Architecture, and I was surprised by your comment “Consider how agitated we get in our rush to assure our Enlightenment lords that scriptural faith endorses nothing so obviously embarrassing and unmodern and wicked as excommunication, the death penalty, patriarchalism, slavery, a young earth, and monarchy, or that Scripture condemns sodomy, public schools, recycling, or whatever else might make moderns shake their fingers at us.” OK, I get it all except the part about Scripture condemning recycling. I know there’s a lively debate about the merits of recycling, but I certainly will not continue bagging up my plastic bottles and aluminum cans if I need to repent for my hardness of heart in doing so. Thanks for any clarification you might offer.
Mark
Mark, everything hinges on how we define recycling. If someone uses every part of the buffalo, that’s just being thrifty. If someone saves scrap and finds good uses for it later, that’s just wisdom. But the coercive effort to get everybody to unnecessarily sort their garbage under threat of penalties and fines is simply tyranny, of the kind that ought to send us all down to city hall in order to sort the garbage.
Starting With Sowell
I have been a reader of your blog and a listener to your podcast for some time. And I know you highly regard Thomas Sowell. What, in your opinion, is his best book? If I could read them in any order what order would that be? Which ones do I need in my library?
Cheers
Jonathan
Jonathan, I would start with Vision of the Anointed. After that, no particular order.
A Question I Was Frankly Not Anticipating
Should women be Astronauts and get launched into space?
I have heard you teach Deuteronomy 22:5 as something akin to “a woman is not to wear a lineman’s tool belt.” I think I also remember you teaching it alongside Exodus 23:19 of not boiling a kid in its mother’s milk, the principle of not using something as the opposite of what God intended it for.
I’m wondering if this would, in principle, make it ungodly for women to participate in space missions. There could be many things to factor in that may change the answer one way or the other: Does the woman have a husband or kids? Is the mission one of exploration and high risk or is it one of trying to colonize the moon with an already established infrastructure to sustain life? Do typical job duties involve space walking and maintenance to the external parts of the ship?
As always, very appreciative of all you do.
Rope
Rope, I don’t believe women had any business in the initial frontier explorations of space. I believe that men ought to be the risk-takers when the risks are extraordinarily high. But at the same time, I believe that when we get to the point where we are thinking about colonies on the moon, we should remember that women are supposed to go everywhere that men do.
Fulfilled How Exactly?
In reference to the “Old Elements and the New Christian Aeon” article, would you be able to elaborate on how exactly 2 Peter and Jude contrast from each other concerning the new heavens and new earth, and how they indicate that it happened in the first century. I can imagine amillenialist brothers using these as proof texts that the world we live in as being in view here. Do original languages point to old and new covenant ages? I’m new to preterism.
Daniel
Daniel, here is the argument in short form. In Jude 17-19, he says that the apostles warned us about mockers that would appear in the last times. But if you read that section carefully, it becomes apparent that Jude is talking about scoffers that were misbehaving then, in his own day. So that creates the question, “last days of what?”
Admonition from a Friend
This note comes in response to your “2020 Vision” post, although it’s been brewing for a while.
I’ve read you for years and have appreciated most of it. Your writing has been significantly helpful to me many times, and I’m thankful to the Lord for you.
Lately, however, I’m becoming put off with how self-referential your writing has become. We all know you’re a good writer with a particular and enjoyable style, who tends to take certain (important) stands on certain (important) issues, and that’s why we’re reading you in the first place. So to what end are all the reminders that you know all of this just as well as we do?
I think of something C.S. Lewis said: “The moment good taste recognizes itself, some of its goodness is lost.”
The gratuitous “see what I just did” metaphors and self-references are beginning to feel like a literary equivalent of selfies. For what it’s worth, I’d enjoy your writing more, and suspect if would be more helpful to more people, if it were more self-forgetful.
Chris
Chris, thanks for the pointed observation. I will think and pray about it.
John Piper and Beth Moore?
I just became aware that your friend and fellow reformed pastor John Piper has for years (including this year) been a regular speaker at something called the PASSION CONFERENCE (hosted by Louie Giglio, pastor of Passion City Church in Atlanta, Ga), speaking alongside the likes of Beth Moore. Not only that, but I also found out that he actually sort of endorses Beth Moore’s ministry, stating that he thinks it is fine for men to sit under her teaching. In light of your past writings about Mrs. Moore in your blog, and in light of what the Bible says about women teaching men in general, I would be very interested to hear your take on this. Thank you.
Phillip
Phillip, I would say three things off the top of my head. First, I don’t know what John as said, one way or the other, so I can’t really respond. Secondly, if it is as you say, then I would differ with him. And third, keep in mind that a lot of disease in our circles has become a lot more obvious in the last five years or so. In other words, I would also want to take into account when the comments were made.
The Deal in Virginia
I think that Mr. Massie is addressing something that is squarely in your wheelhouse (regarding inferior/subordinate magistrates): “Somebody is going to jail,” Massie said. “And it’s probably going to be a public official. And God bless the public officials who are willing to do this so their constituents don’t have to.”
Gray
Gray, yes. I would refer everyone to Book 4 of the Institutes, and Calvin’s doctrine of the lesser magistrates.
What Bible Did Jesus Use?
Regarding: 2020 Vision/The Year Many Christians Began to See Clearly
You wrote:
“This means that we must resolve, before God, to have no problem passages.”
I know you are speaking largely of things like the slavery passages in the OT, or the wives submitting/women speaking passages in the NT. My struggle for truth here is from a different angle.
How do you respond to people (particularly Catholics) who say we are using a different Old Testament from Jesus?
An example they give: In Matthew 21:16, Jesus quotes the Septuagint Psalm 8:2 saying “Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have ordained praise,” rather than the Masoretic version of Psalm 8:2 which ends with “ordained strength” instead of “ordained praise.” In adopting the Masoretic text for Psalm 8:2, are we not saying that Jesus made a mistake, and quoted from an errant translation of the Scriptures? Or put more provocatively, that the Word himself made a mistake and quoted from an errant translation of the Word?
They have a whole slew of passages they use to ‘prove’ this point: 1 Peter 4:18 quoting Proverbs 11:31, Hebrews 11:21 quoting Genesis 47:31, Hebrews 10:5-7 quoting Psalm 40:6-8, Acts 13:41 quoting Habakkuk 1:5, Acts 7:42-43 quoting Amos 5:25-27, Acts 8:32-33 quoting Isaiah 53:7-8 and James 4:6 quoting Proverbs 3:34. In all those spots, the Septuagint and Masoretic significantly diverge, and the NT authors explicitly quote the Septuagint version.
My struggle is that scholars tell us the Masoretic is the more correct text, and any divergences between it and the Septuagint are translation errors introduced when the Septuagint was made. That’s why we give the Masoretic primacy in our modern Bible translations. And yet . . . Jesus and the NT authors, in the inspired and inerrant NT, quote from these divergent Septuagint texts as inspired Scripture. But my modern Bible translations (I’m using ESV) assumes the NT authors were incorrect to do so, and use the Masoretic text for virtually all of the above passages in the OT (e.g. Psalm 8:2).
How do I resolve this?
Emeth
Emeth, I hope my answer doesn’t confuse things for you further, but here it is in a nutshell. The Jews of the Dispersion used the Septuagint, and the Jews used the Hebraic OT. We can tell this from the fact that Jesus referred to the “blood of Abel” to the “blood of Zechariah,” which was basically giving us the A to Z, the table of contents — Genesis to 2 Chronicles. 2 Chronicles was the last book in their arrangement. The OT of Jesus and the apostles was identical to the Protestant OT, which gives me my baseline.
The Septuagint, however, was undoubtedly used by the apostles, and the Septuagint did contain additional books, along with the variant readings that are creating the question you ask. Remember that Jesus taught in Aramaic, and so the gospel accounts we have are not original, but are rather translations into Greek. And in many cases, in that rendering the Septuagint was used.
Here is the nub. I reject the idea of a sole autograph having sole authority, which I regard as an Enlightenment shift. That would create the problem you are dealing with. Is it “my ear you have pierced” or a “body you have prepared”? My answer is that both are canonical, and both are the Word of God.
Reading Habits?
No editorial comments here . . . just wanted to ask about your reading schedule and habits. What do those look like?
Clif
Clif, in the mornings when I don’t have a early meeting, which is most of them, I do my Bible reading, and chip away at three other books. Then Nancy and I have our time in the Word together, reading aloud, and we read passages from a few other works at the same time. I have a small collection of books at my office that I try to read a bit from during the course of the day. And then, if there is time free in the evenings, I have a line-up of books I am working through.
What Do We Get to Keep?
Thank you for your faithful ministry, and for your books Heaven Misplaced and When the Man Comes Around. After reading those titles, I have come to believe that historical optimism is taught in God’s Word. However, I am still struggling with some implications.
What place does secular music have in the City of God, especially as it matures over the whole earth? If the Lord promises to fill the earth with the knowledge of His name and the obedience of the nations, should we not do our best to obliterate every song and piece that distracts us from God? That is, no more Beethoven, Chopin, Wagner, Gershwin, Bernstein, Williams, and so on? No more of Bach or Handel except for their sacred pieces, such as Messiah? What will the fully matured New Jerusalem sound like?
Am I too radical?
I look forward to your response! Thank you
Chris
Chris, no, I would move in another direction. Of course I believe that foul entertainments will be removed, but simple diversions will no longer divert us from giving glory to God. In other words, if you listen to a glorious piece of music that was not composed (explicitly) with the glory of God in mind, you can rectify that in the listening.
Questions and Thanksgiving
There are three things to mention, the last of which is not related to the first two.
I’ve been down this road before in the letters section, or at least down an adjacent road, but I feel I must ask this question regarding a recent letter asking you about works and justification and a link to R. Scott Clark’s blog. The question is this: Who do you think you are to tell Dr. Clark what you believe? The chuztpah on this Wilson guy . . . I tell ya.
On a little more serious note, is there any chance those of us in the peanut gallery might get a chance to see you and Dr. Clark sit down and hammer some of these issues out in some format and at some point pre-eschaton? Or is there unwillingness on one or both ends and possibly too much water under the bridge?
Thirdly, I thought you might like to hear that one of my two sons came to faith in Christ a little over a year ago while listening to a sermon by a guy named Doug Wilson. I think it was called “Honest With God.” So, from one dad to another, from a human standpoint, thank you. Thank you for being an instrument in the Spirit’s hand.
Andrew
Andrew
Andrew, on your last point, thank the Lord, and give my regards to your son. On the prospect of sitting down with Scott Clark, I would be happy to, but he refuses to interact directly. We have offered in numerous ways to organize an exchange, but he won’t do it.
Re: “John Piper and Beth Moore?”
The remarks to which I referred in my letter were made in 2010, so they are a bit dated (https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/is-it-wrong-for-men-to-listen-to-female-speakers).
However, John did appear at the same Passion Conference with her at the beginning of this year.
Thank you,
Phillip
“Chris, thanks for the pointed observation. I will think and pray about it.”
Hey Wilson, I see what you did there!😏
(FYI, apparently, people who are genuinely “self-forgetful”, never use any personal pronouns!)😉
And the comments in that first linked article make the case further. Critical thinking appears to be on life support in some areas of society.
Regarding Lunar Colonization: It is very likely that anyone conceived and gestated on the Moon would not have a body that could withstand Earth gravity. The Moon has one sixth Earth’s gravity and Mars has one third. The space station in 2001 a Space Odyssey potentially could provide enough gravity for a safe pregnancy due to the centripedal force of the spinning, , but unless artificial gravity is developed, I wouldn’t recommend a long term colony on the Moon.
While I think that someone conceived and gestated in a lower gravity situation would have some trouble adjusting to earth’s gravity, I think that with calcium, vit d, hormone therapy (predominantly estrogen) and some conditioning, one could make the switch in a matter of months, providing it was done at an early enough age – say under 50 for women and 70 for men. But with the hormone therapy it could possibly be done later. This is assuming there are not other interfering medical factors. Someone with a medical condition that prohibited the therapy would have a harder time. On… Read more »
A valid question. I did consider that. My thought is that body plans are genetic and would not differ much, if any, based on development in low gravity. But there may be a larger environmental factor than I think. But I could be wrong.
It would be cool if they were different though.
Nice. I’ve been reading a lot of early science fiction. I havent gotten to Heinlein yet but looking forward to it. It seems like it would be easy enough for NASA to breed some animals in the ISS. Maybe they have already.Of course we walk upright so you wouldn’t exactly know, but it would still shed some light on the question.
But I dont think there would be continuous changes over mulitple generations. All the changes – or nearly all – would come in the first generation. Because the genes aren’t going to change. AT least not that fast.
The issue that is often raised in the various sf stories is whether lower or higher gravity would affect prenatal development of bones and muscles.
I’d have to disagree with Chris on “2020 vision.” I thought it was such a helpful summary on a worldview that the evangelical church so desperately needs to hear. And the fact that these truths are so clear and are still being neglected (christian education, not believing certain passages “submission,” etc.) shows the church needs the wakeup call, likely with a few adjectives:)