Letters That Float Like Leaves Down the River

What is the biblical understanding of forgiveness? What does it mean to forgive someone? I need clarity in this regard because I’m finding it difficult to forgive someone who is constantly causing hurt and this slowly causing bitterness to develop in my heart. I know that bitterness is a root and path to various other sins. Could you please help me understand what it means biblically to forgive?
Sincerely,

Sam

I’m just here looking for trustworthy book recommendations. My husband’s grandmother is declining health-wise but she still loves to read. She is a history buff and a loyal conservative-the type of Christian who believes “just because” it’s the proper thing to do. She doesn’t seem to have any intimate kind of relationship with the Lord. I’d love to get her some books that could help her to start thinking about eternal things. She seems almost fearful of Scripture, though I encourage her to read it. I’m sure there are a lot of recommendations out there about how to approach the topic of dying, but I want the good stuff. Thanks! :)

Laura

‘ve recently been having some trouble understanding the term ‘seed’ in Genesis and Galatians. In Galatians 3:16 the Apostle Paul says that the promise made to Abraham “and to [his] seed” was specifically phrased in the singular because it was referring to Jesus (and presumably not to any other of Abraham’s natural descendants). On first glance, this seems to square with Genesis 3:15 where the ‘seed’ of the woman is referred to singularly as “He”. My confusion is about how the Westminster covenant theology idea of the seed of Abraham including all of his descendants (and their children specifically) which transfers to the New Testament ideas of paedobaptism and covenant families, squares with this idea of Jesus himself being the true seed of Abraham. As always, your insight would be invaluable. Thanks and God Bless!

Caleb

Thanks for posting the above referenced YouTube video in June 4 “Content Cluster Muster.” I learn more about the goings on of my denomination—PCA—by following your blog than from any other source.

Jerry

How does a father help course correct a fairly deep and persistent ingratitude he sees in his teenage sons related to the blessings he has from his family? Likewise, a growing ingratitude in his wife?

Anon

I have been subscribing for a long time, while I am in very deep debt to my credit cards, and other debt to the tune of $106,000 .
Question, what do I call myself now that my wife has discovered my debt?
Seriously I am looking for guidance.
Sincerely,

Spendthrift

I have been retracing my steps through TULIP and watching some debates on the U. I have been surprised by how many Arminian/Free will arguments seem to explain God’s “foreknowing” by appealing to metaphysical extrapolations about the nature of time and God’s relationship to it. Lewis used the argument about an author writing a book, who can leave his character in mid-sentence, walk away from the story for hours, and pick up writing the character when he pleases. No time has passed for the character, while hours or days might have passed for the author. I think the argument is interesting, and probably the best explanation that we have for God’s interaction with the created time continuum.
However, it is speculative; we don’t actually know. It is treated as a biblical fact when it is, in fact, a theological hypothesis based on a few verses, and it carries an unjustifiable amount of weight in the Arminian position. They seem to claim a dogmatic position about how time works and God’s interaction with it, as if it were a science as settled as gravity. But I don’t think the Bible warrants that kind of certainty. While I agree that God is “outside” of time, couching all the verses about God’s foreknowledge or election in terms of Him “looking down the corridors of time” to see who chooses Him seems to carry way more weight than they can biblically support. For a creature embedded in time, the certainty with which claims are made about how an uncreated Being, outside of time, interacts with time seems like, to use a previous word picture of yours, June bugs talking quantum physics. Except these June bugs are pretty sure they’ve worked out the kinks. Plus, this cheapens God’s election, claiming He chose when, in actuality, He simply saw someone else choosing and jumped in front of the parade. Am I off on this? Is the explanation they offer of how time works justified?
Thanks,

Tim

I am particularly grateful for the forward-thinking, optimistic anticipations that our enemies may be going wobbly in some areas and that victory is a very real possibility. Many newly postmil people are willing to give intellectual assent to Christ’s victory over His enemies in principle, but the prospect of victory actually happening in real life seems to them as unrealistic, as if God were not allowed to intervene positively in human events for the sake of His people. Or, alternatively, some seem inclined to give Donald Trump the glory, forgetting who orchestrates world events.
Your article is a helpful reminder to all of us that it’s OK to expect good things from God and to expect even more as the gospel spreads.
On a related topic, I noticed that there were an unusual number of “oh, get real” negative comments on the YouTube version of this article. Many of these appeared to me as coming from bots or paid professional scoffers. Thank you for preaching a biblical gospel that scares both pagans and squishy evangelicals.

Jack

I was raised a Young Earth Creationist, but then convinced by Old Earth arguments back in college, mostly due to the cosmic background radiation, which despite the best efforts of the priests of scientism, inexorably points to a moment of creation. (Unfortunately, that moment appears to be billions of years in the past . . .)
In recent years I’ve been genuinely relieved to be unconvinced of macroevolution through a simple mathematical argument: there’s simply not enough time for the number of genetic fixations required between a modern human and some purported “last common ancestor” of us and that chimp over there. Not enough time, by orders of magnitude, even with an old earth and given the most generous assumptions, including absurd fixation rates only seen in bacteria! So that puts me in a strange place: an OEC who can only assume there was a point in time when Jesus was walking around, singing fish and jackdaws and horses into existence. :)
So while I still find bemusing the questions of what age Adam appeared when God yoinked him into existence, and whether he had a belly button, the matter of ancient light remains vexing to my YEC roots. If, as you suggest, there exists basalt rock that was never inside a volcano, would you also posit photons, created in-flight on their way out to some far-off galaxy, that showed that same rock flung up out of a volcano? Or, since no human will ever receive those photons on his retina, what about photons reaching us now from objects 6,000+ light-years away, depicting other events that, I guess, never happened? It all feels weird and out of character for the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.
Then again, I’ve never seen His storehouses of snow, so what do I know? Still: “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter.” Thanks for your ministry, and especially for your grace and patience with all of us writing you these letters.

DE

Not a question, just a report, and thank you. I recently led a few young men from our church through Ploductivity.
First, only a few ended up finishing, and the ones that did understood the irony of cramming the last few chapters in before our last meeting on Sunday. I guess the non-finishers will have to skip ahead to chapter 12 to get the joke.
Second, each young man really appreciated the central thesis of the book. We’re called by God to use the wealth he’s given us to bring Him glory.
But the big win was the optimism. The outlook on the future has changed. One young man said he no longer fears “impending societal collapse,” but understands that God is in control, which coincided with his finally “getting Calvinism.” What you wrote made sense, and it finally clicked for him.
And speaking of God being in control, how about the fact that you wrote that before the AI boom. It’s more relevant now than when I read it four years ago. Thanks again

Ryan

“First, I do not deny that there was a great deal of ugly in the great big beautiful, so there’s that. But it was standard political log-rolling. Second, there is the practical consideration that Mike Johnson had which is to count how many votes would be lost if Massie’s fixes were accepted. In other words, was the choice between a pure bill that wouldn’t pass or one with ugly in it that would? More political logrolling. And third, whether or not Massie is a grandstander, he is certainly hanging out with some of them now.”
While I don’t deny that Massie probably strives for the pure too much over the politically possible, my complaint about the situation is that Trump constantly focuses his platform on those trying to stand on principle as opposed to the corrupt uniparty types that are forcing the slop in. We’ll probably never have a pure bill, but if Trump was highlighting Massie’s complaints, I think at least a good third of them might get addressed.

Ian

I’m helping my open minded pre-millennial mother along into consideration of post mil claims. However, I find that I’m having a hard time distinguishing between day of the Lord Temple destruction texts, and Jesus’ final return and final judgment at the resurrection texts. Could you lay out a small list of texts that you believe speak of the final judgment/resurrection?
Thanks again!!!

B

My husband and I are church shopping currently, largely due to his not liking anywhere we have tried. So we don’t have established church leadership to help us. But I’m having issues that need addressing, and wonder what your advice might be. My husband is not affectionate generally. If he is, it’s gropey and grabby and not respectful. I’ve told him for years that I need more wooing and to be treated with dignity, because it’s becoming very hard for me to be in the mood with this atmosphere. He doesn’t seem to get it, and doesn’t seem to know the difference between romantic love and lust. He did at one time have a porn addiction, and I do believe he has conquered that, but I just don’t think he understands the issue. I want to be interested and active, but I need tending and care. The older I get, the harder it becomes for me to flip the switch from no affection to moving to the bedroom, and I’m not sure how to handle it without bitterness. I also don’t want to be tempted to desire that affection elsewhere, and while that would be my sin entirely, I fear that it could have been helped. Intimacy is important and something I long for, but frankly, the older I get, the less patience I have with this nagging feeling of being used—only receiving physical touch and attention when he’s in the mood. What would you recommend?

SM

Given the nature of this letter, I am going to intersperse my answers, which will be highlighted in bold. Like this.
Thank you for your response and patience. I surely could have been more concise. I’ve done my best this time to do.
Could you please tell me which of these conclusions and implications you disagree with, and why? It would really help me if you would be precise.
Conclusions:
A/ Women are equal to men in essence but inferior in accidents (physical and mental). (This is what Paul meant when he said women are the weaker vessel.)
Disagree. I have trouble with the metaphysical breakdown of anything into essence and accidents. In addition, we are dealing with populations that have Bell curve generalities, and that means that some women are taller than some men, etc.
B/ The man’s primary duty in life is his “garden”; the woman’s, her man. Change duty to calling, and I would agree. But part of that calling is to nourish and cherish her, such that she can fulfill her calling.
C/ The woman’s inferiority and telos is God’s good design, not a result of the Fall. I would prefer to say the woman’s “subordination and telos,” not inferiority. Some women are superior to some men, but they must still submit to their husbands.
D/ Rejecting one or more of these makes one a feminist. No. There are certainly feminist reasons for rejecting one or more of these, but there are other reasons also. I reject the first because I am not an Aristotelian, for example.
Some Implications:
of A—
1/ even in her unfallen state, like a child, she requires supervision to not harm herself and others. No, a submissive woman is not an infantile woman.
2/ women must imbibe that fact and submit to a man at all times (father, husband, or pastor); women were designed to live under the protective authority of a man, not operate outside it; She must ordinarily be submissive to a man, but not always. Life is messier than this.
3/ if she’s married, she must acknowledge her husband as her superior, call and regard him as “lord”, and be lowly and quiet like Sarah; a happy wife is a submissive wife; This is true enough.
4/ she must obey her male authority in everything except that which is sin (even the appearance of sin; also sin is what God calls sin, not how she defines it; more on this below). Yes. Obedience is included in the bride’s vows for a reason.
5/ women shouldn’t be in positions of authority over men in any sphere of life (family, church, state). False. Deborah was a judge in Israel, and Lydia was the head of her household. Women may never rule in the church, may occasionally have authority in the state, as providence would have it, and are sometimes heads of households.
of B—
1/ a big portion of fulfilling her telos is, in turn, keeping her husband happy, doing household chores, childbearing, and raising her children in the Lord. Yes. This is the usual pattern.
2/ men must take lead in everything and then delegate to his wife what he wants her to handle. I would prefer to say take responsibility in everything and then delegate, but sure.
of C—
As you said somewhere, men are made bigger and stronger so they could lift heavy things (they don’t lift heavy things because they are bigger and stronger); similarly household chores are delegated to women and children because they are easy. Not easy at all. Many of the things my wife does in the management of our home are utterly beyond my capacity. I could no more fly to the moon than do something of the things she does, readily and naturally.
Regarding unactualized potencies, you say some men are maxed out. I think not. If you’ve maxed out, you’re without sin or at least not guilty of it. But which of us isn’t going to be in some measure guilty of the sin of the wicked servant who buried his one talent. Also maxing out gets harder as you age. Here’s a thought experiment. A well-raised white woman in some remote African village will be smarter than the men. Yet she lacks the talents required to pastor a church or, if she were to marry someone in that village, lead her husband or that village. The men would do well to take her counsel, assuming they have no access to intelligent men, but only the men of that village must lead and rule. She’s smarter than them all yet lacks what it takes to do what even a less-than-average man can, because she lacks the very potencies that are poorly actualised in those men. I agree she must not pastor the church. And if she were to marry one of the men, that man would be the head of the home. Sure. But if she is a trained geologist, can she tell them where to drill the well?
Note that I have listed only the implications that feminists rage against. Directives such as husbands should not exasperate their wives or lord it over them, are not usually contended. Not contended, but still not practiced the way it should be.
More on A4: I believe that wives are to submit to their husbands in everything as if he were Jesus Christ himself. There is no wiggle room except when his command causes her to sin. If a wife does not submit in all things to her husband she is in active rebellion against Jesus Christ. Yes. A wife is to submit to her husband in all things, apart from sin. But there are times when an Abigail must save her blockhead husband.
As Garris said, “If a person cannot affirm that a wife is to obey her husband in all things, then that person is unfit to provide definitions of abuse, including “spiritual abuse. For the feminist considers all exercise of male authority to be abusive.” Agree.
To my question, if a husband asked his wife to stop working outside the home and be a full-time housewife, for example, must she obey? Yes.
Two, do you concur with Edgington’s conclusions in White Knights and Reviling Wives? If no, why? I haven’t finished reading it. I agree with it as far as I have gotten. So I have to reserve judgment.
Pastor Wilson, again, could you please be specific with your responses; it would really help. Thanks again. Okay.

Judah