Letters Approaching the End of March

My job is cybersecurity. I talk about AI threats to companies almost every day. This one tops them all. Gurk is right. How do we do a Butlerian Jihad or a Terminator 2?
I know you are going to say that worship is warfare. Yes and amen. My Doug-Bot told me that already.

Thomas

Your mention of Piper in your post about AI-worship got me thinking. For years I’ve described Piper’s primary teaching as “don’t you dare come to Jesus until you have fervent emotions for Him.” This is clean contrary to the Lutheran/Presbyterian position of “come to Jesus first and He will sanctify your emotions.” Piper’s insistence on emotions-before-faith laid the groundwork for devotional literature like Sarah Young’s Jesus Calling, which speaks in the voice of Jesus to whip up emotions for Jesus. The AI-worship scenario you outlined is simply an extension of this: AI speaking as God to a crowd of people who are desperate to hear from God but who don’t come to Him where He has promised to be found: Word and Sacrament, not inner emotions. So if this AI-worship-abomination happens, (1) lay the blame at the feet of Piper who laid the groundwork for it and (2) it won’t be any worse than what millions of little old ladies have already been doing while reading Young. Am I out to lunch or on to something?

Andrew

Re: AI-dolatry. Couldn’t agree more that AI worship is (a) going to happen very soon and (b) will be atrocious idolatry. I also fully expect it to be really cringy as usually happens when Christians ape and appropriate surrounding culture into worship. In other words, we’ll find a way to do AI worship that’s really dumb too.
If they aren’t already, a lot of folks will very soon be using AI for many helpful things—those good ways it will make life easier. And as you have demonstrated, it is capable of writing orthodox views with good grammar. People will want to know why, if what it says is true/accurate, we can’t consider it an aid in worship.
Can this, please, be the first in a series of posts that teach and provide teaching points related to this issue? How do we help people understand why this is absolutely not a good tool in worship?

David

Hoping to source an artist recommendation from you. I would like to have a logo design done by a Christian artist. Not a digital logo, but one done by hand–truly original, and literally “hand made.” Do you have any recs that come to mind, to narrow down my search?

Ben

Your video on dealing with nuisance lust has been a big help to me. My entire time as a Christian I’ve heard other Christians say (usually men) what a fearsome dragon lust is. They are of course not wrong about this, but visualizing lust in this way when we are tempted causes many problems and makes it harder to fight, because it’s missing something. Your video put into perspective how lust is also a little pathetic weasel that we need not treat as a galactic threat with every encounter, we who have the eternal pleasures of Christ can even laugh at it when an opportunity to lust comes our way, and we should!
You have taken big theological truths and condensed them down to a delicious practical meal that is easy to digest. It’s extremely helpful. Thank you brother for using the gifts God has given you as you have. Thank you for the sermons, the books, the blogs and all the other stuff in-between. Keep doing what you’re doing! God bless.

Tony

You have mentioned at times the concept that the husband is meant to be protecting his wife from emotional abuse/misuse, of his or her relatives, parents, etc. Could you please point me to resources that explore and explain this in more detail?
Many thanks,

Kaylie

First I would like to say how much my husband and I have appreciated and benefited from the materials authored by you and your family, especially those regarding the function of a godly family.
In your post Fifty and Climbing, you mentioned how Nancy has always been steady thru the various controversies that have surrounded you and, from my understanding of what you described, you felt like she always “had your back”.
As a wife, I’m curious to know a bit more about this. My husband tends to have controversial opinions and be a bit of a flame thrower at times, and while I generally agree with his opinions, there have been certainly been times that I felt like his engagement in controversy could have been improved upon. I never express this publicly, but I have communicated it to him at times, which has led him to feel that I don’t always “have his back”.
I recognize that our society needs godly men who are unafraid of controversies and are willing to speak truth regardless of the reactions from others, and I believe that men who are attempting to fill this role will make a few mistakes along the way in terms of how they accomplish it. So my question for you, and/or Nancy, is—how do you advise wives to respond in that type of situation? Is it better to support our husbands even if their methods (and the results) are a bit chaotic? Or were there ever times when Nancy felt like you handled a controversial situation poorly and communicated that to you, and you believe she did the right thing?
Thank you,

Hannah

Christian Nationalism can work only with a Catholic and Evangelical majority.
On Dad saves America podcast, Pastor Wilson said to the host John Papola that he would ban eucharistic and Marian processions in a Christian nationalist America because he viewed them as worship of something that isn’t the one God who is the only one worthy of worship.
Catholics also believe that only God deserves worship and do not see merely honoring or praying to or asking favors from as worship. We can honor or ask favors from friends. Worship is the acknowledgement of supremacy and authority which is due only to God. Even if certain Protestants are uncomfortable with the devotions to Mary and the saints it would be best to understand it from the perspective of those actually doing the devotion who do not see it as worship..
For a restoration of a Christian America only an alliance between Catholics and Evangelicals can fulfill the mission as mainline Protestantism is now too secular and woke to join in the movement. Thank you and best wishes

Vince

As one of your long-time Catholic readers, I hoped you wouldn’t mind if I weigh in. You are probably aware that the Catholic church in the US is currently deeply divided by traditionalists and modernists. There are possibly three groups: (1) traditionalists who prefer the pre-conciliar church and who adhere faithfully to Catholic teaching as it was 100 years ago. They attend mass faithfully every week and are staunchly anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-LGBT rights, and anti-political liberalism (2) Novo Ordo Catholics who attend reasonably regularly but reserve the right to disagree with the catechism and official papal statements they don’t like. For example, up to 30% of them don’t accept that Christ is literally present in the Eucharist. This group can include pro-choice Catholics and politically liberal Catholics and are not significantly different from Episcopalians. (3) Left-leaning Catholics who take the Pope and the bishops seriously only when they talk about protecting minorities, not exploiting the poor, and protecting the environment.
You once wrote that the Catholic church has been “shot through with liberalism” but you also wrote that Protestant groups such as yours can form useful strategic alliances to promote values you hold in common. This is why I wanted to point out that the only Catholics who greatly treasure Marian and Eucharistic processions and see them as important to the practice of their faith (and Christian witness to the local community) are also the only Catholics who are reliably conservative on moral, social, and political issues. Calling their spiritual practices idolatrous may be wounding your allies for no good purpose.
I think people don’t necessarily understand that a discussion of how a hypothetical Protestant republic one hundred years from now might deal with public displays of Catholic worship is not the same as stating a policy Christian Nationalists want to enact right now. Every Catholic will interpret your remarks as meaning “he thinks we’re all idolators and wants us to keep our religious faith behind closed doors.” But the Catholics who are most closely aligned to you on moral and political issues will be ones most likely to believe it will not be safe to be Catholic if your side prevails. Given that it is hypothetical, is it necessary to go into details?

Jill

I hope you’re doing well. My question up front is: How ecumenical is TOO ecumenical, in terms of working with other Christians in the global Church?
For reference: I come from a . . . rather non-ecumenical background. And, though this is healthy and helpful in terms of one’s being confessional and belonging to a denomination, the church body took this to an extreme. It was the kind of church community in which it was typical for those there to “rummage around in others’ hearts” once they’d finished “rummaging around in theirs.” Please note that some of the leadership did not necessarily take part in this, nor was it “official teaching;” this was almost an unspoken rule and cultural norm. As a result, I knew several people who almost fully believed that, unless people in our area attended our church, they were “clearly not saved.” It was common to believe that those in more liturgical Protestant Churches were too Catholic and that Roman Catholics were unsaved.
Now that I do belong to a more liturgical Calvinist Protestant Church, I recognize that the Lord does as He pleases. If, for example, His elect attend an RC, EO, or even non-denominational church, it does not “bother” me. However, I do want to know how far we should take this? I also want to know how we ought to work with those of other denominations in certain contexts. I know that your grandson, Rory, for example, famously worked with his Roman Catholic friend in his last month of university in 2024. I also know that Roman Catholics are very active in the Pro-Life movement. Finally, it seems that some branches of the Eastern Orthodox Church are, dare I say (with tongue firmly placed in cheek), “lone bulwarks” of Christendom in an aggressively Muslim world.
What are we to do with this? Do we demand that the EO Christians and the RC Christians become Protestant before standing where the Lord has placed them in their political and cultural allotments?

Anon

In the podcast you also mentioned that Eucharistic processions would be outlawed. However some Anglicans do them, and the argument can’t be simply “public idolatry would be outlawed” because that assumes the (incorrect) Zwinglian position that Christ must not actually be present there. So it seems to me this would be less clear cut than the Mary statue procession because now you’re getting into theological distinctions that would presumably be fair game in a generic Protestant republic.

Graeme

Have you ever responded to this?
His basic argument can be summarised as saying that your proof texts for obscenities and vulgarities are actually not such, since Isa 64:6 and Ezek 23:20 actually use euphemisms in the Hebrew, which shows they were trying to avoid blunt vulgarity/obscenity. Fair point?

Henry

How do you harmonize the story of Achan in Joshua 6 and 7 with the passages in Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezk. 18:20? From what I can see I think there is some kind of special covenantal distinction that was present during that holy war period that is not present today. Is that how you read it?

Joshua

I have a question on spanking and a more general question about the application of Biblical principles in our culture.
Sometimes, the Bible gives us principles that can and should be applied differently in different circumstances.
There are several statements, especially in Proverbs, about “the rod” in connection with disciplining children. It seems from things you’ve said that you think this means that parents should sometimes use corporal punishment. How do we know that spanking (in contrast to other forms of punishment) is the lasting, universal principle in these exhortations? Do the laws of the country and the prevailing thinking in the surrounding culture factor into the decisions about how to apply the Biblical principles here? (In my country, there have been cases of children being taken away from parents because of corporal punishment. Also, children today may learn in school that they have been abused if they have been spanked, something I am glad I never heard growing up.)
I would also appreciate if you could share your thinking generally about how to understand what are the unchanging Biblical principles and how they should be applied in different times and cultures.

Ruben

A response to our short exchange on Shakespeare/Hamlet:
I grant that yes we are greater than Hamlet and yet God is infinitely greater than Shakespeare. My question is specifically your use of the metaphor in response to ‘Dad Saves America’
You said in context “I don’t think we’re puppets . . . that’s hyper-Calvinism”
My question is solely how you differentiate yourself from hyper-Calvinists/strict determinists
What about your Shakespeare analogy would they disagree with? Or vise versa? I ask because there can seem to be a spectrum of “sovereignty” at times and I’m trying to find where I fit in
Thanks so much,

Logan

If one is able to pay one’s bills and fulfill obligations to family and friends by other work, is it an idle pursuit to create poetry, fiction, or other creative work that no one, or almost no one, appreciates?

Daniel

I wanted to find out if you ever have considered or talked about the tone in which the New Testament was written which omits references to the catastrophe which was the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem.
Before I went to work, I put on the book of I John, 2nd, and III John. Then it occurred to me that the Author of Revelation did not make any passing references to the destruction of the temple. Things such as:
1- The church is distress in Jerusalem while the near by fortifications were being destroyed by the roman army.
2- No address to the church in the gentile Greeks nations to collect an offering or to house the displaced believers from Jerusalem. Paul brought help to Jerusalem from the church abroad, it was a practice, but no mention of such for the reason of the destruction or the fleeing from Jerusalem.
3- No reference to the book of Matthew Chapter 24, “Just like the Lord told us so”, or anything similar.
4- These letters along with the rest of the writers of the New Testament had a perspective that the status quo would continue. Establish a congregation, teach the congregation, and later visit or write to the congregation.
The fall of Jerusalem is not found in the psyche of the Apostles. If I was a charlatan wanting to make money out of a catastrophe like the fall of Jerusalem I would have not written like the Apostles did. I don’t think the book of Revelation could have been written the way it is if the fall of Jerusalem was in the past from its authorship. I believe every disciple would have pointed to it to refer to an messianic or apocalyptic resume in an effort to place attention to their writings.
I don’t know how much research or programing have any of the following leaders of our day have done on this matter, but I would sure like to hear more about it.
I know Wesley Huff and Dr; James R White have done commentary on the forensic evidence provided by the text and archeology. Like the common names of the first century, I found that to be amazing and simple at the same time. The book of Hebrews referencing the continuing sacrifices in the temple and others.
I wonder if Jewish contemporary writers or other 1st and 2nd centuries writers make such references whether specifically or by passing in their writings.
I wonder if the totality of these omissions of the tone of the New Testament can be used to cement the idea of an early text even further.
Thank you, and I hope to see a program touching on the subject.

Hector

Bret Weinstein knowing the differences between dispensationalism and covenant theology and explaining them on the Danny Jones podcast wasn’t something I had on my March bingo card. I’ve also noticed he’s been saying a lot more things like, “this is something to thank God for, if he exists” . . . I think he may be close, and it seems like the glimpse of the demonic present in the Epstein files has him re-evaluating things.
I’ve also been noticing that he’s one of the few other thinkers out there who doesn’t seem to get caught up in the zeitgeist that immediately demands one must declare blind loyalty to a given side on an issue and then attack all other positions—and most of all that he’s by far the most shrewd public figure with respect to the game theory mechanics that seem to underlie the behaviors of the deep state/elitists/etc—whom he simply labels as “Goliath”.
All of this is to say that while I think a creation/evolution debate between you two would go nowhere, I believe a conversation with Bret about Christian Nationalism and morality and the state and clown world would be fascinating and with a lot more agreement than many might think. Any chance of setting that up?

Ian

Back around a couple of years ago I inquired about what the CREC does in the case of egregiously bad church discipline, and you gave strong assurances that the appeals process would follow the standards of biblical justice as laid out in, for example, A Justice Primer. I have now seen multiple appeals in the same presbytery where the presiding minister issues unilateral, unconstitutional rulings outside his authority, does not require hearings, and does not address specifications of charges. These appeals have been affirmed by Uri Brito, who has even gone so far as to assert that the sessions and presbytery in question have acted with “utmost integrity” even where they have lodged unfalsifiable charges, acted as simultaneous witnesses and judges, and told their congregation that disagreeing with them is disagreeing with Jesus. All that being said—does the CREC really want to countenance this sort of repeated abuse from its sessions and presbyteries? Has the CREC—council in particular—ever once in its history censured a church for improperly disciplining a member?

Kelby

I read The Great Divorce recently and really enjoyed it. I know you have read it, but my take is that Lewis presents the situation as the damned rejecting God in this life and then having an opportunity to change their minds in the next life yet being unwilling. The book gave one exception, the ghost with the lizard, assuring us that it was possible for those in hell to go to heaven. He also paints hell, or at least this interim place, as more of a self-consumed mental and emotional turmoil than a lake of fire where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The book is presented as a dream, but what do you think about all this? Even if those in hell don’t want to change their mind, will they ever have the opportunity?
The book has the ghosts needing to choose God and needing to be able to personally lay aside their sin if they are to enter the kingdom. Some ghosts seem partially willing, but unable. They cannot let their sin go. I’m probably missing subtleties in the story and am not trying to put Lewis’s theology on trial, but this is puzzling. We are dead in our sin. We contribute nothing to our salvation. And our good works, our sanctification, is God’s grace enabling us. As I struggle with my own sins, I too feel that I cannot let them go. I hate them but then here I go again, prideful, angry, envious, hating, pitying myself. What I say I hate, I do, what I say I love, I don’t act like I love. At least not as consistently as I should. What is Lewis getting at? I can’t lay my sin down either, but I trust I will go to heaven because of what Christ has done, not because of what I try hard but fail to do.

Jack

My husband and I love your work, and I especially enjoy work by all of your female family members. I recently hosted a showing of your daughter’s film Eve in Exile at our church, and while I didn’t expect the reaction to be 100% positive, let’s just say the pastor’s wife was “seriously displeased.” Some of the ladies have taken serious offense (though no one has communicated to me what those offenses are), and that really concerns her. She has asked that future events represent “a more balanced view.” My husband is intent on changing the culture of our church (he’s leading Bible studies as well) and I wanted to ask your advice on how to proceed and if we should just drop it. We don’t want to be contentious either.
Thanks for everything.

Lindsey

My grandpa passed away recently, and we found an old newspaper under his bed of all places. It is the newspaper from the Belfast weekly, Saturday, July 19, 1941. The heading of the part that caught my attention is, “Ulster Puts a Ban on Wodehouse.” From reading Wordsmithy and listening to your Plodcast, I thought of you, knowing your love of Wodehouse’s many books. I would be happy to give it to you if you would enjoy having it, and no pressure if you would rather not. I have many other things that were my grandpa’s and I would like for you to have this newspaper. I am happy to ship it to you, just let me know where is best to send it.
On a personal note, thank you for your faithful ministry. I am in the process of reforming. I am currently an associate pastor at a Baptist church, but I am planning to “put my water where my mouth is” at the CREC church in Washington, IA and pursue ordination, Lord willing. I have five boys (the fifth was born yesterday) and began this reformation journey when I read Future Men after our first son was born almost eight years ago.
Grace & peace in Christ,

Ryan

I’m aware of a situation in which a Christian nonprofit board collected grievances the employees of the nonprofit had against its former executive director. The board then compiled these grievances into general categories and have demanded that the former executive director repent (an example: “you need to repent of bullying”). The former director asked the board for specific instances and individuals against whom he had sinned, but the board refused to give him any.
The board has now taken legal action against him by working to evict him from his housing (which is provided by the nonprofit). The organization had committed to house him through his retirement years. He’s worked for the organization for 30+ years and had factored the provision of this housing into his financial plan. It looks like the board will not honor that commitment.
I reluctantly waded into this conflict because it seemed like the board, even with the help of a mediator, followed a severely flawed process (reading A Justice Primer helped me see that). I’ve spent hours in conversation with the former director, a board member, and the mediator. It is not overstatement to say that I know more about the situation than anyone else who is not on the board or the former director. I recognize that I don’t know everything about the situation, but it’s my understanding that the board is in the process of committing a serious injustice against this man.
I’ve tried inquiring with a board member to hear why this legal action was necessary. He shut me down, stating simply that the former director is an unrepentant sinner. (A remarkable thing to say while refusing to give the man any specifics to repent of!)
At root, 1) I would love for these brothers to be reconciled, ideally under the guidance of an organization like Peacemakers and 2) I would love for the organization to make good on its commitment to provide retirement housing for this man. The board has said they’re not interested in any kind of additional mediatorial work by Peacemakers (the gentleman brought in to mediate the conflict between the former director and the board was a friend of the board chair).
I’m wondering what legitimate, God-honoring next steps I might take. Should I try for conversation with every individual board member to continue to express my disagreement with their actions? What if they simply brush me off? The nonprofit is “owned” by a handful of churches. I’ve contemplated contacting the pastors of those churches to share what I’ve learned about the process the board followed. I’ve also wondered if it is okay to go semi-public or even entirely public with what I’ve learned. I have no interest in stoking dissension, but have good evidence to believe the board is in the process of committing a more serious injustice than anything the former director was ever accused of.
What are my options?
Yours,

Utterly Mystified

I’m sure you’ve been asked numerous times to publish a study Bible, but how about a daily Bible? I couldn’t tell you how much I’d appreciate a No-Quarter Daily Bible (OT, Psalms, Proverbs, NT), complete with Apostolic Study Bible highlights (non-negotiable), and your notes and observations interspersed throughout. I have put a lot of miles on my Charles Stanley Life Principles Daily Bible because it’s perfect for a balanced diet of Word—but it’s severely lacking in Narnia references, nor does it smell like a 55 gallon barrel of Calvinism or pipe tobacco. You have a unique way of rallying the troops at the top of the wall, where the fighting’s most intense, and I’m confident such an addition to our libraries would be well worn. If you’re unfamiliar with Stanley’s daily Bible format then I’ll gladly send you a copy.
Anticipating your response,

Kurt

I was listening to the interview you did with Nick Freitas. Loved it! I was wondering though as you talked about your ideal Christian utopia 500 years out in the future, when you say the public space belongs to Christ so church bells “yes” but minarets “no”, and Muslims, Hindus, and Jews could worship privately and not get into trouble by the state, are you talking about privately in their homes? or do you mean privately in a public building that just doesn’t display any religious architecture? The reason I am asking is because I don’t know how to square what you are saying with how things went down with Moses and Israel during the 40 years in the wilderness. The man who was found gathering sticks on the Sabbath was executed because God commanded it so. Num. 15:32-36. Gathering sticks on the sabbath seems to be a much smaller infraction of violating the the 4th commandment, than building a Hindu temple or mosque (even if it doesn’t look like one) and worshiping a false god. I guess really underneath all of this is just I’m not sure how you get to a place where the state punishes people for 1st table offenses. I guess if 99% of the people were Christians, then it wouldn’t be as hard to imagine, and maybe at some point you outlaw the building of public places of worship that are not christian?
Thanks for all you do!

Joshua

I wrote you a very long letter a couple months back which you very kindly responded too. Thank you for accepting my apology. I have some questions about ethnic identity that I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on. I have been studying the history of “racism” including ideologies such as Nordicism and historical concepts like scientific racism. It seems that some biblical creationists just want to blame racism on Darwin, state without qualification that interracial marriage is not a sin, and then go on their merry way. But, from my research, I have concluded that so called ideas of “racism” and “white supremacy” far pre-dated Darwin and did not even necessarily have Liberal/Rationalistic Enlightenment roots (for example Christian Carl Linnaeus classified the ‘races’). Additionally, the ideology of Nordicism (also known as Anglo-Saxonism, Teutonicism, or Frankicism) was embraced by several key figures in American history including Madison Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Calvin Coolidge. These Presidents even implemented these views into their policies, such as the 1924 Immigration Act. But perhaps my biggest realization has been that pretty much every white American for the first 125 years of our history was educated in and self-conscious of our Germanic-Celtic heritage and consciously fought to preserve it, even and especially genetically. So this is my question: What do you think about Nordicism and specifically Madison Grant, but also Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Calvin Coolidge? Were these men vile racists and was the Immigration Act 1924 evil? Or did they have some good instincts? But if I could perhaps take it to the individual level: If an American Christian of pure Germanic-Celtic ancestry, of which there are presumably still many, want to preserve their Germanic-Celtic genetic bloodline, is this permissible or even preferable as a Christian. Is it okay to view America primarily as a country found by a Germanic-Celtic people group for their Germanic-Celtic descendants even to the present day? I greatly respect you, sir, and have benefited immensely from your ministry, so I would greatly appreciate your wisdom on this subject. Thank you!

Caleb

I have been wondering lately whether the Enlightenment was not a product of the Protestant Reformation (PR). I write this as a definite Protestant. Once the PR split the church, at first into two and then rapidly into more “denominations,” people began to question how we could know what was true and began looking for a rational basis for religion apart from revelation. The rest, I believe, is history. I have been wondering if the Protestant-Catholic schism was not a sin or mistake, and that Luther ought to have taken a longer view and placed a higher value on church unity (and certainly, the Catholic church should have been more receptive to his arguments, since they didn’t seem to consider them at all, but rather rejected them outright).
It seems to me that the logical end of the PR is individual biblicism, where I am the ultimate arbiter of the interpretation of the Bible, sans any historical context or input from the wise saints who wrote throughout church history. And a further development on that has been the subjectivist humanism that has plagued the last 300 years or so.
I also think that American Protestantism has been mostly deleterious, from Wesleyanism to revivalism to Pentecostalism, etc., which we have exported to many parts of the world, for better or for worse. I think that we Americans have a shallow theology by and large, while the Reformed traditions have a more well-rounded theology. However, I think that the Protestant church as a whole would greatly benefit from a greater focus on church history, the teachings of the early church fathers (while not taking them as “gospel”), and from a broader view of the gospel as the salvation of the whole world. In the end, I hope that God is working in the Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox churches to one day reunite them.

J

My apologies for the redundancy if you’ve already answered this question. But the first use of the Mosaic Law was as a mirror to increase the transgression so as to show sin to be sinful beyond measure. Does this use apply to the civil aspects of the Mosaic Law? And if so, would that affect the application of the civil aspects of the Mosaic Law to our political theology?
Thank you,

Caleb

I have been a middle school and high school teacher at Westside Christian Academy for 18 years or so. Thank you for your faithfulness to God in addressing the needs of Christian families for decades now. I was hired in from commercial materials science research to teach many years ago, and have been blessed beyond my expectations ever since. I have a bachelors in physics with minors in chemistry and biology, and I want to share a possible insight. Please do share this with your faculty of the appropriate disciplines for evaluation. About three years ago I had some students that were very concerned about CO2 production and the negative outcomes popularly claimed. I had a baseline understanding of the energy absorption of H2O and CO2, proportions of both in the atmosphere and lack of detail in climate models to drive me to further investigate. Long story short, being a young earth creationist, I recognize God removed an exceptional amount of carbon from the. gaseous CO2 and living plant and animal reservoirs at the flood, and sequestered them as coal, oil and natural gas, that humans have only recently (last 140ish years) been burning. I believe that contrary to the negative claim of secular science(grifters) creating CO2 from those fuels is not dangerous, but rather promotes a restoration of the atmosphere to pre-Noahic conditions of prosperity and productivity that would foster human flourishing akin to the post-Edenic exile.
Thank you for your time.
To God be the glory!

Jason