Counterpoint
“So allow me to run ahead and anticipate the sneer. “Oh, so now he thinks he’s a Churchill!” No, not at all, but I am afraid I will have to do until he gets here.” You ARE rather Churchillian, and deserving of votes. But Christianity is an absolute monarchy. We have no such thing.
Ian
Ian, exactly. Which is why the graveyards of the church are filled with indispensable men.
Not Whether, But Which
I have heard you and your Moscow entourage speak of the inescapable nature of discipleship – not whether discipling is happening, but what you’re being discipled by. Could you point me to anywhere you’ve written on this topic?
Respectfully,
Jay
Jay, I am sorry. I have made that point in a lot of different settings, and so I can’t really point you to a particular place where it is fully developed. But I do bring it up a lot. I think your best bet would be to type “not whether but which” in the search bar of this blog.
The Science of the Thing
In your recent interview on the Eric Metaxas show both you and Mr. Metaxas remarked about some of the very recent scientific discoveries that are continuing to prove Scripture true. Is there a resource that you could recommend if I wanted to find some of things you were referencing; a clearing house of some sort perhaps? I love to have these things accessible for apologetic discussions as well as teaching the kids. Thanks in advance.
Tim
Tim, I don’t remember what specific discovery I had in mind, and I don’t know of one single “clearing house” for that kind of thing. But a good place to start would be with archeology, and a book called Where God Came Down by Joel Kramer.
Likemindedness?
Concerning Church theology like-mindedness: Hi Pastor, I’d like to share about my situation and ask for advice.
First thing is, I grew up going to church (charismaticish/pentecostalish), knew the stories from the Bible, kind of prayed, got baptized, and I don’t recall really believing in Christ.
14 years ago my father decided to plant a church, and as a new church we didn’t have many members for some time, and since the new souls didn’t know much and I grew up in a Christian setting, played the guitar, “knew” a lot about Scripture, and though I was a bad son, citizen, brother and student, my father asked me to be the worship leader and youth pastor, I agreed (pressured internally and externally) and it didn’t work out.
In all of that period, I started “behaving”, so I was not the bad kid in town anymore and I tried hard to be a Christian (that is, effeminate) as men often do.
But then I started reading books that pointed to the Scripture, and listening to sermons with substance and the Holy Spirit made the work in me.
The thing is that I got converted, but reformed, yet nobody in my church knows about it (although they would say that I’m different in some way). Weeks ago I got “promoted” to Evangelist and still I don’t agree with much of what is being taught (women preaching, certain aspects of the Holy Spirit, the holy disorder . . .). Thanks to some things you’ve said/written I’ve been able to see and thank God for the things which we as a church agree upon, while disagreeing with other things.
That being said, although I do preach, I’d like to point things out, give advice or share things, but don’t want to cause division or confuse the new souls. I’m mostly full in, communion, close friends, good relationships, family involved, I try to do my part without getting into things that I know the church doesn’t believe, but I don’t know if I can hold it longer or if I should even try to hold it longer.
Should I come out of the reformed closet whatever the response is? Should I talk to my father first? Should I continue in secret? Should I leave the church? And, am I holding back the truth from them?
Thank you,
Anon
Anon, it sure looks to me like you are on a collision course. I would talk to your father, tell him where you are, and tell him also that you are not planning to do anything to disrupt the church. See how he responds, and play it from there. What you don’t want is to find yourself as the pastor one day, with nobody having any idea.
Household Voting
In regard to the post that is not yet written—
Our church recently announced that they’re going to a one-vote-per-houshold policy. I felt shocked and disturbed. I’m trying to think through this according to Scripture. If my reaction is caused by traces of ungodly feminist thinking, I want to change. But if this isn’t necessarily biblical, I want to understand why that decision has been made and how best to respond. I called your church office and was told that you have that same policy. I typically find your views on things very convincing. Can you help me understand this one? Thank you!
Honey
Honey, yes, we do vote by household at Christ Church. This is because we wanted to recognize the household, as distinct from the individual, as the building block of our church community. An unmarried adult is considered a household, and if she is a woman, she is the head of that household (as Lydia was in Acts). So in church elections, only heads of households vote, some of whom are women. We want to encourage likemindedness within our households, such that the one who votes is representing the others. And, on the practical side, if a man and wife both vote, if they vote the same way, you have just multiplied the total tally by two. And if they vote differently, they just cancelled one another out, and might as well have stayed home.
Postmill Practicalities
I in recent years (by the help of God and men like Doug Wilson) have become postmill. I find that a lot of my contemporaries have adopted a pessimistic eschatology, and so the overall atmosphere that I breathe is “everything is going to hell,” (almost literally).
I am asking do you know any books that help to cultivate a “building the kingdom,” mindset? Things that we (as general equity theonomists) should work/pray towards? Building a legacy that looks for the church to be around for another thousand years? What we can do for the distant future church? I think about how the Puritans help us today; so what systems/structures should we work to build for the future church?
I hope my question makes sense. My apologies if the resources are common knowledge; my ignorance is quite impressive.
I look forward to your response.
Ryan
Ryan, if I understand your question, I would start with Plowing in Hope by David Hegeman.
Scott Aniol
Recently our men’s group at our local Baptist church had a rousing debate surrounding this article:
I was the only one present that felt a draw or partiality to the talking points of Christian Nationalism. While I’m not sold on everything about the Mere Christendom movement yet (I have a lot more digging to do), my reading of Scott Aniol’s article is that he seems to be missing the point in some areas. I was hoping you could weigh in on this article as he mentions you by name. A Mablog post on it would be awesome, but I’ll take an abbreviated letter reply if that’s the most it merits for now (audaciously assuming you have time for lil old me!)
My biggest criticism of his article is that it appears to be a very effective appeal to my parents back in the 90s. He mentions how a healthy government of pagans performing a ministry of justice is desirable to Christians. I didn’t know anyone was appealing to us considering how we ought to be more than happy with a healthy government in the 2020s, or that anyone seriously thought a healthy government were in the cards at all? He also mentions how a pagan society following God’s law written on their hearts and us all participating happily along in ways we can while respecting that basic civil order is not neutral. But . . . sounds to me to be by definition the meaning of the word “neutral” secular order as described by Christian Nationalists like yourself?
I’m open to being persuaded by Scott’s position provided he accounts for the vanishing secular order. What do we do exactly when we can no longer play nice at all—when we become China except worse—since China still has some conscionable moral values built into their social fabric and we outright worship Satan at the Grammys? Will Scott still be appealing for us to try to change things “within the system” then? I feel like a more future-proof (and honest) position to take is the Benedictory “cheese it” route and tell us all if we want to be good faithful Christians to run screaming and hide ourselves away in holes until all the bad men die. That argument would at least make complete sense to me that since we are not explicitly commanded to seek the centers of power in government (that I have yet seen), we should prep for our own little underground lifestyle.
Maybe there’s a lot I’m missing from Scott’s take. I do wish to be charitable to him, and to get a correct course on the interaction I see between G3 and you. If both sides understood one another clearly, and laid out their distinctives accordingly, this would be so much easier. But stray shots about how y’all just want to recreate the Roman Catholic empire (my reading of his take, not a direct quote) just doesn’t seem like a helpful interaction to either lure Christians away from the enticement of the Christian Nationalism movement, nor to rebuke the leaders of the movement for their unbiblical teachings.
I digress, any guidance here for better understanding would be supremely helpful,
Baptistyrian Toddlobaptist
BT, since your wrote, Scott also published a review of my book Mere Christendom, which I hope to respond to tomorrow.
A Dim View of the Founders
Your blog “Mere Christendom” is one of my favorites and I already have the book pre-ordered, so thank you, sir, for you labors and faithful plodding. I’m currently reading through Gary North’s “Conspiracy in Philadelphia” and it seems y’all are both after a similar end (Christendom or mere Christendom) but you both have a very different argument for how things began as far as America goes. He also includes quite a bit of primary sources to go along with the argument of the book.
I was wondering if you have read the book or not, and if so, what are your thoughts on it.
Thank you,
Michael
Michael, I have not read that book by North, but am familiar with his take on the Founding. I find myself somewhere between North’s view and the more hagiographic view that some writers on the Founders have.
Christian Nationalism Push Back
Seeing a lot of the push back surrounding CN that basically boils down to, “Pagan rulers are always going to exist until Christ returns. Oh well. Guess we can’t and shouldn’t try to do anything about it.” And I think that’s what infuriates me so much about the push back.
Now, I’m a credo/dispy/premill kinda guy, and I know many are reading their eschatology into this debate, but am I wrong in saying that a professing Christian can and should embrace many/most of the things being touted by so-called CNs, regardless of one’s particular eschatology?
I mean, I haven’t heard you say a single thing about “mere Christendom” that I disagree with, so I find myself asking those who are pushing back, “So what’s the problem?”
grh
grh, right. I can see how eschatology would affect whether or not someone thought this was going to happen, or even could happen. But I don’t understanding why anybody would be distraught over the fact that it might. Wouldn’t it be a good thing?
Idaho Library Porn
The Fighting Moderates, aka the Pink-Pilled” I’m a Tennessee attorney (i.e., not licensed in Idaho), but I’m good at looking up statutes from other states. Am I correct that the bill you are referring to is The Children’s School and Library Protection Act(HB 139, reintroduced as HB 314)? If so, then I think your legal interpretation missed the mark a bit.
House Bill 314 would have amended Idaho Code § 18-1514, which already criminalizes dissemination of obscene materials to minors. The proposed bill modified some definitions and added a private cause of action for parents to sue the school or public library under certain conditions if their child accessed obscene materials there.
In other words, in Idaho law as it stands today, if a librarian handed a child a pornographic book that perverted librarian could be prosecuted the same as the convenience store clerk.
Robert
Robert, yes. But what it all comes down to is found in that phrase “could be prosecuted.” School libraries are currently stocked with porn, which means they want it there for a reason, and a bill that provided for actual accountability (as opposed to mere accountability on paper) was voted down.
Ride Sally
I just finished Ride Sally Ride and then came across the story in the Washington Post by Pranshu Verma, “They fell in love with AI bots. A software update broke their hearts”
Obviously Sally was not an AI bot but the parallels are still wild. Thought I’d put it on y’all’s radar. You can read the full story here:
J
J, yet another story showing how satirists have to look lively and stay a jump ahead.
James White and Christendom 2.0
In response to your wonderful discussion with James White, in Christendom 2.0, I felt compelled to thank you for articulating the thorn that has been stuck in my craw since becoming a Christian— when I began to ask how is was that we’ve inherited such an amazing grace filled country, certainly it must have been by the hand of Christ. It is as though Christians want to deny this and as you stated be ruled by the children of Satan. One thought is that in our culture almost every major social abomination is rooted in an argument that wants to take the exception to the rule and shift accountability to innocent bystanders. The child conceived of rape, an extremely rare outcome, must be butchered to appease the injustice done to his mother, school children must have their sexual innocence raped because an unbelievably small portion of our society is more self absorbed than the average sinner and is therefore entitled to define themselves by their lusts and in turn demand the rest of society exalt them for it. Less than 1% of our population was vulnerable to COVID so naturally children and healthy adults should wear truth muzzles and stay home such that a year or so later we could find clever ways of injecting untested, unsafe, ineffective drugs into children who are least vulnerable to COVID.
This faulty logic is that if there is an exception to the rule, the rule must be governed by the exception. The faithful American church often succumbs to this illogic as it seems even the brilliant and faithful James White seems susceptible to.
Looking to the Salem Witch trials and Reformers executing their theological enemies is grievous—but also the exception to the rule, that Christ’s people have been the predominant force for good throughout history. Whereas those who openly hate Christ, His moral law and His created order, Hitler, Stalin, etc . . . have rained down more terror and death in one century than most of recorded history and still we Christians quibble. The evidence is in and because the church has been taken captive to philosophy and empty deceit according to the echo chambers of popular Christian men, here we stand, may the Lord help us.
Thank you for creating a grace-filled forum to discuss these very important matters.
I pray you live a long, faithful and more vociferous life. We need more like you.
To make known the riches of His glory!!
Mike
Mike, thanks for writing.
Ethnocentrism?
Baptists Flogging Presbyterians: Doug, I’m interested in your take on Virgil Walker’s belief/charge that Stephen Wolfe’s book promotes ethnocentrism. Thank you.
David
David, well, Wolfe’s book certainly doesn’t promote anything like that. But it also doesn’t have a problem with a mono-ethnic culture, like, say, Japan, wanting to remain that way. I think the movement that actually promotes the wrong kind of white supremacy would be the woke movement. When the other side opens up an ethnic war, at some point somebody is going to respond.
A Mere Christendom Hypothetical
In Mere Christendom, what is the mechanism for keeping the tradcaths from gaining 51% of the vote and pushing the country to Rome?
A Guy
A Guy, there would actually be more protections against that than we have now. In America, the only kind of mere Christendom possible would be based on a broad pan-Protestantism.
The SBC World
Please send James Lindsay a copy of your Fighting Moderates blog post, and also of your book on race. He keeps Asking these Questions which you have been answering for years, but he only seems aware of the SBC, not the Reformed world.
Jennifer
Jennifer, yes. I would love to talk with him further about these things. But in the meantime, I appreciate much of what he has done.
More on Gary DeMar
In response to a response on Gary DeMar regarding the “different texts” argument . . .
Thank you for your response to my question regarding Gary DeMar and the eschatological debate. I wrote you about the fact that partial preterists cannot agree on which texts refer to the “Second Coming” and which texts refer to Christ coming in judgment in 70 AD. You said that the method was flawed because other “essential” doctrines such as the Deity of Christ and the atonement are also ones in which different texts are used as proof. It seems to me that in order for something to be an “essential” doctrine, there would have to be somewhere that everyone would agree, some proof text(s). Where would you say everyone agrees on the “Second Coming”?
In your post talking about the serious error of Hymenaeus you quoted 2 Timothy 4:1-2 as sort of the “proof text” of his error.
“I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Timothy 4:1–2, KJV)
When you look up “who shall judge” (KJV). My ESV says “who is to judge” you find the Greek word méllō which in many cases and, I think in this one also, is better translated “about to be judging” or “about to judge” the living and the dead. This would make the event nearer to Paul (and Hymenaeus). If it does nothing else, it could certainly make you wonder what judgment he is talking about here and going back to Hymenaeus . . . what resurrection was he talking about? Could he have possibly been arguing that people were already walking around in the resurrected state with glorified bodies? How would that overthrow the faith of some? Or could he have had in mind the restoration/transformation of Israel where the true sons of Abraham were revealed? This could explain why Paul said in verse 19 . . .”But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his . . .” This references Numbers 16 and Korah’s rebellion where it says in verse 5 “and he said to Korah and all his company, “In the morning the LORD will show who is his, and who is holy, and will bring him near to him. The one whom he chooses he will bring near to him.”
All I am saying is where is the agreement for this “essential doctrine”? I believe that the kingdom of God will fill the earth as we apply His Word to every area of life. I think we agree on that. But is the Bible concerned with showing us everything that takes place in the end? I dunno . . . just asking for a friend. Love you Doug!
Jeremy
Jeremy, I still object to the method. I agree it would be more convenient to have a set of verses that absolutely everyone agreed on. But that is not necessary. What matters is whether the Bible teaches something, not whether everyone who agrees that it does agrees on how it does. With regard to Hymenaeus, my argument was to ask why Paul treats him as a such a threat when (given hyperpreterism), he was only a few months off.
Generational Tensions
I noticed that you have begun openly acknowledging some “red pill” truths, including the risks of getting married and some of the ways boomers have deeply sinned against younger generations. I’ve found this refreshing, since my experience has almost universally been one of older generations (including pastors) beating up on guys like me, denying the horrifying reality of today’s marriage market, and offering no practical help at all.
What shifted your perspective?
Anon Anon
AA, this was actually not something I had to change my mind on—I have been at odds with my fellow boomers since the sixties. But I would caution some of the younger bucks not to take out their frustrations on the boomers who didn’t participate in those generational sins, and who didn’t abandon their sons and grandsons.
Encouragement in Return
All of what you folks are doing is significantly and strategically encouraging.
Laurence
Laurence, thanks very much.
The Birds of the Air
Someone recently made a claim to me that the parable of the mustard seed and the parable of the leaven in the loaf as recorded in Matthew 13 and Luke 12 do not refer to the success of the church in history, but rather to the corruption of the church in history. The position is bolstered has two precedent claims:
One, that leaven in the New Testament refers to corruption, hence Jesus’ warning against the “leaven of the Pharisees,” and so must refer to a corrupting influence.
Two, that the mustard seed growing into the greatest of trees is a unique occurrence, an abnormal growth, and would best be described not by the true church but by the Romish church, and the birds that nest therein are a sign of demonic nesting.
I know what my opinion is; Jesus did not say “the corruption of the kingdom is like . . .” Rather, He said, “the kingdom is like . . .” Have you heard of this view before? Who espouses it? What’s your take?
I look forward to your answer!
CR
CR, yes, I am familiar with that take. Another argument in favor would be the fact that the birds in the parable of the sower are representative of Satan. What this view misses is that Jesus explicitly taught us that His kingdom would be a mixed bag, not entirely pure, not entirely corrupt. The parable of the wheat and tares, for example, or the dragnet that brought up good fish, bad fish, beer bottles and bicycle tires.
Objection to the Dog
Regarding the Pink Pill, you write, “Auron MacIntyre recently laid out the strategy of the left in a very cogent way. Their strategy is to kick the dog until the dog bites, whereupon they will be justified in shooting the dog. Pay attention. Remember this. Act accordingly.” Your logo has never sat comfortably with me. It’s the dogs who are outside. Any chance you can change it?
David
David, thanks for the input. There are currently no plans to change it.
Little Stickers
I wish you offered some lapel pins that say “Christ is Lord.” Or rolls of stickers that you can put on your shirt—you know, like the ones they give you at the polls that say “I voted.” Think what a conversation starter that would be.
Mary
Mary, great idea. But it is not possible to do everything all at once
@Jay,
On Discipleship. that_you_may_prosper.pdf (garynorth.com)
A clergyman declaring that dissidents are going to hell is the ultimate act of collaboration with the regime.
A Guy’s question remains unanswered. What is the mechanism that prevents tradcaths, or any other faction, from gaining a controlling majority? Or a controlling minority?
I also wonder why (or if really) a Reformed evangelical thinks a lowest common denominator “broad pan-protestanism” is particularly desirable and what would be the point. If Christendom is mere cultural Christianity….but then it kind of is. That is half the problem with it.
I think the answer would be along the lines of IF that remote possibility happened, would we be better off under Traditional Catholics, or under our current satanic rulers?
I’d take Traditional Catholics who can be reasoned with, whom we have some common ground with, versus the raging baby murdering, child mutilating, “Coming for your children”, woke crowd we have currently.
It wouldn’t be great, but it’d be a lot better than what we have now.
I think Lord Acton’s famous dictum might apply here – power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Historically both Catholicism and protestantism have shown how a hierarchy with power can oppress and deny liberty to those who disagree with them, that is, threaten their power.
I was recently shocked at how for example Calvinists behaved when they got their hands on the levers of state power in Scotland. Their own version of today’s totalitarian mindset.
Separation of church and state can be a healthy thing in both directions!
“Historically both Catholicism and protestantism have shown how a hierarchy with power can oppress and deny liberty to those who disagree with them, that is, threaten their power.” Historically we’ve seen Marxist and other totalitarians kill over 100 million people in a single century. We’ve also seen brutal indigenous cultures pile up mountains of bones from their human sacrifices. Now we’re seeing “liberal democracies” kill millions via abortion and show their hatred of God by inverting practically everything he said about men and women. As long as there’s sin, bad things will happen. Inquisitions, Salem witch trials (less than 20… Read more »
Did you know that Salem and Plymouth were just a few miles apart?
Don’t worry. They’ve made “progress” since then.
Salem drag queen Miz Diamond Wigfall shines bright – Itemlive : Itemlive
Absolutely. Add to insane open borders and a two-tiered “justice system” as shown here to child sacrifice/mutilation. Trad Caths over Satanists all day. These debates are hardly relevant at the stage we’re in right now.
In addition, if we actually follow the Constitution, there will never be an official state-run church. Meanwhile, 10A’s intent is that states operate almost like separate countries. You could have heavily trad Catholic states while others are more Protestant–perhaps some a bit more libertarian.
Unless you accept Traditional Catholic doctrine, practice, and polity, or are good at suppressing conscience and keeping your mouth shut, you are better off now than you would be under traditional Roman Catholics. Jan Huss, just to name one, could tell you about reasoning with them – when they hold power. No, burned at the stake does not sound better than what we have now.
You’re assuming Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran types want to relive history from 600 years ago? Times and circumstances have changed dramatically.
I think the concern is not with Catholics like Buchanan and Sobran who are (were?) traditional, conservative Catholics but with the movement known as integralism. The nineteenth century popes taught that, wherever possible, a state must be confessionally Catholic and protect Catholicism as the one true religion. Therefore, only Catholics should be eligible for public office, all public education should be Catholic, laws must conform to traditional Catholic moral teaching, and the state must privilege the Catholic church financially while discouraging all other faiths and Christian denominations–which would not be recognized as Christian because this kind of trad Catholic thinks… Read more »
Integralists would be preferable to Pope Francis’ “Great Reset” globohomo vision. No Christian in their right mind supports this clown. But again, RCs couldn’t enforce hard-line integralism in the U.S. if 1A is upheld. There could be states that leaned Trad Cath but they couldn’t force anyone into the church.
And let’s keep it that way. Possibilities have a way of generating wants.
Let’s just not keep it the way it is now. To rephrase the comment I was replying to
Only (s)elected people who support the current state religion should be eligible for public office…or at least win key electionsPublic education should promote the religion of the stateLaws must conform to the state religion (including blasphemy, hate crimes, etc.)The state must privilege its favored institutions financially (Planned Parenthood, various NGOs) while discouraging other faiths and Christian denominations (via funding, targeted audits and tax incentives)
Let’s do keep the 1A the way it is now.
Human nature has not changed since then. What you’ve proven is that nobody can be trusted with power. Power has historically been abused by whomever was wielding it, yet you’ve somehow convinced yourself that if Christians achieve political power, this time things will be different. Well, they won’t.
The solution I see is a government with the minimal power necessary to ensure basic civil society. Then, parents who want to take their kids to drag queen story hour may do so, and parents who don’t want to take their kids to drag queen story hour, don’t have to.
The problem is, the drag queens will be teaching them that girls can become boys. Many public-school systems have them, and there are people who have no choice but to send their children to public schools, which sometimes encourage children to take anti-puberty drugs behind their parents’ back. I would much rather live in a country where my children (if I had any) would be forced to go to a communist or fascist club than a place where they might be brainwashed into being sterilized and mutilated. Which would you rather have happen: your daughter (or a younger cousin or… Read more »
OK, I’m a trial lawyer, and if what you describe were actually happening, the doctors in charge would all be sued for malpractice early and often and would be out of business. You make it sound like ten year old Sally on a whim can have her breasts removed, and that’s just not so. I had to learn about this because it actually came up in a case I was handling. Minors aren’t (and never were) given puberty blockers, or surgery, without extensive counseling that included counseling about the possibility that they may regret it later. If you don’t want… Read more »
Kathleen, Whatever is being openly discussed (blockers, surgery etc.) is more than likely already happening behind closed doors as with the case of abortion. To say the doctors (or suedo doctors) are not doing so because they would be prosecuted does not give me much comfort. There are plenty of doctors who are willing to risk for ideology sake. But, to the larger point, every ill of society begins with open discussion before it is openly accepted and then enshrined in law. I hope your right but I am not so sure. Rob
How “extensive” is this counseling in the cases of young adults who started as minors and now wish they’d never done it? To hear them, they were ill-prepared.
Kathleen, I broadly agree with you. There is no reason to think it will be different this time, and the primary end result we want from earthly government is (put one way) a civil society, which is something secular governments by God’s grace have proven capable of ensuring, however impermanently and imperfectly. That said, James (below) has a point. Many, if not most, parents are going to send their children to public schools for lack of a better choice. Public schools function as propaganda centers in young lives, intentionally or unwittingly. With regards to DQSH and the like we know… Read more »
John, my take on it is that queer theory is largely a pseudo-science, and is in the process of imploding under its own weight. I think that even without legislation it would have disappeared in time just because the science isn’t there to support it. My gay friends — and I do have gay friends — hate queer theory almost as much as you do, albeit for a different set of reasons. (And I say that as someone who mostly disagrees with Doug Wilson on most other issues related to sex, gender, and roles.) If I’m right about that, the… Read more »
If you’re agreeing with someone who thinks governments run by Christians, Muslims, atheists and Satanists are all about the same…and who thinks Christians can be pro-child murder and pro sodomy (as she recently claimed elsewhere)–you may want to rethink your faith, not just your view of government.
Mon Cheri, your problem is that you think you own Jesus, the Bible, and Christianity. You don’t. Your views are quite likely the minority views within Christianity. Your political and social views are not core Christian doctrines, and if you think that being an extremist right-winger — as you apparently do — is fundamental to Christianity, you are mistaken. So get over the idea that all Christians oppose abortion and gay marriage. Some do; some don’t. Ezekiel talks about those who say, Thus saith the Lord, when the Lord has not spoken. You might want to review that passage. You… Read more »
When the Bible is crystal clear on something like sodomy in both the Old and New Testaments, it is a core Christian doctrine. Almost no Christian thought the Bible supported baby killing, children mutilating their genitals, feminism or similar heresies until very recently. And the reason is simple: it doensn’t. It’s true that cults, godless progressives, Charles Manson, Jim Jones (both a cultist and godless progressive) can claim the Bible supports most anything. But let God be true, and every man a liar if that’s the case. And Ezekiel…really? You think he’d support two men marrying and having anal sex? You’re… Read more »
I don’t think Ezekiel would support gay marriage, no, but I’m quite certain his message to you would be to not say “thus saith the Lord” when the Lord has not spoken. that’s a general principle that applies no matter what the immediate subject is. All you have in the way of argument is to hurl nasty names, name drop, and make wildly inappropriate analogies. You’ve convinced yourself that you’re the only true Scotsman. The people who disagree with you? They’re not “true” Scotsmen. You remind me of the old joke about St. Peter giving a tour of heaven and… Read more »
“I don’t think Ezekiel would support gay marriage, no, but I’m quite certain his message to you would be to not say “thus saith the Lord” when the Lord has not spoken.” But the Lord has spoken multiple times as I said earlier, on both sodomy and marriage. There’s not a chance something condemned repeatedly all over Scripture would suddenly be accepted by Ezekiel. And he’d have no problem proclaiming it. Your second paragraph is nothing but innuendo and ad hominem; ironic since you accuse me of a logical fallacy…fallaciously. “No True Scots” wouldn’t apply to a math student who… Read more »
I don’t have any intention of taking the time it would require to deconstruct, point by point, your bad arguments. (Doug should have a contest for who can find the greatest number of examples of undistributed middle in your comments.) For example, you seem not to understand what ad hominem means. Saying that you make bad arguments isn’t ad hominem. Saying your bad arguments are grounded in the need to feel superior to other people isn’t ad hominem, since it’s still the argument that’s being attacked. You’re now committing the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent: “You are a bad… Read more »
I had many happy years of full time ministry as Chaplain to the Adulterers’ Christian Fellowship …
Because her thinking those things means she can’t possibly be right about anything? Because it is by disagreeing with Kathleen on all points all the time we are saved?
No, what I’ve proven is that we’re all sinners and Christian (whether actual or nominal) in power have done some bad things–but not anywhere close to what pagans or atheists have done. Despite the rate its crumbing, there’s been more freedom, more people of all races lifted out of poverty, more churches planted and missionaries sent from the U.S. than ANY Marxist hellhole or indigenous tribe of cannibals or headhunters. Like it’s not even remotely close. Nor should the Salem witch trials (19 people executed) be compared to tens of millions dying under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro and other… Read more »
First of all, the Native Americans who suffered genocide and the slaves who built the South might have a different take on how benevolent Christian government is. Second of all, you’ve now demonstrated for the umpteenth time that to you, this is personal and all about me rather than a dispassionate discussion of the issues. In fact, you do that a lot — “Don’t talk to so and so, he’s not a Bible believing Christian.” If you want to have a conversation about the issues rather than about me, great, get back to me. If you want a solid historical… Read more »
Yeah, no. Jared Diamond’s bible you find so valuable has some good insights but a lot of problems. The fatal flaw is that it basically started out with a core belief (on page 25) and set out to prove it. “History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples’ environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves.” I realize it’s a nice cope for people who can’t explain why S. Africa (full of natural resources) has turned into a crazed, violent cesspool after Apartheid ended while Japan (with very few natural resources) rebuilt itself into an… Read more »
I realize it’s comforting to have a world view that holds that you’re better than people who aren’t like you. And if you go back and count, you’ll find that you mention my bar status and Mensa membership far more often than I do. I mentioned that I’m an attorney because I was about to comment on a legal issue. I already explained to you what happened to Africa — colonialism. If you go back and compare pre-colonial Africa to Europe at the same time in history, you’ll find that Africa compared favorably. But hey, it makes you feel better… Read more »
And I’ve already explained what your oversimplified explanations are–a cope. Colonialism doesn’t explain nearly as much as you think it does. If you think pre-colonial violent crime bean counters in Africa or even Europe had stats that could be compared with any rigor–I have a ski lodge to sell you in Florida. But I realize it’s easier to read to read easy explanations by the likes of Diangelo and Ibram X than sit with hard questions and inconvenient truth. Back to your first sentence–the projection is so strong it almost jumped off the page! And I’m not worried about counting… Read more »
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that I doubt Cherrera is your real name either.
Everyone recommends Puritan writers. Why does no one recommend Pilgrim writers? Thoughts
Both were Calvinists. Is the distinction between those who were separatists and those who weren’t?
Did they produce any substantial body of theological/devotional work, beyond their memoirs? I’ve never heard of any but then I’ve never really looked into it.
I’m pretty sure Pilgrims would have spent most of their time trying to stay alive and not write many books.
Why do so many Christians not understand that all this satanic buggery in every area of American life IS THE JUDGMENT OF GOD? Read Paul’s letter to the new church at Rome; same seminal sin, same judgment. Read that list of 24 sins and social maladies to which God GIVES THEM OVER; that’s America today. Read my free PDF book The Great We-Set™ and then decide if we need to choose between a ‘tradcath’ civil government and the one we have. Free PDF download All we need (to my mind) is for a few well-known preachers in America to start… Read more »
The ones who “gave away the store” are those whose propose or create any system who don’t first recognize Christ as Lord. Point 1 of the covenant model (Sovereignty). “We the People” were wrongfully elevated to divine status in The Constitution. It’s been downhill ever since for myriad reasons all rooted in our rejection of the Sovereign Triune God of Scripture.
Read Chapter 5
conspiracyinphiladelphia.pdf (garynorth.com)
That their rejecting the Sovereign over all creation was stupid, goes without saying. But they did what they did, and we must do what we must do. “Reformanda semper” should mean something other than flexing your brains against one another until you die. There’s work to be done, and in almost 600 county chapters of Tactical Civics™, dedicated openly and boldly to restoring the crown rights of Christ, WE ARE DOING SOMETHING. You are not (unless now talk is equal to action when rebuilding ruins). https://TacticalCivics.com
You have no idea what people are doing or not doing. I applaud your willingness to act, but it’s important to first count the cost and choose a wise Godly strategy. For instance, Your tactical civics video misses so many important micro points it’s not even funny. I’ll give one example. The Boston Tea Party was the theft of private property by cowardly dupes of Hancock. They disguised themselves and acted on Hancocks’ behalf. He was in the midst of throwing a temper tantrum over the British removing tariffs from East Indian Tea. In doing so the British undercut Hancock’s… Read more »
Carl, that’s quite a straw man tottering there, brother. Try reading either book that I’ve linked above (free PDF editions) and actually READ what our mission teaches and does every day, rather than painting us as its antithesis. Some of your accusations are truly hilarious, with all due respect.
God IS blessing, thanks!
-DMZ-
I took issue with the accusation that I’m not “doing anything”. Not working within your organization is not evidence that we’re all talk and no action. We don’t know this about any of the posters here. Doing Nothing To allay such concerns, I’ll simply state I am personally focusing my efforts in the Homeschooling Arena, as I see this as the primary responsibility of Christian Fathers, and in the local church (where I am a tithing member) on long-term worldview issues. The Homeschool parents I work with are wholely uninterested in both government and politics while the country burns down… Read more »
I may sound like a crude pragmatist, but the Constitution is only valuable as long as it brings prosperity, stability, and morality. It was through the democratic process that we went from George Washington to Obama in a couple hundred years and have not gotten any better since. It was through freedom of speech that we got to the point of having drag queen story hours and transgenderism, I have also heard the first amendment used to excuse vulgar blasphemy. And it was through the idea (in the declaration of independence) that all men are created equal that we got… Read more »
America seems to have a real problem with taking throwaway rhetoric meant as war propaganda (like the Declaration) and enshrining it as absolute truth.
Oh, I don’t think you sound like a crude pragmatist at all. You sound like a chattering idealist bent on doing light work or none at all. As I said, read those free books that I linked above. It won’t kill you; it’s light work. You might even learn a thing or two that you find of value.