The Pope on Blessing Same Sex Relationships
I was wondering if you would comment on the Pope essentially establishing moral equivalence between blessing same sex relationships and what are called “irregular situations” which would include divorce and remarriage between a man and woman in which the innocent party (WC Chapter XXIV, V; Matt 5:31-32, Matt 19:9; biblical justification to remarry from previous marriage between man and woman because of adultery and/or abandonment) may remarry? Doesn’t establishing moral equivalency between a supposed gay mirage and the marriage between a man and a woman in which one of them is divorced BUT the innocent party from their previous marriage in which their previous spouse committed adultery and/or permanently deserted them a way to give more credence to the idea of gay mirage? My wife was permanently abandoned by her previous husband who married again BEFORE my wife and I got married. However, some conservative evangelical Christians don’t accept the Westminster Confession on that point or the interpretation of the verses in Scripture used to support it, and thus have said that the nature of our marriage was part and parcel to the break down of marriage overall which contributed to the evil idea of gay mirage. My response to them is what Martin Luther said, which was put the guilty party to death and that would remove any question about the innocent party remarrying. What say you?
Doug
Doug, I think Luther had a point. I believe that the fastidious party regarding remarriage for the sinned-against party are essentially wronging him or her again. Their spouse betrayed them and kicked them in the head, and then their church comes along and kicks them in the head again, making the wrong permanent. That said, it is certainly true that the breakdown of heterosexual virtue paved the way for widespread homosexual vice. A society without sexual self-control will not be able to control itself anywhere. And as for the pope, he could not be more in error, which is probably a dangerous thing to say. Even an illicit heterosexual abandonment and remarriage is called marriage in Scripture. It is a sin against a person and a covenant, but not a sin against nature. Solemnized sodomy is a sin against the created order.
A Brief Request
Name of post: Calvinism and Girls Just want to request more content in this vein
David
David, thanks. Request noted.
So Then . . .
I have a question about the whole foul language debate.
1. I’ve read “The Serrated Edge” and you’ve convinced me of that heaven doesn’t have a list of bad words and the necessity of using strong language to address sin, while at the same time not having this kind of language be part of our daily vocabulary.
2. You have argued recently that simply disguising bad words with asterisks is no excuse for their use, since we can all make out the word being referenced.
3. In the Canon Press video where you explain your use of language (this one) you refer to the word you used as the “c-word”.
Question: Is it wrong or sinful to actually refer to these bad words by their full name when discussing these issues, without euphemism? In other words, if I’m discussing this affair, should I be censured for saying: “In that article, Wilson used the word cunt” instead of “In that article, Wilson used the word ‘c-word'”?
PS: If the answer is yes, I apologize for using the word in your blog.
João
João, I don’t think it is a matter of sin, but rather a matter of strategy and manners. When such a word is to be used legitimately, it depends for its force on the fact that it is not commonplace. I appreciate the reticence that Christian people have about using such language in an ordinary conversation, and I share the reticence—even when the ordinary conversation is talking about such language use. But when my critics do the asterisk thing, they are wanting to have it both ways. They want the force of the word, so that I will be seen as a verbal antinomian, but they also want to be the one wearing white gloves.
Age Gap in Relationships
I have a question about age gaps between couples. What is too much and when is it too much? Is 10 years too much, being her 36 and him 26 or it depends on the situation? In that case, in which kind of situation would that be wise? Just asking for a friend.
ARN
ARN, it really does depend on a host of variables. Ten years is huge when he is 26 and she is 16, and not a big deal if he is 56 and she is 46. It makes a difference at the other end of life also—90 and 80. Somebody is going to have to take care of somebody else. My father was eight years younger than my mom, and it was a blessed relationship. My one serious concern would have to do with an old guy pursuing, say, a college, freshman. That could be great also, but the danger is that she might have a distorted view of how she will be able to respect him. He might be really impressive to the 18-year-old her, and then the 25-year-old her realizes that he is actually pretty ordinary. In other words, I am wary if a man is somehow obtaining respect on the cheap.
What the Heck is Going On
Thank you for your content and perspective. It has been a great help in my Christian journey. I have a question . In regards to your latest post “The Moral Obligation of Knowing What the Heck Is Going On.”
What are us regular folks to do about this? We are just a regular Christian family striving to follow the Lord in our home and everywhere else.
I’m beginning to wonder how long do we just let this happen before we start throwing tea in some kind of water. I’m not an angry belligerent person but a normal American citizen who is watching the nation go down the trash can. I’m just wondering if you think that citizens have any responsibility to protest or try to hold our leaders accountable in a biblical way. I have no influence and neither does my husband. So are praying and trusting the Lord but I do wonder how will we know when/if there comes a time to use as little power as we have as citizens to protest/get involved in careful and constitutional ways.
My husband is looking at getting another job just because of our taxes going up and inflation. He already works himself to exhaustion for us like a godly man. He does not want me to work outside the home (like a godly man). So to be completely honest I’m getting I think justifiably angry about what’s going on in this country. I could be wrong. I wonder what to do. I know prayer is the first but is there more we should be doing? Not just for is for also for the good of our fellow man and our children and their children.
I know that us teaching, training, and disciplining our children is one way to fight. We with God’s help are trying to do our best.
I wish I learned so much more about how our country was founded and how Christians should view politics. I feel like I’m trying to catch up while the whole world is going bananas.
Trusting in Gods good providence but wondering how to obey.
Thank you.
Ashley
Ashley, the main thing would be to do just what you are doing. Worship God, love your family, stay at your post. When the time come for God to rise up and scatter His enemies, His people will know what to do.
Re: The Moral Obligation of Knowing What the Heck Is Going On It really does look like God is letting us put ourselves into a pickle that only he can rescue us from.
Ian
Ian, it seems that way to me also.
Heresy Hunters
Some time ago I listened to a podcast episode of a couple Reformed guys saying you were a heretic (the word they used) because of this FV stuff. I still know nothing about FV, but that was the last podcast of those two I ever listened to. They are going to be shocked when they get the to the pearly gates and they fail the theology test because to their horror they will learn the Catholics were actually the ones that got it right! LOL
Mike
Mike, I don’t think I would say they got it “right.” I would prefer to say that the fact that any of them got it was only because they were wrong. If our works contribute to our salvation . . . well, they pray to pictures, man.
Writing Discipline
What’s your secret to being so productive? Absent a body double or a team of well-trained ghost writers, it doesn’t seem like there’s enough hours in a day. What’s your morning routine?
Austin
Austin, thanks. The discipline, such as it is, it laid out in detail in this book here. I usually get up at five, and write for a few hours, as I am doing right now.
Upbringing and Being Well Adjusted
Good morning, sir. I hope you and yours are doing well. I came across an amazing study conducted by IFS, Gallup and The Brookings Institute that was very recently released concerning the likelihood of mental illness development in children as it relates to their upbringing. Anyway, my first thought was this would be a great “Doug Reacts/Responds” video. At any rate, I think it serves as more support (or ammo, if you will) for Christians to be educated on and have in their arsenal. At a minimum, it is an encouragement to read. Enjoy!
Cameron
Cameron, thanks for the idea.
Think Big, Pray Big
I’m 22, a newlywed, and passionate about reforming the culture around me. I grew up with my brother, in a single parent household, where we had little in terms of good discipline and imagination, but much dishonoring to my mother and worldly goods(though we were poor). My father died when I was 9, and I’ve always grown up seeking “father types”, thought not being cognizant of it until more recently, when a I was exhorted by a pastor friend of mine, to “be the father I needed, and my children will need, and be the husband my mother should’ve had and my wife should have.” I aspire to, but as you may be able to tell due to my lack of proper grammar. I grew up hating school until I was saved as a high school senior 2 months before graduating. I was thrust into the workforce, where I’ve now been for the past 5 years as a carpenter. I’ve been a member of the same local church for the past 3 years where I serve in a college ministry and use that as an avenue to teach and encourage the next generation to live their lives for Christ and not for their passions, but I constantly feel a pull towards higher education and laying brick by brick a reformation in my sphere of influence and it seems like a lot of folks who do that have a higher education. It seems like most of the men and women in the past and today who have done great things such as started schools, orphanages, etc. were all well educated.
Post conversion, i had desires to be a husband, father, teacher, owner of an orphanage, etc. I’ve become a husband, hope to be a father and dream of being a teacher, and owning an orphanage. But as I work full time, am flipping my fixer-upper home, and save for a family, it all seems impossible to achieve these big conquests I have in mind. Me and my wife have no money, no rich parents, not a big church.
Should I just resolve to continue loving my wife, have children, and continue working faithfully, serving my church (which I will do regardless), and chalk all those dreams up to day old cheese? Meaning should I give up on those bigger conquests and dreams?
Eric
Eric, I would reiterate the advice that pastor gave you. Pour yourself into that. If you do, and if God wants to make it bigger, he certainly can. You can surrender something in principle without “giving it up.”
Penal Substitution
I’ve had this question for a while about Penal Substitutionary Atonement and it doesn’t feel like I’ve gotten a good answer on this one. If the Father poured out his wrath on Christ then wouldn’t create disunity in God or create 2 separate wills? Tangentially related is Jesus reference to Psalm 22 and the problem I feel mentioned above. Most people mentioned that his purpose was to quote that Psalm but it seems to me that the words actually mean something and that Christ felt abandoned by God at that moment. Was he really abandoned by God and if not how would that not contradict PSA or create the problems above?
Thanks in advance,
Faa
Faa, during that agony on the cross, there was no disruption within the Godhead at all. Just as when Jesus in His humanity got hungry or sleepy, there was no hunger or sleep within the Trinity, Second Person of the Trinity included. Wrath was poured out on the Logos, Jesus of Nazareth, and He was and is fully God. But wrath was not poured out on the eternal Son by the Father. This is the mistake that I believe the Definition of Chalcedon protects us from making. What is predicated of one nature can be predicated of the person, and what is predicated of the other nature can be predicated of the person. But what is predicated of one nature cannot be predicated of the other nature.
Satanic LARPing
Re: Toppling the Cosplay Satan.
Thank you very much for this piece. On Sunday I watched The Wade Show video on Canon Press titled “Disco Satan is Dead.” I enjoy Wade’s show very much, but this one hit differently because I realized that the biting sarcasm was aimed at me: A Christian (and an Iowan, no less) who struggles to understand why it was better to chop off the dummy’s head than to concede that the laws that protect my religious speech also protect the (pretending not to be) Satanists.’ I resolved in my mind to write you a letter and ask you to help me understand. Monday I read your post “Toppling the Cosplay Satan.” Ah. There it is. My allegiance to “America” and her laws are superseding my allegiance to Christ. Simple as that. And to add clarity to the issue, I heard the following verse this morning (Tuesday) as I was listening to Daily Audio Bible: ““I will stretch out my hand against Judah, and against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and I will cut off from this place the remnant of Baal and the name of the idolatrous priests along with the priests, those who bow down on the roofs to the host of the heavens, ***those who bow down and swear to the Lord and yet swear by Milcom [or, the king]***. Zephaniah 1:4-5
The extension of that idea is also the lynch-pin to understanding Christian Nationalism. I have had no dispute with your position on CN and welcome the day when it is realized in the manner God has declared. That will be a glorious day. But the struggle with chopping the head off the cosplay Satan is the same struggle with CN. It’s a struggle of allegiance. Detractors want to focus on “Nationalism” as primary. Nationalism, on its own, has had generally bad outcomes. Genuine Christianity has been transformational consistently. My first allegiance should be to Christ. America and religious liberty are much farther down the list. “Christian Nationalism” is a description of the ends, not the means.
If the old adage that one letter represents 100 people with the same opinion is true, then on behalf of the 101 of us, thank you for explaining this to us. God bless, and Merry Christmas!
John
John, thanks very much.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. I am a Representative in the Iowa House of Representatives. Your recent Blog and Mablog episode discussing the Satan statue at our capital was awesome. Absolutely spot on commentary, the line about LARPing revealing weak Christians bowing the knee to the idol of neutrality was incredible and savage. Cut me like a knife but also broke my heart for the current state of things. But, I still loved it.
Before I get ahead of myself, please pray for me and our state. It breaks my heart and saddens me that as I said these things (not as eloquently as you of course!) in our caucus meetings after the act of “deconstruction” occurred, I was met with people who simply claimed this Satan idol statue was an act of the 1st Amendment. One legislator going even further informing me of her irritation of me claiming our nation and its laws were founded on the Christian worldview. Anyways, I digress. Thanks for your work. Many Christians around the nation are taking notice of your words and are being encouraged to stand on the authority of Christ and the scriptures. Me being one of them.
With much Sincerity and Respect towards you
Rep. ZD
ZD, stand fast. Everybody else, please pray for these men.
Warm, Friendly and Distant
In your sermon on friendship, you said to be warm, friendly, and distant. I know how to be distant, but what must I do to be warm and friendly? Do you have any resources on that?
Thanks,
Jake
Jake, many people equate distant with being cool, cool and distant. But if you are mannerly, you will be thought warm, and if you are conversational, you will be thought friendly. And if while doing that, you don’t overshare, if you keep your own counsel, you will be cultivating what I describe as distance.
Infant Salvation
D – Dubya, Regarding infant salvation you recently wrote this:
“I don’t believe they are innocent, but I do believe that sin is not imputed where there is no law. I believe that infants who die in infancy are saved, but they are saved by grace, and not by right.”
Have you discussed this in greater detail anywhere else? I’m not fully tracking and was hoping for a better understanding.
John
John, my commentary on Romans, To the Church in Rome, has a little bit on it. Here it is, in a nutshell. A human fertilized egg that fails to implant in the uterine wall is a human being who will live forever. That single cell is created in the image of God, and belongs to a race of sinners. He belongs to a race of walkers, but has not taken a step. He belongs to a race of talkers, but has not spoken a word. He belongs to a race of sinners, but because the law has not yet come, sin is not imputed.
Visiting Parents and Strangers
I’m married, and currently on a vacation visiting my parents. Does honouring my parents equal to doing whatever they ask, such as going with them to visit their friends whom I don’t know or care about?
Peter
Peter, it might. It depends on things like how much your parents care about you meeting them, and what your relationship with your parents is like over all.
Eric the State is not going to let you start an orphanage. Find a Christian outreach which interests you which is affiliated with one of your community churches and volunteer for a while. This will give you an education in how these things work. Your passion is wonderful, but you need more maturity.
I disagree . I think he should start an orphanage
I don’t see why the state wouldn’t let him operate an orphanage under the more contemporary term of “group foster home.” Why do you think that would be the case?
Since when does the State get to decide such things? One of the things the Bible calls Christians to do is to take care of kids without a home. If I felt called to open an orphanage I would do it and worry about the state later.
Does someone have a link to that particular sermon on friendship?
Thanks.
Mr. Wilson,
How about an age gap of 25 years with the man being 59 and the girl being 35? Would you have additional concerns to your response to ARN above?
Rob, I abide by the general formula for “creepiness” – she should be at least half your age (rounded down) plus 7 years, In your case, 36. So 35 is at the edge, but not by too much.
The key thing is, with that age difference and your current age, she will probably be taking care of you in your old age for a significant time. Is she ready for that?
and yet God can, and does, do what HE wants. This might get me flamed, but I relate these two stories as wha He did, and have to say He did wonderful things in both cases. I have met two women who, at 14 years of age, married men well into their fifties. One I met as I was visiting good friends. This woman is the Mother of my friend’s Wife, and was visiting. After breakfast we got to chating in the living room near the woodsotve, it WAS cold outside. General cnversaion, geting to know each other. She was… Read more »
The “girl” being 35?
How close to her age are any children he has?
What kind of shape is he in? There are 59 year old men in better shape than half the 39 year olds, and there are men 59 going on 80. That would be an additional concern.
What if the woman is older? Does the man have kids?
He’d better have all he wants, if she’s a quarter century older than him. And hope the kids get along with their step grandma.
I would ask Peter why he would resist visiting his parents’ friends with them. Is it because it would conflict with some other duty he has? In that case, he needs to weigh the importance of the various duties. Is it because visiting people doesn’t know and isn’t interested in seems boring and a waste of his time while on vacation (and may genuinely be so)? In that case, go.I think a good test for what adults owe our parents when what’s being asked is neither morally imperative nor morally reprehensible is, “If this were a friend who was not… Read more »
Doug, you said, “And as for the pope, he could not be more in error, which is probably a dangerous thing to say.”
If Bergoglio is in error, which he is, and the Catholic church is heretical, which it is, then where’s the danger?
It’s the fact that “he could not be more in error” not the fact that he is the pope or catholic.
The guy with the funny hat and his institution are already in the worst sort of error (Galatians 1:9), so they’ve been pegging the danger meter for a very long time. And it’s not like Bergoglio is the first pope in living memory to open his yap and let the stupid pour forth — you’ll recall John Paul II said, “The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God…” and “My brothers, when I think of this spiritual heritage (Islam) and the value it has for man and for society…I wonder if it is not urgent,… Read more »
I was starting to think I was the only one left who doesn’t regard Catholicism as just one denomination amongst many. I think it is a sub-Christian ‘church’ with some genuine believers in it despite its deficient gospel, additions and subtractions from the faith once delivered.
For a lot of its hierarchy and some of its priesthood I am not surprised to find unbelievers behaving and saying things like … unbelievers.
I think his point is that it is always a dangerous thing to say that someone “could not be more in error.” It might be correct, it might necessary to say, but there is always danger involved.
What injury, pain, harm, or loss would come to Doug, or anyone for that matter, for pointing out papal idiocy? How is this any different than pointing out that Joseph Smith or Charles Taze Russell could not be in more error?
What am I missing here?
If Doug is wrong, then he has sinned against someone, and it’s a greater sin because the implication of “could not be more wrong” is that he has declared the position to be damnable. The danger is of having sinned grievously.
At least, I think that’s what he means. And I don’t think he means it is any different from any of those other declarations you suggest. It’s not that he’s really in doubt, he’s just pointing out the seriousness of saying such things.
IMO, the implication of “he could not be more in error, which is probably a dangerous thing to say” is that he may take the “hold my beer” approach. Never say someone cannot be even more foolish than they have just demonstrated themselves to be. They’ll prove you wrong.
That also seems like a good interpretation.