Control of the Dictionary
Re: In Which Time Magazine Reports That We Have Always Been at War with Eastasia “Democracy won in the end. The will of the people prevailed.”
Perfectly true, if you remember how these people define what a “person” is; that is, a status that can be given and taken away.
Eric, right. If you control all the words, you control all the people. Whatever they are.
Re: Time Magazine article. So, yes, up to the election, there was an all-out, well-coordinated, all hands on deck, whatever it takes, dishonest, manipulative, disinformation, misinformation, “mostly peaceful,” effort to defeat Trump. Obviously. And after the election, Trump and Giuliani and Wood and Powell and MyPillow Guy and Newsmax and OAN and Epochtimes, etc., have engaged in an all-out, manipulative, dishonest, disinformation, misinformation, whatever it takes, effort to claim that Trump won the election. These two happenings are not mutually exclusive. This is the world in which we live and the choices our Lord and God has left us with. We don’t live in a world of truth tellers who humbly recognize the Word and his authority, but in a world of “my truthers” who seek to impose their will on the world through their manipulative, dishonest, words. Trump is the master of this, who was beaten by the ungodly weapons he employs, but who does not accept a world in which his word and “truth” do not prevail. Hence, Stop the Steal, January 6th, Hang Pence, etc.
John, there is more than a little bit to agree with here. But keep in mind that there are responsible people who saw what was happening in the first instance, and yet who are automatically lumped in with the worst extremes of the second. And the bottom line is whether or not what Time acknowledged doing was “campaigning” or “interfering.” And it is possible to see that it was the latter without being an extremists.
At this point in history, it’s worth remembering those countries which best exemplify Democracy, government by the will of the people. I’m talking of course about Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the German Democratic Republic (now defunct, alas), and the People’s Republic of China. Even their names trumpet their commitment to true democracy (unlike those corrupt Western countries where a powerful elite exploits the common citizen for their own ends)
Andrew, thanks for sharing. I think we were in danger of forgetting this.
“My biggest criticism of Trump is that he got rolled on the pandemic . . . Then, fourth, on the stolen election . . .The point is that someone in Trump’s position was likely in possession of far more evidence on this than any of us on the outside. I think it was likely, but in any case, he either had it or he didn’t have it. And this is the point of my criticism. If he had it, he should have done far more with it. If he didn’t have it, he shouldn’t have done as much as he did.” Two push backs on these two points:
1) The pandemic and the stolen election were not separate, unrelated events. They were part of a coordinated attack to destroy our country, and right now, it looks like it may work. Coordinated with whom? The answer is obvious: Chinese communists, in collusion with liberal and Democrat insiders, connived to unleash a bio-attack, use it as an excuse to give cover to mail-in voting, and then engaged in the single biggest coup-via-election-fraud this country has ever seen. The messaging was obviously coordinated, the timing is blatantly obvious as well, and it’s clear that there were people in place who were ready to execute the plan. This brings me to the second point:
2) It’s likely that Trump knew at least some of this, he probably figured out the rest, but he most likely found himself on an island with an absolute inability to do anything about other than to appeal to the already subjugated masses, which was fruitless. What do I mean by Trump on an island? Well, isn’t it interesting how most previous “staunch supporters” of Trump have all of a sudden turned out to be nothing more than wisps? It’s almost as if they abandoned him in his hour of critical need. Further, there is now emerging testimony of people in high places, Republicans even, who took active steps to work against Trump. I’d recommend Patrick Byrne’s recent first person account of his involvement as a good source of info.
So I don’t know that Trump should get criticism for this. By all rights, we should have already obliterated the Chinese government off the face of the earth and either expelled or imprisoned the liberal Democratic operatives who functioned as enemies of this country (and did so in publicly stated, explicit terms in many cases). But that didn’t happen, not because Trump “got rolled,” but because I believe the corruption you highlighted paragraphs earlier runs deeper than you know: throughout our elitist ruling class in the government, throughout military leadership, and throughout the federal bureaucracy. Add in the cowardice of those running this clown show against what are probably additional threats from China to release more, even deadlier bio agents, and you get the recipe for the false narrative we are seeing today.
Goodness, I can’t even get my own Senator (Tom Cotton) to admit to even a modicum of irregularities on election fraud! I mean, we have testimony about wireless transmitters in voting machines, confirmed IP packets being transmitted between said voting machines and various Chinese entities, and what not, but no, even the likes of Tom Cotton can only stand there and call claims of election fraud “lies”.
I don’t think that merits criticism of Trump in that area.
Guymon, the fact remains that after a few weeks of foot-dragging, the president tried to get out in front of the panic and become the most fightinest pandemic president ever. I sympathize with the place he was in, but it was a failed strategy from the get-go.
In the Trump post-mortem article, I liked your sentence, “when Trump made the fatal decision to try to become the best pandemic president ever, he was trying to assume command of the mob that was coming to lynch him.” I agree with the overall conclusion; it was a critical & fatal error. I have to wonder, though: Was it an error born of a foolhardy attempt to control the mob? Or, was it an error born of ignorance with regard to scientific realities? If I had not read the Duesberg & Ellison book, I would probably have reacted much differently to the “pandemic.” Reason: the whole thing was so politically convenient, that I was immediately skeptical. . . but even in the face of extreme skepticism, I may have (err, probably would have) gone along with the “let’s be cautious mentality.” Knowing what I know now, I’m sort of ashamed to admit that—but I have a very high regard for hard evidence when it comes to decision-making. And frankly, before I would have been willing to utterly dismiss things that the CDC said, I needed evidence that the CDC was politically-motivated and had lied in the past. Being in possession of that evidence, I will gladly die on the hill of the truth that the evidence establishes. But I do not die on hills on the basis of extreme skepticism alone; life-and-death decisions must be evidence-based.
If I may dare to speculate for a moment, let’s say that neither President Trump nor any of the advisors whom he trusted were familiar with the evidence that Duesberg and Ellison documented. (Personally, I consider that unlikely, but nevertheless a realistic possibility; it never ceases to amaze me how many people, even in ultra-conservative circles, are unfamiliar with that evidence.) Result: Extreme skepticism results in his refusal to wear masks, but lack of evidence-in-hand prevents him from accusing the CDC of being the liars that they are. This rock-&-a-hard-place position led to the decision that you noted.
Did he make a serious error? Absolutely. And maybe, I am leaning too far in the direction of giving him the benefit of the doubt. But I seriously have to wonder if, this time, even he failed to recognize the depth of the corruption that was opposing him. The CDC is physically removed just far enough from Washington to be relevant . . .
If it were not for a tidbit of personal history, I would think of Atlanta this way: “Yes, it’s a city, but it’s ‘in Georgia.'” It is only because my father was a lifelong employee of General Electric, that I am familiar with the fact that, when GE moved a couple of its major divisions to Atlanta, that city became the garden for a significant number of leftist transplants from the Northeast.
GE’s relocation, I believe, happened after Gallo’s tenure at the CDC; I am not saying that the corporate move had a causal effect on CDC politics. Rather, the point is that, even AFTER Atlanta fell prey to immigration from the left, I think a lot of Americans fail to perceive it as a place likely of extreme political corruption. President Trump probably knew better, or should have. But to what extent does he appreciate that the CDC has been corrupt and lying about viruses for decades?
With all due respect, I don’t understand your comment on the issue of Trump, Pence and counting electoral votes. You seem to be painting a picture similar to that which the liberals painted regarding his COVID response. Which is to say, as if he could have personally faced it down in the middle of the street at high noon. I am not familiar with the details of the matter of which you are speaking, but my understanding is that Trump was just the chief executive, while Pence was presiding over the Senate. The whole matter seems to involve a lot of moving parts, which were already being jammed by members of his own party. As a result, I wonder of your characterization of Trump, in this instance, is fair. In some ways, it even seems reckless.
Iain, I don’t think it was reckless, and here is why. Pence had certain tools in his chest as president of the Senate. If he had used them, even in a mild way (e.g. delay for ten days), the establishment would have gone nuts, and we would have had a full-blown constitutional crisis. Moreover, Pence didn’t believe in the propriety of that tool. Trump had his own means of getting us to a constitutional crisis (e.g. martial law), and he did believe in the propriety of using it. But he didn’t, which is why I think the responsibility should stop with him. I am not saying he should have declared martial law. I am saying that if he had the evidence he claims, he should have brought everything to a head himself, instead of faulting someone like Pence for not bringing it to a head.
As a “Catholic” in what is currently the Franciscan swamp (as opposed to the other “swamps” that have bogged down the Israel of God under the New Covenant (passim the Israel of the Old) – maintaining with you and my brothers (and I guess I must add “sisters”) the truth of Sola Scriptura (properly understood as the final authority) and the gratuitous election to salvation of an elect chosen by the Father and redeemed by the Son by the agency of the Holy Ghost through faith (I dare say “alone,” albeit fortified for and through this flesh by “sacraments” and sacramentals)—I have appreciated your sound ecumenical observations regarding the brotherhood (I suppose again I must add “sisterhood”) of all Christians who believe the Gospel no matter what the “high priests” say (à la Francis, Caiaphas).
And now I must tell you that your observations regarding the former president and The Circumstance are simply brilliant.
For what it’s worth . . . from a nobody among the washed masses, who simply wants you to know.
Mark, thank you. And given your most admirable qualifiers, it seems to me that you are not far from the kingdom.
Just a friendly suggestion to get on Telegram, along with Gab. Telegram being a great, safe, alternative to Twitter (where I and millions have been banned).
John, thanks. I haven’t checked that one out yet.
The Masks That Won’t Go Away
I know you have written at length about mask mandates—the legality, efficacy, symbolism, etc.—so I’m sure you’ve already, er, “covered” what I’m about to ask. How does one argue with brothers/sisters in Christ who are convinced that masking is either 1) a good thing, or 2) a lawful thing? Many times I hear the point that it’s “loving my neighbor” to wear a mask, not just because it provides a minuscule bump in actual protection (maybe) but because they *perceive* that it protects them. What do I do with this so that I’m not stymied by Precious Moments sentimentalism in my cold, black heart?
Malachi, I would present that calculus back to them in stark terms. Suppose masks are worse than ineffectual, but that they also do more harm than good. The question should be posed like this: If given a choice between doing harm, but looking like you care, or doing good, but looking like you don’t care, which would you choose?
I have been going through your Biblical Finances (on the Canon App) and I have read your Ploductivity book. I have worked as an engineer for various corporations and I have always wondered is how to be faithful with my time at my job. That is, every company I have worked for would love if I worked 50-60 hours a week, and they have placed a work load on me that requires this. Other times, I feel as if I am trying to stretch out my work to 40 hours a week and not being very productive. In any instance, every company expects 40+ hours (“full time work”)—even though they have never said that. It just seems to be a custom.
On the family side, I am no less busy, so very often my job competes with my family for my time. I had thought about becoming a consultant (a big leap of faith), but what has stayed my hand is all of the consultants I know work even longer hours. It also seems like owning a business is no less time-consuming.
I find it is a question of ambition—ambition to be a father and husband versus ambition to be a provider and working for the Lord versus ambition to advance the church. How does one decide whether to work at one job or another—working no more than 40 hours? That seems arbitrary.
It’s a question I have wrestled with for a while that I have not quite been able to figure out.
Any word of advice would be greatly appreciated.
David, 40 hours should be thought of as “union hours.” You may not have control over your time if employed by someone else, but in your family work and in your church work, you should be able to determine what you give, not in hours, but in results. Keep the priorities you have, work hard where you are, and pray for God to move you if He wants you moved.
A Theonomy Question
I’m a high schooler in TN who has started to study the depth and richness of the law of God and its applicability today. However, there is one thing I really can’t seem to figure out: What to say when someone says Matthew 5:18 proves too much given a theonomic interpretation. I can make sense out of “fulfill” in 17 and Jesus’ conclusion in 19, but verse 18 is tricky. I’ve read Bahnsen’s exposition, but he doesn’t seem to quite answer the question. Or, maybe I just need to reread it. However, how would you reply to someone saying, given a theonomic interpretation, Matthew 5:18 “proves too much” (given that we really do think the ceremonial law is abolished [Ephesians 2:15])? Maybe it is unfair to assume you are thinking so similarly to me on this passage. However, I know you believe in the abiding validity of God’s law in its general equity. Could you help me out?
Richard, clearly the fulfillment of the ceremonial law looks different than the fulfillment of the moral law. But fulfilled is not synonymous with obliterated. Fulfilled results in obedience by other means. For example, Paul says that Christians still keep the (Passover) festival, but we do it by getting rid of the yeast of malice and wickedness (1 Cor. 5:8). But we still keep the feast.
Name the Sin
I have been helped by your hamartiology section in your podcast and your insistence on the importance of words and their definitions. It is incredible to me how our society uses language as a tool of obstructing or distorting realities. Vice is swiftly swapped for virtue. Jealousy becomes an innocent insecurity, etc. My wife and I have been talking lately about the essential task of identifying the sin in certain behavior . . . especially with our children. I think maybe she heard this from your daughters, but she has been using the phrase, “name the sin.” Anyhow, this phrase sparked an idea . . . I think you should consider (you’re welcome) writing a book called, “Name that sin!” in which you would each chapter create a scenario with a main character who is engaged in a certain sin, but has identified it as something else. By the end of each chapter the sin is exposed and the person either repents and relationships are restored or refuses to repent and the consequences compile. (Btw. one of the aspects of Peter Leithart’s “wise words” that I so much appreciated was that, to the great horror of my children, some of the short stories had terrible endings. “yes kids, folly can kill” =)
Chuck, thanks for the idea. To be frank, it is not like we were running short on ideas, but yours is a good one.
One of my prayers lately has been that, whatever happens, God would not allow our children to be taken from us, even though that seems like an obvious, and perhaps imminent step of the Leftist nanny state. I include with that the prayer that God would turn the Secularist’s hatred of children against them and use it to cause their children to start listening to us. I invite you and anyone who reads this to join me. The next step for me is grandchildren, although none are on the horizon yet. Anyway, it would be much easier to raise our children in the fear and admonition of Yahweh if we still have them.
Andrew, good request.
I’ve watched a fair bit of the Man Rampant series and I have a few observations and a couple of questions
First, your content is fresh and presented well; provocative but not preachy.
You and your guests are articulate but not overly heady which is hard to do dealing with the subjects you tackle. (I remember hearing someone say once that in Christian ministry for the most part, we feed sheep and not giraffes, and trying to drink from a fire hose gets you wet but doesn’t easily quench your thirst). This goes for not only Man Rampant but all of your material from Blog and Mablog to Ask Doug. All are innovative but well grounded.
My only criticism of Man Rampant is about your production values. A change of sets and location would make the material more digestible for the viewer. Also, a change a clothing would improve your look. Nothing drastic but blazers and v-neck sweaters get old after a while. I assume that someone on your staff has TV production experience because it is obvious that your programs are well done. I just think they need a little tweaking visually.
My questions are these. What are you sipping while doing the interviews. Bourbon, rum, brandy? And why. I am not opposed to drinking a bit of bourbon and I like craft beers. I’m just curios as to the thinking involved especially when many Christians do not drink and frown on those who do. Also in like manner smoking cigars. The same question, what was the thinking process behind it.? Not so much the doing of these liberties but broadcasting them without explanation. That said your voice is needed today because evangelicalism is a sinking boat . Long live the resistance. With respect
Tony, we are usually drinking whiskey or bourbon. The reason for doing it (without explanation) is to frame the discussion. We are Christians who are biblical absolutists, which is possible outside of cultural fundamentalism. On the set, we don’t have our own studio (yet). And on the way I dress, I am afraid they are just stuck with the way I dress. I just show up, and there we are.
Where Is Everybody?
I recently became aware of your work, and have now read several of your books, all very good even when I don’t agree with everything in them. I like well-argued points when they are backed up with Scripture, even if I am not completely convinced that the interpretation is right. At least we’re working with the right tools, the Word of God.
I especially liked the closing sentence to your work. After the election, the same became clear to me, though not in such eloquent words. I started a blog hoping to communicate some ideas as to how the church can transform itself to have a wider impact on culture starting with our own personal conduct and then working its way out to how we “do church” then how we can impact the broader culture.
I wonder if you recently had seen in the NYT an article detailing how various left-wing activist groups “on short notice” got 900 of their leaders on a Zoom call to chill out prior to the election.
I don’t really care what they were doing or why that’s questionable. What I found interesting is when I thought “What if I wanted to get 900 of the most influential evangelical leaders and thinkers that are in agreement with me together?” How could I do it? Where would I start?
What I’m getting at is I feel like those of us with a fire in our belly to have some larger influence on the culture (through reformation, not revolution) should have a place where we all congregate and share ideas. I am a lay leader of a small group in my church, so I have some impact there, but it’s pretty limited. All of us posting to our blogs and hoping the right people stumble across us seems like an ineffective strategy. Have you given any thought to this issue?
Jason, yes, I have. The problem is that in order to call a “summit,” you need to have someone with the moral authority to call one. Such that people come to it. That moral authority has to be enough to overcome ecclesiastical politics, turf jealousies, fear of being left out, etc. I don’t think we have that person yet, but if things continue to deteriorate, at some point we will.
I live in Melbourne, Victoria (Australia). Not only did we lead the world in strictest lock downs in 2020, we are now making a run to lead the way on faith persecution. Take a look at our newly voted for “Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020”.
Try searching the word “prayer” in it and see what you get.
All the while we are being told, “it won’t affect you”
Whilst you may not have heard this story you will be all too familiar with the play being run.
Appreciate your words of wisdom on fighting this madness.
Wiley on Joseph
Our household got to be familiar with the writings of CR Wiley after Canon’s publication of his book, and we have been greatly benefited. Would you care to weigh in on his recurring theme (on social media, at least) of being critical of Joseph for laying the groundwork for slavery and serfdom for God’s people with the policies he enacted while governing Egypt? Not sure what to think of this, it’s the first time I’ve ever heard anyone do much bashing of this particular patriarch!
Micah, it has been a while since I looked at that. At the very least, Joseph’s actions constitute a problem to be solved. The recons used to say that paganism is slavery, and so slavery was fitting for them, and that you can’t have freedom without worship of the true God. But it has been a while, and I might not be remembering the nuances.
Kids and Dinosaurs
This morning my 7 year old daughter was trying to resolve woolly mammoths, dinosaurs, and the first couple chapters of Genesis. I was proud of her for thinking so deeply but also realized that I was woefully unprepared. Do you have a short-list of materials you recommend on the subject?
Jordon, just remember that you are asking this question of a young earth creationist. That said, I would start with something like this.
He Comes in Peace
I’m Roman Catholic, and I come in peace! Sincere question: what would “Chestertonian Calvinist” be, since Chesterton was utterly Catholic?
Gerry, yes, he was. To answer your question, allow me to quote from an upcoming video in the Reformed Basics series:
G.K. Chesterton was a character who was renowned for his jovial and combative insights. He fought unbelief effectively, but he fought consistently like a cavalier and not like a thug. This is all admirable, but some might object and say that Chesterton was an Anglican who then became a Roman Catholic, and he never missed a chance to take a jab at Calvinists and Calvinism. Wouldn’t he be annoyed to find us appropriating his name in this way? Well, yes, and that is the first (and very Chestertonian) reason for doing it. But the second reason is that no other word will really describe what we are attempting.
Here is C.S. Lewis describing the early Puritans:
“But there is no understanding the period of the Reformation in England until we have grasped the fact that the quarrel between the Puritans and the Papists was not primarily a quarrel between rigorism and indulgence, and that, in so far as it was, the rigorism was on the Roman side. On many questions, and specially in their view of the marriage bed, the Puritans were the indulgent party; if we may without disrespect so use the name of a great Roman Catholic, a great writer, and a great man, they were much more Chestertonian than their adversaries” (C.S. Lewis, Selected Literary Essays, p. 116, emphasis mine).
For those of you rubbing your eyes in disbelief, according to C.S. Lewis, the early Puritans were much more Chestertonian than their adversaries. And they were this way long before Chesterton was born, and they were this way because of their essential grasp of the gospel of free grace.
I listened to Women’s Ministries as Pestilence where you slighted women counselors. I’m not in disagreement with you, I’m just wondering, who should I turn to? I think I would likely benefit from some form of biblical counseling. I tried going to my pastor but he cut me off and gave me book recommendations. Women tend to listen more, but they almost listen too much. The sulking sessions typically just lead to more misery. I was just wondering if you could expand on your thought. I know that defeats the purpose of no quarter November but I was hoping you might make an exception for the weaker sex.
Miranda, I am not at all against godly older women who give counsel (which my wife does quite a bit of). I am just against women counselors as a growth industry, which I believe tends to make things worse, not better. I would encourage you to find a godly older woman, one you respect, and ask to get together so that you can ask for some advice.
Advice From the Slammer
Wanted to amen your ‘Christians in the catacombs’ spiel. Had the distinct pleasure of spending 1.5 yrs in a federal prison camp a couple years ago. Best fellowship I’d had in many years. Sure, there was the time my ass was threatened with a whooping for putting the tater tots in the wrong compartment of the tray (nothing came of it). Then the time as head umpire of the 2 team softball league that I invoked the infield fly rule, and heard myself tell a guy half my age to shut up (couple hours after all the smoke stopped coming out of his ears, he told me I was right and apologized). I could go on.
Point is, it was a great place, and a place that knows the difference between real and fake Jesus people.
More stuff I can tell you later when they send you there. No worries.
Steve, yes, well, um, looking forward to it.
Theocratic Free Speech
The Theocratic Case for Free Speech | You should absolutely publish this book, as soon as you do the theological, systematic, biblical, exegetical, historical, grammatical, etc. groundwork for it! I will buy in a heartbeat!
I’m the respondent to your article last week regarding free speech/freedom of religion, in which I asked you to please put more of the goods on the shelves if you have them. And so I want to thank you for doing that. Your article this week was helpful. As I read it, you describe the rudiments of what we might call a biblical pragmatism justification: do unto others as you’d have them do unto you. And also an account premised on the kind of internal governance which the Spirit of God produces in converted individuals and societies, rendering them capable of and safe for freedom. Clearly, questions still abound, which you acknowledge in several of your responses to letters this week. And so I pray the Lord blesses your mind and your pen as you seek to give deeper treatment to these questions in the days ahead. I think we’ll all benefit from it.
Adam, I really do want to dig into this one deeper. The subject really needs it.
A Disgruntled Voice
Trump: a Postmortem “Anything that contributed to the year 2020 being “quite the year”—by which I mean the pandemic, the masking orders, the lock downs, the riots, the race for a vaccine, the whole enchilada—was part of a concerted effort to make it impossible for Trump to gain a second term. Everything. All of it. The whole thing.”
So, what’s the theory here? The entire world faked a pandemic so that Trump would lose the election? They locked down in Iceland because they hate Trump so much? They closed down all the restaurants in the UK because they just can’t stand the thought of a second Trump term? Or, perhaps someone (somehow) hoodwinked Americans into thinking that other countries locked down from COVID, but really the rest of the world was business as usual.
I don’t want to misstate your position. But is that what you’re saying? That’s pretty extreme. Apart from seeing no evidence of that, I have a really hard time believing that the world revolves around American politics to that extent.
Serious question: do YOU ever budget for being wrong? I hope so, because you have an influence that far outstrips your expertise. You are a well-educated, well-read man, but you are not an expert in epidemiology, election law, first amendment law, or really any of the political subjects you opine on in this blog. That wouldn’t matter at all if you were some unknown attorney like me. But you are a minister of the gospel, which means that it should be the gospel you administer, not the latest political conspiracy theory.
I’m not saying you should “stay in your lane.” I understand that you have authority (perhaps the duty, sometimes) to speak out as a minister about what God’s word says about all kinds of political topics. But the Bible doesn’t say the election was stolen, or COVID is fake, or masks are evil and should be protested. And, believe it or not, those things just aren’t obvious to the rest of us. Yet you seem to push these issues sometimes harder (or at least more frequently) than you do the actual, biblical issues. You’ve traveled far afield from the Bible lately, and I would suggest that using your authority as a minister to propagate these claims comes dangerously close to false prophecy.
I’m reminded of a passage in The Screwtape Letters in which Screwtape says of Father Spike that the humans in his congregation are often puzzled with the range of his political views, while the demons are teaching him to say “the teaching of the Church is” when he really means “I’m almost sure I read recently in Maritain or someone of that sort.” I trust that you also have the same fatal defect (in Screwtape’s world) as him.
For the record, I love the last bit on “The Only Way.” I heartily agree, I’m just saying you should apply these things to yourself.
Rob, let’s use equal weights and measures.
When I make a claim about the culture, or politics, I don’t just repeat the conclusions I read somewhere else. I set out my arguments, and I take a great deal of trouble to do so at great length. People can agree or disagree, and they do both. So much is standard, and iron sharpens iron. And yet, ignoring the arguments I have written, you simply assume that I am opining over ideas that flit through my head. You ask for my “evidence” for my claims, and so I would point you to numerous articles.
But you have made claims also, and so may I ask for your evidence? You say that you “trust” I have the same “fatal defect” as Lewis’s Father Spike. What is this trust based on? You claim also that I do not apply the gospel that I preach to myself? Evidence? You also assert that I am dangerously close to false prophecy. In short, you are making claims about someone’s personal honesty and integrity, and are doing so from many miles away. I am not objecting to the fact that you disagree with my arguments. That really is your prerogative. But you make suggestions about another individual’s soul from a great distance, and they are the kind of claims I would very hesitant to make with someone I was counseling, even if I had been meeting with them on a weekly basis for six months.