Contents
Ingratitude
“Despite the fact that he was the reason Roe was struck down, for which we thank God . . .”
But there’s the rub: The hard-core abolitionists DON’T thank God for this. They are ungrateful for Dobbs—contemptuous of it—because they believe it did nothing. They cite the continued availability of the abortion pill in all states, including those that supposedly have passed full bans. And they cite “pro-life” groups that have roadblocked full bans in various places. The ingratitude is the thing that I find most perturbing from this faction, and I hope you’ll address that sometime.Kyriosity
Kyriosity, yes, there is a great deal of ingratitude involved. But there is also some injustice in the reasoning. If a total abolitionist ban went into effect in one state, and the abortion stats went way up in all the neighboring states, it would be weird to hang that on the abolitionists. And if you would block a partial ban on abortion, there there is no room to fault those who would block a different kind of ban. In such a case, everybody is being an incrementalist.
Have you already addressed the 2023 abortion numbers published by Guttmacher and #WeCount? If so, I missed it. But I haven’t heard anybody talking about this. If the numbers are right, 2023 saw the largest year-over-year increase in abortion in 45+ years. I took a deep dive into the numbers last week. I’m hoping you’ll read or listen to my findings here.Michael
Michael, thanks. I suspect it is the same kind of phenomenon as when Obama got elected and the sale of guns shot through the roof, only this coming from the left. It is how people react when they see a door closing.
Losing Joy
First, I wanted to thank you for the impact your ministry has had on my life and the life of my family. I’m truly grateful for your work.
I’d appreciate any feedback on confessing sin if we find ourselves veering into the other ditch, when it leans towards being meritorious. For example, I tend towards getting stuck in my head analyzing if I sinned or not, did I confess rightly, should I confess to another person, how much detail, etc. I would appreciate any wisdom on the matter.
Blessings,DJ
DJ, those who are vulnerable to morbid introspection, which is what this is, need to learn how to see such behavior as another sin, one you are clinging to, instead of being a well-meaning attempt to root out sin. Introspectionists are savage with themselves on every sin but the one they are committing, which is that of trying to be their very own Holy Spirit.
Reference your post “Sounds FV,” my struggle is the question of how good do I need to be to know my faith is living faith. In my darker hours, I’m supposed to lift my eyes to Christ for my assurance, that my faith rests on his accomplished work, but this seems to encourage me to look inward to see if my faith is living enough through my actions. My works can be evidence to other people that I’m a Christian, but if I look to them rather than to Christ, I feel like Luther in his cell. Looking at the life of Gideon (and most of the other warlords in Judges), who as far as we can tell, lived a cowardly life, then had his faith moment—or month—then lived apostate for the rest of his days yet still arrived into the hall of faith in Hebrews 11. It seems to demonstrate that saving faith isn’t conditional on perseverance, but works are for rewards like Paul talks about in 1 Co 3:10-15.
Thank you for ministry, my family has been immensely blessed by it!Tyler
Tyler, see my answer above. And the issue is not whether we are good enough, because we never are. The question should always be, is Christ good enough?
Calvin and the Supper
A question about Calvin’s view of the Supper and Hebrews 6. In Heb 6, an infamous apostasy passage, individuals who partake of various new covenant blessings later fall away. Of these blessings is described as “tasting the heavenly gift” which is almost universally believed to be a reference to the Lord’s Supper. But on the Calvinist side of things, those without faith do not spiritually partake of Christ through the elements, but instead eat and drink judgment upon themselves. Do non-elect covenant members partake of Christ’s true body and blood? Or is it possible for someone temporarily experience blessings from the supper which later turn into judgment? Because it sure seems like the non-elect envisioned in Heb 6 took the Lord’s Supper and were blessed by it—however temporarily.
Thanks!CC
CC, from a Calvinist perspective, temporary blessings that are despised turn out to be no blessing at all in the long run. Something that turns to judgment later is something that increases that judgment when it arrives. As for the central question, non-elect covenant members do not partake of Christ in the same way that the elect do. There is a qualitative difference.
Voting No Sacrament
No, and it never was. Not before Roe, and not after Roe, and not since Roe was overturned, and not even because of Roe was our vote ever a sacrament. But, we Evangelicals, along with Catholics who mean it, chose to treat it as such, essentially becoming single-issue voters who looked the other way when we had to, whatever else the Republicans did (or did not) and said. We couldn’t even get behind trying to make a third party viable, for fear of “throwing the election.” I won’t be admonished now regarding purity votes or perfectionism or cynicism, you’re a day late and a dollar short for that.
Now at this point it really takes some rhetorical gymnastics to present voting for the most unprincipled and shambolic presidential candidate ever—and I when I say most shambolic ever I include the recent drop-out, in his dotage, in the reckoning—as the choice Christians simply have to make. I can’t even commend your effort or persistence here. The singular reason you had is not there anymore, you’re just left with the steaming pile of everything else you were willing to overlook. Wishful thinking is the closest I can come to making sense of it.
What would Trump have to do for you to change your mind and do something other than vote for him? Or to agree that, everything about Trump and present circumstances considered, a Christian might reasonably and righteously choose a different option than voting for Trump? What would he have to do or what would have to happen? I ask that seriouslyJohn
John, the question is a simple one, I think. One thing that Trump could do that would get that result, at least from me, is promise the same thing the Democrats have promised, which is the restoration of Roe.
I’m curious about the degree to which your philosophy of voting would make “viability” an overriding factor in voting decisions. Like, hypothetically, if there was a Christian Nationalist Party, and you read their platform and it looked like practically a summary of every policy position you’ve supported and advocated in your writings, would you still not vote for them if you genuinely believed they had no chance of winning? And if everyone thinks this way, at what point are we actually collectively creating the conundrum rather than merely accepting it as reality?
And what would you think about someone wanting to start such a party and run for political office themselves? Would you consider it unconscionable for such a candidate to run if it was nearly a statistical certainty that they would lose? What if it was not only nearly certain that they would lose, but they had gained enough popularity among conservative voters that it was certain they would take substantial votes away from a more viable pro-life candidate? In this scenario, could they in good conscience run for office—and could voters in good conscience vote for them—as part of a long term strategy for building a strong enough party to be viable in the future?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your voting philosophy seems to go way beyond the point of the common sense notion that wisdom sometimes requires voting for the lesser of two evils, seemingly almost to the point that would prohibit someone from ever voting for the candidate that they actually believe is the most qualified, as long as that candidate doesn’t also happen to be popular and deeply-resourced enough to be viable.
In my experience, it’s this hyper-focus on viability that seems to drive people to cynicism, especially if you don’t live in a swing state. If you’re going to convince people in a non-swing state to care about voting, you have to give them some incentive other than the outcome. You can’t just toss out the whole notion of voting for the best candidate without severely damaging people’s incentive to be engaged.Ken
Ken, very good questions all. The reason I would hesitate to vote for the perfect third-party candidate in this election is that I believe that if the Democrats win this election, such perfect third-party ventures will be illegal by the next election.
In the 8/20 letters feature, you answered Kenneth’s question about voting with the note that “your vote is not a sacrament. Doing it wrong (depending on how wrong) is not a defilement.”
I want this to be true. But I don’t see the logic that just because voting isn’t a sacrament means it can’t be a sin. Does that make sense? I’d argue voting is an affirmative choice by the voter as to whom he thinks is most qualified to run the country—and I think reasonable people can see that neither candidate in 2024 is truly qualified.
No matter how someone may decide to spin their vote for Trump (I think we can all agree voting for Harris is off the table), whether as “smashmouth incrementalism” or “the lesser of two evils,” etc . . . it ultimately is a vote for an immoral (and proudly so) pro-abortion candidate. Sure, less pro-choice than Harris, but still pro-abortion. And pro same-sex mirage, and pro-sodomy, etc.
And voting for him, I’m not voting against Harris. I’m voting FOR him. It’s my own free choice. The morality of the question doesn’t change just because of how terrible my other options are.
Or does it? How do I square that?
I have other thoughts, such as “we’re always forced to vote for the lesser of two evils because we can always be trusted to vote the lesser of two evils” (in other words, we’re reliable compromisers who don’t even have the backbone of the Dearborn Islamists to vote as a bloc to make a point). But I’ll spare you that here.
Many thanks.S
S, yes, that is the problem. But I would argue that your assumption that you must be voting FOR the candidate you select is precisely what I mean by treating your vote like a sacrament. Voting can express full-throated support, sure. But it can also be a tactic, as when Democrats cross over to vote in Republican primaries. Nobody thinks they are gung-ho for the Republican because they are voting for the guy that they think would be easier for their guy to beat.
Finances and a Church
I never thought this would be the first question I ever asked you, but nevertheless it’s become somewhat urgent, and so here it is:
I am a newly installed Associate Pastor at my small, country church. I have come to realize, after my first few months on the job, that our church finances aren’t great; but there’s another level to it that makes it somewhat unique. Our church also has a Christian Academy that’s a direct ministry of the church (i.e. not a separate entity, technically). Over the last 10 years, we have found that our little church has grown very little (which is fine), but our School has grown exponentially. 1 of our 3 Elders is the School Administrator, and he’s not only terrific at running the school, but he’s called to it (has been since he was a teen, and has remained faithful to the calling).
At this point, our church is too small to support the school . . . we barely receive enough tithe to cover our bills. Meanwhile, our School has outpaced what the school parents are willing to support, though they still want the amenities that we have to offer (we’re a tuition-free academy, and run solely on love-gifts).
Basically, our finances have been poorly run in the decades BEFORE I became an Elder, and unfortunately our now-thriving school was built on a very faulty financial foundation, and I don’t have a clue as to where to begin, or how I can help make it better without the “house tumbling.” Our other 2 Elders are incredible men, and have served faithfully for decades; this was just an area (albeit, an important one) that needed a lot of help, and I don’t know how to do that now. Apparently, there have been 2 primary families helping cover finances all this time; our Senior Pastor and one other family (in our church) that have sacrificed a lot for the school—but that’s simply not sustainable or biblical, in my opinion.
In an attempt to keep this brief (which I didn’t), I left out some details that may or may not be helpful, but my hope is that I was able to summarize in an intelligible way. Blessings to you, Pastor Doug . . . your work has made an impact on me that would be hard for me to describe, so I will simply say “thank you” for now.Ben
Ben, it sounds to me like there will need to be some radical reforms, and that the lead for this will need to come from the senior pastor. Your role should be to encourage him to take the first steps in preparing for such radical reforms. The only thing to concern you now is information. I would encourage you to get the elders to agree to save up enough money to hire a financial consultant to come in, review everything, and make recommendations.
Masculine Devotions
I am starting more and more to realize that Christianity is a religion, not a relationship. How, therefore, should the devotional life of a guy look? A guy that wants not to become effeminate by falling in the crater of relationship, but wants to seek glory and achievement and walk with the Lord?
Thanks!Zetu
Zetu, I would start simply. Your devotional life should consist of reading the Word and prayer, and I would supplement it by reading devotional theology. So first, pick a Bible reading program like the Bible Reading Challenge. Second, I would suggest getting Matthew Henry’s A Method for Prayer, which consists of a pattern for praying Scripture back to God, and I would pray a page or two of that daily. When done, add your own requests. And then for devotional theology, I would get a book like Tozer’s Knowledge of the Holy and read a page of that a day.
The Jewish Q
I recently sent this to an agnostic friend who is dismayed by the rising anti-Jewish sentiment on the right:
I’ve been thinking about the surge in anti-Jewish sentiment on the insurgent right, and my current theory is that it is due to an unhappy confluence of factors. The principle factor is that the insurgent right is a lot less tolerant than the conventional right (“conservatism”). The insurgent right does not want to peacefully coexist with anyone it regards as an enemy—and a noticeable and inflamed portion of the insurgent right has decided that Jews are an enemy. They see Jews as their enemy mainly because Jews are reflexively, and by obvious majority, leftists of some flavor or other. Because Jews are highly intelligent and highly capable, their reflexive leftism has put them on the cutting edge of a lot of sinister business: e.g., abortion rights, pornography, illegal immigration, sexual deviance. They are also an exotic other because they cannot fully assimilate into Gentile societies, and that makes them easy to scapegoat. If more Jews were like Ben Shapiro, the anti-Jewish sentiment would probably stay at a low simmer on the fringe. And the irony is that Orthodox Jews like Ben Shapiro are more authentically Jewish than the leftist Jews, many of whom are not even observant. So, in a way, the part of the insurgent right that hates Jews hates them in large part because they really suck at being Jewish.Daniel
Daniel, thanks.
A Solemn Warning
I’m writing this letter simply to let you know that the actions and injustices committed by you and your disciples does not go unnoticed. The unChrist like behavior you teach and or tolerate is not unseen by the Lord. The hurt you leave in your wake is heartbreaking.
But the good news is that the Lord is gracious and quick to forgive. Christ has paid the price for salvation of those who confess their sins, bear up their cross, and give up control of their lives to the Lord.Benjamin
Benjamin, a prophetic rebuke should not function like a game of hide the button.
A Presupp Question
I have been grappling with certain questions I have regarding presuppositional apologetics and reformed epistemology and wondered if you could shed some light on them.
It seems to me that it would be correct to say that I know the Bible is true due to the internal witness of the Holy Spirit. Does this mean that my ultimate standard is my sense data (my ability to sense the internal witness of the Holy Spirit) rather than the Bible itself? If I say that I know the Bible is true due to the Bible saying so, does this disregard a more fundamental role of the internal witness of the Holy Spirit?
I appreciate your work and would love to hear your thoughts on these questions if possible.Moses
Moses, we are finite and so the content of all our knowledge is mediated. I read the Bible, which comes to me through my senses. The Spirit’s work is not to provide distinct content, but rather to anoint the knowledge and information that comes to me from outside. The Spirit witnesses to the Word.
End of Life Question
Have you written much about what end of life care looks like for a Christian, or do you have any book recommendations? The more I’ve thought about it, the more I’ve realized that there are a lot of potential moral or ethical dilemmas, such as how to handle comfort care measures and where that line is blurred into euthanasia, burial vs. cremation, etc. I’m also thinking of what is the best course of action for parents or siblings with failing health. Anymore it’s so easy to just send people to the old folks’ home, but that seems like it should be more a last resort than it often is. How did you and Nancy come to invite your dad into your home? Was it a natural transition? Was it awkward for you or your father? This isn’t an imminent scenario for me, but I want to give it the proper thought it deserves before it becomes a reality.
Thanks!Tim
Tim, yes, this is a good thing to think through beforehand. Although not by a Christian, Being Mortal is helpful. And I would also recommend Departing in Peace by Davis. A good book to help believers prepare for dying would be this one. We did not invite my dad to stay with us, but rather moved in with him for four years. There were challenges, of course, but we had always assumed that we would take responsibility if the time came, which it eventually did.
Ahem, Yes
I think I found out why you are so insightful on many topics. I was reading through the Scripture Index section and noticed that you have way more chapters of Ezra than I do in my Bible. When God speaks He speaks extra to some.
(But seriously, I think most of these late chapter references are supposed to point to Ezekiel correct?)Stephen
Stephen, that would be correct. Apparently this stupid computer did not know how to interpret my erratic abbreviations.
A Cosmological Head Fake
Talking about The Discarded Image by C. S. Lewis, you said:
“He acknowledges at the conclusion of this book that the cosmology had one fatal flaw, which was that it “wasn’t true.” He grants this, but I think his generosity was only partial. I think this was his head fake.”
Please, what exactly did you mean by “his head fake”?
Thank you,Robert
Robert, I meant that Lewis was granting that certain aspects of the medieval cosmology were not true (e.g. geo-centrism, planets embedded in spheres, etc.), but that he nevertheless retained all the essentials of the system. “Even in your world, that is not what a star is, but only what it is made of.”
A Quick Answer
I give a monthly Sunday evening sermon/message on topics that my congregation suggest. I have spoken on immigration, abortion, climate change etc. It is usually something that I understand and have some idea of how to make biblical application to. This month I am speaking on DEI and try as I may, I cannot quite get my mind around it. Seems like so many iterations of it floating around. Can you give me some guidance? do you have any articles or know of any articles or books that I can use to figure this out? Thanks!Stephen
Stephen, sorry I don’t have any reading recommendations. Perhaps the others do? The short form is that DEI is affirmative action for all the disadvantaged. Conservatives want equality of opportunity, and the liberals want equality of outside. If there is any disparity in outcome, it is assumed to be the result of bigoted discrimination.
A Grandparent Question
I have a question on the role of grandparents. As a grandparent to at least one grandson, I want him to understand his role as a man and begin to develop masculine traits. (Important contexts: he is only 5-years-old, we are a blended family, and everyone professes to be a Christian). However, when I try to instill some of these traits in my grandson (e.g., ignoring pain . . . not whining . . . or even cultivating self-defense skills), it creates conflict in the family, whereas my wife (their grandmother) is told by her daughter/my step-daughter that I can’t do these things because he has to be able to express his feelings, or he is not old enough to understand. I want to be respectful of his parents, and I don’t believe that this is a hill to die on. So, unfortunately, when he starts to whine or even when we start to roughhouse, I feel the need to pull back on my desire to instruct in a grandfatherly way just to keep the peace (albeit with a large eye-roll). I’m from Generation X, and the parents are “therapeutic” millennials, so we see the world differently. Do I need an attitude adjustment, or should I try to impart these skills in a more palatable way?Art
Art, this is going to be tough to hear, but you are not the parent. Pray that the parents learn to see things differently, but in the meantime, respect their wishes—without the eye roll.
Open-Ended World
My friend and I were fist-bumping when we both learned the other had adopted the partial preterist eschatological view. However, in one of our conversations discussing the preterist views in general, we both were stumped on the end game of those who believe in a full/hyper-preterist view. In other words, do believers die and then go to heaven . . . rinse and repeat? Or is there an ultimate summation that is included in their eschatological carton?BC
BC, as far as I understand it, in that system there is no closure for this earthly life.
Conservative Headwaters
What would be good books, primary sources, etc., within a genre that would benefit from the fruit of Edmund Burke, Oliver W. Holmes, Hale, etc., is, Wanting to learn more about this type of information. Legal philosophy?
I would appreciate hearing a list of resources you’d recommend in this area— primary sources too like the Magna Carta if that’d be relevant.
Thank you sir!Sam
Sam, I would start with Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind.
Officiating a Wedding
I have been asked to officiate a wedding for my brother and his fiancé. They are not Christians, already living together and do not attend church. I am honored to do so and I met with them about a month ago to discuss the wedding message. I told them that I am a believer and that if I was going to perform the wedding I would be mentioning Genesis 2:18-24 and Ephesians 5:22-33. At the time they didn’t have a problem with it but they have since reached out and asked that I not mention the Adam and Eve story because they have homosexual relatives coming. Can you give some advise on performing a wedding that they may not want the gospel preached at. At the moment it doesn’t seem like this is something I can do. The wedding is in 6 weeks so I need to let them know something. Thanks for your help.Micheal
Micheal, I would tell them that you can leave Genesis out, but that you can’t leave the gospel out of it, and whatever text you pick, it will be heterosexual. Tell them that, and say that if they need to uninvite you, you won’t be offended. But leave the choice with them.
The Twelve
Assuming John truly saw the names of the 12 on the 12 foundations of the heavenly city and it wasn’t purely metaphorical, what do you think was the 12th name: Judas, Matthias, or Paul?
I am thinking Paul since he was specifically called by Jesus rather than Matthias by lot.Stephen
Stephen, first, I think it is metaphorical and symbolic. That said, not Judas, and if I had to choose, it would be Matthias. Paul was more of a free agent apostle.
I would like to hear your thoughts on the following situation. If you don’t have the time or interest, just consider this email a thank you and a kudos from a fellow believer. I have used only initials because I do not want to risk embarrassing my lovely wife nor her family.
My wife and I have been married 12 years. We have four children. Our fourth was born in the fourth quarter of 2019. My wife always nursed our babies for 18 months or so. Our fourth baby was not interested in accepting traditional baby foods or even sweet fruits at his year mark, so we assumed he would just continue to nurse for another 6 months or so as we acclimated him to different tastes and textures.
Three months later while being evaluated for a mild case of mastitis, my wife was diagnosed with stage III breast cancer. The type was fairly aggressive, instigated by hormones, and brought on by a specific gene mutation, which is found nowhere else in her family.
Her care continues today, but she had a near complete response to chemotherapy, and the surgery last year was very successful—according to the surgeon. But we are not through the fight.
Trusted Church advisors, and my close friends are of little help as advisors in a couple of areas.
The hospital is historically Catholic. But it seems they only advise mainstream “standard of care” with regards to almost every treatment option advised.
Due To the danger of spread, additional cancer risk due to the mutation (20-25% in 5 years), and the damage done by her treatment, her doctors all recommend a total hysterectomy. She is currently in chemo-menopause today.
1st off, do you have any thoughts?
2nd. If she undergoes a hysterectomy, is it biblically licit to engage in physical marital union? She is a loving woman, and she has mentioned how she is conflicted about this, but we are getting no thoughtful insight from our friends, church leaders, etc. Our family is so young it seems no one around us can even comprehend what we are going through. It feels like everyone thinks we are contagious. She has said to me how much she had missed that comforting aspect of marriage since she started treatment. But we would never participate in any “medically approved” action to make it “safe.” I want to give her a sound and honest take on everything, but this is way outside anything I have ever contemplated.
She has mentioned several times just how many breast cancer survivors end up divorced. I try to reassure her. I made a covenant before God—and if the sickness subsection referred to this . . . then I can only pray for strength to overcome the weakness of my flesh.
Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have.
Please pray for my wife and my family. She is trying to rest in the love of the Lord, but she is so scared, and so sad, and angry. I love her very much, and I know it is my duty to protect her body and soul as much as I can and show our children true masculine faith and love.
With my highest regards and continual prayers for your successful ministry against weak effeminacy, evil, and for Jesus Christ, I am,M
M, I am obviously a long way away. But I certainly wouldn’t hesitate following the advice you have been given because of concern over whether sexual relations would be lawful after a hysterectomy. Of course they would be lawful.
America is Different
Pastor, I have frequently made the case that America was not—and on paper still isn’t—constructed like any other country thus far in time and space. We are the world’s sole and truly “Representative Republic” wherein we are Constituted from the ground up and not the top down. (I.e.: we are manifestly NOT a democracy.)
Given the inherent and still valid structure of our Federation—even if it exists not in practice but solely in the remains gathering dust in the Smithsonian—there are a number of differences in how things like Romans 13 and the doctrine of the lesser magistrate might apply. I allow that these United States were collated into a Federation based on Rutherfordian concepts; indeed, it can hardly be argued otherwise. But I think the truth of our actual organization is possibly the inverse.
In other words, being a “ground up” Federation, the rulers are Us. We the People. The President, the State governors, country sheriffs, town mayors, and all the police—each of these offices were made by We the People and are occupied by someone chosen from among Us. Yes, they are vested with real authority, but only insomuch as that authority aligns with the Law. Which We the People wrote.
I would argue that the concept of “lesser” magistrates implies a “top down” hierarchy, which we do not have. Rather, we have jurisdictions—some over cities, some counties, others States, and one guy who presides over the coalition of those States. But larger scopes of jurisdiction are not equivalent to greater levels of authority. This is why the FBI is supposed to seek permission from local police before poking their noses into a local crime. The FBI has no jurisdiction over local affairs. Larger scopes of jurisdiction are just larger. Where there is conflict, the smaller jurisdictions prevail.
In the end, I don’t think this argument matters much, because we’ve been pretending for the past 150 years that the President is a King who rules over the Lord Governors, who together rule over various lesser lords and ultimately the serfs. It’s pretty much ingrained at this point. We think we vote for the President, and we think he has authority over us. I also don’t think it matters much to your salient point that I comb out this difference. Whether we believe the “lesser magistrates” ought to defy tyrants or we believe the local spheres have primacy and should tell the more distant spheres to stand down, the result is pretty much the same.
So, I may continue to make wonky-sounding, out-of-touch arguments from a by-gone belief, but I’m 100% with you in putting the evil genies back in their tiny bottles.Andy
Andy, the reason I wrote about the lesser magistrates in the way I did is because I believe that we cannot get back to the understanding that you described so aptly unless we recover that doctrine. In other words, the idea that lesser authorities have authority directly from God is a precondition for the original American settlement.
Pastoral Visitation
Is it a Pastor’s duty to visit shut ins/sick? If so, how often is he to visit? What is he to do when he visits? And do Deacons have a role in visiting shut ins/sick?Seth
Seth, yes. I believe there is a pastoral duty to visit the sick, pray with them, encourage them, and so on.
Law and Grace
I attend a PCA church where the pastor’s main theological preaching principle is contrasting the “law” versus the “gospel” or “grace.” It gains a showing in virtually every sermon, whether explicit or implicit.
When I became interested in Reformed theology many moons ago, one of the things I found most attractive was how intentionally well thought out the theology was. One common understanding I found across a variety of Reformed writers was the belief that “Abraham was saved by faith” and that was not an uncommon experience, but was shared by all the Old Testament saints. In other words, no one earned their way into the Lord’s good graces by strict adherence to the Torah.
My years of thought have found no reason to disagree with this position and, in fact, I’m quite emphatic about it. I’ve never found anything in Leviticus or Deuteronomy that instructed the Jews to behave perfectly in order to gain the Lord’s good graces. In fact, the Torah does even contain rules that look like what you’d expect in that kind of system. I do think it’s fair to say, as God’s people, they were expected to act as a faithful wife and a new humanity, but that wasn’t intended to work out in a legalistic way.
Why then, do such a strong portion of evangelical/Reformed preachers fall intro the law versus gospel preaching dynamic? I don’t think it’s ultimately helpful, as it obscures the original intent of the Torah and pretends Jesus wasn’t present with the Father when the Torah was given, etc.
Assuming you are of like mind (forgive the assumption), how would you discuss this with a pastor or church leader if forced into an uncomfortable discussion? I do not seek to be a thorn in anyone’s side, but I also have no interest in playing along if push comes to shove.
Thank you for your time.Mark
Mark, yes, we think the same way. I would not try to argue the point, but I would register respectful dissent. And I would ask a lot of questions without taking up a “side.” This will have the effect of making this preacher feel like he needs to “show his work,” and that might provide some sort of opening.
Adultery and Restitution
So, if “restitution is necessary with . . . sexual infidelity,” then what does that look like? What does it mean to make restitution for past struggles with porn? What does it look like to make restitution for online fornication and adultery?
I’m also struggling with the critique that confessing sins (both privately and corporately) in corporate worship isn’t adequate. Really? What are we doing there then? I fear I would exhaust (and even hurt) my family, friends, coworkers, pastors, etc were I to also confess all the weekly and daily sins I’m aware of committing. And oh the backlog I would have at this point if I were to try and catch up on that with even just those I remember in the moment! Never mind those i might later be reminded of!Dan
Dan, honesty in this area does not mean “and then at 10:15 I lusted after your other friend,” providing updates every half hour. But honesty does require that your wife not live out her life in a make-believe world. Restitution for sexual sin does involve honest confession. If that would create an enormous debris field in your family, then go confess to your pastor first, and get help on how to navigate putting things right with your family. Confession at church covers many sins that don’t need to be confessed to others, and is a good weekly reminder of the sins that do need to be put right. If you stole money from your business partner, confessing that to God at church would be insufficient.
I have a question regarding your article, “How to Lose Your Joy.”
Some sins, post-repentance, call for restitution. In the case of theft, I get it, but what does restitution look like in the case of adultery?
My husband confessed to me and our children almost four years ago of adultery, yet I still (on occasion) tell him that I expect/need/want a “grand love gesture” to help make up for the past, but I don’t even know exactly what I mean by this. Despite the joy of his repentance and the consistent evidence of fruit in our current marriage, there is something amiss and I tell my husband it has to do with magnifying Christ with “our story” and how we aren’t quite doing that.
Would you please elaborate on the restitution part because as much as we both rely on God’s Word, neither of us understands how he is to give back or compensate for what has been lost—other than to be the man (now) he promised to be on our wedding day.
Which he is doing, but not without feeling, like me, that there is something missing.
Your thoughts?Mr and Mrs H
Mr and Mrs H, he has done what he needs to have done—repented and turned in a different direction. Your role is to forgive him, and that’s the end of it. The grand gesture was what Christ did on the cross. You should settle that between yourselves, and if God gives you an opportunity to share “your story,” fine. But that sharing would contribute nothing to the healing. You have everything you need for that already. Forgive him and be done.
Postmill Propitiation
I hope you’re doing well. We’ve become convinced of Presbyterian infant baptism (woohoo!) and we are also post-millennial in our leanings (double woohoo!). We were looking at 1 Jn 2:1-2, we wanted to know your thoughts re: verse 2 when it says, “He [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” What encompasses “the sins of the whole world?” Thankful for all you do!O.N.
O.N. that verse is one of the verses I would use to argue that the world at some point will be saved. Why? Because Jesus died to turn away God’s wrath from our world, which is what propitiation means.
Megan Basham
I listened to the podcast with Megan Basham. It was generally good with
one critique (so of course we are going to focus on the critique).
Someone on the podcast made the comment regarding the bru-ha-ha after
the book was published, “look at how everyone circled the wagons behind
Gavin and the others Megan hit at. When you see everyone circle the
wagons, then you know that you’ve hit close to home.” I take
issue with this framing of the situation. By that logic, this means that
KDY hit close to home with his article on you. When that article was
published, you, Jared, Joe, and Toby quickly responded with articles.
CrossPolitic followed up with podcasts. You cannot deny the wagons were
circled on your behalf in that situation. So . . . KDY was right and hit
close to home. Relying on this rhetorical cheap shot with Megan
should have been avoided altogether. It’s reductive and has no
reflection on the truthiness of what’s been said.Nate
Nate, the point that was being made was not that people rallied to the defense of their side. People always do that. The point was that a different kind of defender rallied to Gavin’s side. If I wrote something provocative, and there was a stink, and all of a sudden I found myself being defended by a host of Buddhists and Unitarians, I would say something like, wut?
The Narrow Gate
I’ve been studying postmil for a couple of years and reading many of your books & listening to you and others. I appreciate all you’ve done and are doing! It’s a blessing to study and find the Lord’s Truth as we study His Word. I have one question that stumps me:
If we’re postmill, then how do we explain Matt. 7:13-14?
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”
Thank you,Candi
Candi, the Lord is talking about the situation in first century Israel. Look at Luke 13:22-30 for a similar passage. The Lord said to enter through the narrow gate. The response is that we heard you teaching in our streets. He says get away, I never knew you. And then it culminates with Gentiles streaming in from all the points of the compass.
FV and Escondido
Re FV and Gordon
To be honest, I don’t really understand the big deal with the FV “controversy.” I’ve tried very hard to figure out how what you say about sola fide can be misconstrued as works sneaking in, and I just can’t see it. It’s like when someone is trying to point out that yellow finch in the tree across the street, and you squint and strain and mess up your face, and then you think you saw a bit of yellow, but that was just a spot of sun on a dancing leaf.
My question is, what made it worth it? You have made a distinction with faith/works (no dead faith, etc) which I understand and appreciate, but it seems to be without a difference significant enough from “the opponents” (even though I think you are saying the same thing) to justify even mentioning it. Was there some bad seed that had started to sprout back when the whole FV thing started that made you feel like something needed to be said? What problem were you, and those in the FV circle, trying to solve? Seems like it turned into a case of the old lady swallowing a spider to catch the fly, and the next thing you know she’s gulping a cow to catch the goat.
And I agree with one of your previous letter writers about the interview; seemed like a lot of what Gordon did was blow through his nostrils and say, “I’m just not reading that in what you write . . . ” As my wife says, “Sounds like a ‘you’ problem.” There was not enough substance to his arguments to back up his ire. But at least he reached across the aisle. Anyway.
ThanksTim
Tim, yes. The chief value in the discussion was his willingness to talk. The problem we were addressing back in the day was raw intellectual assent being treated as though it were sufficient. Many Reformed preachers are allergic to application.
Ken, very good questions all. The reason I would hesitate to vote for the perfect third-party candidate in this election is that I believe that if the Democrats win this election, such perfect third-party ventures will be illegal by the next election. I’m also curious to know if the fact of not living in a swing state changes anything for you. In Idaho, you could make a very reasonable assumption that Trump will win your state regardless of who you vote for. If you were certain that Trump would win regardless of who you voted for, would you still decline to vote… Read more »
I watch the polls in my state carefully. If they are not close, I vote third party, whichever seems to be strongest. It’s a purely tactical vote, trying to register dissent with the choices. I figure even if it’s the Greens (terrible, but pull from the Dems) or Libertarians (more tolerable, a little) who I don’t support, any crack in the two-party duopoly is worth shoving my vote into. If the polls are close (which I define as when the difference is less than the totals of the third parties/independents in the polls), then I vote tactically still, just for… Read more »
Mrs. H, I had a pastor tell a woman in your situation that she had two Biblical options: forgiveness and reconciliation or forgiveness and divorce and she needed to make a decision very soon, because holding the divorce card for long meant there was no forgiveness. That would be part of letting the sun go down on your anger. It would change your hurt into bitterness. Not an exact quote, but that was what he was going for.
Thank you! Forgiveness and reconciliation has been my course. Mr H and I agree that we misunderstood Doug’s use of “restitution” – now we get it – repentance is between you and God. Restitution is confession and making it right with those you sinned against.
John, Thanks for your post regarding the concerns with voting for Trump. As Thomas Sowell once quipped; “There are no solutions, just trade offs.”We all know Trump will not go for a national pro-life agenda so, the issue with voting for Trump with all his vices which Doug listed, which are quite excessive compared with other candidates that we were unwilling to entertain, is it involves tradeoffs. And there will be trade offs. We all draw lines we’re comfortable with or that we somehow justify. Doug has drawn that line for himself as laid out in his recent post about… Read more »
You sure do like to throw stones when it comes to Trump’s vices, don’t you? As if you have none. Say, isn’t forgetfulness a vice? You say, “We all know Trump will not go for a national pro-life agenda…” Trump was the first, and so far the only sitting President to participate in and address the March for Life. His Supreme Court picks got rid of Roe v Wade, which made the left massively pull a Biden and Schiff their collective pants, merely because the issue was put back to the states. Of course, you’d know this if you didn’t… Read more »
fp, Not casting stones. It’s OK to want better men than me to be in leadership. It demands such if our country is to conserve what has been good about it, morally speaking. I think there is a lot of self-serving going on with this election, sorry to say. Of course I don’t want the other side to win but even you would draw a line somewhere, right? I suppose I could come up with a scenario where even you would say…”enough”, I’m not going there.” That line for me is being crossed over as we speak and I’m responsible for… Read more »
As someone who is on “the other side” — I’m a Democrat — here is what I do not understand about the current state of the GOP: If you don’t like the Democrats, fine, there were other conservative Republicans running like Ron DeSantis who would have given the country conservative policies, conservative judges, and the other things you guys claim to care about. But that’s not who the base went with. With those other choices available, the base chose, the words, of John, “the most unprincipled and shambolic presidential candidate ever.” You guys now have a candidate who looks more… Read more »
This! 100%
The GOP and the Evangelical world sold their souls to the devil in fealty to Trump all to make liberals heads explode.
They ignore his clear inclination toward tyranny, his ungodliness, his disdain for all things moral and they think his unrighteousness will exalt this nation. Hogwash!
There were other choices. Conservative choices. More honorable and ethical choices. They chose poorly. They will rue the day…regardless of who wins.
Shame on them and shame on us!
Anthony, one wag on my side of the aisle cracked that the big surprise was not that the GOP sold their souls, but just how cheaply they sold their souls. “Had I known how cheaply GOP souls went for, I’d have bought a dozen of them for door prizes for my last dinner party.”
My words…..”There are better men out there that would do no less than Trump, but the establishment and electorate would have none of it.” It will boomerang…. unfortunately.
The Republican establishment hates Trump almost as much as the Democrats do. They know what he is and what he’s likely to do to their party. They’re just scared of their base; any Republican who opposes Trump gets primaried and kicked out of the party — see Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. In fact, if you want to talk about conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination attempt, the GOP establishment had far more to gain with Trump out of the way than the left did. Just to be clear, I don’t think it was a conspiracy; I’m sure if it had… Read more »
THANK YOU. A 20-year-old with zero combat experience wouldn’t have been my first choice. Or my hundredth. Or my thousandth.
KZ, My overall point is not that we will be worse off with Trump but that the party is sliding in the same direction as the dems. Our country will still be light years ahead with Trump, but still sliding. When will the sliding stop. I’m a no-vote in order to stop the leaning. Probably won’t work but it sure soothes the conscience.
Well, your question will provide fodder political scientists, historians, sociologists, and psychologists for years to come. I don’t know why. As I venture to guess, the words that come to mind are “anger” and “flailing”. That describes Trump’s own campaign style, especially this go around. It also describes what his base seems to be doing; angrily flailing against circumstances they know they cannot really affect. I think eight years ago some expected the man who got away with talking the way they can’t but wish they could to actually accomplish goals they believed he shared in common with them. However,… Read more »
WRT to Democrats being scared of another Trump admin…I’m not a Democrat, so that side of the aisle can speak to that. However, with the latest immunity ruling by SCOTUS and the fecklessness of the vast majority of the GOP elected officials, what is to stop him? Brian Kemp, who KNOWS Trump tried to steal the election and is, even now, trying to reign in Trump sycophants on the elections commission, has, as I understand it, said that we must still have Trump. SMH. If he is representative of the sane, sensible, and moral part of the party, how in… Read more »
Been sitting it out and will continue to.
John, the fears for a second Trump administration are that our foreign affairs and nuclear arsenal would be under the control of someone who is obviously unhinged, completely incompetent, and who has the attention span of a five year old, and, in addition to that, has already said his second term would be devoted to taking revenge on people he views as his political enemies. In his first term, he made the mistake of hiring people who actually did their jobs even when it meant telling him he couldn’t do something. He won’t make that mistake the second time around.… Read more »
And all of that, too.
I see. I thought maybe the fear was more along the lines of him successfully pursuing conservative, or if you prefer, reactionary, goals. He’s not going to do that because he’s really not interested in doing that in the first place, and because he wouldn’t know how to do that in the second place. I’ll grant part of what you fear as reasonable concern, the part about foreign affairs and the nuclear arsenal for example. His talk about revenge I think is mostly more flailing. Even if it isn’t, the people against whom he would seek revenge are just the… Read more »
Kathleen, who has the football now? Which party supports murdering children for profit as a plank in the party platform? Those of us who have been around the sun on a few trips, remember the Clintons having their man steal classified documents in his underwear; or allowed the Chinese to access critical, classified military research information: or Hillary suddenly making the best commodity trade in the history of the country; and a few other things. Andrew Jackson as president used the power of the presidency to take action against a political opponent. Voter fraud has occurred throughout American politics. What… Read more »
Karen Liezinski: We fear Trump will have his finger on the nuke button!!!!!
Same thing you said about pretty much every Republican since Eisenhower.
And yet, no nuclear holocaust. With Trump, no new wars.
Funny how progressives just can’t can’t seem to progress beyond their tired tropes from the same old musty playbook.
Ooooh, a playground level insult based on someone’s name. Well, that matches the juvenile logic in the rest of your comment too.
In other words, you can’t name a single new war started under Trump, and you can’t name any time a Republican president used a nuclear weapon.
Of course, you’re free to broadcast your irrational fears. I’m also free to mock you for it.
“Same thing you said about pretty much every Republican since Eisenhower.” Please quote what *I* said about pretty much every Republican since Eisenhower, because I’m not recalling saying any such thing, and certainly not here. Did I say that Trump started a war or that a GOP president started used a nuclear weapon? No, my statement was that (1) Trump is unhinged and (2) he would be in command of our nuclear arsenal. Which of those statements do you dispute? And if Trump is re-elected, we may make it through four years without him using nuclear weapons too, just as… Read more »
“Trump is unhinged!!!!!!!!”
No, that’s not juvenile. Neither is shrieking about Trump’s finger on the nuclear button.
You should check out Nicole Shanahan’s ad. Trigger warning for doomsday Democrats: It promotes independent thought.
People with Tourette’s have better control over what comes out of their mouths than Trump does. Twisting someone’s name into an insult is juvenile, however; before you I don’t recall hearing anyone do that since about the third grade.
There are people here who make good arguments for conservative positions; you’re not one of them. And I’m still waiting to hear from you what you claim I said about every Republican since Eisenhower..
“People with Tourette’s have better control over what comes out of their mouths than Trump does.” Oh, you mean people like Joe Biden, like when he referred to Zelensky as “President Putin”, referred to Kamala as “Vice-President Trump”, slurs his words, and often speaks gibberish? I could come up with a thousand examples of Biden talking about… you know, the thing. I can hear it now: B-b-b-but, he has a stutter! Yeah, go with that. That’s not unhinged. After all, when Biden said, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or for Trump, then you ain’t… Read more »
The shoe that fits is that you’re the liar who made the false claim that I said something about every Republican since Eisenhower, as evidenced by the fact that you’ve not been able to back that claim up despite multiple requests.
Better men out there that would do no less than Trump? What were you doing the whole time he was president — sleeping? Just who are these “better men”, Rob? And how do you know these “better men” would do “no less” than Trump? You act like Trump doesn’t have a record. Look up “Mexico City Policy.” Was Bush a “better man” than Trump, Rob? Somehow Roe survived his presidency. Same with Bush 41. And Reagan. And Ford. And Nixon. It didn’t survive Trump. But yeah, go ahead and obsess over Trump’s vices, both real and imagined. With this Winning… Read more »
Clarence Thomas was nominated by George H.W. Bush. Samuel Alito by George H Bush. That represents forty percent of the vote to overturn Roe, and without either one of them it wouldn’t have happened. In addition, William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia, both Reagan nominees, were ready (along with Thomas and Byron White) to do it 1992. My point is not to deny Trump due credit , after all his nominees made up sixty percent of the majority, but that it wasn’t all Trump and there is plenty of evidence that Rob is correct, there are Republicans other than Trump who… Read more »
All true, and the other thing to factor in is the extent to which pure dumb luck factors into it. If Scalia had died two years earlier, and Ginsburg six months later, Obama and Biden would have filled their seats and Roe would still be the law. On the other hand, had a couple more liberals left the court when W. Bush was president, Roe might have gone a decade before it did. Trump struck while the iron was hot and conservatives owe him a debt of gratitude for it. But he was lucky that the iron was hot at… Read more »
Coffee is for closers, John. When it came to implementing the conservative agenda, Trump did more than his predecessors — Reagan included. As a side benefit, the conservative mask was ripped away from many in the Republican party — those who talk a good game but are otherwise useless. So, I ask again: Just who are these Republicans other than Trump who would do no less, since for the longest time all they ever did was less? Doug said it very well: “What would we rather have? A principle that is true, but not acted upon, or a bargaining chip… Read more »
For the longest time they did what they could. Kathleen’s point about dumb luck and timing is a valid one. Apart from that, Presidents can only nominate; no one sits on the court unless the Senate confirms. In the case of all three of Trump’s nominees the Senate Republicans near unanimously voted to confirm. I believe there was one “Absent” each on the Republican side when Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were confirmed, and Susan Collins voted against Barrett’s confirmation. In all three instances Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz voted to confirm Trump’s nominees. There are two men we could have had… Read more »
None of this erases Trump’s record. The fact is, you have no idea whether Cruz, Rubio, DeSantis, or anyone else would have performed at Trump’s level. “Would have” is not an argument, as it not only assumes facts not in evidence, it assumes facts not in existence. Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that Trump gave us three Supreme Court justices and gave us the overturn of Roe vs Wade? If we voted the way you’d have us vote in 2016, we would have had Hillary as president and we never would have repealed Roe vs Wade,… Read more »
Everyone is a sinner isn’t the point; the doctrine of grace and the doctrine of leadership are two different doctrines, and there are certain types of sins that disqualify from leadership.
But I’m curious: Other than become a Democrat, is there any bad behavior Trump could engage in that would make even you say he’s unfit for leadership?
The facts in evidence are what Cruz, Rubio, and Desantis have done and are doing. How about you acknowledge that I did acknowledge what Trump did with regard to the SCOTUS and overturning Roe? You are baffled because you think people like me see what you see in Trump, except that we object to him just because we think he is not very nice. We don’t see in him what you think you see, is the short answer. We don’t think everything he did in office was good. We don’t necessarily care that much about some of the things you… Read more »
Cry over your fallen king.
OK, groomer.
Do you have actual evidence that Chris is a groomer, or is that another lie like your claim that I said something about every Republican since Eisenhower? Maybe you should review the Ninth Commandment.
Bad timing. Looks like y’all can’t help yourselves!
https://www.chron.com/culture/religion/article/robert-morris-gateway-sexual-abuse-scandal-19731901.php
Pastor Doug, Thank you for clearing that up for me about C. S. Lewis’s “head fake” in “The Discarded Image” (I have been through the process of reading it off and on for a few months).
Do kids these days not understand double effect?
correct, we dont, now please explain…..
The whippersnapper M seems to believe that, since the surgery that would save Mrs M’s life also would have the unintended consequence of rendering her infertile, he can no longer lawfully have sex with Mrs M. He is wrong, as Rev Wilson said. The intent of the operation is to save Mrs M’s life. The infertility is an unintended and unfortunate side effect.
Now who mislead Mr. M to believe any such thing?
I’d like to know, too. His letter is the first I’ve ever heard of that teaching, if it is a teaching.
I suspect he is a victim of the teaching that sex is all about procreation and sex disconnected from intent and effort to make babies is sinful. Of course where it is known there is no possibility there cannot be intent. Nearest I can tell that is his reasoning. I further suspect the way some people in a wing of the Reformed community talk about it has led to his misunderstanding.
What he needs to do now is read what Jill said, then go love his wife the way she wants and needs to be loved.
It sounds like those Catholic teachings regarding contraception. I have heard variants of that in some protestant circles. Nonsense really. After all, does a married couple have sex at 80?
I’m tired of Christians who won’t let other Christians draw a breath without telling them they’re breathing in a sinful way.
This is the Calvinist/puritan method of control. Educate yourself on the panopticon that was Calvin’s Geneva.
I don’t think most young people’s religious education is heavy on applied ethics, let alone medical ethics. But even those churches that view contraceptives and/or sterilization to prevent pregnancy as sinful don’t teach that a married couple’s sex life should end once one or both partners is no longer fertile. Marital intimacy has other compelling purposes–to strengthen the bonds of mutual love and to prevent infidelity. That would apply whether menopause comes early to late, is natural or is induced to preserve the woman’s health.
And don’t forget, joie de vivre with worshipful thanks to the giver of all things good.
A couple book recommendations related to the above.
On death: https://www.amazon.com/When-Breath-Becomes-Paul-Kalanithi/dp/081298840X
On legal philosophy: https://www.amazon.com/Law-Without-Values-Legacy-Justice/dp/0226015211/
On DEI: https://www.amazon.com/Fault-Lines-Movement-Evangelicalisms-Catastrophe/dp/1684511801/
Thanks also to Ken’s letter above regarding his concerns about the election. Mr. Wilson has taken another form of “bait” himself when he basically implies, it has to do with this being the most important election because of what it will do regarding the next. It’s always “the most important election of our lifetimes” every election and for that reason we have to lower standards and go with it. We are becoming the party we despise, slowly but surely. First Trump, then the platform. How far left shall we go, never to make up lost ground? If Harris becomes president,… Read more »
Rob,
Because some use “the most important election of our lifetimes” as a fearmongering tool does not mean that it can never be true.
Yeah, just today alone we find out that Mark Zuckerberg finally admitted: 1. Biden-Harris admin “pressured” Facebook to censor Americans. 2. Facebook then censored Americans. 3. Facebook also throttled the Hunter Biden laptop story, which certainly had an impact on the election We also learned Dominion Cheating (I mean “Voting”) Systems uses HUAWEI as their cloud provider. Yes, the same Huawei whose cell tower tech was banned by the U.S. government. Of course you don’t know this if you follow the Garbage News Networks or American Pravda, as someone mentioned in another comment. But stuff like this has been coming… Read more »
Your news is literally any unsubstantiated Twitter post 🤣
Zuckerburg’s remarks were made in front of the House Judiciary Committee and not just on social media. If you remember, when Obama was president, the social media giants all testified to Congress that they were paid by the US government to transfer information about US citizens and to promote various stories on their platforms.
That all came out when the social media bosses were claiming they were private companies and didn’t have to follow the Constitution. They took the king’s money and like every other business doing the same were to toe the Constitutional line.
I was specifically talking about the Chinese servers where the only evidence is a screen cap on Twitter. This is how Alex Jones works. Find two truths, slip in a totally fabricated lie. But Doug and his ilk are still butthurt about 2020 so I love seeing right wingers still cry about it.
I guess it’ll take more inflation and female relatives being drafted to go fight Russia and Hamas to break your foolish smugness
Your boy loving dead soldiers over here 🤣
Chris, you have eyes in your head. Read it
Russia Russia Russia is now Meta, Facebook, Zuckerberg!
Trump tried and FAILED to steal the election and is already charged and will be found guilty. Stay mad about 2020 tho
I never said it might not be true. Only time will tell and even at that we don’t have the capacity to weigh such matters since we are not omniscience. Who’s to say. If Reagan did not become president we might have seen nuclear war. Maybe that is still the most important election. Nevertheless it is a tool for politicians to get votes. The larger point which should not be missed is the republican party is moving to the center and I don’t want to move to center with them.
Stephen –> Matthias not Paul, see Acts 6:2; 1 Corinthians 15:5. Paul is not among the “Twelve”
AA–re temper, when I was I kid I threw temper tantrums. My parents had me memorize verses from Proverbs against anger–greater is he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city, etc–and it helped a lot; weaker impulses and hit a wall now and then, not a person.
Re respect for a wife, there are verses on that too: husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church…(Ephesians). Know her well, so you can take care of her, the “weaker vessel” in some ways. Maybe see if he’d memorize, and try to take to heart, some of those??
Zetu–learn to sing psalms? IF “The Trinity Psalter” includes all the Psalms and IF the website “singyourpart.app” has the whole Trinity Psalter, including playing thru each tune, maybe that would work for you. I accordion thru “The Book of Psalms for Singing,” mostly hymn tunes, many familiar (probably all searchable). My youtube channel alohrm3s is mostly Psalm videos from a. A.D. 1927 psalter (copyright dead, I presume).
In Doug’s reply to Tim he says, “The problem we were addressing back in the day was raw intellectual assent being treated as though it were sufficient.” This sounds very similar to the Lordship Salvation controversy that was a hot topic in ’88-’89. However, I don’t get the impression that the “FV is rank heresy” critics feel the same way about the Lordship Salvation stance. Why is that?