Shiny New Letters for a Brand Spanking New Year

I began reading C/A in its infancy. I was on my way oiu of Roman Catholicism. My wife and 5 young home-schooled children came with me on this journey. I learned Reformed Theology, as important, I learned application to every area of life. We learned more of the beauty of Christ and his gospel. Of biblical worship, of the biblical family and we grew. We have visited Moscow many times and considered moving there. We are thankful for Emanuel Chapel in Helena and we ate blessed by pastor Jonas Barnes. We may have our differences but I thank God every day for how he used you on our lives, snark and all!

Steve

Dear Doug, All things being equal, should a boy have a dog?

Thomas

That Spirit of Antichrist – Dec 27, 2023
“Antichrist Hates Anything Made Out of Molecules”

You have helped focus my longstanding position to the foundation that the foundation rests on—thank you.

Some men claim they not only know that an ideal distribution of molecules exists, but what that distribution is,

And that it can be achieved by inhibiting people from exercising dominion.

Undeterred by the plain truth that water is by far the greatest greenhouse gas, thankfully or we’d all freeze. At any given point about 50% or the earth is covered by cloud.

They mess around with mandating paper straw use. Much to the chagrin of the occupants of family-sized vehicles, idling by the hundreds all over town in drive-thrus, after driving miles to get there.

The paper straw pushers mandated use of another item that involves the mouth where words come from—the mask.

James 3:3

When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal.

Thanks for your wisdom

And Happy New Year

Murk

Re: That Spirit of Antichrist

*Preach it!* I’ve encountered this helpful teaching about Gnosticism (and its ugly cousin, Hermeticism) in many places, but its assumptions are so deep in our culture that I am still working on identifying them whenever they rear their ugly heads.

Nancy Pearcy, in Love Thy Body, did a fantastic job of describing upper/lower story thinking, and how it leads directly to abortion, transgenderism, and all the other transhuman horrors.

James Lindsay has done an amazing job showing how Marxism and all other forms of identity politics draw on Hegel, who was Hermetic, and are closely bound up with the occult. The gnosis in Theory is the special double view of the world that you can only attain by belonging to an oppressed class.

I would like to add that Gnostic contempt for the material also led to ancient Greek sexism, since women are pretty much permanently stuck in the material realm, and to the modern kind of sexism that seeks to eradicate motherhood.

I was talking last summer with an exvangelical loved one who had already admitted she is Gnostic. She kept stating Gnostic doctrine and then saying, “I don’t see how that’s any different from anything Jesus taught.” When finally I gave her a very clear summary of the Apostle’s Creed and pointed out how it differs from Gnosticism, she was deeply “hurt.” One tragedy of the false teaching is how it makes people unable to think clearly.

Jennifer

That Spirit of Antichrist

Pastor and brother, could you provide some additional applications of this to the church? What other abstinences is the antichrist peddling? And how do you differentiate living sparsely for the sake of the gospel (as Paul did) and a gnostic asceticism?

Thanks and I appreciate your ministry.

Darryl

Transgenderism is little more than a modern manifestation of the gnostic lie. The corrupt cosmos played a trick on you. Your spirit, your pristine soul, has been trapped in the wrong flesh but with pharmaceuticals and surgery you can be set free . . . until your DNA exposes the lie.

RCL

“In the passage from 2 John, notice the close connection between a refusal to walk in love and a denial of the Incarnation. The traffic should go the other way as well. High doctrine and loving interactions go together. All those who affirm that the Second Person of the Trinity took on human flesh at Bethlehem should be in the forefront of embracing what it means to love our brothers and neighbors in material ways.”

This is so right, but also too easy, because those (of low and high doctrine) who love their own salvation tend to really love Christ, and want to express it. The overflow of this love may not be manifested in tangible ways (such as material gifts) because of pride, complacency, or sheer size of a church body (Antichrist elements of the modern USA?)

The lot of us may not be denying the incarnation, but may be being denied expressing deep love for our own salvation, via expressions of overt love (tangible and intangible) in the form of sacrifice and hand-wrapped (material) gifts for one another—because of material issues outside our immediate control.

I don’t refuse to walk in love. I refuse to be told that I might be unloving simply because I don’t know who my (immediate) brethren are.

Julie

Hi Doug. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, & 2 questions.

1 is metaphysical, 1 is pastoral.

#1. Was logic created?

#2. My brother—who has had his share of tumultuous relationships-has just entered what I believe to be another tumultuous relationship. Recently we discovered that a friend of ours, whom we knew well 20+ years ago, and professed and lived the life of a Christian then, has recently been divorced from her husband. The reason for the divorce is, her husband of 20 years, now believes he is gay.

So, my brother, being 43 and in desperate want of a Christian wife, swooped in and began communicating with this woman. Now, communicating and only communicating is what they did at first because, well, that’s all that was physically possible; he lives [on one side of the country, she on the other]. At first, it seemed from what he had told me that the two really were hitting it off. That was until he told me that she was not so much a Christian anymore. In so many words she has “deconstructed ” and has all but abandoned what she was brought up to believe. She is sympathetic to her gay husband and the LGBTQ+ world. She is not actually completely divorced yet, and although she is process , she “co-parents ” with her ex. For example: they spend time together cutting down trees with their 16-year-old son, and decorating for Christmas. On top of this, our old friend was apparently making seductive promises to my brother for when he visited us . . . for Christmas.

Now, after listening for weeks and not rushing to judgment, after my brother told me of all of the red flags above, I of course encouraged him to FLEE this trap. He was sooooo close to ending things and told me he was on the phone doing so. However, within seconds everything changed and he shut me down. He wouldn’t talk to me anymore about the relationship, and has lashed out at me for holding him to the realities that he revealed to me about her. He had been home for 2 weeks for Christmas, has spent countless hours with her alone, and insists I say nothing more to him than “I am happy for you bro.” He calls me prideful and curses me out when I try to give advice.

All of this to say and ask, I have resolved to not advise him anymore because he only wants his ears to be tickled. Yet he is my brother, and I care for him. I know when he returns . . . the relationship will most likely devolve and imploded from the sexual bonds that will be torn from the lack of marital covenant, not to mention the gaping physical distance (2000+ miles). When this begins to happen he will reach out to me for help because he has no one else. He has done this countless times before in every illegitimate relationship. He confides in me, decides to be godless, curses me out when I hold him accountable, and then comes to me burnt and alone looking to vent. So, what do I do? How do I handle this? He asked me to go miles with him this way, and lashed out at me over and over again. Do I go another mile again? Or should I make it clear he needs to live in the house he built, that I warned him not to build? How long does one allow this cycle to persist before he turns away from his brother in love?

Sorry for the 1000 questions. If need be I’ll pay a Dollar for each one you answer. Or is that 10 dollars in Bidenomics? Oops there’s another.

Thanks for the time Doug.

Simmer

I am . . . searching for a previous blog post in which you admirably argue something to the effect that COVID mandaters were “certain that they were right.” I can’t remember the post but you made the point that in making any walk backs or apologies necessitated a recognition that they demonized others who disagreed. Can you point me to the post? I just read Francis Collins’ “Confession” on NR and wanted to re-read what you said so well.

John

You and your ministry have blessed me tremendously throughout 2023 and I’m looking forward to another year of your content. God bless you brother. Keep doing what you’re doing!

Tony

I just wanted to take the opportunity before the end of the year to thank you, your family and ministry for all your work.  I’m a regular user of the Cannon App.  The content you produce is so encouraging and edifying.  It’s deepened my study of the Word and transformed my life and the lives of my family and my community. 

Best wishes for Christmas and the holiday season!

Sincerely,

Rajen

I am writing to give thanks for all the work you and everyone at Canon Press have been doing, and to inquire about a potential Kingdom-expanding possibility.

First, the thanks: The Riot and the Dance documentaries have been a real blessing to our work here, and the kindness shown by the Riot team was crucial. Through their support, we were able to age-certify Riot: Water to be shown here in Irish cinemas, and have had several successful screenings.

Inspired by that work, I wrote an article dealing with a more specific aspect of creation: the “golden ratio” and it’s connection to New Age lies. The thought occurred to me that this topic, in documentary form, might be able to reach lots more people than an article. The Canon Press team seemed like the best people for the job, so I just wanted to bring the content forward, in case it would be of any use for the Kingdom.

Link for the article:

Blessings,

Robert

I’ve been diving into a study of the Lord’s Supper & have come to a question I’m wrestling with—I affirm everything in the WCF , but have come upon an aspect of the Lord’s Supper I see in Scripture that’s not addressed in the WCF.

So I see the WCF communicates how

1. TRUE believers by faith receive ALL the benefits of the grace the Lord’s Supper represents & communicates—an effectual union with Christ—

2. Unworthy or ignorant people partaking in a way that brings condemnation upon themselves

The area I’m not seeing addressed is the idea of non-elect covenant members partaking with temporary faith in a worthy manner.

I look back at the first Passover & can’t help but notice there were many covenant members who were unelect that had some kind of temporary faith to apply the blood of the lamb to the doorpost & were indeed passed over by the death angel, they received true grace from God , that were then baptized in the Red Sea , who later rebelled against Moses & were swallowed by the earth.

So coming back to the Lord’s Supper—can we conclude that there are in fact covenant members (professing believers) who are not elect—with their “temporary faith” rightly discern the Lord’s body & partake of the Lord’s Supper in a worthy way? , similar to the non-elect the night of Passover in Egypt?

So just like we understand that these non-elect members are in fact united to Christ covenantally—can we be consistent by also acknowledge that they can rightly partake of the Lord’s Supper with temporary faith covenantally , while not receiving the full benefits of that sacrament?

Not trying to be overly complicated or anything, just thinking things through.

God bless, brother!

Tye

A continued response to Responding to Living Faith Has No Side Hustles—

You asked “Kyle, if I am understanding you correctly (which I might not be, I grant), you are saying that a man is justified independently of him resting and receiving? Is that right? That can’t be right.”

That is not quite right, no. As we both would agree, man is justified by grace alone through faith alone—faith is the sole instrument of justification, and it is faith that rests and receives on Christ, not obedience or good works.

To quote Section 11.2 of the Savoy Declaration of 1658: “Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ, and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.”

In the same vein as my last response, I believe we are working with different definitions of “Resting and Receiving” and “Works.” The classic Reformed view defines resting and receiving aside from acts of obedience, which are works. Your definition of resting and receiving includes obedience, which in your mind does not equal works. This is partly why in my original piece I coined the phrase “Resting and Receiving Obedience,” because I wish to be honest to your position, and you do reject the idea that “Works Save.”

But because your classification of Resting and Receiving includes obedience (which is works) you have added works, even in a minor form, into the description/definition of faith. This is a weakening of justification by faith alone, and is the one of the reasons such men as RC Sproul considered Federal Vision as “destroying the gospel.” As Reformed Christians, we must hold to a definition of faith apart from all works, and yet acknowledge true faith as that which will lead to good works.

To quote Heidelberg Catechism 21—“True faith is not only a certain knowledge whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word; but also a hearty trust, which the Holy Spirit works in me by the Gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ’s merits.”

Thank you for your continued responses—its my hope that we may all come to form a united Reformed front against both threats to the Gospel, and to the Church.

Kyle

I have spent the last six months in search of a good postmillennial/partal-preterist exposition of the book of Joel, particularly chapter 3. I have scoured books, talks, podcasts, all to no avail. I even asked you for any help you could give, on this blog.

But in the end I decided that I would have to work it out myself. So I submerged myself in the book for a while, and then condensed the results into a short summary. I think I’ve nailed chapter 3, and it’s really interesting. Still, I would love to hear what you think of this exposition. Do you think my explanation is accurate (of chapter 3 in particular)?

Here is my summary:

Chapter 1: The book of Joel opens with a warning prophecy: an army of fierce locusts is going to invade Judah, leaving nothing behind (1:4-7). It is an invasion of such sheer magnitude and force that has not been heard of before (1:2-3). In Joel’s day, this portended the Babylonian captivity that Judah was soon to experience. Ultimately, however, it served as a warning for the Jews of the time of Christ, who would perish at the hands of the Romans (as indicated by the fact that Revelation 9 quotes portions of Joel 1 and 2 to describe the invading army). The people must repent, fast, and offer sacrifices of contrition if they are to have any hope of reprieve (1:8-20).

Chapter 2: Joel repeats his prophecy in chapter 2, insisting on the urgency and nearness of the day of Yahweh (2:1). It will burn, devour, and, in short, put their lights out (2:2-11). Who could abide this day of Yahweh? Even so, Yahweh stretched forth his hands to his disobedient people, as Paul says, in hope of their repentance, which would lead to his own merciful relenting (2:12-17). Restore the proper sanctity of worship, God says, and divine favour will follow. So beautiful and elaborate does the description of this divine favour become that we are led to believe that it really will happen—if not to all Israel, perhaps then to a faithful remnant, as v. 32 mentions (2:18-29). God exhorts Zion to be glad and rejoice, as he will rain bountifully upon them, producing an abundant harvest, even promising the provision of his own Spirit, that will produce a revival of vision and prophecy like never before (2:23-29). Overshadowing this, as previously mentioned, the day of Yahweh was still coming to judge the wicked—they would be snuffed out (2:30-31). Opportunity was given, however, to anyone (indicating Jew or Gentile) who would call upon the name of Yahweh—they would be joined to the spiritual city Jerusalem, formed out of the elect remnant (2:32). These judgements and blessings would begin to be meted out in the days of the first century AD. At this time, the Spirit was poured out upon the believers, and many Jews and Gentiles found salvation in Christ, being born again into the family of Jerusalem, who is the mother of us all. Such believers were saved from the destruction that would destroy Jerusalem in AD 70, most of them moving to Pella in time to escape. Salvation was not in the literal city of Jerusalem, as God stated emphatically when it burned to the ground; no, God was building a city with living stones, and the cornerstone was Christ.

Chapter 3: But such profound salvific revolutions require explanation. Gentiles being part of Jerusalem, the holy city of God? Saved? Chapter 3 therefore begins in explanation of 2:32. The people of God would have their fortunes restored through a divine victory over their enemies (3:1 etc). Alluding back to the victory of Jehoshaphat in 2 Chronicles 20, in which the battle was won by singers praising Yahweh, God says he would enter into judgement upon all the nations oppressing his people (3:2). Palestine, Egypt, Edom, Tyre and Zidon are the nations that are named (these are the nations that surrounded Israel), and together they form a perfect representation of the enemies of God’s people. God would entirely reverse their fortunes, showing favour to his own people, and bringing judgement upon their enemies for all the atrocities they had performed (3:3-8,19). As the chapter continues, however, we realise that this war, like Jehoshaphat’s, is not a war to be won with swords and spears. True, the enemies of God would create weapons with which to bring desolation upon themselves, as in Jehoshaphat’s day (3:10-11), but ultimately God views this as a religious, spiritual war, indicated by the phrase “sanctify war” (3:9). The nations, in fact, are to be harvested, not destroyed (3:13). The New Testament alludes over and again to Joel 3:13 (see Matt 9:37-38, Jn 4:35, Mark 4:29), insisting that the harvest is an effort of preaching and conversion — in short, laying out the drag net of the kingdom, and reeling in the fish. Moreover, this converting of sinners occurs because “their wickedness is great” (3:13), not for any righteousness of their own, which is almost Pauline. It is through the preaching of the gospel that the nations are called to repent of their wickedness. “Multitudes” of the Gentiles would be conquered in this fashion (3:14), and thus, in a striking resemblance to the battle of 2 Chronicles 20, the victory would be won by the two-edged sword of the word of God (cp Heb 4:12). “This honour have all his saints”, says the Psalmist (Psalm 149:6). The language used to describe the conquering of these nations is strikingly similar to that used to describe Israel’s destruction (3:15-16, cp 2:10-11,31). This suggests that the judgements meted out on Israel are exemplary, and serve as a warning to all other disobedient nations that they could meet a similar end. Thus, through gospel preaching, the world will flow with milk, wine, and rivers of water (3:18), as they see the desolation that befalls nations who oppose God’s people (3:19). The world will see that whereas God’s enemies perish, God’s people prosper, passing on the gospel from generation to generation (3:20).

The great postmillennial victory described in Joel 3 is to occur in the “valley of Jehoshaphat” (meaning “the valley of Yahweh’s judgements”, in Hebrew). However, this same valley is called “the valley of Berechah” in 2 Chronicles 20:26 (meaning “the valley of blessing”, in Hebrew). How can a valley of judgement be simultaneously a valley of blessing? Moreover, Joel 3:13 says they “come up to the valley”. How can you go “up” to a valley? These seeming contradictions are answered with Christ. The valley can be seen as the spiritual battlefield that every believer enters upon when they “bless Yahweh”, as did the apostles in Acts 4:24ff. In so doing, we follow the spirit of Jehoshaphat’s army, who conquered their enemies by fearless worshipping of God. It is through worship of God that judgement is meted out upon the enemies of the gospel. Furthermore, although we physically remain down on earth when we worship God, we have spiritually ascended to the heavenly places in Christ.

In this fascinating way, I believe the book of Joel finishes in the doggy-eared pages of a good ol’ Christian hymn book.

I hope you found this interesting, and I would love to hear what you think of it. As I said before, I’ve been unable to find any resources that apply a consistent postmillennial and/or partial-preterist interpretation to the book, and it was quite satisfying to finally understand it.

Thanks for all you do.

With sincere regards,

Jost

All I can say is, what you have to say in “Have Yourself a Merry Little Postmill” borders on insanity. I mean, on the one hand you tell us, “all the things that have us so worried . . . are nothing but scraps on His workshop floor”, and then on the other hand, day after day, this same postmill causes you to warn us all as Christians what we need to be worried about, to the point you insist, “there needs to be a collision”, going on to pray, “may God soon grant it.” Again, this borders on insanity. Either God is truly in control, and there is nothing for us as Christians to worry about (even though we will), and this means we can continue as a Church to do what we are called to do, which is to love those who hate us, showing the love of Christ as we do, and preaching the Gospel to a lost and dying world, praying that God would grant them the same forgiveness we are receiving, as opposed to praying for some sort of “collision” with these folks.

So which is it? Are we to be concerned about the behavior of those outside the Church, involving ourselves in the culture war? Or are we as Christians given “explicit permission” to associate with the immoral of the world, eating with them, working for the common good with them, showing the love of Christ to them, while not associating with the immoral inside the Church? In other words, should we as a Church be concerned about the rot in the culture outside the Church? Or should we concern ourselves with the rot inside?

Exactly what would we as Christians gain, if we were to impose Christian nationalism upon the United States, while the majority of the nation is not Christian? What would we accomplish by this nation proclaiming itself to be Christian, while our Churches are emptying out? If you say we are not to impose Christian nationalism upon those who are not Christian, but rather make disciples of Christ, then how is this accomplished? Will it be accomplished by preaching Christian nationalism? Will it occur by being at war with the culture outside? Or will it only occur by preaching the Gospel to a lost and dying culture?

I can tell you this, the Church has involved itself in the culture wars for over 5 decades now, attempting to use the government to enact Christian laws, all the while the culture becomes ever more immoral, as our Churches empty out. I can also tell you that you are going to have to agree that the remedy to our situation can only come by the preaching of the Gospel. It is not going to occur by preaching Christian nationalism. It will not occur by enforcing Christian laws, and it will not happen by the government proclaiming this nation to be Christian. These things will only cause the rot to worsen.

So then, why have we exchanged the Gospel for all these other things you tell us day after day, we need to be worried about? I can tell you why. It is because the overwhelming majority of Christians cannot even explain the Gospel. This is because, the Church has been more concerned about the behavior of those outside the Church, than they have about making disciples of those who have been entrusted to them. In other words, the overwhelming majority of Christians cannot even explain the Gospel, but they can tell you what side of the political aisle Christians should be on, the latest culture war we need to be engaged in, and what candidate we need to vote for, but they cannot even make a defense for Christ raised from the dead, and it is Christ raised from the dead which puts to rest all other arguments.

This means, when we as Christians are faced with things like, “Pornography, propaganda, pandemics, police states”, the answer is, Christ raised from the dead. When we are faced with, “Darwinism, socialism, feminism, egalitarianism, fascism, environmentalism, mysticism, the answer is, Christ raised from the dead. However, our culture is not hearing the argument of, Christ raised from the dead, because most Christians cannot even make the argument for the fact that Christ has indeed raised from the dead. Rather, our culture is hearing useless arguments such as, “the United States was founded upon the Christian religion.” I mean, even if we could win this argument (which is impossible) it would do nothing to remedy the rot in our culture, nor the fact that our Churches are emptying out. Our only remedy is, Christ raised from the dead.

The Church needs to recover her sanity, before we can truly have an impact on our society, and may God soon grant to us this recovery of our sanity.

Jack

Re: Have yourself a Merry Little Postmill.

Tremendous word of encouragement. Thank you and Happy New Year.

Scott