Contents
Paul Thought So
I think I already know the answer to this question, but I’ve always been curious. I have always wondered how a theologian would hash out the question: is it sinful for a man to have lust for his wife?BSim
BSim, the answer to that is yes. But of course it is not sinful for a man to have sexual desire for his wife . . . it would actually be a sin for him not to. At the same time, Paul instructs the Thessalonians very clearly that a man should possess his own vessel honorably, and not in passionate lust the way that the Gentiles do (1 Thess. 4:4-5).
The Sam Harris Interview
I listened to your episode with Sam Harris. I’m Christian. And unfortunately, you’ve lost the plot.
You mentioned that we need to think about how Jesus would’ve lived — and how he’d want us to treat the Jews . . .
. . . then you turn around and say you could “conceive of a scenario” where capital punishment is justified for sodomy.
You and I both know . . . Jesus would’ve treated gay people right.
Can you honestly picture Jesus watching you stone a gay person?
He who is without sin cast the first stone.
I go to church every Sunday. And I’ve lost 1,000 arguments about religion because of people like you.
You’re making the rest of us look bad. And you’re outsmarting yourself.
Let Jesus’ actions be your guide, not some fringe interpretation of your own bullshit. You turned my stomach.
Whatever you are, I am not.
Looking forward to your mental gymnastics and spiritual jargon, when we both know this is simple. Jesus is the way. Hope you come to know him one day.Nick
Nick, you are talking about a Jesus with certain Instagram filters applied. Take one of the harder sayings from the Old Testament—the requirement to execute a rebellious son—and. then look straight at what Jesus said about it. “For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say . . .” (Mark 7:10).
I just finished watching the full two hours with Sam Harris. It was a treat to watch the give and take. However I have one question about a response you had regarding the recovery of the OT laws in our future post-mil world. You said that you would be possibly in favor of capital punishment for picking up sticks on the sabbath. Are not the sabbath laws those which have been fulfilled in Christ? If so . . . why would be make that a “sticking” point?
Thanks,Brian
Brian, I am assuming that your sign-off as Brain was a typo, so I fixed it. If not, apologies. Christ is the fulfillment of the sabbath, and He is our ultimate rest. But Hebrews 4:9-10 teaches us that a “sabbath rest” remains for the people of God. Now the original offense of “picking up sticks” was a high-handed and rebellious affront to the authority of God, an “in your face” kind of way. It would have to be the same kind of thing in my imagined scenario.
Language warning . . .
I tried listening to you talk to Sam Harris, but after a couple of minutes I realized listening to you is the same as.listening to some yahoo from the 1700s. You are a moron. Full stop.
P.S.—You are going to lose politically . . . even if you win . . . because you’re a fucking moron who has no clue what it’s doing. Fucktard
Love,Adam in Denver
Adam, this is how we can tell that atheism is the future—because of the lofty levels of discourse it is able to reach.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. My question concerns your recent interview with Sam Harris. If I understood correctly, it sounded as though you were advocating, at least in some cases, for the application of the law of Moses within the Presbyterian utopia.
If that is correct, I’m curious how you reconcile that view with the meaning of Christ’s response to the woman caught in adultery. In that moment, rather than allowing the Mosaic law to be carried out, He intervened, saying to her, “Go, and sin no more,” and to the crowd, “He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.”
It seems to me that this episode represents a decisive reorientation of justice through mercy, and I would love to understand how you interpret that shift in light of your comments about the enduring applicability of Mosaic law.
Gratefully,Kevin
Kevin, first, I do believe that Christ came to reorient the application of the law. In the death and resurrection of Jesus, we see the law that was against us crucified with Him, and then raised together with Him again. So there is such a transformation. But there are still instances where a severe penalty could be appropriate. And it is worth mentioning that the woman caught in adultery could not have been justly convicted, even under Mosaic law. They caught her in the “very act,” but where was the man? And Jesus put the accusers on trial by invoking the jealousy trial from Numbers. He wrote on the dust of the floor of the Temple, and I believe He wrote the charge against her. He then disqualified the judges and executioners by showing that each of them were that missing man.
I saw you for the first time on Sam Harris’ podcast. Sam is the most prominent atheist alive today, and potentially the most influential one too. That is why it could be of extraordinarily high value if his eyes could be opened to the truth. Consider Yitro, whose recognition of the truth precedes the giving of the 10 Commandments.
This is a quote from Sam, spoken about two years ago: ”The claim about the books—it’s so preposterous given how easy it would be for an omniscient being to have proven His omniscience in those books . . . it would have been trivially easy for an omniscient being to have put a page of text which even now would be confounding us with its depths of inspiration . . .”
This is what Sam needs – evidence.
Now I have two pieces of evidence of precisely the sort that Sam was alluding to. The first is the set of discoveries of Oren Evron, in the following videos:
5 minute overview:
In-depth 1-hr version:
Properly understood, these videos contain the proof that the Torah could not have been written by historical humans several thousand years ago. The trouble is, that I have shown them to atheists, and their powers of self-deception are sufficiently strong to reject them outright. They generally claim (absurdly) that not being mathematicians or statisticians renders them unqualified to assess the validity. However, even mathematicians reject them, since it so utterly confounds their worldview that they too are unable to see past their biases.
However, I think it may be possible, if presented in the right way, that Sam could endeavour to understand what is being shown to him. Whether or not he would be capable of admitting it, or willing to do so, is another matter, since from his perspective there may be too much to lose. But he is also highly committed to what he believes to be the truth, so it’s certainly possible.
The other piece of evidence that I alluded to is as follows:
The gematria value of the first verse of the Torah – Genesis 1:1 – is 2701.
As shown in the videos, this first instance of 2701 in pi is at location 165, which itself is the gematria of nekudah, meaning ‘point’. Both Western and kabbalistic cosmology recognise reality as having started from a point.
The next five digits after 2701 are 93852. This is the exact gematria value of all six days of Creation—Genesis 1:3-31.
This should be astonishing to any genuine truth-seeker. The natural question would be ‘why pi?’, but this has very clear answers, some of which is elucidated in the second video linked above.
Of course all of this would need to be curated very carefully, since numerology has a very poor reputation. And rightly so, since much of the practice of it lacks seriousness and rigour, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t truth to be found in it also.
So I would ask you—firstly, do you have a channel of communication with Sam? and secondly, would you be open to working with me to put together a single email that could be delivered to him? Something that could at the very least plant a seed which may germinate and bear fruit when the time is right.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.Kalman
Kalman, thanks for sharing that. There are good evidences to be found in numerology, but as you mention, great care is needed. For example, the first markings were not in the original, and so apply gematria to “a verse” doesn’t prove much. And you also recognized that more than evidence is needed . . . God has to open their eyes to the evidence, and before that, open their eyes to the need to see the evidence.
Immodest Wenches: Proposed Addenda
Re “Immodest Wenches, 2 separate lines:
“The empress has no clothes!”
Ladies in church who “cover their heads and uncover their legs.”Andrew
Andrew, thanks for sharing.
Trouble in the Family
What should one do who has welcomed a new son-in-law to the family who reeks of racism and anti-semitism and loves to talk/debate about them? We have family dinners once a week and the topic comes up quite often. There seems to even be some horrific sort of ‘Hitler’ justification/empathy happening. My grandfather was part of the Dutch underground resistance and risked his life daily to help hide, feed, and escape the persecuted in Holland during that time. I have relatives who died in concentration camps. This is incredibly painful for me to witness. And it is an incredibly anti-Christian and dangerous sentiment. My son-in-law is young and immature in many ways, but he is fervent in his faith in God. But he ought to know better. As he is a son-in-law, I cannot talk to him like I would my own son and want to avoid castigating him such that he steps away from our family. But it is exasperating to me; frustrating and heartbreaking.
We have not raised our children to think this way, in fact, quite the opposite and yet, as my son-in-law interacts with my other sons, I see his influence affecting them and how they speak and act on the subject. What do we do?!Newman
Newman, first, graciously put a ban on that or any related topic as dinner table conversation. You are not censoring generally, but not at the table. Second, offer to read books with your son-in-law, with alternating perspectives. Your other sons can join in if they want. Then schedule a time to go out for a beer once the book is done.
Thanks for Checking
My wife and I attend Pilgrim Hill, where you have preached twice now.
I came across a post tonight about how a journalist in Pakistan left a ChatGPT prompt at the end of their article.
Which reminded me of something I have been intending to write you about.
As I’m almost certain you are aware, Politico wrote a lengthy article about you. Largely a fun read.
But there was a paragraph that felt rather insane when read out loud. I can’t send screenshots via this form, but if you go to the article and copy the second paragraph, run it through a GPT detector (zerogpt.com), it will respond that it is 100% certain that the paragraph was written by AI.
I found that very entertaining and hope you get a good laugh out of it as well.Hunter
Hunter, thanks very much.
Divine Impassibility
This week in a response to a letter you said,
“I do believe in divine impassibility, and the other attributes that the classical theologians teach us. But I don’t believe that we should allow their categories to negate or erase the way the Bible talks about God. And the Scriptures talk about the wrath of God being a terrible thing. And as the Scripture speaks this way, so may we.”
Would you please explain your reason for believing in divine impassability? I would think the Biblical evidence should trump other arguments.
You seem to acknowledge two categories: 1) How God really is, and 2) How the Bible speaks about God. You make room for the two categories to be very different from one another. Please explain. Is there a reason to embrace a view of God that seems at odds with the picture He provides in Scripture? This is a genuine question.
Actually this brings up another more fundamental question I have. The Reformation brought the church “back to the Bible” in forming her doctrines. This “reformation spirit” would be something I assume every Protestant wants to carry forward—continually reforming our ideas under the authority of Scripture. And yet, we don’t want to “start over” each generation, constantly rethinking “known knowns” like the Trinity or Christ’s dual nature.
But where do we draw that line? The confessions seem to fit into the picture here. And yet how do we avoid the tendency to make the confessions infallible—a tendency that feels very real to me as a relative newcomer to the Reformed camp. This tendency seems to end the reformation spirit. It leads one to look to the Bible not to shape one’s views but to confirm one’s views.
I think you can see the two ditches I’m talking about here. The ditch on one side of the road is so into radically reforming its convictions it starts rethinking “known knowns” and ends up in weird places. The ditch on the other side of the road is so locked into great-great-grandpa’s tried-and-true convictions that it can’t see where Grandpa maybe had room to improve too. I want to drive my rig down the middle of the road and avoid both ditches. I agree with a LOT of the Westminster—but not every jot and tittle. Does that make me a radical or a rigid traditionalist? It almost feels like you have to pick a ditch.
Thanks for discussing,Michael
Michael, I agree with much of what you say, except the part about having to pick a ditch. The Bible describes the wrath of God as being a terrible thing, and so we should describe it the same way. The Scriptures also say that He is infinite, and that His understanding is infinite, and that in Him is no shadow or variation due to change. As I can’t do the math, I am left with affirming both, without forcing one to conform to. the other. What I object to is someone using divine impassibility to assure us that the wrath of God is actually like a placid pond on a summer afternoon.
A Full Preterism Refutation Fail?
I’m no full preterist, but the grammar of Luke 20 seems confusing on your reading (in Marriage and the Age to Come). The passage is present tense, contrasting two groups: the “sons of this age,” who marry and are given in marriage, and those counted worthy for the resurrection age, who weren’t doing that. But Jesus doesn’t say what the worthy do or don’t do in the resurrection age.
You’ll say that, surely, many of those counted worthy to attain the resurrection were marrying, etc. then. Of course. I could probably dig it up, but I think I’ve read something arguing that “marrying and giving in marriage” could be an idiom for illicit or covenant-breaking unions, as in the “days of Noah” (Matt. 24/Gen. 6), and that Jesus was rebuking the Sadducean priests for their own hypocrisy (Mal. 2). They’re the ones who brought up levirate marriages! So, the “sons of this age” are law-breakers such as these; “those counted worthy” are the righteous faithful.
In that case, the not-marrying, etc. is a description of their current obedience leading to future resurrection life, not a forecast of eternal celibacy. And, for that matter, not a brand new teaching that the post-resurrection New Jerusalem will be radically different from the pre-Fall Garden re: marriage. So the sense is: “Who will share in that future resurrection age? Not you who—you know—marry and are given in marriage.”
Plausible, I think. Unfortunately, not the gotcha for full preterists you wanted; fortunately, there are others!Kyle
Kyle, thanks for the push back, but I still think it stumps the full preterists. If marrying and giving in marriage only referred to illicit marriages, then the Sadducean question was one that stumped Jesus, and which He evaded by being slippery. The question stands . . . whose wife will she be?
You might even say full preterism is like it’s always winter but never Christmas.Guymon
Guymon, yes. You could say that. In fact, I wish that I had said it.
In your dealing with Full Preterism you still don’t understand the argument. And in this article you assume something in the question from the Sadducees that results in a category error. You said: “Now the Sadducees denied that there was a resurrection at the end of history, and the Pharisees affirmed such a resurrection.”
Where do you get the idea that the Jews (Pharisees or Sadducees) were ever concerned with the end of history (end of time)? They thought in terms of “the age” and “the age to come.” The OT spoke of the Mosaic age (the Law and Prophets) or the “Old Creation” (heavens and earth) and the age of the Messiah or the “New Creation” (new heavens and earth). The question regarding marriage had to do with how the bloodline of ethnic Israel were passed down from one generation to the next. This involved keeping the line pure through marriage within families and not intermarrying with the surrounding nations. This led to all kinds of issues for which judgment came upon them. Why? Because the Messiah was to come from this heritage and God’s purpose was sure from the beginning to save His people, both Jew and Gentile. But how is the “bloodline” of the Messiah, Jesus passed down? Not through ethnic origins and marriage, but through faith in Christ! This is where ALL true Israel exists IN the one true Jew, Jesus. This is how Gentiles enter in, no longer excluded and where the whole Law and Prophets find their fulfillment (the telos, the goal, the aim). See John 1:12-13, the whole book of Galatians, Ephesians 2, etc.
The resurrection that the Sadducees were denying was that of the OT followers of Yahweh. They would say if these people are raised from the dead (physically) then this is going to get awkward real quick. Ok . . . who’s wife is who? Jesus explains that the age to come (the one we are in now, the new heavens and earth . . . which you yourself concede is at least inaugurated per Isaiah 65) is not like the old age, the old heavens and earth where Israel is distinguished through ethnic means, circumcision, worship at the temple, etc . . . all of the physical, outward things, but rather is spiritual . . . matters of faith, circumcision of the heart, ourselves being the true place of worship (John 4:23-24).
Those who were worthy to attain to the age to come (the Jews who would put their trust in Jesus, the Messiah . . . the “remnant of Israel”) the ones who would not be judged and destroyed would no longer pass on true worship through physical means, but rather through a message of a fulfilled hope, that the true kingdom of God had come and He now dwells with and in His people forever. They no longer will die because Jesus Himself IS the resurrection and the life (John 11:23-27). The age that was passing was the old creation (in which the OC was the way of fellowship with God). This did pass away as you confirm per your understanding of Matthew 24. It’s the same age that is being discussed in Luke 20. The new age, the new heavens and earth, the new creation was coming and God was not going to forget those who had worshiped God, but died. He was going to bring them along with, for God is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Luke 20:37-40). He was going to bring them into the new creation, but not the way they, the Sadducees, were thinking where it might look like an old episode of Jerry Springer where husbands are fighting over their wives, but rather where all those who were faithful to God will be in fellowship with Him forever,having put on immortality (like the angels). The scribes chimed in at the end and confirmed that the Scriptures described this very thing. Those OT saints were not gone forever, but alive and well, waiting for their full restoration (resurrection) back into the presence of God, back to the garden to eat of the tree of life and drink from the river of life, which are Christ Himself! We enter into all of that through faith and we invite others into the city whose gates are never shut, to enjoy God’s presence now and forever. It’s a beautiful story, a beautiful salvation! Whether or not history has an end, I have no idea, but death HAS been defeated, sin HAS been put away . . . IN CHRIST!! What more motivation do we need to invite others into the joy of their master?!?! Death no longer clings to the shoe of those who have faith. Are we ALL going to die? Yes that is certain, but ALL those IN Christ yet shall live! Appreciate you and the fact that you are willing to engage on this topic. God bless you!Jeremy
Jeremy, okay. But if it is as you say, since the resurrection is past, and we are in the age to come, why do we still marry? And why do we die?
Authorized Subversion
I am leading a men’s group at an Assemblies of God church. We have been (with the church’s permission mind you) teaching through many of the Canon books on manhood, marriage, and culture even though it at times it may rub against the A of G’s doctrine at times. In a way we are waiting for the church to ask us to stop (or leave) but every time I share the book they tell us to proceed. Be that as it may . . . I am wanting to teach these men what it means to be a biblical, masculine, patriarchal husband. We are all downloading your books each week in November so my question is this: Which books would you recommend and in what order would you recommend them with this end in mind?
Blessings!Larping as a Presbyterian
LAAP, careful with the Larping. It grows on you. I don’t know what books you have already done, but I would do Decluttering Your Marriage, Why Children Matter, My Life for Yours, Future Men, Federal Husband, and Reforming Marriage.
An Acknowledged Exception
“A godly satirist should have a warm and affectionate relationship with his wife, sons, daughters, mother, and father. No close member of his family should flinch when he walks into the room (Col. 3:19, 21).”
This was a quote of yours from Rules for Reformers, which I am sure you recognize. I assume the undergirding assumption here is that said family loves Christ. That is not the category my family falls into. My family (mother, father, sister, aunts, uncles, etc.,) is not of the company of fellow reformers that will be fighting alongside me, but rather, they are of the company of those who will resist us, unless—God willing—they repent and believe, of course. My relationship(s) with them are not terrible, but it is not great, and the quiet angst that does exist is not for lack of trying on mine and my wife’s end. My embrace of the Gospel simply makes me an alien to them, one they do not know what to do with or how to interact with. With that said, when we walk into a room, there might be an occasional flinch or two. Would you say, given the circumstances, that is okay?
May the peace of the Lord be with you!Colt
Colt, yes, that would be more than okay . . . depending on why they flinch. If they flinch because Jesus showed up again, that is good. If they flinch because the quarrelsome Jesus freak showed up again, not so good.
Troubled by the Assassination
Two mostly unrelated things if I may. First, on the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I haven’t really seen it noted elsewhere why Kirk’s death hit such a nerve, at least in the terms I’ve thought about it. I’ve seen this less helpful phrase, “Charlie Kirk was our nice guy, you won’t like what comes next.” I would like to propose that Charlie’s assassination was more like two warring armies calling a truce. As our side sent out our negotiator, just as he was approaching the negotiating table— halfway out in the field still smoking from battle—they shot him. That to me is the gut punch.
Second, I have been very blessed by the generosity of Canon Press and yourself in the free book giveaways over the past many NQN’s. Thank you. I am one of the men you have talked about reaching and encouraging and I am greatly encouraged (and reached).Ted
Ted, yes. His murder felt very much like that. As for the giveaway books, you are most welcome. Thus far, this November we have given away over $1M worth of books, and hope to hit $2M. Keep doing your part.
On My Writing
As an aspiring writer, I have a practical question for you. First, I have read both Wordsmithy and Ploductivity, both very helpful. My question is, when it comes to a book idea that pops in your head, what is the first thing you do? Do you write out a rough outline to follow first, or do you just sit and let the stream of consciousness flow (I’m talking in the very early draft stage)?
I get ideas that hit me that seem good, but then I get overwhelmed with where to take it . . . how to begin. I’m wondering if it’s simply a matter of needing to outline first, or if there is another step you take that helps get your idea on the straight-and-narrow until your full first draft is complete. Thank you!Ben
Ben, for me, it usually varies, depending on whether it is fiction or non-fiction. If non-fiction, I usually build a rough outline, at a Table of Contents level, and. then write to fill it out. If fiction, you need a plot, but I generally write from “a hook.” Ride, Sally, Ride had the hook of a murder charge for destroying a robot. Evangellyfish had the hook of a skunk pastor being guilty of all sorts of things, but innocent of the charge thrown at him. Fiction writers are generally divided into two groups—the plotters and the pantzers. The pantzers are the ones who write by the seat of their pants, in order to find out what happens. I am one of those.
I hope you’re doing well today. I have read through almost all of your fiction, that I have to say that “Ride, Sally, Ride” is my favorite. I found its scathing critique on our society absolutely hilarious and amusing. I love the craft of of writing, what is your process of plotting your novels? Also, who is your favorite character in any of the books you’ve written?OM
OM, thank you very much. On plotting, see the previous letter above. I think my favorite character is Stephanie in Ride, Sally, Ride.
I live in Los Angeles and take public transportation every day. It goes without saying that there are strange characters most of the time riding with me, ranging from goofy (dancing) to annoying (playing music on loud speaker) to dangerous (shining lasers into drivers’ eyes as the train goes by).
I’m also a husband and father of a 2-year-old. I do frequently consider confronting people making a disturbance and feel funny just allowing everyone to be made uncomfortable by a dummy being annoying, and have a desire to take responsibility to tell people to stop. However, I also consider the dangers. For instance, we have seen crazy men stabbing people on the train recently. Confronting someone about loud music isn’t worth getting stabbed and leaving a 2-year-old fatherless. How would you advise men in particular in such circumstances? I do dislike the tendency of us all (myself included) to just turn up my headphones to try to mute the annoyance.CU
CU, it is a matter of responsibility and authority. The mildly irritating stuff you should treat as “no my circus, not my monkeys.” But if you have the authority to step in, do it. When misbehavior gets to dangerous levels, you do have the authority and the responsibility—even though the anarcho-tyrants deny that you do—see Daniel Penny.
Sneeveling Women In
Here’s the PCA again, using that trademark “gentle and deft touch” to “sneevel women into leadership.” I get that this is the College, not the Seminary, yeah-but-what-about-Deborah, etc., etc. But does the PCA not have one man among them to head up leadership development of the young men at their flagship college? Besides that, Covenant comes across in their announcement as entirely inebriated with corporate standards of success and qualifications. Their breath is rank with it.
Anyway, I’m grateful for the good work going on at NSA. I’d wager they’ll turn out more leaders than Covenant, and with a lower Executive Director of Leadership to student ratio to boot.Jake
Jake, yes, and thank you.
Reformed Baptist Question
I just have a question that’s unrelated to any specific post of your’s. I’m a Reformed Baptist and have been trying my best to study the covenants over the last year.
I totally agree that the church is in the same blood-bought Everlasting Covenant of Grace that was revealed to Abraham. However, I’ve always struggled with the Covenant Theology belief that circumcision was an analog to baptism.
In Genesis 17, I plainly read the chapter as containing two covenants for Abraham: the covenant of grace, verses 1-8 (seen clearly in verse 7), and a covenant of works, verses 9-14 (seen clearly in verse 10). That’s why Paul seems to identify circumcision as law in Galatians 3. Therefore, that sign is fulfilled and finished at Jesus’s death.
But baptism is a sign that’s not contained in a separate covenant but instead added to the covenant of grace after Jesus’s death to serve as a memorial for the work of His death in our lives. How then can circumcision be an analog to baptism?
Thank you,Caleb
Caleb, there are different ways to answer the question, and so I will give you two. First, both circumcision and baptism represent the gift of regeneration. The circumcision of the heart is regeneration (Dt. 10:16; Rom. 2:29), and baptism is the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5). The two rites mean the same thing. Second, Paul directly connects the two in Colossians 2:11-12. To be circumcised by Christ is to have been buried with Him in baptism.
Sorry, Haven’t Read
This is completely unrelated to any given blog post, but, supposing you’ve read it, what are your thoughts on Hinds Feet on High Places by Hannah Hurnard? Do you think it’s an accurate portrayal of a faith journey, an evangelical watering-down of Pilgrim’s Progress, or something else entirely? If you haven’t read it, you should.Ano
Ano, sorry. I haven’t read it. I can say that I believe my mother thought well of it—I remember a copy of it around our home when I was growing up.
More on Abolition and Smashmouth: Lengthy But Worth It
I appreciated the recent abortion abolition debate in which you participated with Jeff Durbin. It was far more helpful and clarifying than previous debates on the subject, particularly because of the unfeigned spirit of mutual respect and brotherliness that pervaded. It was one of those debates that had me nodding in frustrated agreement at all four participants. And it left me with these thoughts:
I’m looking for an argument that is deductive and structured in clearly defined premises and conclusions derived from God’s law.
The abolitionist position appears to do this, but often in a wooden way that feels sophomoric.
The smashmouth position is generally argued from a this-is-kinda-just-the-way-the-Bible-works perspective, which is often convincing, but also frustrating inasmuch as it leaves many holes unplugged.
Having been convinced of the abolitionist position for many months (and participated heavily in the Australian movement), I wanted to return to God’s law and reason it out for myself. The following is a summation of my conclusions, and I’d be grateful for your thoughts on the soundness of my reasoning.
—————————–
Premise 1
Some commandments are weightier than others and must take priority:
Justice, mercy and faithfulness are “weightier” duties than donating ten out of every hundred of your mint leaves (Matt 23:23).
There exists a “most important” commandment, implying less important ones (Mk 12:28-31).
To be clear: “these you ought to do (the lesser commandments), but don’t leave the others undone (the weightier commandments).”
Premise 2
The abolition debate reduces to a disagreement over the weighting of two duties:
Obeying God by rescuing the helpless.
Obeying God by establishing just laws.
Is it in the pursuit of rescuing babies that we should establish just laws? Or is it in the pursuit of establishing just laws that we should rescue babies?
Premise 3
A commandment cannot be disobeyed if, as a finite creature, there was no opportunity to obey it. This is true by definition, but also derived from Scriptures like John 9:41 and James 4:17.
Premise 3A
There are situations where, as you give attention to obedience of a weightier commandment, you will have no morally available opportunity in that moment to obey other, lesser commandments. They are mutually exclusive. As such, any apparent neglect of those lesser commandments cannot be disobedience. For example:
Priests “profaned” the fourth commandment in pursuit of the first and were “guiltless” (Matt 12:5-8). They could not be guilty of disobedience to the fourth commandment because, as they attended to the first commandment, there was no morally available opportunity to obey the fourth. (In another sense, their obedience to the first was obedience to the fourth, because the fourth serves the first.)
An overworked Israelite, after coming home and feeding his family, finds he has no time to tithe his mint leaves, despite Christ’s injunction that “this you ought to have done.”
Premise 4
The abolition debate presents just such a situation as Premise 3A describes: a state governor is hoping for a bill of abolition to cross his desk, but the best he gets is a heartbeat bill. (We will assume, for purposes of argument, that signing the bill will result in more lives saved than not signing it.) The weightier path of obedience is either:
Rescue babies with heartbeats, and fail to insist upon absolute impartiality in the law in that moment.
Insist upon absolute impartiality in the law, and fail to rescue babies with heartbeats in that moment.
You can think nice thoughts about both duties, but you cannot do both at once. You have no magic political wand.
Premise 5
The two duties mentioned in Premise 2 answer to two commandments, respectively:
Rescuing babies: the sixth (“do not murder”; preserve life).
Establishing just laws: the ninth (“do not bear false witness” —against, for example, babies without heartbeats).
Premise 6
The sixth commandment is weightier than the ninth, because the ninth serves the sixth. This is evident from Deuteronomy 19:16-21, which calibrates the gravity of disobedience to the ninth commandment by the damage it causes one’s neighbour—the most extreme circumstance being “life for life.”
Conclusion 1
The smashmouth position, at least in theory, assigns the correct weight to God’s laws. The abolitionist position falsely prioritises the ninth commandment over the sixth.
Conclusion 2
If we grant that the injunction to save life demands the aforementioned governor’s priority, then he hasn’t reached a stage where obedience to the ninth commandment is a morally available possibility. If he signs the heartbeat bill, he has neither endorsed nor rejected the injustice already on the books; it simply remains untouched for now—like our overworked Israelite’s herb jar.
Conclusion 3
In signing the heartbeat bill, the governor has obeyed the sixth commandment, and has not disobeyed the ninth.
Conclusion 4
If he refuses to sign it, however, he has disobeyed the sixth, and only appeared to obey the ninth—because how can you obey a lesser commandment in the act of disobeying the greater commandment it was given to serve? To draw an extreme analogy: you cannot claim to be obeying the second commandment by crushing graven images of Yahweh if you promote imageless worship of Baal (the first commandment).
—————————–
Despite its complexity, I believe this argument has only given a detailed credence to what most Christians seem to know instinctively: that God is not a legalist; he does not demand paralysis in the face of imperfection.
At this stage, these are strong positions loosely held. I would very much appreciate your feedback as I seek to settle on a conviction.
Regards,
Micah
Micah, this is well done. I like the cut of your jib.
Travesty in Idaho
First, thank you for your steady faithfulness, clarity, and courage you provide to Christians navigating our current cultural moment. Your teaching, writing, and shepherding have been an anchor for many of us here in Idaho, myself included.
I am writing to you because I believe an issue has emerged that carries significant implications not only for Idaho’s civic well-being but also for the long-term security and stability for Christian families in Idaho. The Department of War is proposing to allow a Qatari-funded military facility to be built in Mountain Home, and I am deeply concerned about what this would mean for our state. I have already written to Senator Risch, Governor Little, State Legislators—but I think it is also important that faithful Christian leaders are made aware of the situation.
By way of background, I am a Meridian resident, saved-by-Grace-alone-capital-R-Reformed Christian and formerly served as an active-duty Marine Corps Officer in the aviation community. I have worked firsthand with Middle Eastern military trainees here in the United States, and those experiences shape the concerns I am raising now.
My chief concern is the long-term, generational impact of allowing a foreign government to build, fund, and populate a facility within the state of Idaho. Most importantly a country whose state religion is Islam. If the project proceeds as proposed, it could bring hundreds of Qatari personnel and their families into the Mountain Home area. That may sound benign on the surface, but as you often remind us, cultural influence and ideological presence are never neutral. Ideas come embodied in people, and people shape communities over time. As a (originally) born and raised Minnesotan . . . I can point to the 1990’s as the genesis of the insanity currently taking place in Minnesota today. Case in point—Ilhan Omar. That was 30 years in the making. The last thing I want to see 30-40 years from now as an old man is the eventual “Islamic Delegation of Mountain Home/Boise” in the Idaho Legislature.
It is at this EXACT critical juncture of history where we have the ability to tamp this down before we find we have shot ourselves in the foot generations from now. WE NEED TO THINK GENERATIONALLY! Our adversaries do.
The 2019 NAS Pensacola attack—where a Saudi Arabian pilot being trained on American soil opened fire and killed three of our servicemen (and injured eight others)—remains a sober reminder that even thoroughly vetted “partners” can present long-term risks. Friends of mine were stationed there at the time and I was weeks away from accepting orders to NAS Pensacola. It was not an abstraction for us; it was devastating and real. No vetting process can guarantee permanent safety, especially when geopolitical alliances and internal dynamics within foreign states inevitably shift.
There is no strategic necessity that requires this training to happen in Idaho. Qatar can train its pilots in its own airspace or at existing international facilities. Locating this project in Idaho serves no clear benefit to Idahoans, but it exposes our communities to risks that we do not need to assume.
As a father of two young children, I cannot ignore what this could mean for their future—and for the future of families in Mountain Home and surrounding areas. The Federal government seems inclined to downplay the potential dangers.
I am reaching out to you not because this is primarily a political matter, but because it is a cultural, generational, and spiritual one. You have long helped Christians think clearly about the interplay of faith, civic responsibility, and the long-term shaping of communities. I know also you’re personally close with Pete at this point and he values your thoughts. My hope is simply to put this issue on your radar in case you find it worthy of commentary or engagement—or perhaps even speak with Pete on this issue.
Thank you for taking the time to read this and for the ongoing work you do for the Church and for Idaho.
Respectfully,Chris
Chris, thank you. And for what it is worth, I agree completely. Thank you, and I will be thinking about what I might do.
Caleb, I expect you’ll notice that Douglas Wilson makes the common paedobaptist error in his response, failing to distinguish between how far he could legitimately the observations he makes, which would be to say “there is some overlap between the various meanings of the signs of circumcision and baptism”, and his actual statement, the statement needed to justify paedobaptism, which is “The two rites mean the same thing”. This is no more valid than moving from “football and tennis are both athletic ball games for entertainment” to “football and tennis are the same game”. This paper by Greg Welty of… Read more »
Federal Visionists, of course, are trying to be more consistent with the idea that “baptism and circumcision work the same way; the outward sign changed, but the inward thing itself is the same”, than Calvin and the following Presbyterian tradition descending from him was. So, for a Federal Visionist, if you’re baptised, then you are objectively part of the holy people of God, and bound by all the requirements. It doesn’t matter what age you are, or if there’s any evidence that you’re born again: you can be born by the first birth into the covenant, and then you grow… Read more »
If it is legitimate to say “there is some overlap between the various meanings of the signs of circumcision and baptism,” then then overlap is where the shorthand statement (“the two rites mean the same thing”) might be true.
“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.” It seems to me that in this passage there is a figurative circumcision followed by literal baptism, but which is only effective in raising you from spiritual death if faith is exercised. Believer’s baptism! There is more of a contrast between circumcision and baptism than saying they… Read more »
Andrew, can you elaborate please.
Me? I just like good lines and liked those, for anyone who might enjoy them or find them useful.
The 1st riffs off the “the emperor has no clothes!” fairy tale. The 2nd has in mind a particular young lady 20+ years ago at a church where headcovering happened.
Thanks Andrew. In light of that topic, I think the more truthful observation is that pastors have no pants.
Newman, if you find Doug’s persistent refusal to separate from Nazis to be stunning in its complacency — during NQN, no less, when he finds time to yet again promote the institution of slavery, but somehow no time at all to denounce presidential complicity in pedophilia — then you are not alone. Far from it: across the decades of his ministry Doug has driven many more people from the church then he has brought into it, as demonstrated by the letters this week. That is what happens when the answer to every question is “God wants me, personally, to have… Read more »
…and if he still refuses, rub his face in his mashed potatoes!
Buster’s place sounds like a lovely dining experience. Proverbs 15:17
I find digestion to be easier without Nazis spoiling the mood, yes, and never have trouble finding dining companions who aren’t Nazis.
Which is why I suggested not allowing hate to poison the dinner table, as Proverbs 15:17 recommends.
I thought you were giving hate an engraved invitation.
No, you didn’t think at all. Happy NQN.
I’d suggest being slower to bring up “hate” during a time when your camp is having virulent debates over just how kind to be to the Nazis and child traffickers in your camp.
Inspired by Hunter’s letter, I asked ChatGPT about Douglas Wilson’s argument in the Monday “NQN” piece that an 1850s slave owner in Alabama could be following Scripture, as to whether his argument for this was ultimately sophistry (I pasted the entire article and asked the question “But slaves in Alabama in 1850 were victims of the Transatlantic slave trade, so this seems like sophistry?”). Yes — the writer’s argument is sophistical, because it depends on a hypothetical scenario (“a biblical slave owner in 1850 Alabama”) that was impossible within the actual historical system of American slavery.The writer creates a fictional… Read more »
Except, all of these apply to Philemon. Kidnapping / man-stealing was the foundation of the Transatlantic slave trade (Ex. 21:16 explicitly forbids this). Roman slaves were taken from the surrounding non-Roman peoples. Slavery was racialized, hereditary, permanent, all contrary to the writer’s supposed “biblical model.” Roman slavery was permanent, hereditary, and semi-racial. Legally, enslaved people had no rights, and owners were not required to treat them with justice or reciprocity. Roman slaves had no rights either and in fact had less rights. if you ask a leading question ChatGPT will always agree with you unless it is instructed not to… Read more »
Opening prompt, a leading question: “Such a clever fellow as Samuel Haring must be correct about the thing he’s writing about, mustn’t he?” Answer: “Not necessarily.” Ah well, never mind. In the only case in the New Testament letters, which are occasional, where Paul addresses the case of a specific slave, he urges his master to free him, on various grounds that amounted to “and if you don’t, then you clearly haven’t understood the gospel”. There’s various things I could say in answer to your points (which in my view mostly rely upon making fallacies of ambiguity), but, ultimately, you’ve… Read more »
It is obvious that Doug would like to personally own slaves as a citizen of an ethnonationalist state, and believes he should be able to, and will rationalize whatever he has to in order to bring that world back into being. The “biblical 1850s” thing stuck out to me too, typical in its maintenance of plausible deniability while once again trying to have it both ways. That is the hallmark of his career. (The Sam Harris interview is provoking such a reaction b/c Harris refuses to let him have it both ways, and so Doug is caught in one contradiction… Read more »
I did a bible study on ‘Does the bible and its God condone slavery’, and I would say that if in a some postmillenial age the law of Moses were to be reintroduced, then owning slaves as in the pre-war South would be illegal. The Hebrews as the people of God were not allowed to kidnap or steal with a view to enslaving – something repeated in the NT. They could buy slaves from the surrounding nations as an exception, but it struck me that God was allowing them to treat the populations of the surrounding nations by their own… Read more »
“Why anybody would want to bring back the Mosaic law, which is to put a yoke on people, I don’t know, once it has brought us to Christ it has done its job.” Why would a white “Christian” nationalist want to legitimate the slaveholders of 1850? There is only one obvious possibility: Doug’s Christian nation would be the Confederacy, it would massively restrict the franchise, it would allow slavery, and he — as a very wealthy landowner — would own those slaves. There is no other obvious reason. That’s why white supremacists like him so much. Which they do. Look: Doug… Read more »
I hope you realize that ChatGPT is a computer program that will always give you an answer, but not always a correct answer. Did Jesus rise from the grave after dying on the cross? “Beliefs about whether Jesus rose from the dead depend on religious perspective” Is Jesus the Son of God? “Beliefs about whether Jesus is the Son of God depend on religious tradition. Here’s a clear, balanced overview” Please notice the clear, balanced overview part. Is the triune God of the Bible the only true God? “Questions about whether the triune God of the Bible (the Christian understanding… Read more »
Dave, my point was probably too subtle. I know that LLM-based AIs have no concept of truth (they are statistical predictors of plausible following text based upon their training data), and neither can they reliably detect the output of other AIs (https://effortlessacademic.com/how-reliable-are-ai-detectors/). But I thought that if AI output is sauce for the goose (the letter commended it to us, and the proprietor apparently agreed), it’s also sauce for the gander.
Unfortunately, to learn statistics (or anything else about proper inference) the NSA kids would have to go to an actual school.
Instead they are taught rhetoric, or at least what passes for it in Moscow, where it is reduced to The Art of the Gotcha.
I asked ChatGPT if you & Buster Keaton were the same person and it gave 40% odds.
I’m pretty certain that nobody has ever seen us in the same room. Suspicious, no?
I don’t recall any humor from this Buster Keaton; maybe he should change his pen name to Buster Komstock. (I’m not sure that’d be fair to Mr Comstock, but he’s long dead.)
What can I say? The joke is on you.
Lincoln famously summarized his view thus: “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master”. That works for me. I would apply it to the question of slavery in any time or place. I point that out so that you do not read into my comments below an opinion I do not have, or at least you will have no valid excuse to do so. Was the Roman system of slavery, the system under which Onesimus was a slave and Philemon was a master, a biblical model? It was not. If it was in any… Read more »
Paul sending Onesimus back to Philemon “not as a slave, but as brother,” also as a “partner” with equal status to Paul (a citizen of Rome), does not constitute a general argument in favor of chattel slavery as an institution.
Claiming that it does is something worse than a non sequitur.
But thanks for the clear demonstration of what I predicted: “rationalize whatever he has to.”
Edit: sorry, this should’ve been in reply to Samuel Haring.
One fact I’d comment on is that it’s curious for someone who believes in Biblical revelation, and a theonomic postmillennialist, to think that it’s legitimate to just bracket out all the historical (remember what’s happened in the rest of the West by this time) and Biblical knowledge that an American in 1850 should have, compared to a 1st century Roman who’s just been exposed to the gospel for the first time. His argument urges us to look at him in a timeless vacuum. As if God should not have said to Belteshazar “But you his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled… Read more »
Luke 12:47-48 applies? Maybe. I want to be careful with that reasoning though. I can see it being abused.
All principles, anything that has a use, can be abused, so I don’t think such an observation adds anything in itself. Are we really meant to slice and dice the mint and cumin so finely to make sure that we paid our legal tithe in such a way that that we don’t even notice the great moral principles of the law? Is that really the sort of careful avoidance of abuse that God wants us to have?
Roman slavery had no problem with manumission nor with slave literacy. US slavery evolved into strongly discouraging manumission and outlawing slave literacy. In those ways, and perhaps in racism, it was worse than Roman slavery (and than OT slavery). Roman law/custom did give a master a right to sex with any of his slaves, male or female, and that was worse than US law, tho not than the practice of some US masters. Sometimes better distinguish between different kinds of “slavery,”sin we the same word is used as a name for different setups; besides extended uses such as “wage slaves.”… Read more »
Whereas David Anderson’s reasoning – if I do understand him correctly – is that first century Christians didn’t quite know better yet, and Paul met them where they were, your point, if I understand it, is that Roman slavery had features that made it less bad than American slavery?
Plausible, however the difference you are describing is a difference of degree. It remains that the system under which Onesimus was enslaved was not one prescribed or ameliorated by biblical injunction any more than was slavery in the United States.
I don’t think I’m making a specific claim about whether 1st century Christians (which ones?) should or shouldn’t have known better. But I am claiming that a slave owner in 1850 in America (a time when slavery had been abolished in Europe, in which the realities of the enslavement process/experience were public knowledge to anyone except the willfully ignorant, and in which the Scriptures were spread far and wide, and in which the nation had recently gone through widespread dogmatic argument about the freedoms and rights of men), if he did not know better, was morally culpable for that situation… Read more »
I do not share Wilson’s interest in defending southern slave holders (or the so-called Confederacy) except to note that when they pointed to slavery apparently condoned in the Bible, well, there it was. Yes, they conveniently ignored some scripture, but what intrigues me is your suggestion that Paul did teach believers to dismantle slavery. I don’t need him to have done that in order to make a case against slavery, but what are you seeing?
I don’t agree that slavery is condoned in the Bible. To regulate is not to condone. Jesus explained to the Pharisees that when God gave regulations concerning divorce, this did not mean that it was compatible with his original intention, but was because of the hardness of men’s hearts. Thus, Jesus teaches us to examine God’s original intention. But to answer your question about teaching believers to dismantle slavery, I believe that this is implicit in Paul’s teaching both about slaves in general, and in the one specific named case that he handles. He does not explicitly command the immediate… Read more »
So then, taking the Monday NQN piece that prompted you to start this thread: When the subject is homosexuality and the Christian appeals to Scripture, but Spong, if it was Spong, try’s to play gotcha with “But the Bible allows for slavery”, the short answer would be “Yes, allows for owing to the hardness of men’s hearts, while condemning hard-heartedness. You’ll find the Bible does not anywhere allow for homosexuality under any circumstance”.
Would you agree with the sentiment I have read that Paul may not have directly taught the need to free slaves but he did create the conditions that would inevitably lead to its demise?
If the spread of the gospel had anything to do with the demise of slavery, Paul had something to do with the conditions that led to it’s eventual demise, long, long after his death. I wouldn’t say it was a priority for him in his lifetime.
I asked ChatGPT if you using ChatGPT to evaluate Doug’s argument was wise or fair. Weaknesses: Lack of Deep Contextual Understanding: ChatGPT doesn’t have personal experiences, a specific moral or political stance, or an understanding of the nuanced cultural and historical dynamics at play. In the case of something like slavery in the 1850s or scriptural interpretation, context is absolutely crucial. The complexities of historical racism, theology, and the role of Scripture in justifying or condemning slavery require not just intellectual but moral and emotional understanding that ChatGPT, as a tool, may lack. Reduction of Complex Arguments: While ChatGPT can… Read more »
Quite so. For one thing, of course, I doubt that ChatGPT had the context of the letter and would be able to understand that my only real point was that quoting an LLM-based model to boost one’s own position can then be responded to on the same terms. Whether you followed that and are being humorously ironic, or not, I can’t work out from the context either. I guess I could ask ChatGPT……
I asked ChatGPT this prompt: Please discuss the irony of someone asking ChatGPT to analyze a text and determine whether an argument presented therein is “entirely sophistry”. Here’s what I got: There are a few layers of irony, and they differ depending on which sense of sophistry you mean. Here are the richest ones: 1. Sophistry as “argument that simulates reasoning without substance”If someone asks ChatGPT to judge whether a passage is “entirely sophistry,” there is an inherent irony because: ChatGPT itself can produce the form of reasoning without the source of reasoning—it can imitate analytical discourse even when the user doesn’t supply enough information to… Read more »
The sheer evil of the Nazi regime seems to have been lost on more recent generations. Reading a book on British special forces operations in Italy in the course of the war, when German soldiers were killed by cooperating partisans in such operations, German troops would simply round up men women and children from the nearest village and shoot them. Ratio of 10 to 1. Illegal, a war crime, but considered in order by these brutes who believed in following orders. This hit home when some of the familiar WW2 footage has lost its power to shock. Hitler wanted to… Read more »
It is a widespread problem but most severe in “classical”/homeschool cultures, where children are told that all science is wrong, all medicine is dubious, all history is an intentional lie by Marxist atheists, 99% of literature is evil, and very little knowledge generated post-1600 or so is useful or trustworthy.
Which is how Nazism spread originally: through Christian churches in rural areas, where intellectuals and minorities were scapegoated by people scared of a rapidly-changing information environment and industrial structure. Sound familiar?
“It is a widespread problem but most severe in “classical”/homeschool cultures, where children are told that all science is wrong, all medicine is dubious, all history is an intentional lie by Marxist atheists”
This is….. utterly deeply delusional. Seek help.
Read Doug Wilson on secular education, and he will say things much more extreme than the above. He will say that science is idolatry. He will say that medicine is anti-nature, and thus anti-God. He will say that lib arts professors are jealous lesbians and drug addicts, paid by (((globalists))) to attack “tradition”. He will caricature and slander and strawman, and you will eat it up. He will claim the mantle of “Western civilization” — a secular concept, btw — while making NSA students sign pledges never to express any attitude associated with liberalism while at NSA, without even a… Read more »
Buster, I’ve never read that the National German Socialist Worker’s Party started in rural churches. Everything I have read is that it was in urban areas not associated with churches. Later, after Hitler was in complete power, the churches toed the party line.
I would be interested in reading any literature you might be able to point to showing Hitler’s party started in rural churches.
Yes, the church is great at covering up its own history, while claiming a historical basis for its authority. The common narrative — that fascism had no link to Christianity, or any “Western” values, as put by Hannah Arendt — was very important to sustain during the Cold War, but like much Cold War agitprop it was an, erm, over-simplification. I.e., a politically-useful lie. The urban radical movements of the day were socialist (which is not to say that all were Bolsheviks, but many ofc were). The rural reactionaries were fascist. In 1928 the NSDAP won 1.5% of the vote in… Read more »
The German word Evangelisch despite what it looks like means Protestant rather than evangelical. Huge swathes of the Protestant church in Germany are very definitely not evangelical, and have large numbers of people whose Christianity is purely nominal!
TL;DR: “Trump and those who voted for him are NAZIS!!!!!!!” Look, I get it. Ever since Mustache Guy broke your little black Communist hearts over the whole Molotov-Ribbentrop thing, you’ve been expressing your anger and rage by screaming “Hitler!” at every Republican since Wendell Willkie. But would it kill you Communists — and no one knows killing better than you, what with your astronomical body count that made the actual Nazis look like pikers — to at least come up with something more original? This tired, worn out playbook of yours is older than Joe Biden. And wipe that drool… Read more »
Buster does get it right that the prime predictor of support for Hitler was Protestant north and eastern Germany. This should serve as a warning, and is to the eternal shame of the non-Catholic population.
On the other hand when Communism was imposed in East Germany the state took over the existing apparatus of oppression, including in some cases the personnel and mentality of the Gestapo.
I strongly support the defense of Eastern Europe from Russian imperialism, so as not to repeat the mistakes of the 1940s.
But do the Republicans? By and large they do not.
(Recall that I did not bring up the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, someone else did, but while it is front of mind… is there a dictator on earth that 47 isn’t “doing deals” with?)
Well it looks at the moment as if Trump is trying to do a deal with Russia that will reward their invasion of the Ukraine. Whilst I don’t think in terms of Russia bad and Ukraine good this is a worrying development. The motivation seems to be $ commercial advantage. The offering of guarantees of Ukrainian and western Europe security is also troubling because Trump will give them one day and take them back another. Previous guarantees weren’t worth the paper they were written on. Meanwhile European politicians (too many women!) complain they have been left out of the negotiations… Read more »
I am not a communist. Your reply is ad hominem. Demonization of the facts is the sign of the fascist, according to Orwell. I quote the words of a conservative Lutheran reverend of the day (he learned the lesson too late, and didn’t make it): First they came for the CommunistsAnd I did not speak outBecause I was not a CommunistThen they came for the SocialistsAnd I did not speak outBecause I was not a SocialistThen they came for the trade unionistsAnd I did not speak outBecause I was not a trade unionistThen they came for the JewsAnd I did… Read more »
The sheer evil of Pakistani rape gangs and 3rd-world takeovers of European nations seems to have been lost on effeminate boomer men still worried about the Notsees.
It’s also worth noting the winners of war write what they want in books, including information extracted from “confessions” after hours of torture.
Americans torture Germans to extort “confessions” – Imgur
But keep making the Globo-Homo Narrative Great Again in the U.K….such as supporting mandatory CONVID jabs (something that has aged terribly) when you were scared to death of a virus a few years ago.
Too much whataboutery
Does it not bother you you have elected such a buffoon as president? Boris Johnson was the UK equivalent. What they have in common is the absence of any commitment to truth. Unreliable.
Now he may have been the lesser of two evils compared with Biden/Harris, but this hardly makes him righteous even if he has done some ‘conservative’ things.
I still wonder if Putin has got something on him.
Michael, it’s encouraging that you better want to understand the doctrine of God. There is no greater object for our study. The issues you are interested in discussing are discussed in a large and profound body of Christian writing from the days of the church fathers onwards, and valuable contributions are still being made to that literature today by many writers. You’re not going to get a deep grasp on these sorts of issues through the brief responses of Internet pastors giving you 90 seconds of their time. You need to do the heavy lifting. To get a detailed understanding,… Read more »
For Chris: From a 1970s perspective, concerning your question about having Qatari pilots and staff at Mountain Home AFB plant an Islamic center here is some insight. I went to UPT at Laughlin AFB in the 70s and at the time there was a large contingent of Iranians and a smattering of other Islamic students along with various other religions represented by foreign students. The Iranians came and went as various aspects of their training or support duties ended. Yes, times were different and the Texas ISP sent them on their way with warnings for activity that would have put… Read more »
What is the difference between lust and sexual desire?
Lust is inordinate sexual desire. Sexual desire in itself may be righteous or unrighteous; lust is a species of unrighteous sexual desire. The modern world in general depersonalizes sex. People “have sex”, and the other person heads towards being a provider of the service enabling someone to have the sex they wanted, rather than mutually “making love”, expressing and enjoying the reality of two lives that have been united. There are some who say a lot of utilitarian, depersonalised things like “your wife is the legitimate outlet for your sexual desires” and “your wife is your weapon against porn addiction”,… Read more »
Punishment vs mercy feels like a false dichotomy. A better question is: do you withhold punishment because of mercy, or timidity, or a lack of desire for justice? Mercy isn’t just “letting them go” – it creates obligation. The servant whose debts are forgiven is judged more harshly when he fails to forgive. The woman being judged for adultery is not waved off, but told to “sin no more”. True mercy is only possible when there is repentance; otherwise it is only temporary mercy that can be withdrawn in due time Finally, there is a distinction between our personal mercy… Read more »
Brian sticks and sabbath–Colossians 2 says ‘Let no man…judge you…in respect of… Sabbaths.’ It is a sin to let anyone judge you about Sabbaths? (Possibly Sabbaths enforced by Judaizing Christians or pseudo-Christians?) Compare Romans 14: One man says some days are special, another esteemeth every day,,,”Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind,” and not be despised tho they hold different persuasions: think differently, practice differently, perhaps try to persuade each other, but both brothers in Christ. On the face of it, this allows for, and makes it sin not to respect, a variety of Christian persuasions about… Read more »
Kevin, and the woman caught in adultery, and why wasn’t the man with her? Well, say she and her paramour were adulterating out of doors, with him on top, and some men walking home from the local Pharisees’ club heard something and went to check it out. They get close enough to see the sex; he hears them coming, gets his legs under him, and takes off. They’re able to see he’s not her husband (one bald one has lots of hair, perhaps), but can’t recognize him; and they catch her. The assumption that the man was let off strikes… Read more »
The MSS evidence for the story of the woman caught in adultery means imo we ought to not place to much credence in its authenticity.
There’s a very helpful discussion of this here: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/text-criticism-and-the-pulpit-should-one-preach-about-the-woman-caught-in-adultery/
I find that use of Mark 7:10 strange. I understand that the story in Mark 7 is Jesus saying that is to point out that the pharisees are hypocrites, and reject what Moses handed down. But he still also rejects some verses in the Old Testament (at least in my NIV version of Mark 7) when Jesus says that you cannot be made unclean by what you take in (and in parentheses makes it clear that it is talking about all food). And that seems to contradict any simple reading of Old Testament dietary law. Jesus quoting of Exodus is… Read more »
I agree that essentially Jesus was replying to the Pharisees on their own terms, given their own professed beliefs about implementing the Mosaic covenant in their own time. It’s impossible to infer from his statement that he *also* believed himself that in all places and times, such a law should be applied, and that all laws should be passed on the basis that we are de facto parties to the Old Covenant. We’re not. Concerning Mark’s comment about food laws, I think that in overall Biblical context, he saw Jesus’ comment not as taking immediate effect, but upon his resurrection.… Read more »
Or maybe Jesus is pointing out the error of thinking ceremonial purity is what counts with God. Yes, God commanded ceremonies, but they were only an outward reminder to Israel to be separate from moral sin. (And he did not command the washings described in Mark 7, so to fault the disciples on them is entirely misplaced.) To curse or neglect parents is sin every place and time.
Interestingly, cursing parents is forbidden in Exodus right after kidnapping into slavery.(Exodus 20:16-17) (How the civil penalty of death applies today is a separate question.)
Micah, thanks for the premises and conclusions from your recent pondering of the abortion debate. That was a very helpful read for me.
Regarding the Idaho base. Physically write a letter to your senator and congressmen and tell them you do not want this base or any foreign base on US soil. This must be a pen and paper letter. Insist upon a reply. For every paper letter they receive, it is worth 20 emails or phone calls. Someone has to record it. It makes a difference. Keep the letter simple. I do not want this. Period.
One does not have to be in Idaho to write about this.
The President is slobbering all over MBS in the Oval Office, in exchange for personal business opportunities, so somehow I think those letters aren’t going to get through.
If you want this not to happen you will have to remove MAGA from power.
Apologies accepted :)
-Brain
If marrying and giving in marriage only referred to illicit marriages, then the Sadducean question was one that stumped Jesus, and which He evaded by being slippery. The question stands . . . whose wife will she be? There are, of course, other examples of Jesus declining to give direct answers to expose something about his questioners. I don’t think the Sadducees walked away feeling like they won. And, maybe it’s husband no. 1. Or, maybe she gets to pick. And it could still be none of them! There’s no reason to think the resurrection simply cuts-and-pastes every pre-existing arrangement… Read more »
On the incident of the woman taken in adultery, consider the following from the Old Testament:
“I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery: for themselves are separated with whores, and they sacrifice with harlots…” (Hosea 4:14)
God makes it plain that he will -not- single out women for punishment, when men are just as guilty.
What Jesus did is thus consistent with the Old Testament.
On capital punishment for picking up sticks, consider the context: – God reveals himself to humans unquestionably, invincible supernatural power and all. No room for atheism; we’ve got a confirmed category 5 divine sighting. – God then offers a choice to those people to follow his laws and be his special people. – The people voluntarily agree to follow God’s laws. – People who saw God for themselves, and made the agreement, then turn around and deliberately break those laws, while God’s supernatural power is -still- visible. At that point, it doesn’t matter what the law is: it could be… Read more »