Contents
Letters
You have stood your ground on what is called Christian Nationalism since long before it was popular it seems to me. You’ve gotten a lot of flak for it along the way, and I’ve noticed that you are aware of James Lindsay and his beef with it. He seems to think it is a conservative reaction back to the inquisition as well as a play by the left to create a boogeyman (these are not contradictory because for the left, the reaction is the “real action”). He may be right about the left’s motives and about some on the right. What I find concerning in this very moment, however is this video. In it, some of the most popular secular anti-woke Podcasters and Public intellectuals have apparently gotten together recently (I’m guessing they all belong to Jordan Peterson’s ARC group) to discuss how the West needs to respond to the forces arrayed against “us.” In this conversation between Dave Rubin and Eric Weinstein, they are starting to sound like you but without the epistemologically self-conscious transcendental grounds for a righteous government. I wonder what James Lindsay said in that conversation of theirs when they started to doubt free speech in favor of not tolerating the intolerant?MPF
MPF, the basic question for Lindsay is this. Given atheism, why should the interests of individual man not be trumped by the interests of collective man? We have invited Lindsay to debate these things, but I don’t believe we have a response yet.
Lewis and the Atonement
I’ve loved CS Lewis for many years and have read the Narnia series multiple times to my children. What has plagued me about the series is his ransom view of the atonement, that God had to pay off Satan in some way. Are you aware if this is Lewis’s actual view or if it’s just an unfortunate addition to make the story work?Ty
Ty, I believe the death of Aslan in Narnia is configured to the needs of the story. I don’t think Lewis is trying to advance a particular view. All we know is that the death of Aslan delivers Edmund from the witch (in what appears to be a simple ransom payment.) But centuries later, King Tirian says that by Aslan’s blood “all Narnia” was saved, so more appears to be going on. And in Mere Christianity, I believe Lewis reveals that he doesn’t think that which atonement view you hold is all that important, as long as you are trusting in the death of Christ.
Kuyperian Things
A Kuyperian Imperative—Doug, big fan of your ministry (even if my seminary isn’t). I’m a student at Westminster West and have recently been interacting with 2 kingdom theology and Kuyperian ideas. While I see some of the positives of 2 kingdom thought, I’m more inclined to embrace the Kuyperian imperative (real Kuyper, as you said above). It seems as if 2 kingdoms lock the gates to their respective fortresses and throw away the key. As you said, “You can see the cathedral spire from every part of town.” Prayerfully, the gospel will be preached and take root in the surrounding unbelieving spheres, to the glory of God alone. Amen.Tommy
Tommy, thanks. And amen again.
It is not necessary to post this letter, but after reading your post on Kuyperianism I remembered this essay that is an absolute must read for you Pastor Wilson. Blew my socks off that people think this deeply. I had to read it many times to wrap my mind around it but I’m sure you’ll only have to read it once. It’s by a man named Stanley Parry. The essay is called “The Restoration of Tradition”, 1961. He was a scholar and published in National Review and Modern Age. Of course it’s better to have paper in hand, but here it is in 2 dimensions:
It’s a doozie.Anthony
Anthony, thanks for sharing it.
Everyday Vows?
I am getting married in a few months and I have a question about what would constitute wise practices for building trust vs. what would constitute paranoia or being too uncharitable. Based on Jesus’ teaching about letting your yes be yes and your no be no, I tend to think that I have a responsibility to do anything that I said I would do (regardless of whether I used the words “I promise” or “I swear”). I tend to think that if I told someone I would do something and then I don’t do it, I owe that person an apology, regardless of the reason why I didn’t do it. In this case, barring completely unforeseen circumstances that make it impossible, I would either be guilty of choosing not to do what I promised to do, or I would be guilty of promising to do something that was impossible from the outset. I suppose my one other option would be if I realize that I can’t deliver or it would be very difficult for me to deliver on what I said I would do, I can talk to the other person and ask them to let me out of my obligation, but I tend to think that I do not have the right to cancel the obligation on my own. My question is, is this a reasonable or fair standard to hold my fiancée (or anyone else for that matter) to? For example, my fiancée and I made an agreement to study a particular topic separately and then on a date that we had specified, we would come together to talk about it (the date was about a month in the future). When the date arrived, my fiancée said that she had been busy and didn’t think the topic was too important so she hadn’t thought about it at all and wasn’t ready to talk about it. At first she seemed to think that she had a legitimate excuse for not doing what we had agreed to do, but after talking about it the next day, she apologized and I forgave her. Am I out of line for thinking that she should have done what we agreed to do and that it was appropriate for her to apologize or was I not being understanding enough?
Applying the golden rule, I thought that if I were in her situation, I would feel a responsibility to either make sure I was ready to talk on the day we decided regardless of how busy I was or talk to the other person ahead of time and ask them to let me out of my commitment and that if I failed to do either of these I would owe the other person an apology. However, I’m wondering if the golden rule with adjustments would come in here (e.g. the fact that you want a shotgun for Christmas doesn’t mean you should get your wife a shotgun for Christmas). Does 1 Peter 3:7 mean that I shouldn’t hold her to as high a standard as I would hold myself? I also had the thought that when we are married and have children, we will pretty much always be busy, so if “I didn’t do what I promised because I was busy” is a legitimate excuse, neither one of us would every be obligated to keep our word. Is this a reasonable concern, or am I being paranoid?
Thanks for taking the time to read this! Looking forward to hearing your response!Will
Will, well, since you asked . . . I would say two things. Everything you have written here, on paper, I agree with. If we say we are going to do something, we should do it, and apologize if we miss it. I agree with you. But you seem to be giving this incident more weight than it ought to have, and perhaps you are being too fastidious in areas other than this? So be careful that when she says dinner will be ready at 6, and you can’t sit down until 6:03, that you aren’t struggling with whether or not she broke a vow.
Jesus, Hamas, and War
Greetings in the Lord! I read your recent response in Blog and Mablog to a question regarding Christ Church and foreign policy and it brought to mind some thoughts I’ve had on the teaching of Jesus in Luke 14:31-32 as applied to the Hamas/Israel conflict (and the Russia/Ukraine conflict):
“Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand?And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.”
Jesus gives an example of the need to count the cost in war as in discipleship. National leaders need to realistically and with wisdom consider if they can win a war when faced with a far stronger opponent. If it is determined defeat is assured, then terms of peace should be sought with the superior entity and while the opposing army is a long way off (before a border is crossed). Why? First to protect the lives and property of citizens and second to prevent the destruction of the nation. Leaders who fail to count the cost are foolish and their people and nation suffer greatly.
In Christ,Don
Don, that is true enough, as far as it goes. But there are some enemies so terrible that immediate destruction would be preferable to slavery under them. And in such cases, the Alamo approach is admirable.
Cosmetic Theology
Bit a random question here, but do you think there is a significant difference between a Christian getting braces for their teeth and a Christian getting minor facial plastic surgery (assuming both are done for mainly cosmetic purposes and not to correct some major problem in the teeth or a deformity in the face)?Nick
Nick, the question can be pushed down into very minor areas, like combing your hair. I would argue that cosmetic treatment, including dental work, is lawful, provided the standard that is be used is not a worldly one. A dentist knows, from natural revelation, what crooked teeth would look like when straightened. So do it. But when you are talking surgery, the more invasive the surgery, the more certain you should be that you are getting your standard from some place other than a recent fad in women’s magazines.
Counseling a Brother
Will you give me some advice on how to council a brother? He was baptized as an infant, is faithful in worship attendance, from the outside appears to be generally obedient to God, but says that he is exasperated in his Christian life and feels like he might not be a real Christian. Like he wants to be part of the club, but doesn’t seem to fit in. According to him the reason for this is that he struggles with assurance of salvation so much that he feels like there’s no way a real Christian would do that. Everyone else seems to be sure and steady about their faith, but he agonizes over his sin and shortcomings and just doesn’t feel like he can be saved. He is visibly distraught when we talk about it. From our conversations I know that he knows the truth and believes it, but I think he is just feels like he can’t believe it hard enough. He wants to feel accepted by God. He doesn’t say that any of his works add anything to his salvation, and I know he believes that salvation is by grace alone, but he can’t come to terms with his works. It’s like he feels great about things when he is doing good and then when he sins, he despairs. Honestly, I don’t know what to say, because he knows the truth and I can’t change the way he feels. I’m just wondering if you know of a way to say it, or a way to approach this, that might get through to him.Anon
Anon, I would do a couple things. First, I would offer to go through a book together with him. Meet him for coffee every couple of weeks, and talk about two or three chapters of Knowing God by Packer. After you have done this with a couple of good books, go through a book that is directly about assurance of salvation.
Age of the Earth
Since you’ve spoken a few times regarding the debate Christians have about the age of the earth, I am wondering if you have read John C. Lennox’ book “Seven Days That Divide The World”? If not, I am recommending it. Lennox (famous for apologetics and outreach to atheist communities in particular, and worth watching on YouTube) does a good job in a short book of examining the text, looking through historical theological interpretations, and considering the different positions and the merits and flaws they each hold.Ian
Ian, thanks. I hadn’t heard of it, but just ordered it.
Underpinnings of Envy
Thank you for exposing the underpinnings (i.e. envy) of certain of the revolutionary politics (isms) poisoning minds and spreading into our institutions. Below, for your perusal, are some paragraphs from one of my works on envy, entitled “Matthew 6:23—Envy: Why Being White is Offensive to Some People: In 2021, Coca Cola forced employees to take a mandatory course on LinkedIn to learn how to be “less white.” The course suggested that to be white is to be arrogant, defensive, ignorant, and oppressive. It also claimed that in the West, white children are socialized “to feel that they are inherently superior,” and that “one-time workshops” on racism are not enough, claiming that people must be regularly indoctrinated by “anti-racism.” (Coca Cola Forces Employees To Take ‘White Fragility’ Author’s Course On How To Be Less White, Jack Hadfield, National File)
When ‘who’ we are is held to be offensive, and we are required to be ‘less’ than who we are, we are up against the diabolically proud spirit of hatred and envy, that serpentine and sadistic evil eye—the dehumanizer, destroyer of good reputations, and thief of spiritual and physical goods that receives sadistic pleasure from the dehumanization, loss of identity, loss of property, degradation, and other suffering imposed upon the object of its malignant envy.
Hatred and Other Habitual Bad Patterns
Habitual patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors become ingrained over time. In this way the man who habitually seeks wisdom becomes wiser, more truthful, and virtuous while the envy-bitten man becomes more and more evil until his pride, hatred, and envy inflate into compulsive psychotic rage that, true to its brutish predatory nature, relentlessly stalks, tracks, and finally destroys the object of its malice. We witnessed this evil predatory behavior over the entirety of Donald Trump’s presidency and even saw it spill over onto his family and associates. Likewise, the evil eye relentlessly stalked Rush Limbaugh:
“There’s a good reason for the media hating me. And once I came to grips with that fact, that there’s a reason they should hate me, then it makes sense. One of the toughest things I had to do was learn to psychologically accept the fact that being hated was a sign of success. Most people aren’t raised to be hated. We’re all raised to be loved. We want to be loved. We’re told to do things to be loved and appreciated and liked. We’re raised, don’t offend anybody, be nice. Everybody wants total acceptance. Everybody wants respect. Everybody wants to be loved, and so when you learn that what you do is going to engender hatred you have to learn to accept that as a sign of success. That was a tough psychological thing for me.” Rush Limbaugh (Rush Limbaugh—and the Importance of Being Hated, James O’Keefe, FrontPage Magazine, Feb. 19, 2021)
Hatred does not exist in isolation. It begins with pride, ingratitude, jealousy, and resentment, which over time, inflate into diabolical pride and gnawing, burning envy.Linda
Linda, thank you.
Plato and the Paideia
Christian Platonism and CCE I am curious to hear how you have thought through CCE as it pertains to what some would (seem to) believe is its foundation: Christian Platonism. Assuming you do not agree with the mantra, “No Plato, No Christianity” (Boersma), how have you accepted the benefits of Classical education, while also being critical even of its foundations?
Granted, I have not read many write explicitly about this connection but it does seem to be a necessary one. It concerns me because I believe many who come to love CCE are unknowingly ingesting this, and there are not many well known people critiquing it from the inside.Jake
Jake, I don’t agree that the foundations of classical Christian education are in Plato. We strive in every way to make sure the foundation is Christ, and Christ alone. This does not exclude awareness of Plato, but a good worldview education will enable the students identify what the actual foundation stones are.
Debate With Jared Moore
In your interaction with Jared Moore on the lust of the flesh, you said that a heterosexual and homosexual are in the same boat with regards to a sinful nature. I agree, both are guilty of original sin and deserve hell, but isn’t there a difference between them in the sense that the homosexual is a little further down the road because he has a debased mind? Isn’t the “unfit mind” that Paul talks of in Rom 1.28 (God gave them over to an unfit mind, to do those things which are not proper) evidence of a deeper level of depravity?
Thanks,Peter
Peter, yes. The fact that all sins are equally sin does not mean that they are all equally sinful. Homosexual corruption really is a deeper form of sin. But the debate we had concerned whether or not there is any distance between these sinful corruptions (which only justification can deal with) and “a sin,” which needs to be repented and confessed.
After watching your conversation with Jared Moore I have the impression that a big part of the disagreement came from the psychological characterization of the scene you described. You described the Christian being tempted when seeing a pop-up ad for a gay porn site and acting immediately to close it. The problem, it seems to me, is the use of “tempted” there, (in other place you described it as him seeing the thing as “desirable” or “looking good”), because I learned from you and Nancy back in the spankgate controversy that we are responsible for our emotional reactions and affections (and I believe you’re quite right on that), thus we should repent and confess when we find something sinful to be desirable.
I would like to propose an alternative description of a similar scene: “When the ad pops up in the man’s computer he feels shocked, the same kind of shock he would have felt if it had popped up on his TV during a family party, and thus he races to close it.” The feeling of shock shows how powerful the man understands the possibility of temptation to be, but recognizing a possible temptation and being tempted seem to be two different things. Would you agree with this characterization?Joao
Joao, that works.
The Transparency Trap
Follow-up question for you, if you don’t mind, from your previous posting of letters (thanks for your response by the way).
In my question last time, I asked if you’d be willing to share any specific sin struggles of your own. I thought your response to this was fair and reasonable with your main point being that teachers should generally not be “transparent,” in this way, as a way of encouraging the saints as the negatives tend to outweigh the positives—adding that (quoting 2 Cor. 4:5) we should preach Christ, not ourselves. Point gladly taken, but this got me thinking, how “transparent” are we to be as Christians and when is it appropriate?
I, for one, am in the early stages of writing a book on combating anxiety in a godly way. A few years ago, I myself went through a period of crippling anxiety (and I do not use that word “crippling” lightly). It’s tough to describe how bad it was for a time, Doug. Needless to say I’ve got skin in the game and stories to tell. I’m not a pastor or a public figure, nor do I really consider myself to be a teacher (yet I still take great pains to honor God to the best of my ability with my every word), but now I’m wondering to what extent it would be fruitful to “open up” and include my personal struggles with fear, worry, doubt, unbelief, etc. which underlied my anxiety at times. I can assure you that the thrust of the book is gospel-centered, for that is where the ultimate solution lies to this problem and every problem, but the Bible of course has much to say about fear, worry, doubt, unbelief, etc., so do you think personal notes on my own shortcomings will lessen the effectiveness of my message?
Would be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter of “transparency” regarding one’s sins generally, as well as on my circumstance in this case as a writer.
Thanks again,Caleb
Caleb, I certainly don’t think it is a sin to describe your own journey through things like this as part of your testimony. But at the same time, I still wouldn’t dwell on it. If you have been there, and you describe it in the third person, someone who has that struggle will still be able to say “that’s it! he understands!”
Interpreting Dreams
I would like to get your opinion on dreams, their possible impact on our lives, your approach to the interpretation of dreams, etc.
I know from reading here that you take a dim view of introspection, but dreams seem to have been important to all ancient people groups, and we obviously have biblical examples of dreams being used by God, etc.
Over the past several years I became convinced that there was *something* to it all, so I began trying to learn. I started with dream dictionaries, etc, and found it all rather flaky and that avenue quickly proved fruitless. Then I found several people (mostly Christian women at home with a YouTube channel) with various ideas about what dreams mean. This quickly leads into the modern “prophetic” crowd which I don’t have any interest in.
I gave up my search for a few years because all I seemed to run across were crackpots. I intentionally stayed away from psychology, probably due to my evangelical upbringing.
But I eventually came across Jung and I have to admit that he’s been extremely helpful to me in a number of ways, even beyond dreams. I learned how personal dreams and their imagery are to the individual, and how most times they interpret themselves with just a bit of effort on our part. I began to realize that, like a tree and how its roots go deep and yet remain unseen, the same is true for man: there is a surface life and a life underneath the surface.
Again, all very introspective, but it can’t be helped.
Jung’s ideas have actually given me some much-needed direction, especially as I enter the second half of my life.
I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on all this. Go easy on me. :-)
Thank you for your time.Nemo Nemo
NN, you have me at an advantage on two counts. First, you have read more Jung than I have, and so I should be more or less quiet there. And secondly, for me interpreting my dreams would be pointless, because I can’t remember them at all. I can have a sensation of having dreamed for about five seconds after waking, with a general impression of the topic. After that, it is gone. So if you are willing to take advice from someone with those qualifications, this is what it would be. If you find Jung helpful, take him at the same level you would take an unbelieving literary critic talking about archetypes in literature, and not as though dreams are a door to the spiritual world. I don’t think there is much future in trying to pry guidance from dreams by imposing waking hour realities on obscure dreams. I would sit up and take notice if it went the other way—if a vivid dream came true the following day. In other words, if you dreamed of a man named Robert getting out of an orange Volkswagen and offering to sell you insurance, and then that happened the next day, I think you should at least pray about getting a policy.
Vacating the Office
In your article, Resistance to Tyrants & Obedience to God, you wrote, “On account of this behavior, [the rebellious magistrate] is no longer a minister or deputy of God. He vacates his office.” I get that. And like it. But as I read it, it reminded me of something you wrote elsewhere, along these lines: if a husband abandons his family, he is still the head of his family; an absent head yes, but still the head. Thus, the bad behavior of the magistrate causes him to vacate his office, but the bad behavior of the husband leaves him in office as a bad officeholder. I tried to work through this. My conclusion was that perhaps the wicked magistrate doesn’t actually vacate his office but rather loses legitimacy and authority, allowing his subjects to appeal to God’s authority in their resistance, including perhaps removing him from office in biblical fashion. Thoughts?Bill
Bill, no, I think the cases are still parallel. When a husband deserts, he is still the husband, although absent. But then when the covenant suit is brought by the betrayed wife, and the divorce happens, then he is no longer in that office. He may still hold the office of father, for example, but no longer husband. Something comparable happens when the people remove a tyrant.
Law/Gospel Remains a Thorny Issue
“A Timely Question Regarding a ‘Crucial Distinction’ to the Honorable Gentleman . . .” I am seeking clarification and guidance in regards to the latest quote you posted:
“There is a vast difference between a law/gospel hermeneutic, which I reject heartily and with enthusiasm, and a law/gospel application or use, which is pastoral, prudent, and wise” (The Auburn Avenue Chronicles Vol. 2, p. 532)
I have not nor I fear will I ever have time to read the Auburn Avenue Chronicles so I may be missing the wider context of what you wrote. However, I am a nascent preacher who has determined to preach a sermon on the Gospel from every book of the Bible. I have begun with Micah namely, chapter 7 and verse 9. How would the aforementioned quote impact my goal? Are there particular pitfalls I need to avoid?
I no longer believe in coincidences and when I saw this quote I suspected it might bear some influence on my burgeoning ministry and sermon series. Much thanks from a younger brother in Christ,Jonathan
Jonathan, the key word there is “hermeneuetic.” A law/gospel hermeneutic means that you could in principle color-code your Bible, with all the law verses in red and all the gospel verses in blue. Those characteristics would be resident in the text. I believe that the law/gospel divide is in different sorts of human hearts, regenerate and unregenerate. For the regenerate, everything is grace, including law. The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. For the unregenerate, everything is condemnation, including gospel. The cross is the aroma of death for those who are perishing.
A Straightforward Question
Ought women to street preach?Also Wilson
Also Wilson, no.
The Przybyla Affair
Responding to the Heidi Przybyla post.
Being a life-long Polak, I have noticed the difficulty non-Poles have with Polish names.
Like Spanish, Polish is regular in its orthography; each letter and letter combination is clearly pronounced.
So, Przybyla is “pshih-by-wa”.
Also, Jack Posobiec’s name is mispronounced. It should be “po-so-bee-ets”.
Finally, Mike Brzezinski is “mee-ka bzhe-zheen-skee”.
Poles, being usually conservative, dislike fools like Mika.
Pozdrawiam! “poh-zdrah-vyam”Jack
Jack, okay. But I would defend myself on this wise. Knowing that her name would be a mouthful, I looked it up, and just repeated what the Internet told me. Upon receiving this letter, I looked it up again, and found that there were different schools of thought. I think the best thing would be to cease talking about Poles.
Sir, appreciated your analysis of Heidi Przybyla’s comments. As I watched the video, one particular thing stood out to me: She emphasized that “The problem with that is that they are determining—man—men . . . are determining what God is telling them.” In other words, the problem she sees is that it is really “men” who are wanting to enforce a morality on society based on their understanding of God’s eternal moral laws.
Is it entirely lost on her that the alternative is simply that *other men* will enforce their own man-derived morality on society—one derived entirely apart from any consideration of God’s eternal laws (and therefore bereft of any concept of God-endowed inalienable rights?)
As I’ve seen you say and write often, “not whether, but which”?
Very respectfully submitted,Daniel
Daniel, yes. Men interpret the Bible, certainly. But men also interpret everything else.
“We are woefully unprepared for the answer that is going to be rolled out over the top of us very shortly, which is this: “Well, yes, the Declaration actually was Christian nationalism, and it is high time we all repudiated this relic of our racist, misogynistic, and slave-owning past. You do know that those words you Christians are appealing to were drafted by a slave-owner, do you not?””
This is analogous to the abortion debate, where we thought that if we can just establish once and for all that life begins at conception, then the left will capitulate. We weren’t expecting their response to be, “Yeah, so what?”
IOW, we consistently act like the darkened mind of Romans 1 doesn’t really have real world consequences…Guymon
Guymon, exactly so. They only refuse to swallow the reductio we would present to them in the early stages of transition. Once it is too late, or they believe it is too late for us and our ways, they will then cheerfully acknowledge what they are up to.
“Given atheism, why should the interests of individual man not be trumped by the interests of collective man?” OK, I have to ask this: Given Christianity, why should the interests of individual man not be trumped by the interests of collective man? Because I think that everyone of all religious and political viewpoints is going to say that sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t, it depends on the circumstances. And the disagreement over which set of circumstances justifies it is a quibble about where that line gets drawn, not whether it exists. So I think this specific objection to atheism… Read more »
The “so what” is that the atheist has no grounds for objecting to my invention of a wholly new ethical system, in which atheists are put in concentration camps and children are taught to torture puppies. Nor is anyone obligated to agree with the current broadly accepted ethical system and refrain from doing things to the atheist that he doesn’t like. Like imposing Christian nationalism or blasting aggressive preaching into his house 24/7. And there’s no reason someone should listen to his arguments about why anything of those things are bad.
After agreeing with Jane, I would also say that Christians have a sacred text, the study of which over centuries produced the balance of form and freedom, corporate and individual, one and many in our political structures, a balance which we are currently engaged in throwing away.
Except that atheists don’t accept the authority of your text. But going back to my example of the college freshman who can’t prove his own existence-and his professor is right, you can’t prove your own existence-why should I accept your standards until you’ve proven that you actually exist? Because if you don’t then your “by what standard” is a question we don’t even get to. And it’s really the same line of silly argument. You can’t prove you exist, an atheist can’t prove transcendent morality, but neither question is in any practical dispute. Simply living life requires assuming both existence… Read more »
@Kathleen
And that’s why Van Til and presuppositionalism generally is correct. You can’t prove any standard without presuppositions. Yes, without things you have accepted without proof or standard, because the very concept of proof itself requires presuppositions.
You still have to show that your presupposition is correct. You can’t just announce that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
The very concept of proof is a presupposition but it’s confirmed by the fact that it works in practice. Try living for a day is if there is no proof of anything and let us know how that works out for you.
Liezinski: “You still have to show that your presupposition is correct.”
Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the concept of axioms.
And you are apparently unfamiliar with how axioms work. If someone says “it’s axiomatic that the earth is flat,” that does not mean that’s actually an axiom just because he said so.
Kathleen keeps digging her own metaphorical grave deeper with every comment in her tragi-comedy. She completely lacks what the father of presuppositionalism, Van Til, called epistemological self-consciousness. She keeps thinking she has a “gotcha!” on presups then makes face-palming assertions like “Simply living life requires assuming both existence and morality” (the very point Dr. Greg Bahnsen destroyed atheist Gordon Stein with in a debate over and over)”under a man-based moral theory theocratic government is a bad idea” (based on what??)I won’t get derailed on the second statement, but her own “morality” is a contradiction-filled, woke-tinged version of the “post-WWII consensus”… Read more »
Oh no this guy again. Comments getting real InfoWars out here.
Talking of biased algorithms I recently tried commenting on an Anglican YouTube channel where they had discussed a same-sex cleric who maintained he was celibate with his partner. Now retired he admitted this was hogwash (quelle surprise!) so I quoted Rev 21 v 8 as my comment (“all liars”). It didn’t appear and after 4 attempts I stopped trying to meet Einstein’s definition of idiocy and switched from RSV to NIV. Still no success.
Clearly the luvvies at YT have a problem with the ultimate fate of the wicked!
Miami to Orlando is an hour’s flight.
Cherrera, I read your comment three times in search of a point. If you have one, like the peace of God it passes all understanding. As usual, all you’ve got is personal insults, hand waiving, subject changing and what aboutism. I’m sure you think you’re profound.
Thanks for sticking your head in and saying hi.
They also have no reason to say that we shouldn’t be allowed to impose it on them whether they like it or not.
But Jane, you haven’t proven that you exist so why should your argument be taken seriously? That aside, there are two questions that should not be conflated. Does morality exist and, if so, how to resolve disputes among competing moral views. Your comment goes to the second question. Since atheists don’t believe in God, their morality is based on the nature of man. I am literally ten minutes away from boarding a plane so I don’t have time for a more detailed response now. But you’re smart; I’m sure you can figure out on your own why, under a man-based… Read more »
In my own system, my arguments should be taken seriously, insofar as they are coherent and in line with created reality, because I do exist because God made me.
In the atheist’s system, no argument should be taken seriously, because any position anyone takes is just the whim of the colliding electrons at the moment, therefore I don’t even have to make an argument, let alone a convincing one by some ephemeral standard, in order to do what I want.
Cool story. How old was Rebecca when she married Issac?
Follow up question, is that age appropriate? If not, why? Using the Bible. I’ll wait.
Of consenting age. Genesis 24:56-59.
Don’t be thick. What is her age in numbers and Issac’s age numbers. Scared?
Old enough to carry water. Old enough to have young women attendants and ride a camel. Old enough for her mother and brother to ask if she consented and support her consent. The numbers aren’t given…and yes, I’m afraid to claim something as fact that the Bible is clearly silent on.
Chris, thank you for challenging me to study out what I do not know. Blessings.
So if she ended up being 12, you would be cool with it.
Please stay far away from those close to me, that would be a live truly blessed.
Also, we ourselves are not that far removed from some fairly abominable cultural practices ourselves, slavery being the obvious example. In the 1800s the age of consent for sex in much of the United States was 10, and laws against animal cruelty were passed before laws against child cruelty. Children used to be chained to factory work benches for 14 hour days. So OK, by today’s standards Jacob was probably a pedophile. So what?
I am fine with these cultural practices moving on. That is the benefit of shedding away interpreting the bible at the very least as infallible. I can judge it as a piece of literature and its got it’s moments for sure. But once it is asserted it is the perfect word of god, and that needs to be applied to our government is where I have big problems.
I don’t think it follows that the mere fact that something was permitted means that the Bible teaches that that’s what is to be done for all time. It’s possible to believe in both Biblical inerrancy and also that cultures change over time. I think you’re stretching in an attempt to tar modern Christianity with practices it abandoned long ago.
Read what this pastor says about the inerrancy of the Bible and come back to me.
Oh I’m familiar with what he says about it, and I frequently disagree with him, but the specific criticism you’ve leveled is not well taken. For one thing, the Bible doesn’t tell us how old she was, so your “suppose she was 12” comes straight out of your butt. For another thing there’s nothing in the Bible that actually says it’s acceptable for grown men to have sex with 12 year olds, so maybe you come back to us when you’re ready to give an argument that’s not completely dishonest.
Chris, thanks for this comment, at least I can try to understand where you coming from. Kind of rude above where you and yours would be blessed if I stay away from you, probably a hint that I should stop interacting. As for Rebecca, I had never considered your question. Then the first answer that popped up in my search was some Muslim guy saying that she was 3 years old. Well, besides the source, my reading of the verses didn’t get me to that conclusion. When we don’t know the amount of time between two events listed back to… Read more »
If you’re going to challenge me with a hard one, at least come up with something on which there’s some data to make a judgment. Nobody knows how old Rebecca was.
Also, why should I care about your judgment of my reasoning?
Man everybody avoiding the question like they are afraid of the answer…
Chris, I think we can safely say Jacob was significantly older than she was. But I don’t think it’s legitimate to judge that culture by our standards either. And I also don’t think that you can imply approval from what may simply be factual reporting.
That’s awfully convenient; it saves you from having to interact with the merits of any argument you disagree with. There’s a famous court case that begins with the line “Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that happen to coincide with their own self interest “ and I would say that’s an accurate description of your argument of convenience that nobody other than you gets taken seriously. And it’s not even right on the merits. That A equals A relies on the whim of nothing; it’s simply a fact. It would remain theoretically true even if the universe ceased… Read more »
Michelangelo is supposed to have said, “I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free.” A good plastic surgeon lets the face itself tell him how he should “carve.” A lot of plastic surgeons who work on famous people seem not to care about that. (Also, the Polish part of me laughed at the Polish joke!)
In
Anon–the book that helped me with assurance of salvation was Old Paths by J. C. Ryle.
Anon, I struggled with doubt of my salvation greatly in my life. But in one of the worst struggles in college I got great counsel from my pastor at the time. He told me that he didn’t want to try to convince me one way or the other. He said doubt either comes from God to convict and bring you to salvation or it is an attack of the enemy to thwart you in your walk with God. God is the One who knows which so set aside some extra time to seek Him and ask Him to show you… Read more »
So, the debate over the proper pronunciation of Polish names is…Polarizing?
That is something you need to Czech …
And if a Prague resident is hiding out from the police, he’s looking for a place to cache a Czech.