Our Cultural Revolution
I think it was you who put me on to Mao’s America, which is great. Here’s a good followup I’m listening to now: Blessings!
Rob
Rob, thank you. Like the Spanish Inquisition, nobody expects a Cultural Revolution.
Empathy and the Wife
In 1 Peter 3:7, do you believe that Peter is only or primarily talking about physical weakness, or would this include other types of weakness as well? For example, if a man believes that his wife is too sensitive, too easily offended, too easily afraid, etc. is this simply a weakness that he should learn to accept and honor or is it something he should seek to address with her? I have heard other men say that a man should never tell his wife that she is being too sensitive or in any way question her feelings. They will say that it does not matter how objectively right you are, because if she feels a certain way, you will never be able to convince her that she shouldn’t feel that way, so you should just accept her feelings. While I certainly think it is important to be sympathetic with and sensitive to her feelings, it seems equally important to insist that feelings always be tested against reality, and that there will be times when her (or the man’s for that matter) feelings will not be justified.
This seems to me to relate to what you call “untethered empathy,” in which feelings are considered authoritative and can never be called into question. Like you, I think this is an unbiblical view that even many in the church have picked up from the world. It also seems similar to the point you make in “Unless God Thinks You Wronged Her,” in which you say that a man should only apologize to his wife if he has objectively wronged her, not if she simply feels wronged without any objective basis. In this case, in addition to pressure from the world, a man also has the temptation of taking the easy way out: it is often much easier to simply apologize and keep you wife happy than to insist on the truth and work through a difficult situation.
In this type of situation, what would you counsel a man to do? Suppose that he takes your advice and refuses to lie to his wife and will not apologize simply based on her feelings. How should he go about addressing his wife’s feelings that he believes to be unjustified?
Will
Will, I believe that Peter is talking about more than stature, or upper body strength. It would include things like sensitivity, or fearfulness, and so on. Certainly. That means that a husband is commanded by the apostle to be sensitive to that, and to approach his wife with wisdom and knowledge. This would govern how you share certain topics with your wife and things like that. What it should not mean is putting those feelings in charge of the home. The balance is that of being sensitive to her feelings without catering to her feelings.
CREC in India?
I’m ready to relocate to anywhere in the country for a church that aligns with CREC, but there’s none that I can find here in India. I’ve searched, and I’ve inquired with those who are well connected. There are some 9Marks churches and some presby churches that can’t stand your guts.
Moving abroad is not easy, but I’m trying. So in the meanwhile, what must I do?
John
John, there are no CREC churches there, but there may be some that are friendlies. The best thing we can do is crowd source it. Anybody out there have any ideas?
But What About Femininity?
I have enjoyed meditating on the definition of masculinity as “the glad assumption of sacrificial responsibility”. Do you have a similar summary statement for defining femininity?
Scott
Scott, I would define it as a glad responsiveness to masculine initiative and authority.
Demons Behind the Scenes
I have a hypothesis: Nations and communities that are intrinsically pagan have regular interaction with demons and other powers. Their religious leaders gain their power by working with these demons. When Christ comes to these people, the demons flee to hidden corners and only show themselves infrequently in the more evil corners of a Christian nation. Since our once Christian nation of America is more and more rejecting Christ and embracing paganism and Satanism, we can expect that we will find more demons out in the open.
Do you think this is true? If Christians are going to encounter demons and their possession of other people, what are we to do? How are we to be prepared? Have you encountered people with demon possession?
I appreciate the homework the Haunted Cosmos is doing. I am trying to figure out how much of this is entertainment versus a practicum for the upcoming decade.
David
David, before the cosmological revolution brought in by Christ, I believe this was very much the case. Principalities and powers were very much the power behind the thrones. I also believe that unbelievers, in the grip of epistemological self-consciousness, would very much love to return to that state of affairs. But they can’t, because Christ is Lord. But it remains true that as the influence of the gospel wanes in a culture, you can expect to see more and more people dabbling with the occult.
The Best Charismatic Argument?
After watching your recent discussion on Right Response (Joel Webbon’s YouTube channel) with the guys from Remnant Radio regarding spiritual gifts, what do you feel was their best argument? Did they give you anything challenging to think about?
Caleb
Caleb, speaking generally, I believe the strongest charismatic stance is one that recognizes charismatic excesses and rejects them strongly, and which seeks to argue that they are just bringing standard New Testament practices “straight across” to our day. Every Christian who wants to be biblical can feel the appeal of that. But, as I hope our discussion showed, that’s too easy.
How to Leave
We have attended a “Reformed Baptist Church” (in name only) for the past year. My wife supports a recent decision I have made to leave the church as it is no different than any Baptist church on every other street corner. The contention between my wife and me is how to leave this church. For clarity, here are the two exaggerated examples where we differ. I want to send a text to the pastor expressing our inability to maintain our commitments to the church and it was great, blessings to you all. She wants a ceremonial, kiss everyone’s feet, put $500 bucks in the offering plate as we leave, we’re sorry for any inconvenience we’ve caused, we will miss you all. At 30,000 ft and assuming all relationships are well between all, how do we leave the white noise of preaching, reminding an aged congregation that they are going to die and with no reminders that they are still alive kind of preaching. Much gratitude and thanks for your ministry.
Adios
Adios, quite honestly, I would solve this one by splitting the difference. No ceremonial kiss, letter to the pastor, thank you and blessings, and “check enclosed.”
Anticipating Tricksy Moves
In a recent episode of CrossPolitic, N.D. Wilson commented on the possibility of the Left running Biden again because they want Trump to win.
“You need the ‘fascist’ to justify your revolution. So, it would not surprise me at all to see Trump just walk away with it. And be allowed to walk away with it and then see the level of vitriol and reaction tear our country apart. That’s one move; and I think the harder edge of the Left wants to do that.”
This led me to consider: by Colorado removing Trump from their ballots, haven’t they functionally seceded from the union? They have stated that they will not accept a Trump presidency. So much so, they won’t let their people pick him even if that’s who they want. So if they are willing to remove him on the front end, there is no way they would submit to him as their president on the back end. Other states following suite may be drawing the boundaries of the next revolutionary war (the first being in 1861). I recently finished Steve Wilkins walk through of American history and the parallels to antebellum America can be observed in our current kultursmog.
All that to say, I don’t think it’s a question of IF some states would secede from the Union if Trump won, but rather a statement that some states already HAVE seceded from the Union by removing Trump from their ballots.
Your thoughts?
Todd
Todd, I believe that observation has some merit. The bands that hold us together are still there, but they are certainly frayed. But when Colorado got to the point of actual secession, the thing we don’t know yet is what the popular reaction within Colorado would be. By removing him from the ballot, they were in principle seceding but it was possible for Coloradoans to sit tight because the Supreme Court was going to decide. We shall see. It is going to be bumpy regardless.
OT Symbolism
A theological question/statement: does the “Old Testament” give precedent for the symbolic/spiritual type of interpretation if it is done by the New Testament? Examples such as Acts 15:15-17, 1 Peter 2:5,8. This seems impossible to me and seems to discredit the alleged veracity of Christianity based on its “continuation” from the Tanakh. If the Tanakh doesn’t allow for a symbolic interpretation of its promises then in my estimation one cannot come out as a dispensational, but instead a member of Judaism—all things considered.
Jonty
Jonty, I am not sure I understand your question. Such spiritual interpretations of the OT are common in the NT, and accepting the claims of Christ depends on the legitimacy of such interpretation.
Book List Clarification
Referring to the post, “11 Resolutions for 2024, Culture War Edition”, I have a question about Resolution #5 (your highly recommended book list). I’m ashamed to say that I’ve not been a reader for most of my life and am hopelessly trying to make up for lost time close to the end of my 6th decade. I have several of the books on your list which I haven’t read yet, but I’m trying to figure out if this book list is for women also or whether it’s primarily geared toward men.
Thank you very much for clarifying.
With richest blessings in our Lord to you & Nancy and to all of your family,
Susan
Susan, the recommended list was for men and women both. But how fast you can get to it, or get through the list, will depend on your schedule, your responsibilities, and aptitude for it. I would say it is a good idea to try regardless.
The Importance of Chastity
What are the consequences of marrying a Christian who does not strive for chastity before marriage—a woman who acknowledges the sinfulness of fornication, but is perhaps too ready to commit it? What does it mean for marriage if the responsibility for chastity before marriage only seems to fall on you? That particular temptation would disappear with marriage, so help me understand what is at stake here.
Dan
Dan, what is at stake is fidelity to God’s Word when it comes to sexual ethics. Our fidelity to one another in marriage is a function of our fidelity to God’s authority. In short, don’t expect marriage to automatically bring in a willingness to do things God’s way.
A Hard Case
My husband and I have a question for you regarding your father’s book, How To Be Free From Bitterness—on the chapter Relationships with Parents.
What would be the best way to honor my Dad when he is pastoring a church yet has and is living a sexually immoral life for many years? My husband and I want to know how to obey both verses well.
Grace to You,
Matthew and Lydia
Matthew and Lydia, to answer the question first—there are times when honor can only be shown by saluting the uniform, or recognizing the office he holds. But how you do that depends on various factors. Is he an “affirming” LGBTQ+ pastor, or an evangelical pastor addicted to Game of Thrones? Is he open to talk about it, or does he get angry? That sort of thing. The general pattern is what Paul gives to Timothy. “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father . . .” (1 Timothy 5:1).
The Unpardonable Sin?
I’m not sure if I’m saved, or committed the unpardonable sin. When I was 15, I had a conversion, but 5 months later, I started experiencing a conflict that I wasn’t, at altar call time, a heavy aspiritual presence came over me with a prompting that I wasn’t saved came over me three different times. The promptings nudged me as a necessity of going forward to the altar as a necessary condition of my salvation, all three times, I didn’t respond properly because of fear to go forward. The third time it left me with an absolute notion it wouldn’t come back and I committed the unpardonable sin. I’m in utter torment. I need help. Please.
Dan
Dan, there is no way that this was the unpardonable sin. First, people who commit that sin don’t agonize over it the way you are. doing They are hardened. They dont care, and you care. Second, nowhere in Scripture does God require anybody to “go forward.” To paraphrase Luther: Do you doubt that you are a Christian? Say your prayers, man!
All Four Views
I’m sure you’ve answered this many times, many ways, but what is your top recommendation for a book that gives a good overview of the major eschatological views? Preferably while also giving post-mill a fair shake. And, what is your top recommendation for a pro-post-mill introduction? I know you have a lot of content on the app, which I’m working through, but I’d like to be able to show people that you’re not the only crazy post-miller out there. ;) And I also want to be sure I’m giving the other views a fair shake, as I find myself leaning more and more towards the post-mill camp.
Thanks
RK
RK, I think the best fair shake you could give would be by going through Steve Gregg’s commentary on Revelation—four columns, representing the four basic views. And as for an introduction to postmill, you could try Mathison’s Postmillennialism, Gentry’s He Shall Have Dominion, or my Heaven Misplaced.
If Christ’s heavenly reign is going to be ‘until all enemies have been made his footstool’, then what is the point of him coming back to earth at all? In postmillennialism, it almost seems like the addendum of the Second Coming is an afterthought to ensure that you don’t say anything heretical.
If it is for the final resurrection and judgement then why can’t this be done in heaven? Of course, you can just say “because the Scriptures say it will be on earth”. Sure. But God doesn’t do things arbitrarily. Why must Christ return to earth for the final judgement?
Hunter
Hunter, in postmill thinking, all the enemies of Christ are subdued through the agency of preaching the gospel. The one exception is the last enemy death, which is destroyed by Christ Himself at His coming. Death is here, and if it is to be conquered, it will be conquered here. And the only one who can do that is the Risen One.
To Leave or To Stay?
I’ve noticed that you get questions frequently about specific situations regarding whether or not one should move on and find a different church, or how to best choose between two less-than-ideal options. Do you have overarching principles that you would recommend one use in making the decision to leave or stay? Also, I have multiple other friends of similar age (late 30’s to early 40’s with younger kids) who are not happy with their respective current church situations. These are stable, mature believers, and it usually pertains to theology, “cotton candy” preaching or “Jesus is my girlfriend” style worship, creeping wokeness, disqualified leaders, lack of church discipline, lack of solid families, etc. In other words, the discontent is not over a lack of programs that cater to us or bad church coffee, but a desire for something more robust. I have wondered how to discern to what extent one’s concerns truly are weighty, versus there being a “wherever you go, there you are” kind of discontent?
At what point do you think it makes sense to just move to a different city?
Thank you so much for your time and all you do.
Blessings,
Mallory
Mallory, there are many factors, of course, but the main one in my book would have to do with the age and susceptability of your kids. The more kids you have, and the younger they are, the less I would put up with. Worship is the most important thing we do, and you should want your kids to grow up in a robust worshiping community.
Okay, Just This Once
I’m grateful for the responses you’ve given in the past regarding child rearing. I’m hoping you’ll be willing to give at least one more.
My son is 3, and over the last month, he has regressed in potty training—to the extent that we can hardly ever get him on the toilet before he wets and/or soils his pants. It’s a big enough deal that it’s greatly discouraged my wife to the point of tears.
My first thought is, that I need to repent for not being a better father and husband, particularly with leading her in dealing with him, and also in how I deal with the boy myself. My question for you would be, how should I handle the boy? Whether it’s culture infecting my brain or not, I have a strong aversion to spank over these issues, but at the same time it seems he really is doing it on purpose. I know it can be difficult to answer questions like this without being able to sit down and do a little counseling, but I would love any counsel you’re willing to give over the internet.
Anonymous
Anonymous, you anticipated my central caveat. This is the Internet, and you are anonymous. That said, this seems to me to be one of two possible situations. The first is a radical insecurity. Something happened that spooked him, and he is ravenous for attention. The idea is that any attention is better than no attention, and doing this creates a situation that demands attention. For this, I would get my dad’s booklet Saturation Love. The second scenario is that this is a straight up battle for control, and he has chosen this as the place where he is going to throw down. I would start by investigating the first possibility.
Baptizing Those Babies
As a lifelong Presbyterian I thoroughly enjoyed you book “To a Thousand Generations.” It was the first time I had heard the point that both circumcision and baptism signified faith, resurrection, repentance and salvation, which meant that even though we could not see those things in a non-verbal infant in the case of baptism neither could a Hebrew do it in the case of circumcision and God had ordained it anyway, which meant that God had set up the symbol to represent both the reality of those things in confessors but also the promise in faith of the same things in the children of confessing parents.
My other discomfort with the whole baptism debate was how everyone in the early church seemed to affirm baptismal regeneration, and I’ve read your post on the interaction you had with James B. Jordan on the issue and how the breaking point between you two was where the new birth happens.
My question is: Could there be a happy middle? As paedobaptists we accept that baptism signifies realities that can only become true in the life of the receiver later in life, i.e. faith, and realities that are actually far off for everyone, i.e. the resurrection of the body. In the same spirit, can we be both good evangelicals and also affirm that baptism signifies regeneration and the new birth? If regeneration only occurs at the point of true faith, and baptism signifies faith, wouldn’t baptism signify regeneration also?
Raphael
Raphael, yes, exactly. Titus describes baptism as the “washing of regeneration.” So baptism applied to an infant still signifies regeneration. The baptism points to Christ, who is our new life. The difference with Jordan was not “where” the new birth happens, but rather the nature of the new birth. He denies that it is a transformation of nature because he has doubts about the reality of such a thing as nature. I hold that nature reveals paternity, and that there is no way to have a “father transplant” without having a transformation of nature.
Book Ideas
As one chief cook and bottle washer to another, I thought I should contact you before sending my ideas for a couple of books I have been developing and outlining. I think your Canon Press might be the right place, but please allow me to briefly explain what I am trying to do.
I have both books outlined, and I want to publish a series of essays which are brief summaries of the chapters of the books.
I would like to email them in an attachment to you and get your initial impressions about whether they would be worth my efforts.
I just do not want to repeat what has already been repeated so frequently to lost souls who direly need Christ and His Calvary. I mean the salvation message does not change, but some delivery approaches may reach some of the lost that others do not.
Secondly, are you and Canon Press even accepting any submissions at this time? I am not all that familiar with the publishing industry and its scheduling and logistics; so, I am just not certain how to move forward with getting these books into the hands of those who need them most.
From what I can tell just by asking around, most people nowadays are just too reticent to spend time reading even a short book on salvation and spiritual matters in general. That is why I think perhaps a series of short, quick to read essays might be the best route to reach more readers and gain their attention.
I am eager to get your response to this approach and learn from you whether Canon Press is my best vehicle for my outreach effort.
Sincerely,
Chuck
Chuck, I don’t process submissions, but Canon Press does accept them. I would finish your detailed outline, and submit them there.
A Sola Fide Wrap Up
Conclusion to Living Faith Has No Side Hustles
Thank you again for your continued responses. While I hope I have not seemed overly tenacious with quibbling over word choice and definitions, I think these variations in language are the root of the tension between the NAPARC Reformed and yourself, especially when they mentally connect that language to the statements and theology of other FV advocates. But understanding your last point, it seems to me that you mean obedience not as any workings of man, but as automatic actions that occur when God saves us—such as the change that impels us to live in the Spirit instead of the flesh (sanctification). So long as this distinction is upheld, it seems to me you do hold to a doctrine of justification by faith alone, apart from any works (or obedience to commands of God that can be voluntarily acted upon), and men like myself can rest knowing we are not following after a false Gospel. Many thanks again.
Kyle
Kyle, thanks very much for the interaction.
Trust and Forgiveness
In your letter “Adultery and Forgiveness,” you offer a helpful distinction for a married couple to understand the difference between forgiveness (mandatory) and restoration to office (not mandatory). Have you written elsewhere on the nature of forgiveness and restoration, particularly when there is a permanent relationship such as parent/child? How does one understand forgiveness and consequences in those types of relationships?
Quinn
Quinn, I have not got a detailed treatment in any one place, but it is a concept that comes up a lot in different relationships. You can forgive an employee for taking money from the till, but at the same time not hire him back again. You can forgive a child for being a wasteful spendthrift, but not make him the executor of your estate. You can forgive the pastor for his adultery, but still defrock him.
Protestant Political Theory
Clarify something for me. You speak of “It is an incontrovertible fact that the United States was founded as a Protestant republic” and “So unless we return to the conditions that made our freedoms possible, we will not continue to have those freedoms.” Yet both the Wolfe and Torba/Isker presentation of CN gives RCC and EO a place of respect and welcome even higher than some faithful Christians (dispensationals). Likewise, most Protestants before 1950 recognized Romanism as antithetical to the conditions that make freedom possible. Am I noticing a contradiction within your own view or, dare I hope, you disagree with these authors over how broad the term “Christian” in “Christian nation” is? As one guy said “They pray to pictures, man.” As my constant refrain in CN discussions goes: Don’t give us a Jehu when we need a Josiah . . . Even if you don’t reply to this question in the letters, I hope eventually the issue of giving Romanism a prominent place is discussed among the CN movement.
Apollos
Apollos, thanks. I believe that Protestantism is far superior to RCC when it comes to establishing the conditions of political liberty. Because of that, and because of America’s history, I believe we need to return to our Protestant roots. But I also believe that RCC is superior to communism. So when Poland goes from communism to a state that is friendly to Catholicism, I take that as an improvement. Everything boils down to, compared to what?
Latent Good Guys?
“our side of the conflict has some rotters on it and that the other side has some decent sorts” I grant the first premise and take issue with the second . . .
grh
grh, you probably noticed that the examples I gave were in effect “double agents,” which you would probably grant. But there are also decent sorts tucked away in odd places who remain decent because they aren’t really paying attention. When the crisis forces itself upon their attention, they finally react. They should have reacted long before this, but they finally did. The recent response of conservatives in the CRC is a case in point.
Bitcoin!
I appreciate the comments about the variety of multi-colored pills (re: 2024 resolutions). If I were in charge of Mablog, and what a glorious 3 days that would be, I would encourage my readers to investigate the orange one, that is, Bitcoin. If I’m not mistaken your take on Bitcoin is something close to: ‘I dont know enough about it.’ Fair enough. its a complex topic. TL;DR its sound money. It’s hard money. It’s the best money. Maybe your readers would benefit from Jimmy song’s ‘Thank God for Bitcoin’ book. Cheers!
Rob
Rob, I know enough about Bitcoin to like the fact that the government can’t print it.
Adiaphora
I’d love to hear you expound on the application of Romans 14. And perhaps you have done this . . . your commentary on Romans is on my reading list. Anyway, the way I’ve understood this chapter is that it applies to things that Christians are doing (or not doing) to the glory of God (vs. 6), not to things that are “technically not sin so it’s fine, just leave me alone.” A John Piper quote that has helped me work through these issues in my own life was a sermon he gave on Hebrews 12, where he asks “does it help me run?,” which is so much better than just asking “what’s wrong with it?” In Romans 14:5, Paul says we need to each be convinced in our own mind, but he never tells us to enlighten or strengthen the weak, although it seems clear that it is better to be strong. Paul does not tell the church to just drop these issues because they aren’t big deals; he admits that they are big deals, but that we should not divide over them.
My question is how to handle cases where I have been told that “there are faithful Christians on both sides,” but I don’t see it as a conscience issue, such as in the case of education. I must confess that I’ve consumed some Moscow koolaid, so to me, school choice is an issue where we have clear instructions from the Bible to give our children a Christian education. This does not seem to be an issue where weak consciences eat only vegetables, but the strong are able to eat whatever they want. If I make the corollary, you would have the weak conscience only able to give a Christian education, but the strong can give a secular or a Christian one. This is nonsense to me . . . and so I’m wondering if this is a Romans 14 issue at all. My current thought is that we shouldn’t divide from fellow believers over school choice or dietary differences, but the church has a duty to teach to the former, and not necessarily to the latter. And since I am not in church leadership, my question is really how to handle discussions around these so-called ‘conscience issues’ in conversations with my fellow churchgoers. Any thoughts or recommended resources would be much appreciated.
Blessings to you and your family in the new year!
Tim
Tim, I do agree with you that the two scenarios are different. But I would also say that we can reason between the two situations by analogy, and approach our differences in the same spirit. But I do agree that it is appropriate for the saints to be taught from the pulpit that Christian education is necessary, however delivered.
On Bitcoin…
Maybe the government can’t print it (yet), but someone DID print it, and out of more “fiat” than the government ever imagined. It was literally made up out of nothing.
A couple of family milk cows and a few chickens are way more valuable than Bitcoin or gold or silver or stocks or bonds or (insert whatever monetary item you can think of). Yes, government can devalue or take those away but by the time they get to that point it’s hopefully right before the coming of our transformation.
My problem with it is, it depends entirely on electricity, and you can’t convert it into a physical medium of exchange that isn’t… another currency entirely.
I wonder if the 3- year- old just got a little brother or sister. His behavior is common enough in that situation.
My dear daughter at the age of three decided to use the cats’ litter box. Patient as I was with her need to express her authentic self, I drew the line at that one.
Good on you! A modern parent would schedule tail surgery and whisker implants.
That would be catastrophic …
I’m sincerely curious why you are hiring a woke law firm to represent you, Doug? With Dominion and Harvard being among their clients? Isn’t there a RedBalloon for non-woke representation?
https://davidlat.substack.com/p/tom-clare-libby-locke-clare-locke-dominion-v-fox
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/wake-up-call-clare-locke-letter-in-focus-in-harvard-collision-36
Chris, this is a good question, although my guess is going to be they had to have a firm with a large reach since it isn’t a local problem. I doubt they didn’t think through this.
Look, I would pick them too. But I’m not the head of this church, which already used congregants money and then asks for more.
Strange reply. I am not sure why using congregants money is a problem. Every church in the world uses congregants money. That is the point. If you are a member of the church and you don’t like how they are using the funds, then you can go the elders. I doubt complaining in the comments section of this blog will help you.
Complaining? If that’s what you call pointing out hypocrisy. I’m the one who said I would use them. I’m not the proprietor of this blog espousing moral high ground against the radical left, then pay these “enemies” handsomely for their services when it is of use.
Even still, you could have pointed out other lines of business that could be drawn from, yet you still defended the notion of using congregants donations. But groveling for more is just, embarrassing.
I’ve been following since……. 2015 I think?
I can’t think of anything Doug’s ever said that would require hypocrisy in order to hire this law firm. What has he said *with specificity* that you think he is violating?
For someone who complains about clown world, the 2020 election, and higher education, when his feet are held to the flame, partners with a law firm that at least in the Dominion case essentially proves his option on the election is wrong. I don’t know what foxhole he is in right now but I hope I don’t find myself anywhere near it.
But he will continue to ramble on here and collect money from, probably you I guess.
“essentially proves his option on the election is wrong.”
Wow, quite the non sequitur there. Just because the judiciary is largely corrupt and it would require a miracle for Dominion to lose or really get properly eviscerated in the discovery, that doesn’t mean the firm wouldn’t be effective in a much smaller case without the same spotlight or national repurcussions.
*yawn*
I take it then that you have no idea of anything he’s ever said that contradicts hiring the firm either, otherwise you’d have mentioned it? “partners with a law firm that at least in the Dominion case essentially proves his option on the election is wrong” I don’t recall him placing much of any emphasis on Dominion voting machines, and if he did, nothing this law firm has ever done has ever “disproven” it. They never established any facts whatsoever in that case. No evidence was examined whatsoever. So where we’re at now, is you can’t explain what he’s ever… Read more »
So than can you provide the election was rigged? That already wasn’t covered under the 60+ cases brought over the last three year seen by Trump elected judges. I’ll wait.
And if if you are so hung up on the word hypocrisy, how about humorous? I love to see the arrogant fall on their sword, and come crawling to the competent, secular side of things.
Chris: “So the can you provide the election was rigged?”
Also Chris (D-Mablog): Anyway, we’re taking Trump off the ballot so you can’t vote for him in 2024.
I read through the list of some of their legal victories. They won a verdict for Veritas against the New York Times, for a university dean against Rolling Stone, for a couple of British Muslims against the Southern Poverty Law Center, and for Sarah Palin against the New York Times. I wouldn’t assume that they belong to the “radical left” if they are willing to take on sacred cows such as the SPLC
Chris, is your beef about using a secular law firm with a background in this type of litigation or about using tithes and offerings to pay for the work?
I don’t see your hypocrisy concern. In Moscow, almost every store has woke workers, rules and such. To avoid shopping at those stores, do you shop at the woke Amazon store?
I’m disappointed how no references were made to my RedBallon banner at the top of the page *sigh*.
Nobody cares if you justify it. You are not in a position of power. There are plenty of law firms to choose from that didn’t affirm the election wasn’t rigged, and don’t defend the president of Harvard’s alleged plagiarism.
Chris your answer is rather interesting. It appears that you really are confusing the issue rather than clarifying it.
Since you know so much, which law firms do you think can do the necessary litigation?
In other words, you’re another wokescold who didn’t come here in good faith. You acted like you were legitimately concerned about DW working with that law firm (“I’m sincerely curious…,” yeah, right) but it turns out your views mirror the that law firm’s. You’re another one of these.
*yawn intensifies*
I was also going to say your type responds to every single comment, often within minutes. Thanks for beating me to the punch and proving my point!
Just letting you know, I don’t even read what you write. I’ve seen enough of you around and I’ve had trouble pronouncing your name so I just read “Wilson’s White Knight.” But keep it up, I love your energy.
A serial lurker with reading comp issues who makes unfounded assumptions. If you were a stock, your price would be dropping with every comment! And no, I disagree with Wilson on multiple things and don’t simp for him.
John, contact our Indian brothers at ‘The Cross Purpose.’ They had Doug speak virtually at one of their conferences. https://thecrosspurpose.com/en/
More specifically, Michael Teddy at Redemption Hill Church in Trivandrum, Kerala.
Hunter–Iain Murray’s book The Puritan Hope has a chapter on why, however postmil we are, the 2nd coming is greatly to be desired. I still remember its impact on me 30+ years ago when I first read it. // Sin is a PEST, even if no more. Who shall deliver me from this body of death? I thank God thru Jesus Christ our Lord!
Raphael (and Doug): if a baby being baptized does not have faith, he’s heading for hell when baptized. If he does have faith, then he can have faith, and the assertion that he can only have it later is mistaken. I agree we can’t know he has faith. Neither can we be 100% sure with adults being baptized, tho we can have more visible evidence. Come to think of it, I also agree that baptism’s signification includes resurrection (buried, risen) which is future, or includes the future general resurrection along with the 1st resurrection from being dead in trespasses and… Read more »
The watershed chapter on this is Romans 7 and 8. Paul, who was of the Tribe of Benjamin and circumcised on the 8th day, said that when he sinned after knowing the law, is when he died. A member of the covenant, but spiritually dead. No matter how highly he thought of the covenant, he was dead. Everyone goes from the moment that they knowingly sin until they are saved as a dead person. The reason that we believe that every miscarried child, aborted child, and infant goes to Heaven is that they haven’t sinned yet. If they live long… Read more »
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me (Psalm 51). In John 9, the disciples asked Jesus if the man had been born blind because he had sinned, and Jesus said no, but didn’t blow off the question.///What is the Bible’s doctrine–not our unthought or casual assumptions, the Bible’s doctrine–of infant capacity? /// Frame’s systematic theology ignores the question, taking anthropology without considering development; and I don’t recall Calvin or Berkhoff doing much more, tho it’s been awhile since I read them. Know of a careful study, from whatever point of view? /// John… Read more »
I’m afraid in all the arguments about infant baptism an assertion that that babies could somehow exercise faith seems to me to be little more than superstition.
Yes, those arguments do stretch credulity trying to reconcile doctrine with practice.
Hearing is the first and last sense, and we know more than we can articulate.
“So when Poland goes from communism to a state that is friendly to Catholicism, I take that as an improvement.” Indeed, it was. And sadly, it appears that “was” is the operative term, and they have now returned to communism: https://thenationalpulse.com/2024/01/10/globalism-unhinged-cops-storm-polands-presidential-palace-to-arrest-conservative-politicians/