Letters During Noahic Covenant Awareness Month

Sharing Options
Show Outline with Links

Important Clarification Right at the Top

Yesterday a Canon Press email went out that highlighted a discussion I had with Jared Longshore about my recent book Sounds FV. The ad copy said that “the [FV] band’s getting back together,” and said we were talking about “why he’s reclaiming the term he once abandoned.” This is actually not the case. No doubt some confusion came from the fact that the book we were discussing was Sounds FV, which apparently . . . sounded FV. But I am afraid the band is not getting back together, and I am also not trying to reclaim the term. My No Mas post is still where everything sits. Sorry about any consternation this caused.

Second Commandment Stuff

I like some of Gustave Dore’s paintings. Do you think it would be a violation of the 2nd Commandment to display the painting “The Triumph Of Christianity Over Paganism”? The figure of Jesus in the painting is sort of blurry and in the distance. It seems different than the typical Roman Catholic iconic pictures of Jesus where he has facial features and such. Do you think there is a difference?
Thanks,

Jacob

Jacob, yes, I think there is a distinction to be made there. I believe that portraiture is a violation of the 2nd commandment, or perilously close to it. But paintings or drawings that say no more than that Christ had a body, as in this one, or The Road to Emmaus, I don’t take as violations of the 2nd commandment. But there could be artistic challenges that I regard as insurmountable—like trying to paint the Christ in His glory.

Because of the Imago Dei

Amidst the discussion on abortion, we Christians claim that unborn children have the image of God and therefore a right to protection. Moreover, to steal that right to life justifies the state in prosecuting that person in one way or another.
So far, all agreed.
This got me thinking about the other side of this equation and I am not sure what to do with it. If the perpetrator is guilty of blood, the just punishment can include (though does not necessarily require) the death penalty. Wouldn’t the same logic apply about protecting their life? I affirm the just-ness of capital punishment based on the Law of Moses, but how do we get around the image of God logic?
My working hypothesis is that humans can lose or disqualify or forfeit (not sure which word is correct) that image of God and therefore lose that protection. Am I close? Or out to lunch?

BJ

BJ, I believe that when capital punishment is justly applied, it is not a violation of the image of God, but rather an emphasis on it. We are treating the criminal as a responsible moral agent, created in God’s image, and therefore responsible for his actions.

Acute Suffering

I am sure you have covered this in detail elsewhere, and any direction you can share would be great. My question is, as a pastor, what is your specific approach to counseling someone through, what I’ll call, “acute suffering”? For example, a person whose child was abused (in severe terms) . . . what is your pastoral approach to counseling someone through that, or any other such example (especially when they know that you, like me, believe in God’s exhaustive sovereignty)? I know how to approach it theologically. But I also know (as I learned from your dad, in his book “Wisdom Not Knowledge”) that theological/doctrinal exposition isn’t always the approach in a situation like that—yet, we have to remain tethered to the truth. Thank you for your help.

Ben

Ben, yes. Tethered to the truth, absolutely. But in times of extreme grief, it is best simply to keep your mouth shut. Simply be there. The time to address the theological questions—which will come—should be when the person who is suffering has recovered to the point where they are actually asking them.

Abolitionism

I have labored in this field for years, and appreciate the abolitionists as individuals and brothers in the Lord. But I am glad whenever their legislative proposals are challenged.
I have done several debates with them as well on this topic, and use the analogy of 9/11. When the WTC were hit, should we have tried to save as many people as possible (the ones below where the planes crashed) or should we give up because we can’t get to the floors that we destroyed and those above? And furthermore. should we charge those who couldn’t save everyone with complicity or compromise? Abortion is a five-alarm atrocity and we should save as many as we lawfully can.
The Berlin meme in your article aptly demonstrates the second fallacy that smashmouth incrementalists face, that we have the power to end abortion and we don’t. Apparently we don’t “trust God” enough or words to that effect. And as you all pointed out, by that standard, Wilberforce didn’t trust God either, and for that matter, neither did Jesus in re: divorce. Great job. God bless you all.

Scott

Scott, thank you.

A Baptismal Dilemma

I recently watched your conversation with Jared about the journey you took for your doctrinal convictions and have had a similar trajectory though not as in depth as yours. Quick background is I grew up in charismatic church went to a Baptist university and earned a degree in Biblical Studies. Pretty much a dispensational and then becoming Calvinistic in my senior year of college. That was the “slippery slope” of really digging into Reformed theology. Skip ahead and I became convinced of covenant theology and a Presbyterian in my mid 30s. We baptized my 2 oldest children in a Presbyterian church but then 2020 happened and the COVID craziness and CRT dumpster caught on fire at the church so we ended up leaving. We have had 2 more children since then and not baptized them yet. They are 5 and 2. We unfortunately don’t have a solid Reformed church locally so that has influenced a decision to not baptize them because we are not at a church that holds to those convictions but are a solid Bible believing congregation.
That leads me to my question as a husband and father, how can I hold to my paedo-baptist conviction and practice it? I have delayed too long in figuring out the appropriate way to handle but it’s begun to bother me more deeply. Should I still baptize my 2 children that have not been baptized? If so, what’s a Biblical way to do so since we are not part of a Reformed church?

Jeremy

Jeremy, yes, I would at least try to arrange for a baptism. Perhaps you could ask your elders if they would have a problem if you arranged for a friendly Presbyterian pastor elsewhere to baptism, provided he had a letter from your elders saying that you were faithful at church, and that the family would be receiving pastoral care. Something like that.

Found It

Sir, others may have already pointed it out, but just in case, I was able to find the following webpage that apparently has the Credenda Agenda article that was requested in last week’s letters (The Pastor’s Kids, Again):

Daniel

Daniel, thank you very much.

Extra Teaching

In your capacity as a pastor, you often teach the Word to the gathered church. Such would be a Lord’s Day gathering or any other teaching done when the church body comes together.
What is your philosophy when it comes to your other teaching projects (your blog, books, videos through Canon Press, etc.)? More specifically, 1) is your primary audience in your mind still the members in your local church? and, 2) what is the biblically appropriate way for a pastor to inform his flock about extra teaching material he is producing? The ditch this second question is trying to navigate is how a pastor can avoid slipping into using his flock to build his personal brand, while at the same time recognizing that if my pastor had a biblically sound blog, I as a member would want to know about it that I might profit from addition faithful teaching.
Many thanks,

Will

Will, I assume the same audience (or the same kind of audience) when I write. There are exceptions, but when that happens, it is obviously marked out as such. As far as letting your congregation know about extra material, I would just do it. The problem with “brand building” instead of “sheep feeding” is a matter of internal motives, and so the thing you need to do there is to guard your heart.

The Nature of a Thing

What are ways or questions to ask to determine the nature of a thing? I want to be a better thinker. In many instances, I can look at something and give a general answer about its nature but I’m not sure of the unspoken questions behind those answers. For instance, nature of men and women seems to be picked up from natural observation but also plenty of passages in the Bible to help in the truth of their natures. Some higher degree of difficulty when not as many references biblically to the “thing” in question. And if you have some reformed fathers writings you can point me to, would love to check them out.
Thank You,

Dillon

Dillon, it sounds to me like you want a Christian introduction to philosophy. You could start here.

A Convoluted One

A man came to me recently and confessed sin to me and a mutual friend.
He has been married for about five years and has children. In that time, he’s gained worldly success (before her, he struggled to hold down a job, he has now achieved material prosperity) and a good reputation within the church. But he confessed that before marriage, he had been deep in a porn addiction. When he started dating his wife, he realized that his desire for her was muted and that the addiction had caused dysfunction. I may have unwisely asked some follow-up questions, and what he had been viewing was very perverse—whatever you think of when you imagine “perverted,” that and worse. So the dysfunction made sense.
He said that upon the realization he felt emasculated and emotionally broken, he says he gravitated toward the first woman who gave him feminine attention. They were sexually immoral before marriage and rushed into marriage within a few months, thinking marriage would prevent their sin with a questionable interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7.
Here’s where he asked for prayer and where I gave counsel: he feels as though his marriage is the Lord’s discipline—that he married the “wrong” woman because of his sin.
That set off alarm bells in my head, so I asked if he was tempted toward divorce or adultery. He said no.I asked if marital problems had arisen. Not really. As he described it, his wife is submissive, industrious, godly, good with the children, managing the home, and with a good reputation at the church. She has some issues with complaining and such but nothing beyond what you might find in any otherwise good marriage. I asked if he still struggled with porn. He said no. The shock of what porn had done to him, and the reality of a real sexual relationship, had helped him kill the habit. He said it no longer even tempts him.
So I asked why he felt this marriage was discipline? It sounds like textbook mercy. All he could say was that he felt there were more “compatible” women for him in the church, and if he hadn’t been such an emotional wreck he would have chosen differently. He says he didn’t marry out of love for his wife but out of a desire to fix his situation. He even mentioned another woman he had in mind back then, one he now thinks he would have pursued successfully if things had been different.
I agreed with him that the marriage began in sin. But it seems the sin is long repented of, and what he feels now is simply the natural consequence. I gave an example of a woman who has an abortion—she may be forgiven, but the consequence is real: the child is gone and she must live with that. He listened, we prayed, and that was that.
I now think it was a bad analogy. A better one might be a woman who had a child out of wedlock—not aborting, but still grieving that the child was born in sin. It’s one thing for a woman to have a child out of wedlock and later regret having aggrieved the Holy Spirit by not waiting for marriage. It’s another for a man to impregnate a woman outside of marriage, then marry her, have the child, and years later—when that child turns 15 and starts acting out—for the mother to say, “The only reason I have you and not some other child is because I had sex when I shouldn’t have.”
And I began to think: the Lord’s discipline, if we can call it that, in this case seems extraordinarily light. One could say the Lord used even his sin to bless him—delivered him from a depraved habit and gave him a family. Yes, he acted foolishly. Had he confessed during premarital counseling, the church would almost certainly have told them to pause and separate and put them under discipline had they not immediately repented. Likewise had he confessed his porn addiction the woman doubtless would have been counseled that this man was not ready for marriage. Perhaps acting more righteous would have brought them both better marriages with different people.
I thought to myself two things. First, we might all be much happier had we never sinned, and any particular sin can likely be tied to much of our own misery. Recognizing this might be a legitimate part of mourning over our sin.
Second, the Lord responds to sin in different ways. Sometimes He punishes it, and sometimes He shows mercy—not just in the eternal sense, but even in this life. Perhaps it is our duty to respond to those two responses differently: to accept the pain when it is given, and to rejoice in the mercy when it is given.
It seems this man who confessed is confused. That he is trying to put himself inside the mind of God and say, “If this had happened, then that would have followed. And I would be in a better place had I acted in obedience to the clear commands of scripture.” Certainly, God would have preferred that he act righteously. But the man doesn’t really know that he would have been happier had he acted differently, and such a question seems designed to kill the happiness he could have.
Should I tell him that he is sinning now by indulging in self-pity? Or is the realization that he might indeed have found a better wife had he acted more wisely a legitimate one? Is it always impious to ask, “What would have happened?” considering that nothing occurs outside the counsel of God.
Certainly, to us, it often feels like our ruin or our blessing can be traced back to decisions we clearly remember making. I find this case difficult, and I worry for him. “I married the wrong woman” is a thought that has led many a man to the Devil and to broken families.

Anon

Anon, yes, you need to have a follow up conversation with your friend, and you need to be frank with him, straight up the middle. The dank porn he was in was a soul-destroying sin. Another soul-destroying sin is trying to game out Providence. Just as he needed to put that particular sin to death back then, so now he needs to put the woulda coulda shoulda sin to death now. Show it no mercy.

Rape and Abortion

Thank you so much for providing guidance to God’s people, I credit any virtue I may have developed to your ministry.
I have a rather random question, but I think it’s important to be sorted out.
If a girl happens to be raped, can she immediately go to the pharmacy and take any measures? Like a “morning after” pill? Would that be abortion? Like the egg got fertilized (does it even happen immediately?) and now it gets removed—so I guess yes?
But what if she goes and gets aspirin (prevents the whole thing or something, North Koreans use it as contraception) or stevia (makes you temporarily infertile)—then is that okay?
Are any measures like that okay at all? “Be ye shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves”

Mary

Mary, I believe that trying to prevent pregnancy after the intercourse has happened is unlawful. The goal is to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall, which is taking the life of the child, if there is a child.

A General Equity Question

I hope you are doing well. Recently, my family and I were discussing a topic that required us to refer to Deuteronomy 21:1-9. This section of Scripture deals with the legal and ritual procedure to address the issue of murder when the victim’s murderer is unknown. While we are not bound, in the New Covenant, to ritual/ceremonial law in the same way those in the Old Covenant were, what might be the general equity of applying this procedure to laws in our day and age? That is, if there is a need/way to apply this?
Thank you very much!

O.N.

O.N. I think we learn from that law that their is such a thing as corporate responsibility for things like crime rates. If there were a parallel situation, and if we were not the secular nation we currently are, I think it would be addressed through the magistrate calling for a special worship service, through which the whole thing is acknowledged, confessed, and addressed.

The Politico Piece

I read the POLITICO piece. First, it was quite the lengthy treatise. Second, IMO Ian Ward, the author, did a very fair job. Didn’t come at the article from a ‘hit piece’ perspective. If you have any contact with him, he should be commended for his balance. Of course there are things to take issue with. But for a mainstream publication, you couldn’t ask for much better. Third, I’ve been following you since before Collision. I’m frankly shocked at the levels to which the Moscow Mood has grown. Is it all surprising to you as well or was this always the plan and you’re right on schedule? Are there any lessons to glean seeking to grow organizations in a similar vein?

Roger

Roger, yes. I think Ian worked hard to write a fair-minded piece. And the plan has always been to “make a dent,” but it has been surprisingly to us to see the ways in which the Lord has been making it happen.

Dealing With Idols

Have you given any thought to the idea of “idols of the heart” as it’s presented in Biblical Counseling? If you have, what are your thoughts on that idea of how they interpret idolatry and if it is a biblical interpretation and if it is helpful to think of people pleasing as an idol in one’s heart?

Chris

Chris, yes. I believe that all sin represents some variation of idolatry. At some level, whenever we sin, we are placing some creature or created thing in the place that only God should occupy.

FV Again

I listened to your FV chat with Jared. You mentioned the distinction between one covenant and two covenants and I am confused on the importance of the first command to Adam needing to be considered a covenant. It seems like it is missing the blood pact that we see in God’s covenant with Abraham. It also trips me up in regard to God’s sovereign plan to save a fallen people by the death and resurrection of the Son that He had planned prior to the creation the world. It seems like a little thing to view it all as being the one covenant with humanity that they failed and He fulfilled.

Stephen

Stephen, you are correct that the word for covenant (berith) is not used in Genesis. But I believe that we must have two covenants because the New Testament teaches us that we have two Adams, one from the dust of the ground and one from Heaven. In addition, Hosea tells us: “But they like men [lit. Adam] have transgressed the covenant: There have they dealt treacherously against me.” (Hosea 6:7).

Unsustainable Sustainability

“Say that someone shows you a prospectus that promises an endless supply of energy by means of extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers.”
That’s an excellent summary of most pitches I have heard for anything climate change related—particularly EVs and ‘sustainable’ energy like wind and solar.

Jeff

Jeff, exactly so. I ran across the sunbeams and cucumbers illustration somewhere in Jonathan Swift. So apparently it is an old game.

Epimenides

In the last letters section, you posted my response to you about Titus 1:12, where I pointed out that, grammatically, Paul is saying that one of these false teachers is saying, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” Paul is not favorably quoting it.
You followed up with: “David, so what do you do with the fact that Epimenides, a Cretan prophet, said those very words? And he was the one who prevailed on the citizens of Athens to build an altar to ‘an unknown god’?”
My short answer is: If what you say it true, it must mean that one of these false teachers was quoting Epimenides against the uncircumcised believers in the churches on Crete. Paul does not want them saying things like that against the Cretan believers, calling unclean what God has made clean through baptism. It is because these false teachers are pushing such fables (as you say, created by Epimenides originally) that that their mouths must be stopped.

David

David, thanks for the different take. But if what you are saying has merit, I don’t know where to put the Pauline commentary, “This witness is true.”

It Is All Coming Into Focus . . .

Interesting, our pastor has “met with” Secretary Hegseth as well, and I know there were at least 2 Jews quietly present. The plan is becoming clear to me now.

Preston

Preston, can’t slip anything by you, it appears.

Handling Prophecy

The question is what I should do with them were I to be in possession of them. So say that Philip’s daughters had a file cabinet full of their prophecies, and then their house burned down. The Lord is God, and can do what he wants. But what would we make of an heir to the estate, believing the prophecies to be genuine, nevertheless taking them all to the landfill?
You raise an interesting question, but one that for us by God’s grace has been moot from the time of the recognition of the canon. Of course, I’d like to think that if I was alive in 50 AD and had transcripts of Phillip’s daughters’ prophecies, I’d keep them. They’d probably be a great testimony of exhortation, encouragement, and consolation, in addition to a record of surprisingly accurate “words of knowledge” that could not have been known apart from a direct download from Heaven (of course, the interpretation or application could on occasion get messy). Let’s suppose, however, that in addition to those transcripts, I also have the following: an autographed copy of Paul’s “other” letter to the Corinthians; an anonymous letter which is an unparalleled exploration of the excellencies of Jesus Christ drawn directly from the Hebrew scriptures; and copies of letters from James and Jude. Oh yeah, I also have a letter from a guy named Apollos who teaches the way of God very accurately. The first letter is written by a man who claims to be an apostle but was not a member of the Twelve (but has Peter’s endorsement elsewhere), the second I love but can’t identify, and the next letters are written by Jesus’ little brothers (who weren’t His followers at the time Jesus chose the Twelve), and the last one is a great letter written by a great guy. I’m also hearing that Luke the Physician is compiling eyewitness testimony for a two-part account of Jesus’ life and the early church (I hear Phillip and his daughters will make an appearance in his narrative).
What I can’t see with certainty in 50 AD is:
(1) Which of these documents is (and will be recognized in the next few centuries to be) Scripture; and
(2) How exactly God in His sovereignty and goodness will cause those documents which are Scripture to be preserved and recognized, and how those which are not Scripture will be lost (housefire? accidentally taken to the landfill?) or recognized not to be Scripture.
For you and I in 2025, can’t we be thankful that we have a closed canon, and one that both commands and equips us with all we need to weigh any purported prophecy, even to include the contents of Phillip’s daughters’ file cabinet, if discovered?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey, I am glad we can agree that what is done is done. What God providentially dispenses with, I can rest in. But the purpose of this illustration is to make clear the dilemma I would have if I were in possession of words from God that I believe to be words from God, but which are not in the Bible. I believe I would have an obligation to guard and preserve them, and to treat them as though they were words from God. And that is the position I would be in if I were a charismatic.

A Glitch Caused by the Proprietor

I follow your blog (and others) using a feed-reader that collects posts as they’re published. Now and then, I see an oddly short post and click through to the website, expecting to find the rest of it, and instead find that it’s missing. For instance, my feed-reader shows me a short post that it says you made yesterday, called ‘Which Compromise?’ about ‘anti-abortion responses and tactics’, but the post doesn’t seem to be on your blog. Was this an unfinished draft that was accidentally published and then retracted? A spam post generated vaguely in your writing-style? A hallucination from my feed-reader? I suppose in the end it doesn’t matter whether you wrote it, but I would rather like to know.

EMG

EMG, your first guess is correct. It was a draft that I started and scheduled for a week out, and then forgot the time I had scheduled it for. It appeared briefly, and then I took it down. After I finished it, and renamed it, I published it again.

Courtship Without a Covering

I am a young woman in Texas. I am a Christian and I come from a family of non-believers. As I am entering a phase of my life where I am getting to know a young man, I have been wrestling with the fact that I do not have a godly father who plays the protector role. I don’t have a man in my life who would stand in the way between this young man and me. A godly father who would ask him the important questions and would evaluate him before giving me the “all clear” if he were to ask me on a date. How do I go about finding an older gentleman to play this role? Any other thoughts on the situation?
I look forward to hearing back from you!

Ashlyn

Ashlyn, in many cases, you can still ask your father to vet the young man in certain areas. Your dad wouldn’t evaluate his spiritual life, but if it is at all possible, I would involve your dad to some extent. As for the covering you would like when it comes to spiritual things, I would pray through your list of friends and relations (an uncle? an older couple at church?). Failing that, you’re on your own, kid. But don’t fret about that. Be deliberate and slow, and pray your way through.

Isaiah on the Longhouse

I recently ran across Isaiah 3:12 in my Bible, and I would like to know what your interpretation of it is. Is it saying that female and/or young leaders are a sign of a declining society?
A daily reader,

Samuel

Samuel, yes, I believe that Isaiah is telling us that to be ruled by women and children is a cultural curse. At the same time, there is room for the occasional Deborah, but there is no way for female rule to become commonplace without real destruction coming in the wake of it. I mean, look around.

Maybe Even Double Yikes

Just read about the pastor’s 14-year-old daughter who wears “booty shorts” to prayer meetings. WHAT!?
I had to google up “booty shorts” to be sure what that looks like. Yikes!
This sure makes the Mennonite approach to women’s apparel look logical.

Jack

Jack, yikes is the orthodox response.

A Reformed Take on Roman Catholicism

I was disappointed with your assertion that orthodox, Bible-believing Christians have more in common with Papists than with Liberal Protestants. To say we can have a “robust debate” about what is undeniably blasphemous (the re-sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, Mariology), atrocious sin (Necromancy) and blatant explicit idolatry (not simply making something too important as we find in secularism) and a dozen other explicit false worship practices is odd. Social issues matter, but if there is a chief sin (which we should not assume there must be), then Pride is not the most likely candidate; false worship is. Traditional Catholics are as much, if not more deeply, into this sin than their liberal counterparts. I simply cannot see how anyone who seeks to follow and worship God according to what He revealed of Himself can see Roman Catholicism as somehow less bad than the UCC simply because they support some of the right social issues.
How much can people intentionally, willfully, and indefensibly, and in how many ways, not simply ignore but outright blaspheme against God, but they are still not outsiders because, no matter how many awful things they affirm, if they also affirm the Nicene creed and oppose gay marriage? When did sexual sin, as awful as it is, become worse than explicit blasphemy, worshiping others alongside God, downright distortion of his revelation, and idolatry?
We do not always have to pick which is worse . . . asked if I would rather work with traditional paganism or progressive secularism, I’d say I’d fight with either against the other any chance I get. False Christianity is not “true Christianity lite.”

Luke

Luke, I agree with you on every specific point you make. The Roman Catholic church is really bad. I don’t believe we should sugarcoat it. But I also agree with Machen and the comments he made in Christianity and Liberalism: “Far more serious still is the division between the Church of Rome and evangelical Protestantism in all its forms. Yet how great is the common heritage which unites the Roman Catholic Church, with its maintenance of the authority of Holy Scripture and with its acceptance of the great early creeds, to devout Protestants today! We would not indeed obscure the difference which divides us from Rome. The gulf is indeed profound. But profound as it is, it seems almost trifling compared to the abyss which stands between us and many ministers of our own Church. The Church of Rome may represent a perversion of the Christian religion; but naturalistic liberalism is not Christianity at all” (Christianity and Liberalism, p. 52).

Further Up and Further In

Here’s the setup for my question: I know you’re very familiar with Rushdoony & Van Til. I’m reading Rushdoony’s, “‘By What Standard’ An Analysis of the Philosophy of Cornelius Van Til.” One of the big ideas of this book is that only Christianity, with it’s doctrine of the Trinity as ultimate reality, can provide a basis for both unity and diversity. And therefore it’s the only philosophy that escapes the alternate pits of ultimate reality being either absolute oneness (without meaning or personhood) or absolute many-ness (without ability to know anything).
Okay, that’s the setup. Here’s my question. I’ve heard you sometimes say that we have a choice between Christ and chaos. I love that statement and find it enlightening. But Rushdoony’s analysis of Van Til has me thinking that the statement isn’t quite complete. “Christ or Chaos” addresses the pit of ultimate disunity but not the pit of ultimate oneness. I’m not finding fault with your statement. I’m just drawing a connection between your point and Rushdoony/Van Til’s thoughts. Here’s my question. Is it fair to say that Christ saves us not just from the chaos of radical plurality, but also from the sterility of absolute unity—and that both ultimately lead to meaninglessness apart from the Trinity? Or perhaps, as a complement to your statement “Christ or Chaos,” we might also say “Trinity or Tyranny”?

Michael

Michael, yes. I agree. I would only add that the thing that brought the issue of the Trinity to the fore was the fact of the Incarnation—in other words, Christ. I believe that you cannot have Christ without coming to understand the triune nature of God. So our current challenge is Heraclitus. It is Christ or Heraclitus. But other societies have been swallowed up by monism. For them it is Christ or Parmenides. Or as you put it, “Trinity or tyranny, of one sort or the other.”
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
33 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jake
1 day ago

Jeremy, every paedobaptist has to be a little bit credobaptist. It is a necessity to fulfill the Great Commission. No Baptist church will endorse a paedobaptism. The good news is that your five year old is probably old enough for a profession of faith baptism. I know that is not how you want it, but the child would be baptised.

Brendan of Ireland
Brendan of Ireland
1 day ago

Luke,
In Catholic universities/seminaries you can study academic theology and come out after several years with your faith nourished and supported by believing members of the faculty. My personal experience however is of mainly Protestant theological faculties in a number of universities in which the staff sought to push aggressive (sometimes hostile), often atheistic agendas, particularly in connection with the critical study of the bible. These (nominally) Protestant professors especially reserved their ire for Evangelicals and conservative Catholics.

TedR
TedR
19 hours ago

Did you cover logic at any point in your studies?

Ryan
Ryan
1 day ago

Re: abolitionist. I appreciate the smashmourh approach, I really do. I really believed we should take what we can, when we can. It is better to save 1 than zero. Biblically speaking however, abolitionism holds the moral high ground. It’s great to bring Israel back to acknowledging God but we’ll just let these high places alone for the time being. These 2 positions are hard to harmonize. While I cheer a 6 week or even a 15 week ban knowing how many lives it will save I can’t help but feel the glare from the abolitionist in back and all… Read more »

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
1 day ago
Reply to  Ryan

You’re confusing strategy with objective. The smashmouth incrementalist and the abolitionist both want the same thing — they disagree on how to get there.

cherrera
cherrera
1 day ago

Horrible take, Luke. You may want to read Gen. 19 again if you think supporting sodomy is merely being on the wrong side of a “social issue.” God also hated child sacrifice (abortion is the modern-day equivalent). And the United Church of Christ is, for lack of a better word, trash.

If your church is taking part in “Pride” month, you may want to look into some of the darker side of it like “bug chasers” and the Bell/Weinberg Study which showed that
83% of sodomites have had over 50 sexual partners.

Last edited 1 day ago by C Herrera
E
E
17 hours ago
Reply to  cherrera

Goodness…this and you are ridiculous. I’ll throw out some numbers. 81% of heterosexual couples have had multiple partners. 72% of evangelical couples will divorce. Don’t demonize an entire group of people because you *think you’re right. Try a loving approach, which is what Jesus did…

John
John
15 hours ago
Reply to  E

Jesus also drove the money changers out of the temple with a whip. And also told us to love our enemies. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Also, don’t demonize CHerrera just because you *think* you’re right.

E
E
15 hours ago
Reply to  John

So who now are the money changers? Who are our “enemies”? I didn’t demonize the poster, just called out their “stats”. Jesus had issue with the religious legalists and fellowshipped with “sinners”…so…

John
John
11 hours ago
Reply to  E

Calling a particular organization “trash” (to quote CHerrera) and calling an individual “ridiculous”) (to quote yourself) are analogous, except that while the first is a sharper term, the second is individual and therefore more personal in this context. By your own assumed definition of “demonize,” I am entirely justified in imputing the same attitude to your own response to CHerrera. As to the rest of your post, 1) Yes, he fellowshipped with sinners, but he also told them to go and sin no more, and 2) The LGBTQ community is frequently self-righteous and certainly fits the definition of “religion.” I… Read more »

Last edited 11 hours ago by John
Ken B
Ken B
11 hours ago
Reply to  John

If we are taking Jesus as an example For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander.

The word translated here as fornication includes but is not limited to homosexuality. So Paul in Rom 1 was not out of order as an apostle of Christ.

cherrera
cherrera
9 hours ago
Reply to  John

Here’s an article from the UCC’s website today. Note that I didn’t go back several years and cherry pick the worst article I could find.
https://www.ucc.org/pride-has-always-been-a-protest/

If this isn’t trash, what is it? I’m okay with “abominable” if you prefer more Biblical language.

E
E
8 hours ago
Reply to  John

I would argue that “trash” and “ridiculous” are two different things entirely. Please feel free to go ahead and justify yourself:) as for your other points, who has ever been able to “go and sin no more”? I think the Bible is pretty clear that it’s no one. LGBTQA is definitely not a religion…it’s a sexual orientation, so to say they’re similar to the “religious” at the time is somewhat ludicrous.

Kristina
Kristina
12 hours ago
Reply to  E

What percentage of humans (all sexual orientations) has had over 50 partners? Are there even stats on that?

E
E
12 hours ago
Reply to  Kristina

Exactly…grandiose statement to create shock and awe…

cherrera
cherrera
9 hours ago
Reply to  E

More like “Don’t confuse me with the facts since I’ve been programmed by an agenda.”

E
E
8 hours ago
Reply to  cherrera

You show me yours and I’ll show you mine.

cherrera
cherrera
9 hours ago
Reply to  E

I figured I’d trigger one of crowd here who go by names consisting of random numbers or a single letter. I don’t “think I’m right.” It’s not about me. I know the UCC is an abomination according to God’s word. Your reply to TedR on another issue “Language around this…used to create an emotional response…have shifted their stance on this in the last 50 years ONLY” applies to you here MUCH more than to Ted. The irony! “Try a loving approach, which is what Jesus did” That’s a typical emotional response started by leftist boomers around…50 years ago. They believed… Read more »

E
E
8 hours ago
Reply to  cherrera

Blah blah blah. Jesus was more of a hippie than you want to believe. You quote science when it backs your stance, but what about other scientific progress over the last 50 years? Don’t cherrera pick…

John
John
15 hours ago
Reply to  cherrera

I think you misread Luke. While I disagree with his central point, he clearly believes Sodomy to be a sign of unregeneracy; he just sees Catholicism as blatant blasphemy and therefore just as bad. Again, he’s wrong, but still seems staunchly conservative.

Ken B
Ken B
11 hours ago
Reply to  cherrera

There is a small phrase in Gen 19 after Lot warns his family that the place is about to be destroyed which the RSV translates as But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting. This has always struck me when reading it, and is in many ways like modern secularists who think the warnings of the bible are a joke, and who mock and laugh.

Luke
Luke
38 minutes ago
Reply to  cherrera

I never played down how awful Sodomy is. What I pointed out is that the Roman Catholic church’s explicit worship of idols (actual products of human imagination in the place of God, not merely the abstract sense of making something too important) and worshiping other beings alongside God… all the linguistic gymnastics in the world can’t change that they worship Mary, “saints” and angels, are equal if not greater sins in Scripture. The first two commandments are pretty serious. I’m not sure why that is controversial.

Sarah Tennant
Sarah Tennant
1 day ago

Regarding the morning after pill: there is conflicting information on this. The primary mechanism of EBC is to delay ovulation, which will prevent fertilisation in the first place (sperm can only live for so long inside a woman’s body, so if their lifespan ends before an egg is released, no pregnancy can occur). As far as that goes, I don’t see it as a moral problem. The difficulty is in whether or not there’s a secondary action: if the pill is taken too late (after ovulation has already occurred), will the EBC also somehow work to prevent implantation of the… Read more »

Sarah Tennant
Sarah Tennant
1 day ago
Reply to  Sarah Tennant

To demonstrate the confusion: there is another study on EllaOne, admittedly with a very small sample size, which claims to have found that EllaOne didn’t prevent ovulation at all in the women studied, and that the *primary* mechanism of action (at least, when the drug was taken during a particular stage in the cycle) must therefore to prevent implantation by thinning and altering the endometrium. (This study is by Saul Lira-Albarran, for reference.)

TedR
TedR
19 hours ago
Reply to  Sarah Tennant

All that to say, if there is a chance the pill will kill a child, don’t take it.

E
E
16 hours ago
Reply to  TedR

It’s not “killing a child”…as she described, it’s preventing a pregnancy. Language around this, murder, killing, mutilation, etc, is used to create an emotional response, because without the emotional response, it would no longer be an issue. It’s not a black and white issue, which is why evangelicals have shifted their stance on this in the last 50 years ONLY…it is fodder to stoke the flames to advance their ideals and ideology and to (re)gain power and control. Dig into it deeper and it’s clear they don’t really care about “life”.

TedR
TedR
11 hours ago
Reply to  E

If there is a chance it kills a fertilized egg, then it’s not dramatic to call it killing. That’s what it is.

When we stand before God to answer for our actions, I don’t think appealing to a medical study will let anyone off the hook.

This isn’t complicated, error on the side of life.

E
E
8 hours ago
Reply to  TedR

A fertilized egg is not a human…what about taking care of the poor, immigrants, second class citizens?!?! They are life…

cherrera
cherrera
8 hours ago
Reply to  E

The way you take care of invading immigrants is to ship them back. Again, it’s amazing you accuse others of emotional arguments while using throwaway emotional talking points yourself. As you wokescolds like to say, do better!

E
E
8 hours ago
Reply to  cherrera

What would Jesus do? Where is that in the Bible that they “shipped them back”? Luke 600:23? You just might not be right…and so may I, but I’m willing to admit that I don’t have all the answers…

cherrera
cherrera
7 hours ago
Reply to  E

You may actually want to read the Bible some time. Immigrants had to abide by theocratic laws in the Old Testament and could be put to death for blasphemy and other things..,there’s an account of that happening. It wasn’t this “build a mosque, practice voodoo, have fun with your MS-13 gang, come over and do whatever you want” stuff. Far from it.

I’ve already said that Jesus didn’t specifically address every issue in the limited accounts we have of Him. I’m sure you knew that and were playing dumb…right?

HC Wap
HC Wap
1 day ago

re: blood in the first Covenant: possibly it’s in his name…
Word Origin: Derived from the root אָדַם (adam), meaning “to be red” or “ruddy,” (blood?) often associated with the color of human skin or the earth.
‘a’ ‘dam’ = God(s), blood…Adam violated God’s “blood”…Life! “the life of the creature is in the blood.”
See also Acts 1:19 akel-dama “field of blood”

TedR
TedR
20 hours ago

Just as he needed to put that particular sin to death back then, so now he needs to put the woulda coulda shoulda sin to death now

Very helpful sentence right there.