Open Thread Tuesday. Not Troll Tuesday at All.

Sharing Options
Show Outline with Links

Alabama Senate Race

Re: Hot take on the Alabama Senate election of Dec. 12. You are making the child molestation allegations against Roy Moore the center of the issue. They are nothing of the kind. The allegations should have played exactly the same role in this election as the Access Hollywood tape played in the general election; i.e., both Roy Moore and Donald Trump had already shown themselves to be utterly unfit for office. The sexual accusations were simply the icing on the cake. I am a conservative, pro-life Christian and I voted for Hillary Clinton. I would not cast my vote for a con man pretending suddenly to have become a conservative pro-life Republican. Were I a resident of Alabama I would have voted for Doug Jones. Making Donald Trump and Roy Moore the poster boys of the pro-life movement is one of the dumbest moves ever made.

Make sure to read it over before clicking “send.”

Debi

Debi, although I differ with them, I do understand why some conservative Alabama voters stayed home, or decided to write in a more suitable candidate. That is exactly what I did in the presidential election. But I don’t comprehend voting for someone like Jones, or Hillary. That is like becoming disenchanted with Saruman (fine), and putting out your Sauron yard signs.  

So, Jones won, but is anyone really surprised? If you are, you might want to consider that this is predictably what you’d expect from the constitutional framers’ usurpation of Yahweh’s exclusive election authority, per Deuteronomy 17:15. Thinking they knew better than their God and Creator, what did the 18th-century founding fathers do? They turned elections over to We the People, the majority of whom, according to Matthew 7:13-14, are in the broad way leading to destruction. Dumb idea! Just where do you suppose the broad-way folk are going to take America? Perhaps to the precipice of moral depravity and destruction, precisely where America finds herself today!?! If you’re someone who has been bamboozled into believing that popular elections (aka, popularity contests) given to us by the framers are one of America’s pillars of liberty, you should be rejoicing in the result of this election. After all, the people have chosen. But when the people choose (especially with Article 6’s Christian test ban by which mandatory biblical qualifications were also eliminated), we get nothing but nincompoops, scoundrels, and outright criminals for “leaders.” This is but another of God’s wake-up calls—if you’re listening!

Ted

Ted, the problem is how the people vote, not the fact that they do. Under Israel’s theocracy, the people voted. “And the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah” (2 Sam. 2:4a). We the people can (and do) sin in our voting. But we don’t sin by voting.

In “Hot Take,” your “simple fact—when it starts happening, you will have no idea why it is happening,” is the same fact the church is facing in too many areas. For instance, in the PCA’s (my denomination) debate over the role of women in the church; it seems like while the enemies of God are surrounding us in their attacks on the culture and the church—picking us off one at a time, we debate Phoebe’s role in the early church. Likewise, we seem to be succumbing to worldly counsel on racism where whites, and white racism, are responsible for the spiritual, economic, or social status of blacks today; thus we engage in navel-gazing while the culture and the church is being split across racial, ethnic, cultural, and economic lines. Any suggestions, in addition to preaching, praying, and blogging, for waking up the church?

Bill

Bill, right. As things in our culture continue to deteriorate, one of the things that deteriorates first is our ability to understand the processes of deterioration.

In this whole mess, I’ve been saddened by all the Christians who balk at my bringing up the standard of witnesses. They come up with all kinds of hypothetical situations where the guilty would go free and isn’t that awful? But most don’t have an answer from Scripture or even try to explain why that standard wouldn’t apply. One pastor friend pointed out the law of a betrothed woman raped in the country though. Care to address that?

Johnny

Johnny, that law presupposes that the fact of intercourse has occurred. There is no dispute over the fact of it. If it was consensual, they both are executed. If she denies that it was, then she has the presumption of innocence. But if he denies “ever having seen that woman,” then the requirement of two or three witnesses would hold.

“Hot Take” on Alabama and the larger cultural implications Doug, This is an excellent, astute, and biblical hot take for hot takes. Most hot takes focused on blaming the other guy. Your hot take takes the identities and grievances of both sides out of the equation and analyzes the culture in light of this election. What are the larger implications to American culture that the Republican and Conservative intelligentsia are going to miss, while learning all the wrong lessons? How will the result of this election effect those of us who hold to an explicitly Christian politics, and frankly a Christian theocracy? If it will affect the explicitly Christian political movement at all? What should the next steps of explicitly Christian Reformers be in the wake of an election loss like this? How do we avoid succumbing to the pressures to compromise with the ruling class of secular theocrats under some guise of “traditional American values?”

Trey

Trey, in my mind the key to what will happen in the mid-terms will be the economy. If the economy takes off like a rocket ship (as a consequence of tax reform), then we have a shot at electing more conservatives. But social conservatives need to learn biblical economics, and the rightful place of free markets in a free republic. This requires what I have elsewhere called theocratic libertarianism.

I have appreciated your comments on the Moore situation as a counterbalance to the frenzy of judgment. However, you have said that Moore could discredit himself by being inconsistent in his statements, and it seems to me that his statements to Sean Hannity were inconsistent in such a way. How do you read those statements as not disqualifying Moore’s denial?

Ian

Ian, I regard them as a possible disqualification. There were troubling discrepancies reported, certainly. But they were reported by a hostile media in the midst of a deeply rancorous campaign. And it is worth mentioning that the witnesses with really damning details had credibility problems themselves, and the women who did not have credibility problems did not share anything particularly damning.

Quick question for you, Pastor Wilson: So, public elections aren’t the same thing as court trials. I agree that there may be a lot of dirty tactics going on, but if this kind of thing happened to a ministerial candidate, where the character matters quite a bit, wouldn’t we at least delay the ordination process to do some digging? In other words, would it be a fair process if we disallowed people currently under some sort of criminal investigation from participating in elections? I could see a possible side effect of this being only to encourage nobbling your opponent as the election nears by spreading slander – but if we added the additional proviso that the entire election gets put on hold (even the unaccused candidates) while the investigation happens, then wouldn’t that eliminate that concern?

Carson

Carson, but that would create an incentive for an incumbent who did not want to leave office to promulgate the slander (or true story). Obama could have remained in office by circulating stories about both Trump and Hillary. Somebody has to govern in the meantime, and whoever that is would have a perverse incentive.

I still can’t believe Doug thinks 35 independent testimonies that tell the same coherent story about Roy Moore, that he didn’t even deny initially, is somehow illegitimate and lacking in credibility. The people in Moore’s life knew he dated kids and he said as much when he said that he never dated a kid without her mother’s permission. This confirmed pattern lends credence to independent accusations where Moore sought to take what little oversight was over these girls away. How does this still baffle Doug? As to the timing, the greater the power, the greater the responsibility and the greater the scrutiny. This is the absolutely right amount of scrutiny because we need to screen these guys out of positions of authority. If someone were say up for eldership and a number of girls from the congregation came out with independent and wholly verifiable allegations except for the explicit acts themselves what would Doug Wilson do? Defend him bitterly for some reason and when voted down say, “well now every credible pedophile won’t become an elder”

To the extent that things could be known in this case they were known. Disappointed to see Doug, however unfairly treated in the press, treating every person vilified as if they were as innocent as he is. You’ll note he’s not coming to the defense of the Hollywood types who also created systems that took their victims away from critical and parental eyes. Say the magic words of identity and Doug Wilson will be your champion. Make sure it’s his identity, play to his ego and impersonate his manner. Bloviate, say the law doesn’t matter only God and then do whatever you want with the kids. I spit. Doug has been tricked before and continues to be tricked by these jackals.

Matt

 Hi, Matt. Please see the reply to Ian above. I entirely believe that Roy Moore dated teenagers. But I do not believe that a date = sexual activity.

Dear Pastor Wilson: I listened to your CRF talk entitled Dealing with the Crisis of a Victim Culture (November 8, 2017). Your explanation of Deuteronomy 17:6 was particularly insightful. As a deputy prosecutor, I would suggest to you two corollaries to the Biblical “two-witness” principle, both related to the second witness (W2). The first corollary is that W2 does not have to be a person. Let me give you an example. Late one night, an elderly woman (Witness One (W1)) heard a strange noise coming from the bedroom down the hall. She quietly got out of bed, tip-toed down the hall, opened the door and flipped on the light. She saw her grandson (defendant) brutally stabbing his father with a large kitchen knife. Startled, the grandson dropped his knife, cutting his own hand in the process. He ran out of the room leaving his dead father, the murder weapon, and a shocked W1. But the other “witness” in the room was the DNA the grandson left all over the knife-handle. So when the case was charged, I had one eye-witness (a person) and all the forensic science available to establish that the blood (physical evidence) on the knife-handle belonged to the grandson. Moses didn’t have a crime lab when he wrote Deuteronomy. The other corollary is that W2 can be the defendant himself. Continuing with my example, the grandson gave a confession to the detective. He said he had been harboring resentment for his father for years. He said he finally cracked, and then confessed to the stabbing. If I didn’t have the grandson’s DNA, I still would have charged the case because I had two witnesses: An independent, eye-witness (W1) and another witness, the defendant himself (W2). Of course, this confession assumes that all the protections against a coerced confession were in place and followed. I mention these corollaries because many Christians read Deuteronomy 17:6 and think there must be two independent eye-witnesses, who personally observe the crime with their own physical senses. I don’t think that is what Deuteronomy 17:6 is driving at. What is necessary is at least one witness and some sort of corroboration.

Thank you for putting your talks and sermons online. I enjoy listening to them when I travel to and from the University of Idaho, where my youngest son is a student. By the way, I like the new comment submission protocol. It makes us think before we write.

J. Bradley

Yes, I agree entirely. The principle to be followed is that of independent corroboration. This can be done with forensic evidence, surveillance cameras or, in some cases, circumstantial evidence.

Dear Pastor Wilson, Regarding your last statements in “How Then Shall We Praise or Blame?”: nope; for sure; I’m not tired of it—please keep ‘em coming. I really appreciate your insights on this (and many other topics) and for noting Robert Gagnon’s piece. I used to follow TGC (especially Joe Carter) but no longer find that site worth my time. For theological content (and culture analysis), I pretty much restrict my reading to your blog and desiringGod.org . I certainly realize that there exists good content elsewhere (even in TGC); I just don’t have the time (or the tolerance) to have to sift through all the . . . um . . . not so good content. Thank you.

Paul

Paul, thanks for the kind words.

Doug, The comparison with King may be helpful to show hypocrisy of inconsistency in the affections of certain Christian leaders, but it is a red herring in the discussion of weighing evidence and voting for Moore. Many of us (I assume I’m not the only one) who believe the prudent course is to abstain from elevating Moore, based on a combination of the charges against him, his weasel-worded reply, and his conspiratorial and fearmongering approach to the accusations and media coverage, would never elevate King to any position of power. King, if he is to be honored at all, he should be considered a “great man” who shifted the world through his agency, not as an orthodox Christian exemplar. A Thomas Paine, not a Wilberforce. Indeed King was not orthodox at all, this should be well known to The Gospel Coalition: http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/nov_dec_09_scofield

Demo

Demo, Time’s Person of the Year can be simply an influential figure, like Hitler (1938), or Stalin (1939, 1942). But King has been elevated to the position of national hero. We have a national holiday in his honor. He is being held up as an exemplar, far more than a sitting senator would be. It seems to me that our standards ought to be far higher for an honor like this, not significantly lower.

Next Big Women’s March

On your Next Big Women’s March Quayle v Wilson I think we all know Dan Quayle was right. But he came off goofy, as I recall. What did you make of him? Maybe it was MSM’s framing. What I never really got, back in the day, were the words of well-spoken Christian thinkers who could nail the argument. I grew up with Rushdoony, then later that other media Rush—both of whom were / are effective, for sure. But neither could quite hit on all the right cylinders. Lately I’ve been reading David Bentley Hart. I think that’s getting closer to the bone. Read much of him?

Eric

Eric, I have read some of Hart’s stuff. He doesn’t really float my boat.

Doug, you might need someone to show you the definition of the word “brief.” But other than that, this may be one of your most prophetic blog posts to date. Well said. Your comment, “This would include, for example, those tribunals run by colleges that have not the earthliest idea what might constitute due process,” made me think of all the articles that David French has written explaining the erroneous nature of colleges dealing with “rape culture.” And then read him rush to judgment on matters like with Roy Moore. I’m beginning to wonder if there are only a few, that can be counted on one hand, Christians who can actually claim consistency in applying Scripture and biblical values.

Trey

Trey, brief is a comparative term.

Typo Time

Thank you for the insight. Just wanted to point out that Claire Berlinski’s name ends in “i”, not “y”. Blessings, and thank you for your consistent move toward the truth of the Gospel.

James

James, this is yet another reminder of my many faults.

Coffee Cup

I just saw the coffee cup for sale and hopefully my husband won’t miss the post. You really should have put your caricature on the opposite side from the dog. “The best part of waking up is Pope Doug on your cup.” I say that with pure affection. Hope you and your family have a very merry Christmas!

Amanda

Amanda, and that is precisely why I shouldn’t do anything like that. But merry Christmas all the same.

Grove City Objections

Dear Pastor Wilson, In response to “Conservative Colleges That Don’t Conserve”: As a recent graduate of Grove City College, I share your dismay over Dr. Throckmorton’s recent writings. But to throw the entire institution under the bus, as you do, is distinctly unfair. Throckmorton represents an extreme minority at Grove City. As a quantitative indicator, the Nashville Statement bears more signatures (15) from the Grove City administration and faculty than from any other college or university. The college regularly invites chapel speakers such as Christopher Yuan to defend the biblical teaching on marriage and sexuality. The administration persistently refuses to allow a group for “LGBT dialogue” to meet on campus. And Princeton Review recently listed gave the college the #1 ranking on its list of “Least LGBTQ-Friendly Schools.” Although Grove City has its flaws, its overall trajectory in recent years has been toward greater consistency and conservatism. You say you write to strengthen, not weaken, the hand of the faithful. But to characterize the college as only “ostensibly conservative” misleads your readers and discourages the vast majority of orthodox faculty and students fighting the good fight at Grove City.

Philip

Philip, thanks. I really do want to strengthen the hand of the fine and faithful believers there at Grove City. But to point out that a righteous reputation can be easily damaged, and is being damaged, is not being unfair. Throckmorton really does teach there, and he continues to do what he is doing. What does it say when students are not permitted their LGBT dialogue, but the faculty may pursue it?  

Postmill Danger

Bro. Doug, The practical problem with the postmillennial view, rarely acknowledged, is that at some point, religion must take over the government, which means telling everybody how to live and enforcing it. We have the Bible that tells you how to live, and now we own the police who tell you, “or else.” The current fanaticism on the American left (its absolute self-assurance and its near instantaneous resort to violence when being resisted) is just vestigial post-millennial habits coinciding with widespread apostasy from Christianity. But the biblical truth is that apostasy is a recurring fact of life, and it will remain so until the parousia. Evil men and seducers will wax worse and worse, not get better and better. American Christians should have foreseen for that and prepared for it. This didn’t happen because postmillennial presuppositions blind people to the inevitability of apostasy. We’re the mountain filling the whole world for Jesus, aren’t we? And we’re starting right here!

And they are dangerously close to taking it over.

Bro. Steve

Steve, there is a lot to address here. Without Jesus, postmillennialism is a true hazard. But that is true of everything, isn’t it? If we lose the power of the gospel, we have nothing. Triumphalism is barren without Christ. But so is defeatism.

Basic Calvinism

Pastor Doug, This question doesn’t pertain to this post, but I asked this once on Ask Doug and never heard back. I wonder what you think about the following issue: How do you connect the Biblical teaching of God hardening people’s hearts with the Biblical teaching of the sinner’s inability to savingly believe? If a sinner is already totally disabled from coming to Christ apart from divine intervention, what need is there for God to harden that sinner’s heart? In this vein, notice the purposive language of Isaiah 6 where God sends Isaiah to harden Israel so that they will not be saved; but of course this implies that without such hardening they might be saved; but what possibility is there for them to be saved when total inability already obtains? Unless we are to envision these two realities as actually being the same thing from different angles (so one could suggest that inability actually arises ultimately from divine hardening, not merely from spiritual corruption, which would bring the two ideas together), I don’t understand how they can both be true. Appreciate your thoughts here.

Dave

Dave, I take such expressions as making it manifestly plain that such people are without excuse. I don’t think Pharaoh had the capacity to repent before the first plague, which then he gradually lost. I believe he was already hard, and all the plagues just hardened him further. God did it this way so that God’s name could be glorified in all the earth (Rom. 9:17).

What Gives?

It has been shown to homosexual people’s brains more resemble the brains of people of the opposite gender. So how would you respond to the idea that the brain is more central to the person than the genitals, and therefore a more accurate determiner of sexuality? Christians make the argument that physical attributes determine gender, but the brain is just as physical as genitals, and much more a part of who someone is than the genitals. Furthermore, many people are born with mixed genitals, which doesn’t sit very well with the conservative idea that there is a clear line between genders, and there are only two, and that your gender is determined by your genitals at birth. I believe, as I’m sure you do, that we live in a complex world, and that a simplistic response that has been the conservative go to response for this issue does not fully accept the complexity of the world and this issue, as people born with mixed genitals clearly show. Now furthermore, even if you believe that gay marriage is wrong, why do you think it should be illegal? Most conservative Christians, and I believe you are in that number, are antifederalist. You don’t want the government to tell you who you have to bake a cake for, or much of anything else. You think they do a fantastic job of building roads and suggesting that you don’t eat poison, but would rather that they stay out of your life, and not tell you what is right and wrong. So should this mindset not infer that whether or not you believe it is wrong, it should be legal? Who is the government to decide what is right? Should they tell you that your kids can’t have communion wine because that is underage alcohol consumption? Of course not. We also, like it or not, are no longer a Christian nation, and can’t expect everyone to adhere to all Christian values. The government does a lot of things well, but controlling morality, historically, has worked out terribly, and leads to a totalitarian type of state.

Malik

Malik, you say “totalitarian” as though that would be wrong. But that implies a moral standard that governs us all, rulers included. What standard is that? As a Christian, I believe that it should be the correct standard.

 Yes. There are people with mixed genitals, but that should not govern our laws, any more than other birth defects might. The brain is obviously physical, but the meaning of its physical configuration is more subject to misinterpretation than the old school approach—“it’s a boy!” (Gen. 4:1).

Comments on Comments

The advantage is that we will be done with trolls and/or unhelpful commenters. Not much of an advantage. I suppose the logic would also serve to terminate your Twitter and Facebook accounts, or at least remove all comments? Here’s the thing: Influential people require accountability. Echo chambers are dangerous even when the echoes are saying all the right things. I can recall numerous occasions where your post sounded well-reasoned, but under scrutiny it fell apart. You attempted to say, for instance, that Paul considered Judaizers his brothers and worked with them, and I corrected you on this. You suggest that having believing children is the intended understanding of the biblical text when it says “faithful,” but the parallel text makes it clear that “faithful” here means “obedient.” You could disagree (and you’d be wrong to do so), but when you boldly speak to a large audience as authoritative and influential, silencing reasonable voices is not helpful. The first to state his case, etc. Removing comments does not protect anyone, because I am not obligated to read or engage comments I do not like any more than your nay-sayers are obligated to read or engage your blog. On the other hand, an email allows you to filter comments, which requires trust on our part and time and integrity on yours. Which comments will you choose to publicly display? It also removes the ability for your audience to engage each other, which is where much of the usefulness of your blog is. Removing comments also serves to discourage commenters. Email is a nice barrier, but it also makes me think, “What’s the point?” Surely others are on board with me. I believe the accountability and transparency issues are primary. I am not so concerned about community or providing a way for people to spend their free time, but I am concerned that you and others like you protect yourselves—deliberately or otherwise—from dissent, from reasonable disagreement and objective correction, while clinging to the influence you have and desire. John Piper serves as a prime example of how a man can become too protected by his circle of yes-men, by his reputation, by his believing his own PR and refusing to be publicly accountable for his massive public influence. Mark Driscoll is a different and more extreme example of this same thing. If you simply want to use a megaphone to shout your views to the world, you are free to do so. But you are harming yourself and your audience by removing the ability to engage and hold you accountable, to help others to think about things. Trolls don’t harm anyone. And if you’re so concerned about trolls, who can only melt snowflakes and only waste the time of people who willfully engage them, then consider IP banning instead.

Mike

Mike, thanks for the feedback. Thanks for the accountability, which continues on at this site, unimpeded. I think we have reached a good compromise with this system, and please remember you can comment a couple times a week.

Thank you!!!!! Long overdue IMO.

Jay

Jay, you are most welcome.

Russell Moore

Good day Pastor Wilson;

You have been trying to counsel Russell Moore for quite some time it seems. Thank you for that effort! Initially after the Nov 2016 election I was surprised by and not supportive of some SBC pastors wanting to reprimand Moore for basically being a Never Trumper. But I recently learned that the ERLC is pushing a Soros backed open borders group (see below links)! Ah, that greatly changes things for me. I am sure Al Mohler will not criticize or counsel Moore publically. But when should SBC churches withhold funding from the SBC and ERLC? If Moore is pushing for anti-American open border policies in collaboration with Marxist revolutionaries that would be enough for me to seek his resignation (I am not a member of the SBC church). What are your thoughts?

I just submitted this essay (see attachment) to the elders of my church . . . it included this paragraph:

Evangelical leaders who fail to understand the times while highlighting good things such as missions or racial reconciliation or mercy ministries or creation stewardship may find themselves easily infiltrated by and taking the side of the revolutionaries who seek to divide us in this ongoing Marxist-driven cultural war.  If this continues, I fear what will happen among evangelical churches . . . they too will lose the gospel.  I am sure most mainline Protestant leaders if asked 50 years ago could not have imagined what destructive consequences and impact liberalism has had on their once vibrant churches. The devil continues to prowl searching for someone to devour (1Pet 5:8). May we stand guard and protect the flock from deception and compromise; may we continually search for truth.  I will finally close with just one example of an evangelical organization that has lost its way. Russell Moore at the Southern Baptist ERLC is needlessly pushing a divisive progressive agenda.

Certainly, reasonable people even involved in missions can agree that sound immigration public policy is a necessity as Sen. Tom Cotton proposes.

Blessings,

Darin

P.S. Our family recently enjoyed watching your son’s “The River Thief” together.

Darin, thanks for the comments on the movie. On withholding funds because of “Soros-backed” collusion, let me say this (as one non-Southern Baptist to another). I would want to see all such allegations independently confirmed. The principles that apply to one Moore apply to other Moores also. And at least one of your links invites the need to cross-check.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
131 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ben
Ben
4 years ago

Regarding Russell Moore’s involvement in the (((Evangelical Immigration Table))), see the below link:

http://evangelicalimmigrationtable.com/influential-signatories/

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Ben

Ben, is the Evangelical Immigration Table made up of (((Jews))) or is it merely sympathetic to (((Jewish))) viewpoints? I have encountered the triple parenthesis meme only on websites like Andrew Anglin’s Daily Stormer. It seems grossly out of place on a Christian site. As you have already made your dislike of Jews abundantly clear, could you now stop using the meme here, in courtesy to those of us who find it morally repulsive?

Ben
Ben
4 years ago
Reply to  Douglas Wilson

Actually, I would argue that from their perspective it is quite a good idea, as it serves the purpose of diminishing the power and influence of whites in their own countries, something the Jews are open about wanting.

Ilíon
Ilíon
4 years ago
Reply to  Douglas Wilson

It’s popular amongst the leftists who call themselves “alt-right”. Somehow, that fact that Thus-and-Such leftist’s grandparents were Jewish is the most pertinent fact about him, far more important than the fact that he’s a leftist.

Ben
Ben
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

I never said I disliked Jews. All I’m doing is identifying Jews and Jewish organizations. I’m providing information, nothing more. How people handle that information is up to them.

Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Ben

Ben, it is nice that you don’t dislike the Jews. Why then is it important to provide information about which people and organizations are Jewish or have fallen under so-called Jewish influence? Why then is it important that you help people to connect dots and arrive at certain conclusions? Why then do you assume that every Jew is part of a monolithic conspiracy to diminish the power of whites such as yourself?

Gee, Ben, it kind of makes me wonder what you would say if you really didn’t the Jews.

Ilíon
Ilíon
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Because the fact that certain leftists had Jewish grandparents is far more important than that they are leftists.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Ilíon

What I find inexplicable is that, if a group of people sincerely believe that Jews as a monolithic entity are using their Ashkenazi genes and superior resources to bring misery to “white” nations, why do they so vehemently oppose intermarriage between Jews and gentiles? Intermarriage has significantly diversified American Jews and made them much more similar to their gentile neighbors. Why is this not a welcome development?

If I disapproved of a particular ethnic group, I would be pleased to see the dilution and weakening of traits I found objectionable.

Ilíon
Ilíon
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

It’s not about reason, it’s about hatred … ultimately, hatred of “the God of Abraham”.

Ben
Ben
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

We just don’t want them here, period. Suppose I decide to take one for the team by marrying a Jewish woman and having a kid with her. Well, the kid is still going to be a half Jew, and I’m not any more fond of that idea than I am of having a kid who’s half black.

Ben
Ben
4 years ago
Reply to  Ben

Right, because everyone gets to be ethnocentric except for whites.

Jane
Jane
4 years ago
Reply to  Ben

I realize there are exceptions, but every Jewish person I’ve ever known has been white, so this is all very confusing.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Jane

Jane, you are being deceived. Goldie Hawn and Daniel Radcliffe may look white, but this is merely part of their Jewish cunning. Fooled by their pale skin and blue eyes, you might decide to shelter them from Cossacks leading pogroms, and then what? They will steal your daughters’ lunch money and their legacy spots at Harvard. , So because you are such a nice lady, I will give you the inside dope. No matter how golden the locks, check for the 666 under the hairline. Of course, if they are a mischling like my own darling Gretl from the Shtetl,… Read more »

Kilgore T. Durden
Kilgore T. Durden
4 years ago
Reply to  Jane

Historically, white has been the label for Northern Europeans. Jews are from Palestine and the wider Middle East. Depending on the person, their skin can be pretty light, but genetically Jews are closer to Arabs than English or Frenchmen.

Ben
Ben
4 years ago
Reply to  Jane

It doesn’t matter whether they look white to you; what matters is how they perceive themselves. If they perceive themselves as a distinct ethnicity with a distinct set of interests, then we must view them the same. Especially if acting upon their own interests typically involves harming white children.

Jane
Jane
4 years ago
Reply to  Ben

Yes, they are a distinct ethnicity. So are Germans, Italians, and Welsh. They’re still all white. Those are not mutually exclusive concepts.

I don’t know when people wanting their kids to grow up safe and successful and be full participants in society started harming white children, but, whatever.

Kilgore, historically, Semites were included among Caucasians regardless of appearance. It just depends which “historical,” and yet ultimately arbitrary, line you want to draw, I guess.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Ben

Ben, whites as a category covers a lot of territory. It sounds to me as if you want to live surrounded by people whose values and traditions are mirror images of your own. Are you prepared to tolerate the noisy insouciance of Italian Catholics? The joie de vivre and laid back ways of the Portuguese? Or does your definition of white actually mean Protestants of British, Germanic, and Nordic descent? Why do you think that they would choose to live with you ?

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Jill, The desire to live with people whose values and traditions mirror your own is a deeply human desire and, in itself, it isn’t disordered. We live in a world hollowed by the “univeral” public culture which has decondensed many of our cultural expressions and had no time for thick human relations. Even the most cosmopolitan people can’t escape the feeling of anomie in modern life. The ‘alt-right’ folks are disordered, they focus on shallow externalities, but they are responding to a real problem, a sense of despair and rootlessness that infects many. We have to come up with a… Read more »

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

I have I remember not to use links. I wrote a semi-long comment to you, but it is in moderation.

TL;DR version: community is good and necessary, it presupposes a degree of shared culture, the lack of said shared culture produces alienation and despair. We need to find ways to encourage the formation of strong human bonds and contexts that aren’t centered around the preferences of individuals.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Ben

And his incisive wit and humor.

Micael Gustavsson
Micael Gustavsson
4 years ago
Reply to  Ben

Who is ”we”?

JohnM
JohnM
4 years ago
Reply to  Ben

Well, Ben, they’re here, and will continue to be, whether you like it or not. There are more people who don’t want white nationalists here, period, then there are white nationalists, so, deal with it.

Ben
Ben
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

It’s important in the same way that it’s important for people to understand the truth about blacks. When I point out the fact that blacks are on average less intelligent, more violent, and more impulsive than whites, it’s not out of hatred for blacks. It’s because I care about the truth, and I want to help white people better deal with the pain of having blacks in our society. So it goes with the Jews, only it’s even more important in my opinion, since black dysfunction is relatively easy to see, whereas Jewish malevolence has been obscured (intentionally, of course)… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Ben

” I want to help white people better deal with the pain of having blacks in our society. “ How incredibly benevolent of you. I live in a multiracial neighborhood, and I have not encountered people who claim to have experienced this pain. I would, however, have trouble dealing with the pain of living around people who think as you do. Such simplistic patterns of thought, such uncritical acceptance of the racial musings of sociopaths like David Duke, such lack of awareness of fundamental human decency–yes, all these things would cause me pain. Jewish malevolence? You claim to find malevolence… Read more »

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Did you see the profile of Anglin in The Atlantic? It was obviously a hostile source, but I found it an interesting, well-written read.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

I will look for it.

In the Daily Stormer style guide (a fascinating and horrifying document), Anglin writes:
“I actually do want to gas kikes, but that is neither here nor there.” I would hope that any profile of him in a magazine intended for healthy people would be written by a hostile source.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

Demo, I read the article. I do not want to have to feel sorry for this person!!

He sounds to me like an example of teen-onset schizoid personality in conjunction with far too many mind-altering drugs. I doubt that even he knows what he truly believes. A kid who was slightly more attractive might never have gone down that road. But I can’t get past the meanness and the willingness to terrorize the innocent–that’s malice,not craziness.

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

He is a lost kid, like Ben. Unfortunately real life is so stifling for a lot of young men that they look for more ‘masculine’ places of belonging. I’m afraid its going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

OKRickety
OKRickety
4 years ago
Reply to  Ben

Ben,

If your usage of triple parentheses is intended for emphasis of the text within them, I suggest you use one of the following alternatives:

<i>Evangelical Immigration Table</i>   results in:    Evangelical Immigration Table

<b>Evangelical Immigration Table</b>    results in:    Evangelical Immigration Table

<b><i>Evangelical Immigration Table</i></b>    results in:    Evangelical Immigration Table

Yes, they are a little more difficult to use, but it would be appreciated by almost everyone.

Ben
Ben
4 years ago
Reply to  OKRickety

But that would defeat the purpose of using them. The point is to name Jewish individuals or organizations either run or heavily influenced by Jews so that people can start connecting dots.

Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Ben

If you believe it is important for the people here to connect those dots, why not be direct in your references? Why not say “The Evangelical Immigration Table is not to be trusted because it has fallen under the influence of Jews” if that is what you truly believe? Then, perhaps someone would ask you why you have a problem with Jewish influences and you could explain how the vast international Jewish conspiracy has blighted your life. All this would be much more honest and direct than borrowing dog whistles from the Andrew Anglin style book (which I read yesterday;… Read more »

OKRickety
OKRickety
4 years ago
Reply to  Ben

Ben, If Jill had not asked about it/explained it, I would still have no idea what the triple parentheses meant. Now that I know, I will generally ignore it as I am far more concerned about the influence of churchians, feminists, etc. than I am the Jews.

Christopher
Christopher
4 years ago
Reply to  Ben

By dots you mean (((dots))) right?
Would you say that (((Donald Trump))) decided to move the US embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv due to pressure from the (((White House)))?

Kilgore T. Durden
Kilgore T. Durden
4 years ago
Reply to  Ben

Hey Ben, I have to admit to being intrigued by your posts, though I don’t associate with anything Alt-Right. (Being a grumpy old man who doesn’t get out much does that to people.) I generally support Israel’s right to be their own nation, and I find the “Jews control the media” shtick to be a tad off-putting, especially when you see the other Alex Jones like ideas that usually accompany the people who promote it. I think having Jewish influence in Palestine to be immensely better than anything the Muslims can offer, even though I am categorically not dispensational or… Read more »

Ben
Ben
4 years ago

You can read “The Culture of Critique” by Kevin MacDonald. I don’t agree with everything he says about the evolutionary origins of Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism, seeing as how I’m a creationist, but it will definitely help you understand Jewish psychology and motivations a lot better.

Also, you can see this link, or really anything on the Occidental Observer.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/10/02/the-jewish-origins-of-the-open-borders-movement/

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Ben

I disagree with their premise, and I think that “evolutionary psychology” is about as meaningful as astrology as a field of academic inquiry. Nonetheless, if three percent of America’s population was able to hoodwink the remaining 97% into opening the borders, doesn’t that tell us more about the intelligence and gullibility of the 97 than about the malevolent cunning of the 3? Do you really believe that your beloved white people are such fools?

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
4 years ago

Re: “What Gives?”

What’s with Malik’s obsession with homosexuality?

Malik
Malik
4 years ago

A better question is what is Doug’s obsession with it.

OKRickety
OKRickety
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

It’s hardly any more of an obsession than those prattling on about the allegations against Roy Moore. Per the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. That is adequate reason to “obsess” about it.

Your letter was disappointing. I do not see any “reasonable Christian fact based reasons” for your stance.

Malik
Malik
4 years ago
Reply to  OKRickety

Fair, and if it is wrong I see good reason to address it. However no one, especially not Doug has answered my question even remotely to satisfaction. I’ll respond to his response later when I have time. Also I have seen very weak support for God hating homosexuality. Furthermore I think Doug blows it completely out of perportion even if it is wrong.

JohnM
JohnM
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Malik,
Tell us more about the very weak support for God hating homosexuality (you do get points for using the term) which implies you see some kind of support posited for God hating homosexuality. What is it, and why do you think it is weak?

OKRickety
OKRickety
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Malik, “Also I have seen very weak support for God hating homosexuality.” The Bible consistently tells us that homosexuality is a sin. See Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. It does not get much clearer than these verses: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” [ 1 Cor. 6:9,10 NASB] If you consider that to be “very… Read more »

Malik
Malik
4 years ago
Reply to  OKRickety

I’ve heard other translations that translate that differently, I’d have to hear an analysis of the Greek. Honestly most people point to a verse about male fornicators, which isn’t the same thing, and some other mildly related verses. I’ll go look up the ones you provided later on. I’m surprised Doug didn’t site them if they are this clear.

bethyada
bethyada
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Is adultery a good thing between consenting adults?

Malik
Malik
4 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

No, for sure not

bethyada
bethyada
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Agreed.

So our desires do not dictate morality, even with consent.

So why do we think gay men are exempt for God’s sexual requirements.

JohnM
JohnM
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Malik, the NASB is considered to be a very good English translation, as word for word accurate as it is possible to be, perhaps the most accurate English translation available. A good translation *is* an analysis of the Greek. The KJV, NKJV, ESV, just to name a few better known, more commonly used versions, do not present us with a different meaning. The NIV and NLT, which are intentionally a little less word for word, do not tell us something different either. It is implausible that all the translators responsible for those several translations, and others I haven’t listed, got… Read more »

Malik
Malik
4 years ago
Reply to  JohnM

I use ESV and NKJV

JohnM
JohnM
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

If you use the ESV and NKJV, and those are also good translations to use, then you see that they also translate 1 Cor. 6:9-10 in a way that confirms the point OKRickety was making.

OKRickety
OKRickety
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Malik,

The Greek word arsenokoitēs (Strong’s G733) is commonly translated as homosexual. Do your research on those. Honestly, I fully expect you will believe those who say this does not mean homosexuality generally but it instead means some tiny subset considered to be nonexistent today, or some entirely different meaning (e.g. “male fornicators”).

I’d be surprised if Doug has not sited cited those verses in multiple posts, but I think his post The Death Penalty as Our Only Hope is a good explanation of the reasons homosexuality is sin.

Malik
Malik
4 years ago
Reply to  OKRickety

Okay, so I read that article, and honestly found it more convincing of my side than his. It was less weak support than him just kind of reaching really far and making unrelated points. Definitely a reach.

OKRickety
OKRickety
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Malik, You consider that post of Wilson’s to be reaching. That is what I expected of you. In other words, you will continue to believe that Christian belief (of nearly 2000 years) regarding homosexual activity as sin is wrong, instead supposing that a subset of scholars(?) and thinkers(?) have today attained the true understanding of God’s will on the subject. I consider your position to be untenable for a Christian. Since you don’t think Wilson’s post is good support for the traditional teaching, I recommend you research further and look for other defenses of it. Perhaps you will find them… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Hi Malik, as Christian old ladies go I am pretty sympathetic to gays, and I certainly don’t want to see gay sexual activity recriminalized. As a Catholic, I don’t have to see the basic orientation as sinful (although objectively disordered) although I do have to believe that gays, like everyone else, are required to avoid sinful sexual acts. I have a basic tendency to want the young people to be happy all the time, and if I could find a way to make gay sex (or fornication or adultery) unsinful (and harmless to people, physically and emotionally, I might jump… Read more »

Ilíon
Ilíon
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

“… If that were so, why would I think it trustworthy about other kinds of sin?”

Ultimately, that’s the point/goal, isn’t it?

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Ilíon

I think it is entirely the point. One that I prefer not to think about!

Unless I concede that the rules about loving your neighbor, being honest in your dealings, telling the truth, and behaving justly and bravely (all the virtues I really like) no longer bind us as Christians, I can’t say that the rules about sex are wrong. And they can’t be compartmentalized, even if we wish they could. Adultery is a sin against justice and honor as well as against chastity.

Malik
Malik
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Those are really good points. The one thing I would defend my position is that I would definitely think that gay couples would have to follow the exact same rules as strait ones. Other than that, I don’t have an answer except that while doing my monotonous job tomorrow I will be chewing on that.

drewnchick
drewnchick
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

“Strait” means a narrow channel of water between two masses of land. “Straight” means not crooked or, in Modernese, heterosexual. Now, with that out of the way, Jilly is not simply making good points. She is applying Scripture to bear upon her own life. By wrestling through a consistent application of ALL Scripture, she has honestly admitted to not liking what the Bible has to say about certain things while also confessing the need to take every thought captive unto the obedience of Christ. Chew on the fact that if you are attempting to conform Scripture to your way of… Read more »

Jane
Jane
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Which would require them decoupling from lifelong exclusive relationships and never having sex, since those things are only appropriate in marriage, which is biblically unknown among people of the same sex.

adad0
adad0
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Two points Jilly:

1. You and “old” don’t go together, at least in the pejorative sense. ????

2. Jesus is The Word made flesh, from the beginning. Jesus is The Word, Jesus, with Father and Spirit, spoke the universe into existence. In the same way, Jesus spoke all of the admonitions against homosexuality, all sexual sin, and all sin.
Jesus did mention all sexual sin, and spoke against all of it.????

Dave W
Dave W
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

No, a better question is what is a doctor’s obsession with Ebola in the middle of an Ebola outbreak. Sexual insanity calls for sane men to rush to the place and help, i.e. Pastor Doug.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Dave W

Hi Dave, I tend to be soft on homosexuality but your answer made sense to me. So many of us are willing to be Christian as long as no restrictions are placed on our personal sexual inclinations.

kyriosity
kyriosity
4 years ago
Reply to  Dave W

Excellent metaphor.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

You can’t spell “leftist” without P-R-O-J-E-C-T-I-O-N. Malik, in case you haven’t noticed, Doug’s not marching in pride parades; Doug’s not ensuring just about every movie and TV show has at least one homosexual character; Doug’s not forcing the fiction that is “homosexual marriage”; Doug’s not suing every Christian baker, florist, or photographer out of existence because they won’t partake in homosexual “weddings”; Doug’s not celebrating the election (stolen or not) of every homosexual politician; Doug’s not working overtime trying to “define deviancy down”, as the late, great Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it. This is all coming from your side of… Read more »

Malik
Malik
4 years ago

As always very academic. Okay, first, I believe that the left obsesses over something when they think there is a problem, until they think it is fixed. Racial inequality and gay marriage have been two of those. Now, I still believe God ultimately dictates this issue, but I think the issue is more complicated than conservatives tend to make it, and there can be a decent argument, while my side is usually charictarized as only having a relitevistic argument

Malik
Malik
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Also I think everyone can agree even if gay marriage should be illegal there was a problem with homophobia in this country. Kids were commiting suicide because of it.

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

“Also I think everyone can agree even if gay marriage should be illegal there was a problem with homophobia in this country. Kids were commiting (sic) suicide because of it.” And you find Doug uncompelling? This is a really bad argument. Kids (and adults) commit suicide for pretty much every conceivable reason. Some kids do because they make bad grades and think they’ll fail in life or won’t please their parents. Do we ban all testing and grading because of this? Instead of reading 22 media outlets every day (I think that’s what you said), I suggest you read books… Read more »

Malik
Malik
4 years ago
Reply to  JP Stewart

Given that your idea of convincing is Owen Shroyer (LMAO) I’m not really going to try to make myself convincing to you, or listen to what you have to say about argument or logic ????. That guy is like walking whataboutism, which is an informal fallacy by the way.
Now to your argument, no we shouldn’t ban tests but if kids are committing suicide from being bullied about them being gay there definitely is a problem. And that was happening a lot in high schools.

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Who the heck is Owen Shroyer? You just proved my point again, though. Guilt-by-association is another fallacy, and a favorite among SJWs.

Malik
Malik
4 years ago
Reply to  JP Stewart

The reporter for info wars. Either you watch him and defended him in the comments, or someone else with the same initials and profile picture did.

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Where? Which comment?

Malik
Malik
4 years ago
Reply to  JP Stewart

https://youtu.be/Xxriepi9tvg
Such pretty girls. Shame they are liberal snowflakes though is what somebody that looks like you said

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

I’m not sure how you even found that (way too much time on Youtube?), but you’re not even close. Someone named “MatthewP64” said that. His profile pic is a younger Clint Eastwood from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly or other spaghetti western. Mine is from The Outlaw Josey Wales.

I hope your “decent moral compass” will force you to retract that claim.

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago
Reply to  JP Stewart

If you won’t retract it, any fragment of credibility you have here will be gone. There are tens of millions of people on the internet, and tons of them use pictures of celebrities. I’ve seen quite a few similar to mine. There was no reason to think I was commenting about “pretty girls” on an Infowars video–other than to malign me. It doesn’t bother me personally, but it’s the strangest and most far-fetched online accusation I’ve heard. It also fits squarely with the two cardinal rules about SJWs: 1) They always lie 2) They always project If you can’t do… Read more »

Malik
Malik
4 years ago
Reply to  JP Stewart

Ah okay. Btw I spend very little time on the internet in general if that’s relevant at all.
And yes, I retract the claim.
Did you watch any of his stuff?

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Thanks and no, I’ve never watched it.

Malik
Malik
4 years ago
Reply to  JP Stewart

If you haven’t seen him, go watch him. He is the dumbest reporter I’ve ever seen. He is literally a walking bag of fallacy, and terrible at any civilized speech.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Malik, both as a parent and former teacher, I loathe bullying with every fiber of my being. It was the one kind of student misconduct that was guaranteed to turn this reasonably gentle person into Torquemada, the Grand Inquisitor. Gay kids, like any other kids who deviate even slightly from middle school norms, were and are a target. Schools must be vigilant about detecting and punishing bullies, but I really don’t see how legalizing gay marriage changes the mindset of the kind of kid who is hellbent on persecuting perceived outsiders. Nor does it really help the problem of super-vulnerable… Read more »

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Oh, so it’s okay when the left obsesses over homosexuality, becuase “homophobia”. Got it. Now, I still believe God ultimately dictates this issue, but I think the issue is more complicated than conservatives tend to make it, and there can be a decent argument… God said homosexuality is an abominable sin. Jesus, being God, defined marriage this way: “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?… Read more »

Malik
Malik
4 years ago

Also I do agree that people shouldnt be forced to do flowers or cakes for the weddings as do many liberal people. I think it’s the decent thing to do to do it for them but I think you have the right not to.

wackytobeme
wackytobeme
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Why is engaging in an immoral act a decent thing to do?

bdash
bdash
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Doug is not obsessed
he is responding to a culture that is obsessed.

Malik
Malik
4 years ago

To this whole thread and Doug: I foundhis answer to be pretty uncompelling. To the first paragraph, you make a fair point, but did not address the main point that I was making. That was that either genitals are a possibly faulty indicator of gender or there are more than two genders. Mixed genitals existing requires this. Now to you finding that the old fashioned method is less open to interpretation, this is a terrible point. If you still maintain the classic Christian position then you are basically saying that yes there may be a more complex picture but because… Read more »

bethyada
bethyada
4 years ago
Reply to  Malik

Genitals can be broken. But if they are not then the mind is broken. When a waif thinks she is fat then her mind must be broken because she is mistaken about her body.

ron
ron
4 years ago

You down with OTT (yeah, you know me)? (forgive me) Trey, “Conservatives” are not any kind of saviors. They’re simply 20 years behind the Progressives in marching away from the philosophical foundations that made #Merica a blessed nation. See how Slick Willy was excused for his Presidential misbehavior in the 90s? Remember the people crying out that “Character Matters”? Go look up Denny Hastert. Reagan gave California the seed money to start the no fault divorce industry. Did you note the outrage from the “Conservatives” in power when Obergefell was ruled on? All the solutions that they offered? What are… Read more »

ron
ron
4 years ago

Malik, Please consider the moral underpinnings of the nation, as having America be post-Christian is as nonsensical as saying that America is post-American: From https://tinyurl.com/jjazflf “Only those ideas, programs and practices, regarding things governmental, which are consistent with the concept that “The Spiritual is supreme” can justly be claimed to be truly American traditionally. Anything and everything governmental, which is in conflict with this concept, is non-American–judged by traditional belief. This applies particularly to that which is agnostic, or atheistic–neutral about, or hostile to, positive and affirmative belief in this concept based upon belief in God as Man’s Creator. There… Read more »

Dave W
Dave W
4 years ago

Pastor Doug, thanks for responding to my Calvinism question. Let me put it this way: What need is there for active hardening of the heart, “lest they should turn,” as Isaiah says, if the doctrine of Total Inability is true? What need is there to harden hearts in people who are already totally unable to come to Christ? It’s like taking a man without limbs and chaining him to a wall to keep him from running; but of course, the chain is superfluous, since his lack of limbs already make running impossible. I’m a Calvinist, by the way, I just… Read more »

Dave W
Dave W
4 years ago
Reply to  Douglas Wilson

But the Isaiah passage itself, along with it’s use by the Gospel writers, indicates the purpose of God hardening hearts is “lest they should turn, and I should heal them.” God’s goal seems to be to prevent repentance and consequent salvation. But what need is there for such preventing, if man is already prevented by his sinful condition?

Nathan James
4 years ago
Reply to  Dave W

Man can respond to the extended grace of God. He can not work to earn favor with God, nor does he seek God, if left to himself. The order is strictly this: God moves first, then man responds (or not). God knows beforehand which way each person will go and under what circumstances. He chooses how to deal with each of us according to his own purposes. This means extending unequal grace, and hardening or blinding some.

Dave W
Dave W
4 years ago
Reply to  Nathan James

“Man can respond to the extended grace of God.” – No, he can’t, unless by “extended grace” you mean grace that unilaterally brings him to life (John 6.44)

“God knows beforehand which way each person will go and under what circumstances.” – True, but this is never used in Scripture as an argument to soften predestination; if this came up anywhere it should have been Romans 9 where Paul’s hypothetical objector was charging God with unfairness. Instead, Paul tells the objector to stick a sock in it.

Nathan James
4 years ago
Reply to  Dave W

I’m not softening predestination at all. I’m pointing out that preaching repentance and faith in Christ is the grace of God extended to sinful men. I intend to point out that secondary causes are real causes and that God comports them to his purpose, which is the primary cause.

Nathan James
4 years ago
Reply to  Nathan James

I have been writing some blog posts of my own on predestination and secondary causes. They are not written specifically to Calvinists, but argue 1) that God’s hands are not tied in any way, and 2) that God really does use secondary causes to save, some of which we see and some we only see the results of.

https://greatlight.blog/2017/09/29/a-close-call-part-1/
https://greatlight.blog/2017/10/14/a-close-call-part-2/

Dave W
Dave W
4 years ago
Reply to  Nathan James

Ok. Agreed that secondary causes are real. But I think a more biblically comprehensive way to handle this is to say while preaching is one aspect of God’s grace, the crucial aspect of grace is God’s action to regenerate the sinner, without which the grace of preaching remains ineffective for conversion.

Ilíon
Ilíon
4 years ago
Reply to  Douglas Wilson

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t make sense — * Pharaoh was morally incapable of repenting; * Then — as though Pharaoh were a puppet, or a computer simulation of a moral agent, and not an actual moral agent — God “tweeked” him to make him even more adamant in his not repenting; * Therefore, because *God* hardened Pharaoh’s heart against repentance, God’s judgement on Pharaoh is “manifestly righteous” Goodness, it’s a good thing God treated Pharaoh as though he were not a moral agent … so that he could judge him as though he *were* a moral agent … otherwise,… Read more »

Dave W
Dave W
4 years ago
Reply to  Ilíon

Kinda looks like your problem is with Moses, Jesus and Paul. I don’t know about you but that’s not a trio I care to argue with. God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, period. God did it to show his power (Romans 9.17) and glory (Romans 9.23), period. This kind of teaching is part and parcel of all Scripture. Throw it away and you throw the Bible away; the same Bible Jesus affirms, so we also end up throwing Jesus away.

Ilíon
Ilíon
4 years ago
Reply to  Dave W

Kind of looks like your problem is with Jehovah, who made man in his own image — a rational being, a (free) moral agent — and who calls upon men to *choose* righteousness over sin; to *choose* obedience over rebellion; to *choose* life over death.

If God is the only moral agent in existence, then my rejection of the alleged truth that I am not a moral agent is not me rejecting that perverse and self-contradictory assertion, rather, it’s God rejecting it.

Dave W
Dave W
4 years ago
Reply to  Ilíon

Au contraire, I am a dyed in the wool, card-carrying cheerleader for Jehovah :) I agree man is a rational, free moral agent; but:

1. How God made man is different from what man now is, post-fall.

2. That God tells man to choose, and what will happen if man chooses, are irrelevant to the point; the real question is why one man chooses life and another death. This is where Calvinism gives the biblical (though emotionally difficult) answer. This is also a point consistently missed by the non-Calvinist side.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Ilíon

Llion, it doesn’t make much sense to me either. I read an explanation I found helpful (I should mention that I am not a Calvinist). Do you think it makes a difference that after the first five plagues, it says that Pharaoh (not God) hardened his heart? In other words, God hardens Pharaoh’s heart starting with the sixth plague, after a pretty clear demonstration that Pharaoh has no intention of relenting/repenting. When God tells Moses ahead of time that He will harden Pharaoh’s heart, could this be based on divine foreknowledge? Interestingly, this problem has plagued (ha!) rabbis for centuries.… Read more »

bethyada
bethyada
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

But ultimately I guess it is a sacred mystery, which is Catholic talk for “you’re not going to get this, so just let it go!”

No! The part that seems most difficult or out of place or confusing is often the key to the passage.

Nathan James
4 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

“No! The part that seems most difficult or out of place or confusing is often the key to the passage.”

Specifically, it is often the key to what we are wrong about at the moment we find it confusing.

Ilíon
Ilíon
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Well, Catholicism (which officially denies Calvinism) contains its own “ultra-Calvinism”, as see the rationale for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

(psst: not “LLION”, but “ILION” ee-lee-ohn)

Dave W
Dave W
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Jill, I suggest you have laid your finger on the real issue: “It doesn’t make much sense to me either.” Now Jill, following from an excellent comment you made above: If there are people who will only be Christians so long as they can have whatever sexual freedom they choose, do you suppose there are also people who will only be Christians so long as they can have whatever ideology they choose? One person says, “Keep your hands off my body, God; I’ll have sex with whomever I please.” Another says, “Keep your hands off my view of Human Freedom,… Read more »

bethyada
bethyada
4 years ago
Reply to  Dave W

It seems to me that God hardens those who have rejected him and opens the eyes of those who have responded to him. We see this in God sending a deceiving spirit to Ahab. And also that God sends delusions to those who reject him. We probably best understand Isaiah from Jesus quoting him. Jesus refers to these words after his first parable– the sower. What is the context of this? Isn’t Jesus now saying that he will now only speak in parables? Sometime into his ministry? Early he taught the sermon on the mount. But when Israel rejected him… Read more »

Ilíon
Ilíon
4 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

But, see, that is totally the opposite of Calvinism.

Am I a son of God, and are you a daughter of God, made in the image of God as a rational beings and as moral agents? Or are we simulations of sons and daughters of God, as *real* as The Sims?

Dave W
Dave W
4 years ago
Reply to  Ilíon

Your comment assumes we can’t have predestination *and* humans as rational, moral images of God, but of course this is just what’s being debated. Of course it’s hard for most people to see how these two are true, and even harder to feel them to be true, but if God says it’s true, aren’t we better off submitting even without understanding? That hard predestination is in the Bible should not be up for debate among Christian people; it should be obvious to everyone it’s there. How we piece it together with the rest of Scripture is another matter. As above,… Read more »

Dave W
Dave W
4 years ago
Reply to  bethyada

“It seems to me that God hardens those who have rejected him and opens the eyes of those who have responded to him.” But this doesn’t fit with Paul in Romans 9. The hypothetical objector was asking the very same question some in this thread are, and that would have been the moment for Paul to state your argument; instead, he points first to God dealing like this in history (Pharaoh) and then rebukes the questioner as being culpable for questioning God this way. Paul’s response in Romans 9 seems to be that God is free to do things this… Read more »

Paul
Paul
4 years ago

Every generation is always on the edge of the moral precipice. Where else would we be until Christ returns?

Paul
Paul
4 years ago

And if you read enough history you realize the godly in every generation thought their generation was on the edge of a moral precipice. Nothing new under the sun. Just new to us.

demo
demo
4 years ago

Doug, I don’t know if you misunderstood my point about King, or were extending it. But I absolutely agree that King should not be lionized. He should be an object of study because of his immense influence, but Christians should know that he was unorthodox to the core, and apparently not at all sexually continent either.

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago
Reply to  demo

Does this mean you’re not going to the Gospel Coalitions’s MLK conference? Racist!

In some ways, I find Malcolm X preferable to King:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/their-malcolm-and-mine/

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
4 years ago
Reply to  JP Stewart

Malcolm X is an interesting and enormously attractive figure. The most interesting thing about him is his growth and change over time from bitter (with legitimate grievances) young hooligan, to fervent radical, to a greater understanding in his conversion to Sunni and avowal of a form of reconciliation. It is a shame he died before 40 as he was on a promising arc. It gives me hope for some of the lost boys being drawn to the more malicious strains of the ‘alt-right’ that they may continue to ask questions and inch closed to the truth. I don’t think we… Read more »

demosthenes1d
demosthenes1d
4 years ago
Reply to  demo

After thinking about this a bit more I should add some qualiiers. Discussing individuals and the way they are treated, elevated, etc. is prone to devolve into isolated demands for rigor with regard to people you disagree with for other unstated reasons. For instance, many may be opposed to MLK day because of his rejection of orthodoxy and illicit sexual relationships, but they would be fine with honoring Ben Franklin (say – by putting him on a large denomination bill) even though he was a reprobate who rejected Christianity and engaged in constant adulterous relationships. I think it would be… Read more »

Kilgore T. Durden
Kilgore T. Durden
4 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

Upvote. Very astute observation about Franklin.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

Franklin’s “Advice to a Young Man on the Choice of a Mistress” should have kept him off the currency of a Christian nation! “In all your Amours you should prefer old Women to young ones,” he said because “all cats are gray in the dark.” Really, Benjamin!

OKRickety
OKRickety
4 years ago
Reply to  demosthenes1d

demo, “Likewise, there is a difference between honoring King for the way he shaped the civil rights movement and turning him into a Christian exemplar.” Agreed. However, when a Christian organization honors him for his civil rights work, it would certainly be easy for those ignorant of his sinful behavior to suppose that the organization also considered him to be a fine Christian man as one would expect of a man well known to be an ordained minister. Consequently, I think it would be best for Christian groups to clearly distance themselves from him, avoiding the appearance of supporting one… Read more »

kyriosity
kyriosity
4 years ago

Re J. Bradley’s comments, it may even be just to condemn on the basis of one witness if that witness is confessing to be the perpetrator. In 2 Samuel 1, David puts to death the fellow who boasts of killing Saul, and David’s act does not appear to have garnered any censure…and the guy didn’t even do the deed.

kyriosity
kyriosity
4 years ago

I think the new system is going to better address the concerns Mike’s letter raised. There’s no way anybody could have kept up with all of the comments under the previous system, but judging by Doug’s willingness to respond to several disagreements in the post above and by his participation here in the comments, narrowing the pipeline is proving to be a more efficient means of getting him to interact with objections.

Ian Miller
Ian Miller
4 years ago
Reply to  kyriosity

Excellent point. Some of the really big threads were very cumbersome to try to follow or join.

bdash
bdash
4 years ago
Reply to  kyriosity

I have not figured out how to thumbs up so thumbs up!

Ilíon
Ilíon
4 years ago
Reply to  bdash

You have to be logged in as a “member”, rather than as a “guest”

Eric Stampher
Eric Stampher
4 years ago

Can many religions say many fundamental truths about God?
Doug — I was so sorry to see Hart failed your float test.
Have you actually read any of his stuff?
I agree his videos generally have been more than horrid, production value wise as well as speaking manner.
But his writing — oh my word, how brilliant.

Have you seen the newest interviews videos over at Closer to Truth?
An athiest really slows him down to all our benefit:
https://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/david-bentley-hart/profile

On of my favorites, on How Can Metaphysics Point To God:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw_epidqEgI

Ilíon
Ilíon
4 years ago

re: “trolls”

Would it really have been so difficult for people to Just Ignore Them?

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago
Reply to  Ilíon

“re: ‘trolls’
Would it really have been so difficult for people to Just Ignore Them?”

Yes. One particular troll hijacked every post that had anything to do with male-female roles. In her view, practically all men were wife-beating rapists, while women were near-perfect creatures who only sinned because men led/forced/tempted them into bad situations. She was never completely ignored. If nothing else, newer people would see her comments and interact…and derail the post.

Ilíon
Ilíon
4 years ago
Reply to  JP Stewart

Yes, I know who you’re talking about. And she was able to do that only because others didn’t ignore her once they understood what she was up to.

adad0
adad0
4 years ago

“Doug has been tricked before and continues to be tricked by these jackals.” Matt

Speaking of jackals, Matt, you sound like a guy who watches a lot of CNN. ; – )

My Portion Forever
4 years ago

From A Brief Statement for the Organizers of the Next Big Women’s March “Men are necessarily dominant. That is just the way it is going to be, for the same reason that a bowling ball will crush your foot if dropped on it, and a golf ball won’t. That reason is the non-negotiable fact of the way God made the world. So the choice we have is not men running things v. equality for all. Rather we have a choice between men running things destructively into the ground and men running things constructively into a thriving civilization. ” It’s part… Read more »

Jane
Jane
4 years ago

Because in a sense, it is then their lazy passivity that is still “dominating” the relationship. A relationship where a man is not taking responsibility isn’t merely one where the woman is in charge instead, it forever remains one where the man is failing, with all the consequences of that fact.

richardp
richardp
4 years ago

“… choose to be lazy, passive pigs …” Your inclusion of the word “pigs” suggests you have an axe to grind. Can a man choose to be lazy and passive without also being a pig in your book? (rhetorical question) I can choose to sit still and do nothing, even as others about me are dashing to and fro. My choice to sit still and do nothing is still an act of leadership. If I am ambitiously pursuing tranquility and peace of mind, rather than ambitiouslyl pursuing material wealth, I am still exhibiting ambition. It is quite easy to see… Read more »

richardp
richardp
4 years ago
Reply to  richardp

A comment on leadership I once saw: It is the responsibility of the helper to be behind the leader, wherever the leader is. It is not the responsiblity of the leader to be out in front of the helper, wherever the helper is.

Many folks miss that distinction.

lndighost
lndighost
4 years ago
Reply to  richardp

Richardp, a man cannot be lazy and passive without being sinful. To ambitiously pursue tranquility and peace of mind all sounds very noble, but if a husband and father spends his days dozing in an easy chair instead of running the race marked out for him (whatever that may look like), I daresay I’d take some convincing that his pursuit of tranquility was the best use of his resources. We have all heard of earnest and obedient Christian wives in this quandary: On the one hand, she is told to be quiet and let him do what he likes. On… Read more »