Our Editorial Team Prepares a Response

Enviro-Stewardship

Wow! A “toad-eating sell-out” if you claim our first vocation as gardeners implies stewardship of God’s gift of creation. Some guys get stupid around pretty girls, Pastor Wilson loses his mind when he gets around any discussion of environmental care. The careful, linear logic that I read daily at Blog & Mablog disintegrates into bluster, confusion and straw men. This thinking is decades old, not some aging phenomena. And it isn’t just at this blog, but even the recent Disputatio where your brother, and the audience, ate you alive (politely though). This would be worth just passing by and moving on, but when you see something this hopeless in content, it makes you doubt the veracity of other conclusions found at this site.

DC

DC, good to hear from you again. What I think you are not distinguishing carefully enough is care for the environment, which is a good thing, and claims that policies x, y, z will actually help the environment, which are claims that might be either true or false. It is not that I believe that the state could do us an enormous amount of good by fixing climate change, but that I am opposed to it because I want our habitat wrecked, darn it. No. It is that I believe that they are lying incompetents.

Getting Evangelicals Saved

Keep poking us Evangelicals in the eye. Sadly we need it. “. . . Christians are the 1st group that needs to learn how important Christ is.” This, I think, is tragically spot-on.

Sean

Sean, thanks.

“The evangelicals are the first group that needs to learn that the parliaments of earth need the evangel. We are not going to be able to get secularists out of their secularism until we get out of it. Somebody needs to get all the lifeguards off the bottom of the pool.” The. Money. Shot.

Jim

Jim, thank you.

That Caravan of Refugees

Rush like usual has hit the nail on the head in his analysis on this manufactured crisis and attack on the U.S.  Who benefits?  Yes, I agree it is a political maneuver and someone is behind it . . . paying for the port-a-potties, the food, and transportation.  Yes, there is a political party pushing for open borders. But more specific, I believe it is an attempt by the evil agenda of cultural Marxists to divide and conquer. Who came out in droves to support Trump and help get him into office… against all odds?  It was the Christian and more specifically Evangelical vote. As Pastor/Shepherd Warrior Douglas Wilson has pointed out . . . there is rampant cowardliness within the sick infiltrated and compromised evangelical church in America. There is a vast gap between evangelical leadership and those in the pews. Watch what some Never Trump Christians such as Russell Moore (and numerous others like him) say publically as this caravan gets closer to the border especially if some harm comes their way due to this dangerous stunt . . . I believe many Christian leaders will be exposed and demand they be let in . . . shame on them—they should be disciplined and fired if and when they do so because they are undermining the rule of law.

So my theory is this move is an attempt to suppress the Evangelical vote before the mid-terms . . . including traitor leaders within the Evangelical church who will oppose Trump if he sends troops to the borders. They will cry loudly for compassion and softness. If Evangelical voters, who do not like to fight evil . . . they are clueless especially leadership because it is too dirty and ugly, if Christians stay home on Nov 6 the GOP will lose the house and the Trump agenda will be severely thwarted. And believe me, there are many, many ‘elite’ evangelical pastors/elders who despise Trump and his illegal immigration agenda and his environmental agenda. This reality disgusts me because it is based upon lies and deception; to hell with truth.

Darin

Darin, thanks for your thoughts. Your most telling point came in the word stunt. This is staged agitprop. This is not a refugee crisis, it is theater in the round.

General Will

And yet, even with “general will,” the good and the bad still benefit from common grace. Will it take the removal of common grace, to get the “really white” pseudo-“elites,” like Warren and Rousseau, to acknowledge common grace? If so, maybe they would even learn some common Grace.

Jason

Jason, with common grace, as with so many other things, you don’t know what you’ve got till its gone.

Don’t Start What You Can’t Finish

Bro. Doug, We all know you’re no slouch when it comes to boldness. I need help putting into words why we Christians know it’s wrong and/or ineffective to ruin the supper of liberal politicians even though their policies (abortion) “KILL people.” This was the justification given to me by a leftist friend for recent mob tactics against Republican politicians in public spaces. Blessings.

Matt

Matt, I think it is because we know (instinctively) that “direct action” like this is really just a refusal to accept the results of elections, and a refusal to work within the system. But a refusal to work within the system means that we are thrust outside the system, and the name of that condition is civil war.

Men and Women

I found an article recently by Newheiser. I think via Challies. I was keen to hear your thoughts. Newheiser’s book on marriage is okay. And I think this article could be fine, perhaps men see their wives sins as great as their own, but in reality men’s anger is a bigger issue in our society? But part of me (perhaps my male blindness) feels Newheiser is giving too much to the secular culture here? That he excuses women, and neglects to comment about (dis)honesty in marital disputes. If we can all agree that husbands struggle to keep their cool, can we agree wives often struggle to keep their promises?

B

B, the problem is that our new tribal imperatives are teaching men to take sides with men, and women to take sides with women. But godly men should take sides with godly men and women, and godly women should be opposed to ungodly men and ungodly women. And, contrary to much evangelical rhetoric these days, there is such a thing as ungodly women.

Off to the Races

Re: horses and then autonomous police…? I appreciated the piece on government needing to stay out of the gambling business. However, your rabbit trail regarding traffic cameras is worth unraveling more… I’m assuming you aren’t arguing against the legality of cameras. So the main question is how should the state handle money generated from tickets/citations so that all state departments (police included) are run properly. Having these funds as a part of the essential operating funds is unwise. Yet, while I don’t have a grasp on the magnitude of ticket funds, I’m guessing it isn’t a small number.

David

David, right. Not a small number. The fines when applied should be for a deterrent effect only, and not an income windfall for the enforcers.

Greetings from the North of Ireland. I just wanted to say, thanks for this point made on horse racing. Cleared up just about everything for me on the subject. Great post Best regards.

Marcus

Marcus, thank you.

A Most Righteous Pun

“The silver and bronze winners, both of them actual women, stood on the risers, smiling gamely, apparently wondering when the demented people running the whole world will realize that something is amiss.” I think you meant they’re wondering when the demented folks will realize that something is a mister.

Kyriosity

Kyriosity . . . nice.

So . . . Baptizing Infants

I want to praise you, thank you, and ask you a question to get confirmation of right understanding on some of your teachings. I have recently read your books To a Thousand Generations, Standing on the Promises, and To You and Your Children. I had been wanting to understand your reasoning behind infant baptism for some time. I didn’t agree with infant baptism but knew that you did and understood that probably meant I was wrong but just didn’t know how yet. I knew you had your reasoning and that if I could just get the opportunity to expose myself to your case for infant baptism, I would likely have my eyes opened and be convinced. Well I have been convinced and then some. Your case made in To a Thousand Generations made so much sense out of what is going on the New Testament. I don’t know how one can understand large portions of the New Testament without understanding this doctrine. Learning this doctrine and its place in the New Testament provided a similar sensation to sliding the last piece of a piece puzzle into place. It fit and, in its fitting, it made sense out of the rest of the picture. I am grateful for your work on this matter. It has changed the way I think in raising my children. Child rearing from the Scriptures is of great interest to me and has been for some time. Similar to my interest in most other doctrines (money, marriage, work, ecclesiology, etc.), I believe if one wants to obtain the absolute optimum results possible and greatest joy out of an aspect of life, one has to understand a subject as God understands it and they have to follow all of his instructions on that matter. I have listened to every series available on Canon Press related to family and child rearing. My wife and I do not have children yet but we will start having them soon. I was not raised Christian, but I was raised to be respectful to others in and out of the home and met severe consequences when I did not. This, I believe, resulted my ability to appreciate and see the difference a parent’s values and willingness to physically discipline could rightly shape a child. When other children were bratty and I was disgusted at their behavior even as young child, I knew it was because my parents’ discipline opened my eyes to appreciate a better character. I realized that other children were bratty because their parents let them be bratty. Post regeneration I have seen Christian parents who raise multiple kids that all get along and seem to love Jesus while other Christian parents have multiple children who are out of control. This further reinforced my belief that “results in children” are dependent on the parenting philosophies of the parents and actions that come out of that philosophy that produced positive results and that it was not just a coincidence or a “crap shoot.” Additionally, the more I studied the Scriptures the more they seemed to further reinforce this idea and encourage this way of thinking. Lastly, your teachings of the Scriptures on this matter brought me to an even higher level of understanding by causing me see that God makes promises to bring about real conversion in the child resulting in a devout Christian life, if the parents raise the child by God’s instructions. It also opened my eyes to the fact that this succession is the intention and main point of having children. I just want to make sure I had this right and if my way of understanding this matter is fair and accurate to the biblical doctrine. I think I understand it as you teach it, but I also understand that if I’m off by even a little bit either way, the consequences could produce severely negative results. I want to put the ideas in their most simplified terms as I understand them and have you confirm for me if it’s biblical. If Christian parents raise a child/children according to God’s directives (assuming right motive and actions in every area), the child will be saved and learn righteousness and live devotedly to God? And we’re not talking about perfect parenting but a threshold of righteousness and humility in parenting, quickly confessing and repenting, making right areas of sin. And if a parent has a child reach adulthood as rebellious or unbelieving, it is because the parent has not met the threshold of righteousness in parenting required by God? And the parent should assume full responsibility for the child’s rebellious or unbelieving state because the parent had been saying “No” to God in areas where they should have been saying “Yes?” Also, in your book on infant baptism and in the book To You and Your Children it seemed to lean into the idea that when the child of at least one Christian parent comes out of the womb they are already saved and we should treat them as such? Your confirmation or correction of my understanding of these matters would be of great service to my Christian walk. Again, very grateful for all your work. You keep writing and I’ll keep reading.

Rope

Rope, I would adjust two things. I believe that if at least one parent is a Christian, the child is covenantally holy, covenantally a Christian, and the parent who is a Christian is thereby invited to believe the promises concerning childrearing. The second thing is related to that. I believe that we have to be careful about saying that parents “did it wrong” if their kids don’t turn out, because we have a propensity to reduce it all to what we did, to our works. But the promises are apprehended by faith, which then results in what looks like works to the neighbors.

Dealing With the Surplice

Man, you went Cossack on that surplice.

Johnny

Johnny, only if Cossacks don’t wear dresses. I am not sure on that point.

Birth Control from the Archives

Thank you so much for your 11 thesis in birth control. There are so many unhealthy marriages trying to support the heavy weight of legalistic FIC formulas. I know so many families like your #8 point. Overburdened moms trying to flourish under such oppression, thinking they are doing what the Lord wants them to—suffer. Keep getting your truths out there please!!!

Sara

Sara, thanks. Here’s the link if others are interested.

Andy Stanley

This isn’t connected to a particular post, or maybe you have spoken on this and I have missed it (very plausible), but do you have any thoughts on Andy Stanley’s new book Irresistible? I’ve been working through it as some of my friends have been praising it. So far, I find it to be deeply troubling. Stanley seems to know how to take enough truth and enough heresy and dangerously mix them. Thanks,

Nathan

Nathan, sorry. Haven’t read his stuff. But what I have seen floating by in my feed certainly seems troubling enough.