Letters to Cleanse the Palate

Spot on! And don’t forget that Adam created and applied a taxonomical nomenclature to every living creature in, like, a day. We’re still trying to figure out what to do with the strawberry.
One of the fallouts of the Fall that rarely gets even an honorable mention is entropy. Entropy consumes and destroys order. It moves with glacial resilience, transforming cities into forests, mountains into canyons, wood into rock, and solid steel into flakes of ferric oxide. Not to mention how many times my old truck randomly breaks. So, it makes total sense that complicated machinery from 4,000 years ago would be buried, rusted out, and serving as the ore we dig up to make our own machines.
Without a physical shred of evidence, I nonetheless have no issues accepting the very plausible idea that the antediluvians had wireless electricity (Nikolai Tesla wasn’t original), heavier-than-air flying machines (nothing new under Leonardo’s sun), internal combustion hydrogen engines (the non-polluting kind we won’t touch), mastery of the electromagnetic spectrum (AM, FM, UV, microwaves, gamma waves, etc., etc.) because of course, and safe nuclear fusion. I mean, Noah built a floating Dallas Zoo with enough extra space to feed them all for a YEAR! He was divinely inspired to build that boat, yes, but probably not divinely inspired to, you know, build that boat. At 600, he probably knew a thing or two about shipbuilding, besides having a fleet of overhead cranes powered by massive electrical servo-motors, and a CAD system on his iPad. At least a cordless power drill . . . come on.
And the post-deluvians weren’t slackers, either. They likely weren’t trying to construct yet another ziggurat—that’s too boring. It was almost certainly an edifice that would put the Burj Khalifa to shame—a TRUE marvel of human engineering sufficient to make God say, “Nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Let’s confuse their language and scatter them all over the earth.” It stretched to the heavens—or, at least the blueprints showed it doing that. So, the Saudis aren’t nearly as ambitious as the Ancient Babylonians were. And the ziggurats that were built later—all over the world, I might add—were miniatures of this Tower because 1) manpower (and languages and knowledge) was scattered, and 2) they learned God’s okay with going up only 500 feet or so.
I could go on, but there’s no need. I can’t prove this anymore than I can prove Adam enjoyed chocolate chip cookies, but I won’t be surprised if I learn, one day in glory, that Eve’s batch of cookies were even better than my grandmother’s . . . and that’s a HIGH bar indeed. Eve was just BETTER at everything, and entropy has made even the cookie somehow worse over time.
Andy
P.S.: I chortled out loud at the Calvin & Hobbes reference. You can never go wrong with Calvin—either one of them.

Andy

On the topic of the brilliance of ancient man—I’m in agreement with you. The ancients had just as many geniuses they could put forward as we can today. And for those of us who are old-earth creationists, that means we have to budget even more for the heights of what their civilization could accomplish, given how much more time they potentially had . . .
One thing we know they didn’t have was advanced metallurgy or glass working, those seem to be branches of technology they didn’t explore.
One other thing that seems to line up about our knowledge of the ancients is that they probably mostly lived on the coasts (just like we do today) which way back when were near the edge of the continental shelf and are now almost entirely deeply underwater . . .

Ian

The Brilliance of Ancient Man reminded me of the following:
“Man is the wreckage of something great, not the rising of something inferior.”—Donald Grey Barnhouse
and
“Aristotle is but the wreck of Adam and Athens is but the rubbish of an Eden.”—Robert South
God bless, brother

T

I came across this in some reading I was doing on church history. It is a quote from Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses
“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For [it or he] was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”
Have you encountered this particular quote before? It seems to suggest that Revelation was written near the end of Domitian’s reign circa 95 AD.
That said, the article went on to state that according to the Greek text preserved by Eusebius and it’s ambiguous. The part about “being seen” could be translated in three ways:
Option #1
For it, that is the vision, was seen not very long ago, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.
Option #2
For it, that is the written book, was seen not very long ago, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.
Option #3
For he, that is the Apostle John, was seen no very long ago, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.
Options 1 and 2 would make a partial preteist position difficult to justify, whereas options 3 would make room for it by identifying the death of John being around 95 AD.
That sad, you would still be left trying to decipher which emperor exiled John to Patmos. It would likely need to be either Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, or Vespasian since they are the only ones who ruled prior to 70 AD.
Have you ever looked at this and if so, how have you resolved the data points and the partial preterist dating of Revelation?
The traditional answer is that Domitian sent John to Patmos, but he did not begin his reign until 81 AD

Todd

Eight months ago, the confirmed elders of our baptist church informed my husband and me that no one in leadership may “evangelize” Doug Wilson (or anyone down stream of him) to anyone in our church body. They will not define “evangelize” nor “downstream,” but we were told it was wrong to offer free Canon+ subscriptions. My husband has been serving on the elder board for 4 years and will no longer be allowed to if he does not comply. There are at least 4 young-ish men ranging in age from 30 to almost 50 who have been in leadership positions who will be affected by this mandate. Do you prefer a “long march through the institutions” approach where they say, “Sure, whatever you say, boss.” and wait for the old guard to retire? Or do you suggest they lay down any potential authority in the church and minister to others as their conscience dictates? Google makes it clear that you’ve had little experience with opposition to your Mood, Moscow or otherwise. But if you can strain your imagination to include this scenario, please inform me how you’d lean. I’m anxious to know your thoughts.

Lindsey

Listening to Michael Clary’s “Loser Theology” this weekend on Canon+, I was impressed by his treatment of the Lord Acton quote that everybody loves to know by heart, but nobody (including me, up until now) can bother to examine closely.
“Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”It’s short. It’s pithy. It overlaps Total Depravity (TM) to such a degree as to make it almost unassailable as a warning for Christians against seeking or assuming power.
But it does not stand up to the most straightforward and obvious attacks (obvious in hindsight—I apologize for being late to this line of reasoning): God is powerful. God is absolutely powerful. And yet, power has not corrupted Him.
“Well, we’re talking about humans,” the defenders might say. “Power corrupts humans.”
This is where Clary’s illustration of a rhinoceros in a crowd earns its keep. No one can deny that an ornery rhino has power. But it has no authority to wield that power. To take the analogy further, can you imagine someone (probably some purple-haired Karen or limp-wristed vegan) shaking a copy of the Constitution in front of the rhino’s face to stop it from wielding its power? I don’t know if rhinos can laugh . . .
Let me get to the point. We’ve established that:
1. Rhinos have power, not authority
2. They don’t respect paper authority
You know what they do generally respect, though? Enclosures. We keep them at zoos across the world. Zookeepers feed them. And . . .

Cam

I was wondering, when is it wise to remain at a distance when someone seems to be stirred up by reproof? I have often wondered how to best apply Matthew 18, but also keeping in mind passages like Proverbs 9:7-8.
For example, if you are observing from a distance that an individual seems to be hardening under sin or sinful attitudes being addressed and the response is either to double down on accusations, or to even accuse people of pulling away from them (often because others are afraid of getting pulled into a situation where they are being attacked after they try to help), is it prudent to bite the bullet and try to counsel them anyway?
When can one know when the “due season” may be to give a rebuke and when silence and distance is better even though it cuts opposite to the idea of “Christian niceness?” I hope this question makes sense. Thank you for your time and for your work on behalf of the Lord Jesus.

Seth

I recently listened to Manmade by C.R. Wiley and appreciated it greatly. While I was reading it, however, I wondered how the ideas might intersect with your theology of tools defined in Ploductivity. I keep returning to “Your phone is 1000 slaves in your pocket; deploy them well.” This has been very useful to me. The theology seems largely geared towards a healthy, principled adoption of new tech inasmuch as it serves the goal of fruitfulness.
Does Manmade anticipate a guardrail that Ploductivity did not? At a certain point of advancement, I suppose, the technology is no longer your slave but your master—your head; and so it thinks for you. Is that the line?
I would love to see an interaction on this subject.
Kind regards,

Micah

My wife and I have benefited from your books and ministry over many years, so thank you. I’d love some advice, even if from a distance—people at church have been under-equipped to help.
God’s been good to my wife and me in our marriage. We’ve tried to raise our kids for the Lord. However, we had big struggles with one of our daughters, a lot of rebellion and fighting in her tweens, and my wife and I didn’t always handle it the best (I in particular would respond to stubbornness with my own stubbornness, and anger). She told us in her early teens she didn’t believe in God anymore, and “also, I’m gay.” Now she’s late teens, and although the relationship has improved to being cordial (and I’ve apologized for my wrong responses) she’s still no closer to God, and has a girlfriend. She knows where we stand: we haven’t budged, and we’re in prayer for her daily.
What do you think is the best thing to do to encourage her to return to the Lord? How much direct interaction about homosexuality do you think would be helpful? Or just gently pointing her to a better way (God and Christian marriage)? She’s not living with us anymore, which helps in some ways, but it’s often unclear where to draw the line between being kind to her girlfriend as a human being, and condoning the relationship. Any advice or helpful articles/books would be appreciated.

Jake,

I am currently working to understand and reconcile a believer’s right to self-defense (Ex. 22:2-3)—specifically in regards to concealed carry—alongside the duties of believers to obey the governing authorities within their church. The pressure point would surface if a man felt convicted that it was his God-given responsibility to carry at church in the service of his family to avoid being a soft target, but was specifically instructed by leadership to leave the gun at home. In this particular example, let’s say that there is one armed police officer present most Sundays, but no one else would be allowed to carry. Let’s also assume that the man is aware of the legal prohibition to conceal carry, but is willing to assume the responsibility of the legal trouble that could come should something ever happen, and has no qualms with disregarding the law in that case. Would that be an instance of Leadership sinfully binding the conscience of a man, or would it be perfectly within their sphere of sovereignty to set these limits? Is this a blatant lack of trust in the Lord and His protection if a man has a hard time leaving that gun at home? Assuming this conviction to carry will not change, would there ever be context for this instruction to be lawfully disobeyed while still remaining a member, or might this necessitate leaving the church? Perhaps this is more straightforward than I can see, but this difficulty seems to encompass the rights that God has given to every man for self-defense, the authority God has given men to discharge these duties in regards to their families, and the authority that God has given elders to lead a corporate body and make particular judgments on matters such as these. The ultimate goal, of course, would be to preserve the unity of the body and maintain proper honor of authority while also maintaining a clear conscience before the Lord. What sayeth ye?

Anon

In Letter 49 in the collected Tolkien letters Tolkien writes to C.S. Lewis critiquing his take on Divorce. I’m curious if you’ve read it, and where you stand between the two positions, if you feel that there is a real distinction. What is your take on Tolkien’s comments and as my friend pointed out insert “is this Christian Nationalism?” meme here?

Nathan

What is your opinion on plastic surgery? My wife wants to have some work done on her face. She tells me when she looks in the mirror she feels ugly. I think she is beautiful though and I tell her this frequently. She is much prettier than she gives herself credit for. She isn’t delusional though. There are some elements to her face that are not anatomically normal. In my opinion they would be unnoticeable to most people unless they were examining her face critically. Part of me is scared that if she has the surgery something may go wrong and then it might be worse for her than it is now. But I guess I also wonder if maybe I’m being a little selfish. For example if someone had bad teeth and felt really bad about that, I wouldn’t have a problem with them getting dental work to improve their smile. Major surgery of the face just feels different than braces. How should I be looking at this. I want my beautiful wife to feel beautiful too. Also, financially we could do it but it would be tight.

Anon

I have a close friend who is a member of a woke Presbyterian church in New Jersey.
I am a member of a conservative ACNA Anglican church in North Carolina.
We’ve had many debates over the years on such topics as homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion, etc. where I’ve taken the biblical orthodox position and where he taken the worldly woke position.
He recently sent me the following link to a N.T. Wright video on woman in leadership in the church, , from 1:00 to 8:30. It seems pretty cut and dry from my perspective.
I’m interested to hear what you have to say.
Thanks in advance for your input.

Bob

I’m a fourth year student at Westminster Philly, and I’ve appreciated your thoughts over the years. I’ll cut to the chase: I know you’ve written a few books on marriage (which I haven’t been able to read as of yet), but do they include the kinds of advice / illustrations / outline you use in your pre-marital counseling? (For example, in a recent Canon press interview, you shared that during premarital counseling you use the illustration of picking up dirty clothing laying around on the floor immediately as an analogy for confessing sin and forgiving one another. It was simple but incredibly useful. It stuck with me. In another very recent sermon on dating, you used the illustration of preparing for marriage as preparing to enter a foreign country. Again this was insightful and crisp.) In the case that they don’t, would you consider taking your pre-marital counseling notes/illustrations . . . and turning them into a book (or even a booklet)? I ask because I think it would be a shame if they get lost in the internet world. Having them all in one place would be gold.
Thanks for your consideration!

John

You recently suggested that there are “Baptists affirming every jot and tittle of the Baptist Faith and Message, while fully 55% of their churches allow for the practice of infant baptism.”
I would like to understand this better.
1) Are you saying that 55% of these Baptists baptize infants in the same way (and for the same rationale) that Presbyterians do?
2) Or are you making note of the fact that some Baptists will baptize very young children ( perhaps as young as 5 years old) who have made a profession of faith in Jesus?
I’m certainly not aware of the former case. As for the latter, I can’t imagine that either the Baptists in question, much less the Presbyterians, would call that “infant baptism.”
Please explain. And thanks!

John

I listened to your recent book “Smashmouth Incrementalism.” Audible offers a virtual voice to narrate it and I found it . . . passable. I understand this is likely the way of the future and just hope these virtual narrators improve over time. The content was all good and alerted me to a few of your columns on the matter that I hadn’t read yet.
Say you have two countries side-by-side. Nation A has a Christian population under 10%; the rest of the country is made up of atheists, Jews, Hindus, etc. Somehow, Nation A’s populace is completely convicted against abortion. No one murders their pre-born children. No one flees to Nation B to murder their pre-born children. And at the soonest opportunity, an anti-abortion bill that matches your position is passed and signed into law. Meanwhile, Nation B is 100% professing Christian, everyone attends church on Sunday, tithes, etc. Yet somehow, abortion is still legal to perform, and it does sometimes occur by the citizens of Nation B.
Which nation would you rather evangelize to: Nation A to become more Christian, or Nation B to abolish abortion? Which nation disobeys God more: the one that largely doesn’t believe in Him, or the one committing child sacrifice?
(P.S. It occurs to me that my name “AR” is the same abbreviation for Abolitionists Rising. This is entirely coincidental; I am not associated with them at all.)

AR