Contents
In Response to the Brilliance of Ancient Man
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
Andy, thanks. Feel any better with all that off your chest?
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
Ian, thank you. Yes, I almost included the point about coastal living, and am glad you mentioned it. One natural question that arises is “if they were all that advanced, surely we would have discovered far more evidence of it than we have. We have plenty, but shouldn’t there be piles of it?” Even today, the overwhelming majority of human population lives on the coast. If the old coastline was the continental shelf, and the oceans are now much deeper and bigger, it makes sense. The point of the Flood was to wipe out the memory of their wickedness.
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, brotherT
T, thank you.
The Dating of Revelation
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 ADTodd
Todd, yes, I am familiar with that quote. It is one of the foundations for those who argue for a later date for Revelation. I would go for Option #3 or Option #4. Option #4 would be that Irenaeus just messed up. After all, he also thought that Jesus died in His fifties.
Under the Ban
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
Lindsey, with the elders deciding something like that, I don’t think it would be possible to comply, even if you wanted to. You could avoid mentioning me or any of my descendants and friends, and still get in trouble for recommending a book that I like. The elders are fighting a particular set of ideas, and it is handy to make me the bad boy who represents all those bad ideas. My recommendation is that you accept their decision and step down from formal leadership, and simply carry on. But if you carry on as before, “evangelizing,” it will not be long before they place their restriction on members. That would be binding the conscience in an ungodly way, and it would be time to transfer your membership. Or plant a church.
Loser Theology
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
Cam, thank you. And I suppose your unfinished thought is that zookeepers have authority.
When to Admonish?
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
Seth, the Matthew 18 scenario is for when the sin is against you. In other words, you already have a dog in the fight. If the situation is one where a friend or acquaintance is just plain ornery, and making life difficult for himself, depending on how close you are to the person, I would try to help out once. If you are rebuffed, Proverbs 9 would apply.
AI Stuff
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
Micah, the speed at which AI runs, and at which its capacities change, means that we get to the question of the guardrails much more quickly. I don’t think the principles set out in Ploductivity change, but we are having to grapple with them much more quickly. I divide the world of AI into three basic categories—very useful tool, overheated hype, and demonic.
A Wayward Daughter
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,
Jake, I would start with this booklet by my father. Under no circumstances should you condone the relationship—e.g. attending a wedding, putting them up in the same room if they are visiting, or verbally affirming that they seem “good for each other.” Nothing like that. But it seems from your letter that your position is already clear. That being the case, yes, be kind to her and to her girlfriend. Love the image of God in them because that is the image they are trying to erase.
The Ethics of Self-Defense
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
Anon, there is a difference between the right to self-defense, which is natural and God-given, and the right to have immediate access to one means of self-defense. There have been cases where employers fire an employee for defending himself against an attack, which is ungodly for them to do. But an employer does have the jurisdictional right to say that his employees may not carry. I think it is similar here. I don’t think the elders should ban carrying, but if they do, they are the decision-makers for that congregation. If their decisions get too egregious, then it would be time to leave. Say you left your gun at home, an attacker invaded the church service, and you took him out with a folding chair. If they disciplined you for that, they would be interfering with your God-given right to self-defense. But a “leave your guns in the car” stance doesn’t quite rise to that level.
Lewis and Tolkien on DIvorce
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
Nathan, as far as that particular argument goes, with Tolkien arguing against Lewis’s proposal of a “two-marriage” system, my sympathies are with Tolkien. A two-marriage system might be expedient, particularly if we were hardening the possibility of a Christian marriage system through pre-nups, as opposed to the situation in England when Tolkien was writing—where the previous Christian system was in the process of disintegrating. But I think Tolkien was right that Lewis’s illustration of a Muslim banning wine was inapt.
Plastic Surgery?
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
Anon, there is obviously no problem with plastic surgery in itself. When it is correcting an obvious defect, like reconstructive surgery after a car wreck, it is a gift from God. You mention the possibility of something going wrong, but I think another problem more likely. If your wife’s problem is actually discontent, then surgery won’t fix it. The problem she sees right now might be fixed, and yet she still feels unlovely. Now what? So I wouldn’t do anything until you have prayed through the contentment issues together.
Wokeness and Women
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
Bob, he says a number of true things about Magdalene and Phoebe which nobody denies, but then extrapolates out onto the skinny branches. The resultant mess is balloon juice, hooey from the Anglicans, and bushwah, not to mention horse feathers. Regarding 1 Tim. 2, it was largely hand waving over surrounding reconstructed context. The striking thing is that throughout he assumes that UK Anglicanism is in the enviable position of having sorted all these things out, when in fact UK Anglicanism, if they have not assumed room temperature yet, are certainly in the ICU with machines doing their breathing for them.
Yes, They Do
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
John, I don’t know if all of them are in there, but a bunch of them are. For example, one illustration you cite is the foundation of a small book on marriage I wrote called Decluttering Your Marriage.
Baptists and Infant Baptism
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
John, that was a hypothetical illustration, intended to be ludicrous. In other words, Baptists who baptize infants are not Baptists, even if they call themselves Baptists. In the same way (and this was the point of the illustration), those who stand for the American Creed, but who will not exclude those who deny the Creed, are being inconsistent the same way.
More on Smashmouth
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
AR, it is hard for me to imagine such a scenario. But stepping into your thought experiment, I would say that Nation B is sinning against much greater light, and is guilty of high hypocrisy. I would want to go there first.
I do feel better, having gotten that off my chest, and thank you. It’s not often that I hear someone saying out loud the things I have thought about for decades but never could get anyone to listen to. Sorry for the blurt, but yeah…it felt kinda good.
Andy
Jake, you have to consider the possibility that you daughter was never saved. You can’t bring her back to something she never knew.
You’re god now, determine who is and isn’t saved? Jesus said to love god and love others…shouldn’t be so hard, really, especially when that love is for your own child(ren). What about the parable of the lost sheep? Seems to point to Jesus’/gods immense and immeasurable love for their people…ALL people. Can you imagine god as a parent, providing a good life to most of their kids but neglecting, disregarding and withholding from one or some of them? Doesn’t seem like a benevolent, loving god if you can. Wasn’t it said, somewhere in the Bible, that NOTHING can separate us… Read more »
Another horrible “Jesus was a leftist hippie like I am” take. Jesus said he didn’t come to abolish the law. Sodomy is condemned thoroughly in the OT and NT. You don’t get to cherry pick certain things Jesus said and toss out the rest of the Bible because it doesn’t line up with your opinions and the spirit of the age.
:) right back at you. I’d much rather have a hippie, kind, loving Jesus than a vengeful, jealous, spiteful god…and there are examples of both in the Bible, so which do we choose or which is “right”? Anything to say about Roman’s 8:38-39 then, or are you just able to cherrera pick that out of the Bible? Can you please give me examples of sodomy or homosexuality condemned in the Bible (ideally from the original Greek or Hebrew)? I must have missed those verses. Sodomy comes from Sodom where the people wanted to rape angels…not exactly the same thing as… Read more »
“I’d much rather have a hippie, kind, loving Jesus than a vengeful, jealous, spiteful god”
Yes, because you don’t believe in historical Christianity and are trying to create a God in your own image. Terms like “vengeful, jealous, spiteful” are meaningless when detached from Biblical definitions of sin. This is simply Van Til’s illustration of a child slapping her father’s face–even though she completely depends on him for her existence.
It’s your historical Christianity…there have always been a variety of interpretations and views on scripture and what it means. I think y’all “slap your father’s face” when you treat people so terribly. That’s not Christ-like at all. I do love when y’all go to: trust the Bible because the Bible says so! You must like nascar…
1) Claiming to know what’s “Christ like” while completely ignoring that Christ upheld all of Scripture, including the parts you hate
2) Throw in a silly ad hominem
I’m not sure if you were trying to make the lowest IQ comment of the day, but you just did.
Jesus upheld all scripture by summarizing it with love god, love others…that’s it. His life and actions reflect that – not the fundamental, restrictionistic evangelicalism of the modern age. God is bigger than the box you put her in. Everything you say is ad hominem, so I’m not sure why you have an issue with it :)
‘Now the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the LORD’. Gen 13 : 13 RSV The Hebrew word for ‘men’ here does not mean ‘people’ but specifically men, males. That is where the wickedness was located. If the incident in Sodom was localised rape, why were both Sodom and Gomorrah and all the valley destroyed in the judgement? ‘You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination’. Lev 18 : 22 The apostle Paul invents a new Greek noun for ‘men who lie with men’ based on the Greek translation of the… Read more »
I agree…men are wicked (so why so much blame and shaming of women?!?!?) why were both Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? Why did god kill every man, woman, child and beast? Why did god destroy the WHOLE earth, kill ALL people, with the flood? Isn’t that at all problematic? Those translations you provided are whack. The concept of homosexuality as it is today was unknown at the time, so you can’t take the language one-for-one. What about slavery, or polygamy, or women as property, or cleanliness (don’t touch a pigskin!) or capital punishment (most people would be dead today if we… Read more »
The text tells you why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed – moral wickedness. Abraham prayed to God for the cities, and God was willing to spare them all if 10 righteous could be found amongst them. There weren’t even 10. Similarly with the flood – they had plenty of warning but continued in weird sex and violence until judgement came upon them. God gave life in the first place and has an absolute right to take back his own as he sees fit. A good God dealing with evil people who refuse to change. There is no difference between the… Read more »
Yeah, that’s one viewpoint…there was more going on with both Sodom and Gomorrah and the flood, not just sexual immorality. There was violence, disregard for the poor, inhospitability, pride…and the sexual immorality referenced with the flood is sex between angels and humans…see Genesis 6:1-4 – it’s a doozy! So the sons of God saw the daughters of men and had children together…who are the sons of God here? If you actually READ the Bible, you’ll see the nuance (if your heart is open to it)…sexual immorality does not equal homosexuality: Lack of “Orientation” Concept: Ancient biblical authors had no modern… Read more »
I’m glad you noticed that it wasn’t just homosexuality in Sodom, the judgement was also against pride. The text says a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman. Engaging in the act is sinful, and orientation or any other so-called power dynamics are irrelevant. Men were not designed to have sex with men, and doing so results in them receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. I think the biblical writers had a greater understanding of human nature than modern psychobabblers or activists who don’t know what a woman is. Do you… Read more »
So you can’t take what Jesus says at face value? Lots of mental gymnastics must make you tired:) ha, there is absolutely no way biblical writers had a better understanding of human nature…progress, ya know. Keep telling yourself there aren’t any issues, and you’ll never see them. Humility is a virtue…
Progress? There isn’t one sin or transgression of the moral law in the bible that man has been able to overcome. Human nature remains as it always was.
I take things Jesus says at face value when they are meant to be taken at face value. He said both fornication and murder are evil thoughts that defile a man. Fornication includes homosexuality in it although it is not limited to it, and murder would include abortion. Are you willing to accept what he said on these subjects?
Calvinism is a pretty recent thing.
Did that come before or after the Bible? What about Catholicism? I’m pretty sure it’s older than calvinism.
Is calvinism the only “true” form of christianity? The Bible has four gospels…apparently one version wasn’t enough…so interpretation and perspective matter…calvinism does not equal christianity.
Recent = new. New as in not around at the time of the apostles.
Sorry, I misunderstood and thought you were being sarcastic!
You got me on a day I woke up and did NOT choose violence. ;)
“Paul’s theology is Reformed theology”
–man I went to Covenant College with. (Apostate last I knew, decades ago.) If you inSIST on putting it the other way round, maybe you should apply for a job teaching literalism to fundamentalists. Or read some poetry.
The name is recent. The thing comes with creation.
Of course, “I’m a Bible Calvinists, not a system Calvinist”–Martyn Lloyd-Jones.
So the basis of calvinism came with creation? Not so sure about that…calvinism is NOT the only way. TULIP was man-made, not god-ordained…
Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth,
and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
What about the daughters?
No Fruit equals No Salvation.
Then what about trump? What about all of the “christians” who do terrible things? There are plenty of examples of professing “christians” with no fruit, so why not hold them to the same standard?
I honestly can’t remember Trump ever claiming to be a Christian. His mother was Scottish Presbyterian and when he did go to church it was because of her.
Well he thinks he is going to hell so I guess he believes in something approaching a Christian worldview.
That just means he believes in “hell”, or says he does.
OK, then what about someone like Ravi Zacharias…or Robert Morris…or Mark Driscoll…or Jim Bakker…or Jim Jones…or Ted Haggard…or Jimmy Swaggart…or Carl Lentz…Martin Luther (not King JR, but the “father of Protestantism” – heavily anti-semetic)…or John Calvin (yes, THE John Calvin, you know, burning “heretics” at the stake)…or John Newton (wealthy slave trader)…or John Paulk…or James MacDonald…or Bill Hybels…or Paul Barnes…or Douglas Goodman…should I continue?
Martin Luther was a great Christian. MLK was a serial adulterer, rape viewer, commie and heretic on multiple fronts.
Once again, you’re using your post-war, leftist worldview (which has accompanied a decline in pretty much every category of morality) and have no moral standards for your mindless whataboutism.
Haha, bring on your post-war, rightist worldview, the root of all depravity and morallessness we see today! No answer for anyone else on the list…Why not address any of the “modern” christian leaders? Martin Luter was anti-semetic and his views on women match Doug’s, which is probably why you don’t have an issue with him :) I already stated my moral standard – love god, love others…what is your standard?
I don’t allow amoral people brainwashed by the MSM, government schools and Hollywood determine what’s allegedly antisemitic and anti-female. You can’t even define “love” or explain what your morality is based on.
You get a gold star!
No-one claims Christian leaders have to be in a state of perfection in this life. Some on your list fell short of living out the faith, others so far short that they qualify for Paul’s admonition not to be deceived because the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God.
In the end God alone knows the heart. We will all have to give an account of ourselves to God, and what others failed to do will not be a defence if we have ourselves have failed in our own lives.
Uh, exactly…you don’t know the heart of homosexual people, do you? And why does it matter SO much to you what other people do consensually? Do you have skin in the game?
The hearts of homosexuals are deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt. Adultery can be consensual – the participants may even have fallen in love with each other – but that doesn’t make such behaviour moral. Now what I think of what others do in their private lives you could rightly consider irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, but such behaviour has eternal consequences. You clearly don’t know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. I might also add that in the real world outside of the internet I have seen with my own eyes the… Read more »
If you said the hearts of people, I would agree. Again, you’re just trying to play god, but that makes sense when you follow people like trump, Hegseth and Doug:) I have also seen vile hatred on the outside from Christians directed at gay people…pretty sure Jesus wouldn’t be yelling from your side. Swindlers and extortionists won’t inherit the kingdom either. Neither will revolvers, you know, people who verbally abuse others.
do you actually know any gay people? Not just what you hear or see, but do you actually know anyone who is gay?
Though I don’t think revolvers will inherit the kingdom, I meant revilers:)
What makes you think I follow Trump Hegseth and Douglas Wilson? The hearts of all people are deceitful and corrupt, that was a quotation from Jeremiah, and I specifically applied it to homosexuals. At least you have started to see the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God, but you still don’t seem to have grasped that this includes ‘men who lie with men as with a woman’. Whether you or I think that is right is irrelevant, because we are not God. God is God and we are not. And yes I do gay people. I also know… Read more »
Um… okay? Have I ever said anything good about those guys? Or even mentioned them at all? I’m confused.
Not meant for you….responded to the wrong thread:)
Why do evangelicals support an obviously evil man who does not even bother professing faith? I’ll put it another way: if I’d told my CREC pastor when I was kid that he’d support this, he would’ve instructed my parents to beat me with weapons until I repented of ever thinking the thought. So what should be the consequence for CREC pastors who have delivered their flocks into the gaping maw of this wolf? Why not apply the standards these men impose on others? What’s fair is fair. They like “whole Bible” theology, including Old Testament punishments for false teachings, don’t… Read more »
I’m the wrong person to ask why evangelicals do anything, since I’m not one. I didn’t vote for Trump, either.
Reading the comments from you, E and Buster reminds me of AI bots chatting, with all of the emphasis on the “A” part.
Living rent free…I love it:)
The irony of someone who spams endless low-quality, NPC comments on here accusing me of living rent-free. I’ve only made a handful of comments in the last 6+ months. You obviously don’t have much to do besides whining on here.
You misunderstood – I’m the one living rent free…in your head. It really is something special :) I know that you, as a conservative MAGA evangelical christian, surely could not accept any handouts…
The one who has written 29 out of 69 comments so far on this thread is the one allowing others to live rent-free in his/her/preferred pronoun empty head. And that head appears to be largely empty given how vacuous and predictable those 29 comments are.
Glad you can count:)
It’s a leftist tactic. On a sporting forum I used to be on you would get a thread start on the subject of gays and cycling or something, and suddenly it would be overrun by gays who had taken up the sport, all trotting out the party line. Once the thread had finished they would disappear never to be heard of again. It’s obvious what is going on, but it can be effective in giving the impression that there is more support for this sinful lifestyle than there actually is. They are also completely intolerant of any dissenting opinions however… Read more »
Yep. The biggest gang I attack I faced online was from Satanists. I think they a way of notifying each other and they all piled on.
Why did Paul vote for the obviously evil Nero over the authorities of old Jerusalem?
Well, maybe he thought Nero would do a less bad job in this particular instance.
Why did German Christians vote for Hitler? Did he do a less bad job than an alternative would have? Your argument fell out of your wet paper bag…
Hi Todd,
On the dating of Revelation, Kenneth Gentry has an interesting book (he dates Revelation around 66 AD). You can find it for free here: https://archive.org/details/beforejerusalemf0000gent/page/n439/mode/2up.
He deals with Irenaeus, other external evidence, and internal evidence.
I haven’t read it closely, but was intrigued.
8 counts.
Next time that number will be much, much higher.
The first Articles of Impeachment ever filed against a member of their own party. It won’t be the last ‘first’ we’ll see.
Your witness is gone forever. Judgment begins in the House of the Lord.
https://massie.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=395853
So? Who cares about sour grapes from the primaried Massie? RINOs gonna RINO.
Speaking of RINOs, this isn’t the first time the Democrat-Communists have tried to impeach Hegseth. Do try to keep up.
I am curious, what makes Massie a RINO in his voting record or policies he stands for? Apart from the bill he drafted with Khanna which doesn’t really seem partisan. Unless you think the GOP is the party of pedos and their defenders.
Evangelical Mike Johnson has just sent Congress home rather than vote on these articles. Such principle! I’m sure Doug Wilson’s friend Tucker Carlson will simply let the matter go now. I’m sure Mehdi Hasan is feeling appropriately chastised now. ROFL. The most principled Republicans — like Massie — now see that Christian Nationalism immediately produces war crimes (in addition to policy incompetence). That is not the last thing that happens when CN is in power, it is the first thing that happens. That is because American Christian Nationalism is fascist, just as the Deutsche Christen nationalists were fascist. “Blood and… Read more »
The Marconian boomer apostates have way too much time on their hands…and fantasies and fallacies in their little minds.
No mention of your plagiarism in southern slavery as it was…pity. Intellectual dishonesty doesn’t count? Might as well just throw the blame on someone else, eh?
It’s funny how you don’t care about the plagiarism of your fake Christian hero, though.
The Plagiarism of Martin Luther King, Jr.
I never said anything about MLK except that I WASN’T referencing him:) you might need some remedial reading lessons.
funny how you get hung up on him…racism much?
You’ve left MLK off your “bad boy” Christian lists at least twice. It’s called reading between the lines. Maybe you never learned it in your “Queer Studies” degree.
Calling out MLK’s sins isn’t racism. Most current racism is antiwhite, but programmed people like yourself won’t acknowledge it.
https://x.com/mattvanswol/status/2099948154556985396
Calling out Trumps sins isn’t racist. Calling out Doug’s sins isn’t racist. Critiquing MLK is fair…but pretending it settles the broader issue isn’t and turning it into racism against whites is the real problem is quite the leap. Reading between the lines sure is doing a lot of heavy lifting for an argument that should be able to stand on its own :)
I think pastor Wilson pulled that edition when he found out, and Canon toughened their safeguards against plagiarism. He admitted a mistake and tried to avoid repeating it. Go thou and do likewise.
He gets a gold star, too! It shows real courage to admit a mistake that was intentionally made when it comes to light…I’ll strive to live in such a way.
So who is claiming to “know the heart” now?
Please, please, somebody do something about the trolls. Or do they serve a purpose I just don’t understand?
Open your mind, see the light. Just because you don’t like what someone says, doesn’t mean we’re trolls:) you’re not obligated to read the comments…
E, you’re a mind reader now, that you somehow knew that SDR had at least you in mind? The irony.
Thank you – I call it divine intervention – god works in mysterious ways!
I agree that the three of them do nothing to bring any light to anyone here, and someone should do something. The only conceivable “purpose” I can see is selective discrediting. People tend to dismiss trolls on their own side as irrelevant, but assume that trolls for the other side prove the other side are bad people and invalid. Since people generally judge opponents more harshly than their own, having trolls on both sides can bring the choir deeper into solidarity with the choir master. However, Pastor Wilson doesn’t need to be intending that purpose, he may just be opposed… Read more »
What are you talking about?
E, I’m going to be honest with you. Whether you’re on the “same side” of an issue as me or not, a lot of your posts come off as trolling, or at the least extremely confrontational in a manner that doesn’t seem to leave expectation for change or run for discussion. I’m not a mind reader so I don’t know what you hope to accomplish when you post, but I don’t think you’ll accomplish anything production and you potentially make it worse for those who could. That’s why I suggested that you posting here makes it easier for Doug and… Read more »
Point taken, but dissension and disagreements do not make a troll…my posts are sincere, I don’t pretend to be in line with the proprietor (something I am not), and I support what I say with evidence, typically from the Bible. Why can’t I be the serrated edge here? Sometimes we all just need to yell into an echo-chamber…maybe the reverb will make a difference. Everyone has their own reason for reading and being on this blog…as do I. If I’m not welcome, please shut the comments down, but I won’t stop speaking my piece as long as I’m able.
I don’t think you’re insincere, I think you’re strategically unwise and unhelpful, and I don’t think your comments advance the aims you seem to want to advance.
Wikipedia’s article on Doug Wilson has now (8:40pm EST 17 Sept) fixed some of the errors Doug cited in his Wiki me and Weal me article. Footnote 11 cites Doug’s article in saying he planted a church in Moscow. Logos School is no longer Academy.