Contents
Start Off With Some Bracing Criticism
I could not believe there are people out there with such a bigoted, intolerant and hateful view on life. The ONLY reason I write this is to register my abhorrence to such a disgusting human being. Burn in hell you disgraceful waste of skin.GB
GB, it is always an encouragement to us when we hear from the party of tolerance and acceptance.
Working the Angles
My take away from all this Russell Moore stuff is that in order to get an all expense paid tour of Moscow and a bunch of time with you is to build up a following of people on the Internet and start saying a bunch of obnoxious things.
I’ll get right to work.Thomas
Thomas, you’re off to a good start . . . but you still strike me as a friendly.
States as Moral Agents
States are not moral agents, just the arm of the moral agent(s) running the show (Putin, Xi, Kim, the US president—whomever that might be, etc). The only difference is the first three do so unilaterally. In the US there are just more hurdles (judiciary, congress, the Constitution, the people-ballot box) for the president to get his wishes done unilaterally, and we all should thankful for that. That doesn’t mean they don’t try however (executive order, etc.) . . . and sometimes even prevails.Rob
Rob, then why do the judgments fall on the entire society? Sodom, Capernaum, Jerusalem, etc.?
Limited Government
Bro. Doug,
Great article . . . as far as it went. But just speaking here as your token “dispensational pre” type of reader, I really felt the need of discussing the eschatological angle. Once the Calvinists are tee-totally in charge from sea to shining sea, what then? I fully expect our national epidemic of sex-related crimes to diminish. That would be a great victory for America.
But there’s not a good history there for maintaining civil and religious liberty downstream of the takeover. If we put the Calvinists in charge, they will own The Power. And nothing attracts the conniving lust of the Secular Man quite so much as power. What will he NOT do to get it? You would find no shortage of criminal men who would swear allegiance to the WCF as readily (and deceitfully) as they now swear to the Constitution. Sooner or later, the Christian regime would become another stage where sinners can do their thing.
Even if we could establish an overtly Christian government and make Bro. Doug the Supreme Dictator for Life, your silver cord would eventually break, and the world to come would succumb by and by to the lostness of man. “Few there be that find . . . ” Until Christ Himself reigns from David’s throne in Jerusalem, the very best achievements in human governance are going to temporary exceptions to the general history of the world. As for me, I’m heartily on board with helping you create such an exception and enjoy the fruits of it as long as possible. But as Benjamin said, Donkeys live a long time.*
Maranatha!
Whoso readeth, let him understand.Bro. Steve
Bro. Steve, yes. In this transient world, the bad guys can always get in to corrupt everything. But if we have done our job in the meantime, drastically limiting the size and scope of the state, they will have a lot less at their disposal when they do take over. That’s on your premill terms. In terms of postmill, it gradually ratchets in the other direction.
If No God
“And if there really is no God, then it would seem that the ideal position to occupy would be that of the clever criminal—where you get everybody else to obey the categorical imperative, thus avoiding the societal chaos, but in your private life doing whatever suits your animal lusts.”
If you can’t say Amen, say Ouch!
P.S.—I thought NQN was in November?GH
GH, thanks. No, just an ordinary August.
The Religious Liberty Shuffle
“But religious liberty cannot accommodate jihadists flying planes into skyscrapers, or Aztec priests slaughtering prisoners on ziggurats, or child prostitution in Hindu temples, or Islamic honor killings.”
Right now, nobody is willing to acknowledge what the First Amendment requires of people. I can get the Sabbath off of work, unless I work at the post office. But the Sikhs quickly find out that “weapons are part of my religion” doesn’t extend to airplanes or government schools, or to JWs not giving their kids blood transfusions.
The last big test of this was COVID shots. You can have a religious exemption that requires you to be irrational. You can’t have one that says you reserve the right to think about it, because thinking makes it not religious anymore. I think you drew an analogy where you could refuse to wear any blue whatsoever, but not refuse to wear just blue hats?
We’re stuck with the inconsistency, that the First Amendment allows you to bypass laws that compel/forbid some activity because of religion, unless it would be embarrassing for the government on the news. The only consistent way to approach this is that the state has a religion, and that anything that conforms to it is fair game, and that anything opposed to it is still banned.PPM
PPM, it sounds to me like you are on to them,
Russell Moore and All Them
I just listened to your Blog & Mablog about the podcast reaction CT’s drawing-room harpies (including those who identify as men) had to your CNN interview.
Before I knew any better, and before he came down with serious Trump Derangement Syndrome, I had some respect for Russell Moore. But he didn’t take the TDS shot, wear the mask, and socially distance.
To remind myself I looked up Trump’s comment about Russell Moore from around 2016. At the time I thought it was rude and harsh. Now it seems insightful and evergreen: “Russell Moore is truly a terrible representative of Evangelicals and all of the good they stand for. A nasty guy with no heart!” I too pray for him. Often.
I’m late to the Doug Wilson/Moscow Mood party, but it’s been fascinating to watch peoples’ reaction to you. Is there such a thing as WDS? Is there a WDS vaccine? Has Francis Collins endorsed it?
Grateful for your good work.Eubulus
Eubulus, yes, there is, and alas, there is no vaccine.
Two observations:
1.) The recent Canon Plus ad—the one with Russell Moore calling you guys losers, set against a montage of God’s amazing blessings on and through all the Moscow stuff over the last several decades—was truly a sight to behold. How is this not a clear case of when Christ said: “God blesses you when people mock you and persecute you and lie about you and say all sorts of evil things against you because you are my followers” (Matt. 5:11, NLT). All praise to the Triune God.
2.) I have been wary of adopting the label Christian Nationalist, but after reading through the material of Disarming Leviathan and your interactions with it, I am reminded of what Chesterton once said after listening to some lectures by an atheist of his day: ““As I laid down the last of Colonel Ingersoll’s atheistic lectures the dreadful thought broke across my mind, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian Nationalist.Haddon
Haddon, stick around. Take your time.
Re: In Which Russell Moore, Mike Cosper, Clarissa Moll, and Your Humble Servant Have a Frank Exchange of Views
What a hostage to fortune that pic of Russell Moore in the double mask is. He went for being in the inner ring of the Covid maniacs and now doesn’t have the self awareness to know why people might find him slightly a teensie weensie bit untrustworthy. He is a case study in being a silly person with a serious sounding voice, which is not what we need right now.
I’m not sure if you’re what we need right now either tbh Doug, but I think you win this round.Roger
Roger, thanks.
Re: Demonizing for Fun and Profit
A small niggle about this quote:
“Did original hearers of the Ten Commandments . . . have any opinions at all concerning the doctrine of Manifest Destiny? Again, no.”
Well . . . perhaps not by that name. But what could be a more manifest destiny than Exo 3:8, 6:8, Deut 1:8, etc . . .JPH
JPH, ah. But we were talking about our Manifest Destiny, not their Manifest Destiny.
If you put Russell Moore in a lineup, I could not, if my life depended on it, point him out. I did a little duckduckgo search with key words “Russell Moore” and “double mask” and I found out that photo above IS REALLY HIM!!! Bahahahaha! And I’m the idiot for reading Doug Wilson. Oh well, I’ve been called a lot worse by far more honorable men for far better reasons than this clown. Make no qualms, he is a clown. Look at him, he’s wearing two masks inside a car when he’s all by himself. And with all due respect what is CT worried about? That interview was on CNNLOL. You would’ve had more views on the jumbotron at the Coldplay concert than on CNNLOL.Ryan
Ryan, one takes your point. But one of the reasons CNN was really happy with that segment is that it attracted a lot of viewers, to use a term that is growing outdated for them.
Distributism
What are your thoughts about the economic theory of Distributism?
Regards,Some Lutheran Guy From Wisconsin
SLGFW, everything comes down to the question of “who does the actual distributing?” If it is the state, then it is socialism. If it is done by just laws and market forces, then it is free market capitalism. If it is the latter, I am for it.
Smashmouth Incrementalism and Slavery
In the “EXTENDED-ER CNN INTERVIEW” published today by Canon Press, you are recorded as saying that, were you transported with your current beliefs to the antebellum south, that you would have fought for the South as a “Southern abolitionist” concerning slavery.
While I am greatly sympathetic to that answer, I am wondering why you would not have been a “Southern smashmouth incrementalist.”
What rules govern the strategy of your approach, and why choose abolition for slavery, but smashmouth incrementalism for abortion?
God’s blessings to your family and ministry.Cam
Cam, great question. And you are quite right. I would have been an incrementalist then also. Many of the proposals for “abolition” back then were incremental proposals, but they were all called abolitionists—both the hotheads in the North, and the slow eradicationists in the South. But the two approaches were present then, and I would have approached it all the same way.
Prayer in Public
Can you help convince me that praying out loud in the presence of other people is Biblical (instead of in one’s closet)?
Assuming you are successful, can you help me understand corporate prayer meetings? Should I understand it as purely an act of corporate worship? Or is there real value in a group of believers taking turns praying out loud, often about a similar topic, often repeating one another (and potentially rambling a little)?
Thank you sir,Justin
Justin, for prayer in what we would call a public meeting, consider Acts 4:24-25a: “And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is . . .” (Acts 4:24–25). For something more akin to one of our prayer meetings, consider this from Acts 12—“Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him . . . And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a damsel came to hearken, named Rhoda.” (Acts 12: 5, 13).
Modern Geneva Bible
What’s the latest on the MGB?Joshua
Joshua, the work is done. Waiting on the time and resources.
That Hideous Strength
Was listening to Matt Taibbi and Walter Kirn, and during their conversation they did a review of “That Hideous Strength”.
Here is the link to their podcast, and it starts at the 1:41:10 mark.
I know you have a packed schedule, you might however appreciate their take.
Have a great day . . .Blair
Blair, thanks. I like to think that I had at least something to do with this. We had dinner with Walter last year, and were talking about Tucker and UFOs, and I was one of those who urged That Hideous Strength on him. Their discussion of the book is great.
A Liberal Set of Questions
I appreciate you writing out such a detailed response to the CNN story. I do not get a chance to ask someone like you many questions so hopefully you see this as it is, an honest way to inform myself. I am a 45-year old life-long Christian. I see things in this country a little differently then you as the problems we have. What I want to ask in particular though is how you match the Gospel teachings and actions of Jesus with the current administration that the conservative/evangelical church and its members are generally supportive of.
Let’s start with:
“Then the king will say . . . for I was hungry and you gave me food (EBT and social services being cut by the OBBB), I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink (USAID funding cut), I was a stranger and you welcomed me (ICE budget of $46B to deport millions of people), I was naked and you gave me clothing (USAID cuts), I was sick and you took care of me (Medicare cuts), I was in prison and you visited me (Innocent people sent to CECOT, and possibly guilty ones sent there with no due process).”
Now, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you . . .” (Legal vengeance on Media, Law Firms, Educational Institutions, Prosecutors, etc.)
Now, “But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.” (Pardoning the tried and convicted January 6th rioters).
Not the Gospels but Paul . . .”Ever since the creation of the world His eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things He has made. (Repealing EPA standards, cutting funding to green power sources, and actively doing things that hurt the climate).
I don’t know how a more liberal president would be doing now. All I have to go on is history and no liberal president (or conservative actually) is doing what President Trump’s administration is doing, and it’s only 8 months in that is antithetical to Christian ideology.
I guess what it comes down to is, are you willing to give up your values and ideals for a better seat at the table here on Earth, or will you fight for the less fortunate (human and environment) to secure a place that we all eventually want to be at. Like Jesus said . . .
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
Thanks for possibly reading this.Mike
Mike, we differ on such things down at the tectonic plate level. To take one example—to give money to the poor is of course enjoined by Scripture. But taxing middle class people, at the point of a gun, and redistributing the proceeds to others, is not Christian charity.
Health Care
It would love to hear your counsel for Christians in America concerning how to think and act regarding health care and health insurance. I couldn’t find any content particularly focused on this on your website.
Thanks so much!
In Christ,Andrew
Andrew, I have not written very much on this at all. I am supportive of those who are working on building out alternatives to the current mess—e.g. Samaritan Ministries, and similar ventures.
Calvinism and Provisionism
“In Calvinism, man hates predestination because God predestined him to hate it and then God predestined Calvinists to talk about how man hates the thing he was predestined to hate as if man has an ultimate choice to hate it in the first place.”
These retorts are coming from the provisionist camp, how would you respond?BS
BS, the response is simple and straightforward. Yep. They have drawn all the predestination arrows in the right places. But they still don’t know what predestination is because they don’t understand the Creator/creature distinction.
Intimacy After Infidelity
What advice would you have for helping a married couple restore sexual intimacy after the wife committed adultery and they have chosen to remain married? Am friends with/counseling such a situation and they have walked through significant repentance and restoration but have not been intimate going on 8 months.AH
AH, as a couple are working through the wreckage of this kind of thing, there is a decision-making time where the spouse sinned against has the option of divorce. That should not be done breezily, and sometimes takes a few months to work through. But once the decision to remain married is made, then at that point they should be married.
A Visa Question
I’m an American who met my wife in South America and we’ve been happily married for 2 years. We’re planning to move to the US, but we’re still waiting on my wife’s visa. We applied 1 year ago (in hindsight, we really should’ve applied right away . . . ) and the USCIS website currently puts our estimated wait time at 18 more months. Unfortunately, that number keeps getting pushed back, as it seems legal immigration is pretty much at the bottom of the current administration’s list of priorities. To make things even more frustrating, my wife has EU citizenship and so can visit the US without a visa. The only thing stopping us from moving tomorrow is respect for the law (and its Giver).
What are your thoughts on this situation? We’re willing to continue to sit back and wait (and are exploring ways to speed up the process by contacting local representatives in Congress). However, do you think at some point continuing to wait would be a violation of our God-given rights (whether Constitutional or universal)? What about after, say, 5 years? I’m wondering from a theoretical standpoint since practically not waiting sounds too risky. We’re doing okay here, but it’s not a great place to raise a family and we’re hoping for a better church situation in the future.
Appreciate your thoughts,IE
IE, I would consult an immigration attorney. If she can be here legally, why wouldn’t it be legal for her to be here? That doesn’t sound like disobedience to me. But an attorney could tell you if she can apply for a change in her visa status while here. Or does it have to be from where you are?
A Justice Process Question
No post in particular, generally in relation to the Justice Primer . . .
How do you think about juridical process with regard to potential a “pattern of sin” alleged independently by multiple people against one individual?
A hypothetical situation in which you are the lawful authority: Billy, Sally, and Joey all say that Thomas elbowed them in gut when they weren’t looking. You have a high degree of confidence that when Billy brings his complaint, he has no idea that Sally and Joey have brought similar complaints. Same for the other two. No one else was around to witness any of the specific times Thomas did his alleged elbowing. As far as you are aware, Billy, Sally, Joey, and Thomas are all upstanding individuals.
Questions:
I assume that, because none of these incidents meets the standard of 2-3 witnesses, Thomas can’t be formally charged/disciplined as a one who elbows his coworkers in the gut. Correct?
Because there are not multiple witness to any of these individual instances, are these instances to simply be dismissed out of hand? (A la 1 Timothy 5.)
If they are to be dismissed out of hand, is there anything to be done about the pattern of testimony has begun to emerge. If so, what would be a reasonable way for you, as the proper authority in the situation, to proceed?
Is there anything else relevant to consider in a situation like this?
Sincerely, puzzling over process,CVT
CVT, you are correct. It is not possible to charge Thomas formally on the basis of this. But there is enough of a pattern for a pastor to “indict” Thomas, and subject his pattern of life to a higher degree of scrutiny. In my experience, the truth about this kind of thing will tumble out if a pastor is simply diligent with his follow-up questions.
Science, the Bible, and Defending the Faith
First I would just like to say thank you for always contending for the faith! My family and I have been blessed by your ministry.I would like some advice or guidance. Our church has been using a book titled: “Who Shall Ascend, the Mountain of the Lord of Biblical Theology of the Book of Leviticus, by L. Michael Morales. He’s a professor at Greenville Presbyterian Seminary in South Carolina.”
The class from Evangelical Fellowship Church: Leviticus “Prologue” Bobby James June 15, 2025, Jun 14, 2025 This material may be protected by copyright.
Anyway he starts my using the Ancient Near East cosmology to understand the crest and claims it’s a “mythopoetic” basically denying God as creator and making Noah an archetype. Mostly saying Genesis 1-11 isn’t historical but showing us that it’s based in a cosmic mountain, the fall is called exile instead of sin. Trying to be brief, we’re meeting with our associate pastor, but if they believe that Genesis 1-11 is , “mythopoetic” what additional steps should we take?
Thanks again,Steven
Steven, by all means, meet with your pastor, and ask all the pertinent questions. But make a distinction between men who deny biblical truths and those who for various reasons are just trying to “soften” them, or couch them in academic language. Neither is good, but the former is worse. For example, why did that exile happen? People don’t get exiled for no reason—and the reason would have to be sin.
Hell of a Marriage
I have a real-life question for you that has been troubling me and my family for decades. It has to do with my parents and their “marriage.”
My father, God bless him, has chosen to stay with my mother for over 50 years, despite the hell she has put him through. He was a minister of the gospel, but she has been his ball and chain from day one. She refuses to bow the knee to Scripture and submit to her husband in any meaningful way. She is unchurched and has been for decades. She claims the Name of Jesus, and even speaks in tongues (leaving my own thoughts on that subject aside), but has been in blatant rebellion to her scriptural role as wife for decades. I truly hate to say this, but it is so true. My mother is the gold standard for the word “bag,” and in the oddest way though, I love her. I really do. She is my mother and I love her so much, and personally, I even like her, but when I even think of her treatment of dad, I become enraged.
She simply wants to be a law unto herself. My father, and I mean this so seriously, is the best man I have ever known. He sacrificed, in a very real way, his entire life and happiness for us; because if he would’ve left, he would have gotten screwed by the courts and forfeited any meaningful amount of time with us (and consequently leaving us basically with her at all times which would have ruined us). In every way, dad reflects Christ more accurately than any other human I’ve ever known or read about.
Sir, I’m at a loss. Truly. This letter in no way does justice to how she has treated him through the years and continues to. Many of the things are just unspeakable, and I mean that. I told them both today that Dad should leave her—that he doesn’t have biblical grounds to divorce her or abandon her (meaning he is still responsible to provide for her), but that he should leave her. Did I give the right advice? What should a man do in a situation like this? Her speech and behavior through the decades is simply appalling, but yet she is so convinced she’s right with God.
Please help.CF
CF, there are circumstances where Scripture would allow for separation, but not divorce. “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife” (1 Cor. 7:10–11). In such a situation, Paul recommends that the wife not leave. But if circumstances are intolerable and she does leave, her options are to remain unmarried or to be reconciled. This means that she is not under church discipline for the separation, and she still recognizes her obligations to the marriage. That sounds something like what you are describing. But if you sought out pastoral guidance to oversee such a thing, a wise pastor would make sure to hear from all sides (Prov. 18:17).
Deception and Evil Institutions
I have a question on the ethics of deception within evil institutions. If it is laudable and holy for the midwives to subvert their command of unholy execution by lying, and for godly men and women within or without the German regime in World War II to use their positions of authority or citizenship to guard the Jews and so deceive the state, what of folks in business with evil institutions today?
For example, if there were a high up executive within Planned Parenthood—a man of great ability and responsibility in the finance department, say—and one day the Lord opened the eyes of his heart and he saw his workplace for what it was, if this man was your congregant and he asked for your counsel in the following matter what would you say:
“Pastor, I could leave my company and denounce it for the evil institution that it is—and that would be the most straightforward means of turning away from the darkness and into the light. But I am in a unique position to harass this arm of the evil one from within. I am not the king of Planned Parenthood, as if I could simply declare that we “close shop” and so end operations in a day. However, I am singularly suited such that, over time and in small but significant ways, I can cripple my company financially by being shrewdly yet spectacularly bad at my job, and so greatly limit the abominations they are logistically able to commit.”
Would it be wrong for this man to engage in such an endeavor?
If not, I find it hard to reconcile how we love and adore figures like Robin Hood and the Scarlet Pimpernel.Willard
Willard, you are asking if it is possible to pursue Schindler’s List-type activities from within an evil organization like Planned Parenthood. I would say yes, but in our current political climate it is hard to imagine that kind of scenario developing. His cover would have to be deep—he would have to be an excommunicated member of your congregation, for example.
Disciplining a Three-Year-Old
This is not regarding a particular post. I want to encourage my 3-year-old son to love and respect his mother. He is a very strong-willed child. He has been in the habit of striking her and speaking disrespectfully to her. Disobedience is very much something we are in the trenches with right now.
My perception is that my son respects me and my authority, but he is smart enough to have picked up on the fact that my wife is not as strong of a person as I am, and perhaps does not spank him as hard, and takes advantage of that. Since I’m head of household this is ultimately my problem. So I need to deal with it.
Right off the bat, he is baptized, he is in the covenant, and he is learning about Jesus (I know this from what we talk about and he tells me). I trust God’s promises so I know that it’s just a matter of time before I can see evidence of the Spirit’s work in this particular area (faith not presumption of course).
With that framework, here is the strategy I have come up with: :
(1) Searching my own heart and repenting where necessary. Is there something within me that he is seeing and trying to imitate?
(2)praying for him and with him about this issue in particular
(3) affirmatively and proactively teaching him that he must love and respect his mother and that disrespect will not be tolerated
(4) disciplining him when he fails, with more teaching (we spank)
(5) making sure that I am respecting my wife in visible ways so he can see a model of what I am talking about;
(6) making sure I allot enough time to spend one-on-one time with him (or with him and his brother) so he has my positive presence in his life a lot more than the related and necessary punitive presence.
From your pastoral experience, am I missing something?JP
JP, everything you list here is good, and I would only add one other thing. Teach him that disrespecting and disobeying his mother is tantamount to disrespecting and disobeying you. In other words, you want him to understand that he is under a unified authority.
Learning Humility
It’s been a while hasn’t it? I’ve a question I would love your advice on.
So I’m in a very wonderful predicament, in that the Lord has blessed me with great skill at my job. It has some pretty significant money making potential down the road if I just play the long game. My bosses love me, and this company genuinely loves its employees, and does try to give back to them. No workplace is perfect, but I’ve got it pretty good with this one.
Because I’m a top performer however, I’m worried about pride. The Lord tells us to do everything for his glory, and to play a part in his redemptive work in the world. This is the first time I’ve really felt that I’ve absolutely excelled in anything that I put my hands to, and it’s almost surreal. How can I practice humility in my position at work, while embracing the good parts of my ambition?
May the Lord increase you in humility, mercy, grace, and forgiveness.KB
KB, not trying to be flip here, but one of the central things you can do to learn humility is get married.
Doug says: states — which didn’t exist during biblical times — are too “moral agents”. This is an unbiblical concept he’s imported from secular philosophy without saying so. He uses it to claim that if God gets to go a-genocidin’ then so does he! Seriously: Doug is now claiming that the Great Commission — the supposed license for Christian nationalism — grants him the power to discipline the nations, not disciple them. Which (as we are seeing) means whatever he wants it to mean, the goalposts keep shifting as Doug continues grasping for straws to rationalize this power grab. This… Read more »
Haven’t commented in a while but figured why not give a couple factual issues a mention. The Bible does in fact speak of nations as moral agents — not in the sense of having souls like individuals, but as corporate entities held accountable before God. That’s why the prophets thunder against Egypt, Moab, Assyria, Babylon, Edom, and Nineveh. Jonah wasn’t sent to rebuke one lone king; he was sent to call an entire city-state to repentance. Isaiah 13–23 is a whole series of “oracles against the nations.” Obadiah is one long lawsuit against Edom. These weren’t just warnings to individuals — they… Read more »
Care to discuss “holy” conquests, colonialism or all of the other evils done under the banner of religion?
I do believe that is the classic loaded question. Personally I am generally in favor of the crusades (see Muslim caliphs bragging about how many churches they burn every year), colonialism I am not sure I understand your problem, and I do think that the inquisition was a bad thing. Yes, Christian princes are sinful too and churches are moral agents.
I can only speak of the British Empire as at sundry times and in diverse places I have read up on it. It originated out of desire to increase trade and consequently wealth. Any religious dimension followed on from trade and administration. The jingoism associated with it came about in the late Victorian period. Now some aspects of it were bad, but it had many good aspects too, something the current generation zombied by devices and ignorant of their own history cannot envisage. Such zombies, however, have no qualms about bullying former colonies to accept their LGBTQ proclivities! The hypocrisy… Read more »
True, many bad things have occurred in the name of religion, and many bad things have occurred when people were convinced that God was on their side. But we must not forget that the converse is also true. Lenin and Stalin fashioned their Russia based on “no religion,” and Chairman Mao fashioned his China based on “no religion.” These systems, and the tragic loss of lives produced by them, are a sad chapter in human history.
Like Stalin attacking Poland and grabbing the Baltics? Because he was Russian Orthodox?
Well said.
It’s not. States are not nations. Nor are nations ever portrayed as unitary actors (as opposed to patriarchically-led tribes). Nor are dictatorial regimes (e.g., OT patriarchal tribes) analogous to democratic ones.
God’s decision to create vessels of wrath for destruction in the OT does not give license to Christians to persecute mass groups of people under the New Covenant. Nothing Jesus said allows this.
Rome is still the capital of Christendom worldwide, not Jerusalem or any other place.
So all of that is wrong.
“Nation” doesn’t mean “whichever group I feel like repressing today”, sorry.
Starting off strong with treating your statement of thesis as a proof. The next part isn’t so good because you’re just hoping we won’t notice a straw man. We aren’t trying to get license to persecute mass groups. Rome being the Catholic Capital (Christendom Worldwide is rather strong) is rather irrelevant. the later rise of “Christian Rome” wasn’t a blessing on pagan Rome at all — it was God overthrowing pagan Rome and replacing it with something new. Paganism collapsed, idols were smashed, temples shut down, and the Caesars lost their divinity claims. That’s not reward; that’s replacement. Rome was… Read more »
Yes they did, with differences from one to another and from then to now As Dan Quayle said, They’re all different countries.
Bro Steve, what you have described is a temptation not unique to Calvinists. I would posit that it is a a weakness of all sinners.
Quite so. Moscow’s version of theonomy is just the same-old, same-old, in slightly different clothing. If you can recall (or look up) the “Kingdom Now!” theology of 1970s/80s charismatics, it’s so very familiar.
Doug: “states are moral agents b/c Sodom”.
Also Doug: “states should not carry out God’s clear command to feed the poor, that’s outrageous”
Doug: “states should aggressively police individual decisions when it comes to abortion”
Also Doug: “states should maximize liberty when it comes to guns, cars, and viruses”
A mishmash of authoritarian contradictions. Rules for women, not for men. Rules for Democrats, not for Republicans.
Buster,
Have you ever met a fallacy that you don’t like?
Hi Ted, I’m not a big fan of begging the question.
I did notice that your previous comment is a non sequitur, but I wasn’t going to mention it.
bonjour, quadruple-vaxxed libtard. 1st, the command to feed the poor is on an individual level. 2nd, abortion is wrong, and guns and cars aren’t. i hope you found this helpful!
Thanks, Don, I appreciate the help. Just a few notes. If states are moral agents then ALL moral rules apply to them, and they have an obligation to enforce moral codes or face eternal judgment. That is the claim Doug is making. Welcome to totalitarianism, aka the “Moscow Mood”. Abortion is not prohibited biblically, quite the opposite. Harming others is, and Christians interpret that to include abortion since they grant fetuses personhood. But under that principle we must to prohibit activities based on whether or not they cause harm. Since Christians are generally abortion abolitionists, and are even prosecuting women… Read more »
And this is why you don’t get to ignore the argument that the Christian Nationalists are really just trying to end abortions.
You missed the whole purpose thing. What is an abortion, considering you already granted fetus as person. It is a murder. Abortion is not a neutral thing that might murder, it is an act of murder. It is also illegal to kill people with cars and guns. Also none of us are prosecuting women for uninduced miscarriages.
“If states are moral agents, then ALL moral rules apply to them.” Without addressing your particular application, this seems to depend on the principle that any moral agent is bound by every moral obligation. But clearly, for every person X in need, some person Y has an obligation to help them; it does not follow from this that every person has an obligation to help X. This would entail that (to use a hypothetical example), if 20 people were equally physically fit and spaced equally from a drowning child and saw the drowning child at the same time, the obligation… Read more »
“This would cause more chaos than good” No, it would suggest that coordination is important. Which just so happens to be the purpose of government, according to the Founders: “provide for the general welfare,” which exists in both the Preamble of the Constitution and in the Taxation and Spending clause. Doug might claim all kinds of wrong things — he certainly teaches all kinds of wrong things, this is all very basic Civics 101 stuff — but we have mountains of empirical studies showing what works and what doesn’t. I know you’ll dismiss them, just like you dismiss all forms… Read more »
Yet at the same time Jefferson said this: “A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
seems like he would have been rather against that.
All moral rules apply to all moral agents? Hogwash. Children obey your parents applies to children, not parents, and not countries.
So what rules does God want countries, or the rulers of countries in their capacity as rulers, to follow? And how much does He care?
Not all sins are crimes.
Along with rules, God also sometimes give advice or expresses preferences upon which He does not insist. I Samuel 8 re Israel, for example..
Wow! It didn’t take long for the hate to appear again on Tuesday morning. Praise the Lord in all things for His mercy endures forever!
It is a wonderful thing to be able to read, write, speak and understand the English language instead of being unable to do so as some of the readers here.
Wie bitte !!
“I’m so smart I revel in self-righteousness!” subtweets Dave, who doesn’t recognize bastardized Kant when it smacks him in the eyeballs, and doesn’t appreciate the irony of conflating disagreement with hate… at Doug Wilson’s place. ROFL.
Nope, I read your posts all the time and you don’t have solid arguments based on the Bible.
Happy Wednesday.
Hi Dave, the acceptable interpretations of the Bible in the former United States of America will be determined by the outcome of the sectarian wars your false prophet is leading you into.
Most likely you’ll be ruled by Roman Catholics (potentially from the Global South), and if not then dispensationalists. Will you submit when paedocommunion is prohibited? If not, then you finally will get to be the victim (if “getting what you asked for” counts as victimization).
In the meantime, make sure you’ve filled up Doug’s bank account a little more, he isn’t full enough yet.
Happy Wednesday!
When you’re grumpy and you know it,
Jump on Doug.
When you’re grumpy and you know it,
Jump on Doug.
When you’re grumpy and you know it,
Then your post will surely show it.
When you’re grumpy and you know it,
Jump on Doug.
Haha, hate…persecution complex!
DO NOT LET HER OVERSTAY HER VISA. That will make her an illegal alien, even if she is married to you. In addition to talking to an immigration attorney, I would recommend going on you tube. There are plenty of reality border shows where you can learn how border enforcement works.
She should also have proof of a return airline ticket and evidence that she is well established in her home country. At least 50 years ago, my sister was denied entry to the US because she was traveling with her sewing machine. They figured no one brings a sewing machine unless she is planning to stay!
I’ve seen things like that on the border security shows. Another thing: report all food you have when you come in. Not doing that is a form of smuggling.
I’ve also watched those shows. Not a good idea to bring raw meat in your luggage and think they won’t notice! It’s also essential that any prescription drugs be in the original container, ideally with a copy of the doctor’s prescription (or a printout of the pharmacy record. Even if tylenol with codeine is OTC in your home country, bringing it into the US can lead to problems.
We should rename this comments section, “Buster Just Can’t Help Himself.”
As a dog returns to its own vomit…
All we’re missing is for E to show up and fawn all over his sophomoric prose.
Are you referring to Doug’s words as commit, because I agree:)
I think you meant to use “vomit” instead of “commit.” :)
Wouldn’t be Troll Tuesday without the troll, now would it?
Doug’s entire schtick is trolling, did you note get the joke?
Troll Tuesday is great! Thank you.
Got you birds chirping 🐥
It would be nice if you could avoid fowl talk …
OK boomer. You know Doug addressed women using the C-word publicly. Don’t see me doing anything that bird brained.
“OK boomer” while you attempt to tag team with the most insufferable boomer imaginable in the comment section. You can’t fix stupid and you can’t make this stuff up!
🥱
Cute?
I’m just going to let you play dumb here because it’s more amusing at this point.
You shouldn’t conflate purity with idiocy.
More like idiocy with smartassery.
KB,
Regarding humility, as a heart surgeon who is also good at just about everything I attempt…
Get it deep in your bones that all of your abilities are gifts. You may have worked hard, but even the stamina and endurance is a gift from God Almighty. And those gifts can be just as easily taken away. Humbly thank God for them, as adopt the attitude that Jesus commanded “we are unprofitable servants, we have only done our obligations.”
IE, My son lives here in the US and last summer he married a foreign national who was here legally on a student visa. By doing their homework and making a really strong case showing that their marriage is legitimate and not a sham, she was able to get a green card within about six months. It seems to me that this is what you should be aiming for. She can come on her current visa and apply for a green card while she’s here.
KB, if you are truly that good, you may need to aim your sights higher and gain the humility that comes from competing against world class people. But life itself will probably give you humility where and when you need it. Enjoy the blessings and don’t let anyone envy you.
Steve’s letter helps us to articulate something about Christian Nationalism. Christian Nationalists just know that if *they* were the ones wielding the ring, then it’d all work out well. They are so wise and incisive in their cultural analysis; they see all, they know all, and they have *great* slogans. All the checks and balances would be put into place, and none of the errors made by those politically-corrupted leaders of previous years can happen. So, clearly it’s quite right that the ring should be handed to them. How can the rest of us be so stupid as to not… Read more »
Well said!
see Doug saying it would still go wrong but we would gradually get better. And even if we had another inquisition it would be better than Mayan sacrifices or mass abortions. Here’s the issue you think that we would do worse somehow, we think we would do better. We don’t think we would be perfect, but we also think Jesus is the answer to everything.
Can you quote Wolfe or is this like that Jefferson quote about the slave girl?
Why not? Also an appeal to nobody succeeding as a reason not to try is a really bad argument.
Capital punishment for heretics is justified on page 391. ““This is a remedy to stop the “poison,” as Calvin said. Turretin cites a great number of Reformed theologians who supported capital punishment for arch-heretics: Zanchi, Becanus, Bullinger, Beza, Franciscus Junius, Danaeus, Gerhard, Bucer, and Melanchthon.46 This is not to say that capital punishment is the necessary, sole, or desired punishment. Banishment and long-term imprisonment may suffice as well.And perhaps a Christian people may consider some heretics harmless, or they might conclude that suppressing heresy is, in at least some cases, more harmful than the heresy itself. The crucial point here… Read more »
I don’t subscribe to Christian Nationalism. But I also don’t subscribe to the radical separation of Church and State, whereby the Church is to have no influence on the State or its affairs. So there needs to be a reasonable and practical middle ground somewhere (which I recognize is fraught with challenges). Nonetheless, I’d be curious to get your thoughts on Acts 5:1-11. Here’s an example of the New Testament Church clearly being involved in a civil affair. Peter is an apostle and an elder/overseer, yet he got upset because Ananias held back some of the profit of the sale… Read more »
If you are really asking a question, re-read the passage, but start with 4:36. Note in particular what Peter said, and if you still don’t get it what it was all about come back and I’ll explain it to you.
Dan, as a general statement, I believe there’s a huge number of possible options in between the false dichotomy that Christian Nationalists offer of the state being dictated to by churches, or doing nothing. We should be unashamed to engage with whatever means in God’s sovereignty are provided to us in our society to influence laws in a good direction. But we should avoid various of the dangers that Christian Nationalism has not avoided, which include setting forth a mixed platform of clear Biblical precepts combined with controversial political opinions (Douglas Wilson can even tell you what the precise tax… Read more »
David, as I mentioned in my comment, I don’t subscribe to Christian Nationalism. My church and theological persuasion is from a Reformed Baptist and amillennial perspective. As such, I am no postmillennialist, nor am I a theonomist or reconstructionist. Therefore, I do not believe there will come a time in the future of the church when the world will become Christianized and nations will adopt biblical law before the coming of Christ. I believe Christ’s kingdom is a spiritual kingdom, not a worldly kingdom. From a biblical perspective, God’s plan to fight all the evils in the world is twofold:… Read more »
How do you then interpret the chaining of Satan? I know various Amil interpretations, which is yours?
I’m not sure if it was bad phrasing or what but there definitely are still theocracies. Maybe you meant there shouldn’t be?
the issue with Ananias is that he was lying. It was a moral question worked out in civil life.
“I’m not sure if it was bad phrasing or what but there definitely are still theocracies. Maybe you meant there shouldn’t be?” Correct, there shouldn’t be. God Himself ended the Israelite theocracy, and there was no intention that the Christian church would function as a theocracy in the New Covenant era. The mission of the church is to preach the gospel and make disciples (as demonstrated throughout the New Testament). The mission of the church isn’t to build a theocracy on earth (locally or globally). To be sure, the mission of the church is a global one (“go and make disciples of… Read more »
However he also says that heaven is descending to earth. And that we are waging war. Just because it is spiritual doesn’t mean there is not a physical manifestation. We are saved body and soul. We worship in physical gatherings. We still have to be physically pure. CN just extends this to Government. And on the note about theocracy, you should look at how the term is defined in some of Doug’s posts. Either there should be no theocracy but Doug isn’t proposing one or there has to be theocracy and Doug isn’t proposing one.
Scribbler, you asked, “How do you then interpret the chaining of Satan?”
I believe Christ is ruling right now over His church from heaven alongside His saints. Satan is currently bound in the sense that he cannot prevent people from hearing the gospel and believing in Christ.
Below is a helpful article by Sam Storms (from 2013). It’s called “Why I Changed My Mind About the Millennium”.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-the-millennium/
Ok, so you’re one of the mostly good ones then.
I’m postmil not premil.
Acts 5 is anything but the church being involved in a civil affair. I don’t know any civil system where giving away some of your money and saying you gave all of it is a crime, unless there was a law saying you had to give all of it or a law saying you have to report exactly what you give, neither of which was the case for people giving to the church during the Roman Empire. This is purely an ecclesiastical affair, and is dealt with as such. Members of the church attempted to deceive the entire church in… Read more »
Couple notes. Not all Christian Nationalists are in favor of state being dictated to by church, that is actually a minority position. can you give me the source for the tax stuff, I can’t find it. Doug doesn’t want men to vote and women not too. The extrapolation is that we should have household votes, and men are usually in charge of households. In those cases that women are in charge they would vote. on immediate leadership, he actually just said he expects all this to take a minimum of 250 years. being repugnant is not a bad thing, in… Read more »
The issue is with the lying
Yes.
And let’s not forget… Doug Wilson is a heretic. FV is heretical. Multiple denominations have said so, and more soon will. So every member of the CREC is a member of a heretical denomination, every student at NSA is a heretic, every student raised on Logos curriculum was taught heresy.
That’s according to other Reformed presbyterians.
According to the most-populous church — the Roman church, the church of the current Supreme Court of the US — all Protestants are heretics.
It’s not like we haven’t fought centuries of wars over these very issues.
Thanks for the quote. I follow the mere Christendom model, so no flogging baptists for us.
a couple clarifications, Doug wants want lots of Christian states, no denominational states, and still wants separated governments.
I also find it ironic that Presbyterians are considered the really legalistic ones when Roman Catholics did the whole inquisition thing, baptists won’t let you have a beer and require that you only wear jeans if you’re on the worship team, and Methodists ban dancing, drinking, and theater.
Scribbler, you said: “Baptists won’t let you have a beer and require that you only wear jeans if you’re on the worship team.” None of this is remotely true, at least not at the Baptist church that I’ve been a member for 20 years.
I have been to Baptist churches where this is the case. One example is Burnt Hickory Baptist Church. There are certainly plenty of exceptions especially among reformed baptists and Texans.
”We can do better”? Who is we? If there is another inquisition how do you know your camp won’t be on the receiving end?
CN folks. I don’t, but I would rather be martyred for what I believe than have babies murdered, children mutilated, and God entirely rejected.
Would you consider the people making a martyr of you, or the people you love most before your eyes, ( and really think about that before you give a nonchalant answer) to really be Christians? If they were not, it would kind of negate the whole point of CN, wouldn’t it? If they were Christians, apparently something is badly wrong with what you believe.
I would think they might be Christians but so were the Corinthians getting drunk in communion and thyatira listening to the prophetess Jezebel. It isn’t a Christian thing to do but I don’t think it would be blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
”….and you know that no murderer has eternal life remaining in him”.
I know “all sin is the same” is a position some people hold, but if you believe drunk at communion is the exact moral equivalent of murdering Christians over doctrinal differences, that’s a point on which we disagree. I’m glad I live in a time and place where no one can punish me for it.
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NET there are a lot of sins thus identified. Whether someone can be verbally abusive and still be a Christian is undisputed. One can be deceived into thinking that it is not murder it is only an execution as punishment for a crime (I.e. legal killing). Is that then a conscious sin that… Read more »
By the same token, one can be deceived into thinking abortion is not murder rather it is only a woman exercising her right to choose. One difference is that part of the deceit backing abortion is the idea that a fetus is not a person, whereas professing Christian clergy and magistrates who had dissenters killed understood full well that whatever else they were doing they were burning, drowning, or hanging a person. Conscious or not, sin always indicates something about the heart, and our fruit shows what we are. The less reason a person thinks they need to kill, the… Read more »
Numerically it would be better.
If you think sheer quantity alone is a measure of relative awfulness. However, if ever again professing Christians are the ones attempting to suppress the gospel, or murdering Christians, all in the name of God, you can be sure things aren’t getting better
Are you advocating chaos or something else. If not Christ at the helm of our elected officials, who should be guiding the American ship of state?
Were the apostles advocating chaos when they utterly failed to advocate Christian Nationalism? No, they weren’t, and neither am I. Beware of substituting careful thought and examination of the Scriptures for slogans and Tweets written by clever men.
You can’t just state the contested point and use it as your argument. Phil. 2:9–11, Rev. 1:5
Were the apostles advocating the evils of the paganism around them? (Despite Romans 1, it took Sarah Ruden’s book “Paul Among the People” to make clear to me how bad it was, what horrors it took for granted.) They were making a small start, such as they could, on teaching all the ethnic groups to obey all Messiah’s orders and taking every thought captive to obey Him.Did they themselves sometimes make serious mistakes of commission and omission? Galatians 2 and NT in general and Bible in general. Are either CNs or their Chritian critics advocating the evils of our present… Read more »
D’you mean CNs or political liberals?
> “Mike, we differ on such things down at the tectonic plate level. To take one example—to give money to the poor is of course enjoined by Scripture. But taxing middle class people, at the point of a gun, and redistributing the proceeds to others, is not Christian charity.” Doug here, as usual, is talking about an ideal Christian state which nowhere exists, and reads across from that to our situation, and majors on the injustices that he believes he suffers as a result. He fails to read where we actually are in the story. The fact is that the… Read more »
You have it exactly backwards. No one can compete with the government, that includes “charity” (and what the government does is not charity at all). The government has made it harder and harder to give since they take so much of our money to “give” on our behalf. Nonetheless, many, examples of reformed charities exist and thrive because that is what God tells us to do even when the government takes 30% of our income. It would be hard to measure this since God also says don’t brag about your giving. So, those doing it well and per Gods command… Read more »
“No one can compete with the government”
That is blasphemy.
God commands you to divest and give to the poor, not “compete with the government”.
You have no faith whatsoever.
You’re one to talk. You were pushing troon rights last week and another one of them decided to murder children today. Y’all would probably get along great, talking about how evil Trump and those Bible thumpin’ right wingers are. Your red-letter Marcionite heresy has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. Stop playing mind-reader and pretending to know if someone else has “faith.” And read Jesus a little more carefully next time without skipping Matt. 5:17-20. Oh, and you’ve littered this place with enough inane comments. You claimed your “mission” was almost done here a month ago. You obviously don’t have… Read more »
Your meme utters the false dichotomy which Christian Nationalists always fall back on: essentially “if you don’t agree with our novel option, then you must be advocating Satanism”, or “Christ or Chaos”, or whatever. In fact, the Protestant faith has a rich intellectual history of exploring and discussing different options. Isn’t it strange that people in CREC circles manage to square the circle of advocating classical education, rigorous study of the sources, etc., and yet when it comes to their actual political strategy, they promote these hideous false dichotomies “sans cesse” ? So unnecessary, so unhelpful.
Wait, you’re blaming me for the actions of a person traumatized by false religious teaching?? I’m not a Roman Catholic. I’m not trans either. If the trans community is responsible for this murder then the evangelical community — as a whole, collectively, as a “nation” that should be punished by the state according to Doug — is responsible for every wife-beating, every instance of child abuse, and every shooting that any of its adherents ever engages in. You sure you want that to be the standard? I am quite confident, cherrera, that you’ve spent more time in these comments (cumulatively… Read more »
But … the same scripture that commands not to kill, tells husbands to love and consider their wives rather than beat or abuse them, and fathers not to provoke their children but to provide for them and give them a godly upbringing also condemn transgenderism as sinful.
Therefore it is good when scripture is obeyed and all sinful activities, which are always harmful, are avoided.
You invoke “covenants,” but you use the word while denying the thread that ties them together. The New Covenant does not abolish the Old; it brings the promises to fulfillment. That’s why Paul writes: “The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘In you shall all the nations be blessed.’” (Gal. 3:8). The covenant with Abraham was never revoked — it was expanded in Christ to include the nations (cf. Gen. 12:3). That is covenantal continuity. Your reading of Matthew 5:39 (“resist not the evil one”) rips it from this covenantal frame.… Read more »
Well said.
If by old covenant you mean the law of Moses, then Christians are no longer under that law at all, but simply in Christ under grace. In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8) Now the morality and righteousness expressed in the law, being a reflection of God’s holy character, does continue unchanged, but the ceremonies and penalties are not applicable to modern believers, let alone contemporary non-Jews to whom the law was never given. The judicial murder carried out by… Read more »
I think you need to reread my comment
I believe you need to reread my post.
BTW, you hand out heresy charges so often against so many faithful Christians that it’s really just a confirmation we’ve hit the nail on the head.
another loaded question, along with the same argument used to keep slaves in check. Funny, I thought you guys were the ones who thought slavery was worth fighting a war over.
Before the Great Society was forced on Americans, welfare was to be only for the poorest of the poor. Now, depending on the snapshot period, 50-60% of Americans who are able to work, actually work. The 83 welfare programs take up about 20% of the federal budget. Before we had the individual income tax, public projects were paid for by specialized taxes and everything went remarkably well. The poor were helped by their local communities not by the government. LBJ sent out feelers to the major denominations asking for input on the Great Society. The sales pitch was that it… Read more »
Poverty rates went down considerably once LBJs policies were enacted, then either went up or practically flattened since Regan’s policies in the 80’s.
My conclusion is overall LBJ’s policies worked, and you are blaming the policy outcomes of Regan on LBJ.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/01/13/whos-poor-in-america-50-years-into-the-war-on-poverty-a-data-portrait/
Not only that, but more people started working! The labor-force participation ratio in 1955 was 58%. In 1965, at start of Great Society, also 58%. In 1975? 61%. 1985? 64%. 1995? 66%. That was the peak, the Clinton years. Then it fell during the Bush years, collapsed after subprime crisis before stabilizing during Obama. Stayed at same level during Trump until Covid, when it fell again, and was rising from the bottom of that valley under Biden (probably b/c of his jobs programs, which have since been cut). All these tidy little narratives they have? All wrong, empirically. (Of course… Read more »
Before the Great Society, blacks were not forced into government housing blocks. In Chicago, old ladies used to carry pocket pistols and punks trying to rob them got shot. When the south side projects went up, the displaced grandmas and families were replanted in the projects. After a few punks were shot trying to rob people, the cops came by and told them that they were in government housing and they couldn’t have pistols or shoot punks. That’s when the real every day crime on those in the south side projects started. Now, your Pew research article states, “Researchers generally… Read more »
Lots of anecdotes but no data.
And you want to speak on wars failing, what’s our win loss ratio since the 40’s? And what’s happened to the military’s budget?
Whatever the government is doing, and I’ll be one of the last to promote the idea that they’re doing it well, actually stops today’s churches from being servants of the genuinely needy in society. Does all our belly-aching about governments’ faults achieve anything useful?
“nothing actually stops”
The church has failed to supply the needs of the poor in society at large? Where did the apostles teach this as the work of the church?
JP- similar to Doug’s suggestion, when my kids (my boys, in particular) were disrespectful to their Mother, there were occasions where I gave them a very pointed “You do not talk to my wife that way.” It seemed to open their eyes.
Listening to Ken Ham a while ago he claimed 7/8 ths of American young evangelicals are abandoning the faith by the time they graduate from high school. The average age of churchgoers in the UK is currently 62, and only 1% of the population is having their babies baptised in the Church of England. Members of both the Catholic and protestant churches in Germany are leaving in unprecedented numbers, in many cases due to the abject failure to deal with abuse. For all the talk of so-called Christian nationalism the situation in many western countries makes any notion of an… Read more »
The pseudoscience Ken Ham espouses certainly doesn’t help either.
Yet another one of your fellow troons shot up a school today. Of course you’ve defended senseless murders before, as long as it’s not some degenerate getting murdered.
Shadow boxing in full swing. Accusing me of defending murder is certainly a new angle. You know I’m not a privy to the arguments you have in your head, right?
And so you ignore the billion year old rocks encasing a spark plug?
And so you ignore actual science?
“Geodes consist of a thin outer shell composed of dense chalcedonic silica and filled with a layer of quartz crystals. The Coso Artifact does not possess either feature. Maxey referred to the material covering the artifact as “hardened clay” and noted that it had picked up a miscellaneous collection of pebbles, including a “nail and washer”. Analysis of the surface material using the standard Mohs scale suggests a hardness of Mohs 3, which is much softer than chalcedony.”
https://ncse.ngo/coso-artifact
Try this one, 3 foot stalactites in a man made tunnel
Bent rock layers in the Grand Canyon, the law of abiogenesis, the lack of sediment accumulation on the seafloor, the decaying magnetic field, the million year old rocks made by mount Saint Helen’s, fossilized raindrops, fossilized tracks moving through rock layers, trees encased in multiple layers, other polystrate fossils, Darwin himself said that he thought the intermediary fossils would need to be found or else the theory was useless (also he was a real racist), dinosaurs around in A.D. 90 at minimum
Bruh all of these things have rational scientific explanations and prove nothing. Must have been an NSA student with your scientific literacy. Practically Flat-Earthers with a dash of slavery apologia.
“Bruh all of these things have rational scientific explanations and prove nothing.” No they don’t, which is why you didn’t try to counter any of these with actual facts. Instead, you resorted to sophomoric name-calling. No Flat-Earthers here, sorry. I have 3 questions for you: 1) Where did living organisms come from? How did life originate from non-life? It is not enough for evolutionists to demonstrate in natural history museums that apes evolved into humans. That’s child’s play. Instead, they need to demonstrate how non-living matter evolved into living organisms in the first place. Yet this mystery has always eluded the evolutionists, thereby… Read more »
I’m not here to write any essays, so knock yourself out chief. Young vs Flat Earthers are a distinction without a difference.
“Young vs Flat Earthers are a distinction without a difference.” Traditional Darwinists vs Neo-Darwinists are a distinction without a difference. There’s a reason you won’t try to explain where living organisms came from (outside of a biblical worldview). If you subscribe to naturalistic evolution, you have no plausible explanation for this. But don’t feel bad, you’re not alone. No one who subscribes to naturalistic evolution has a plausible explanation for how life originated from non-life. Instead, they simply brush this question off and maintain the pseudo-scientific notion that “life finds a way” (as Jeff Goldblum’s character blithely asserted in the… Read more »
Evolution explains the diversity of life, it does not assert an origin. The fact is, like many things in science, we don’t know. Keep filling in those gaps with your God, but don’t refute science that you know nothing about be it geology or physics. Typical arrogant Wilsonite.
I find it ironic that you accuse us of knowing nothing about science having tried to answer only one of our claims.
I answered one of your claims but I’m not going to waste time with back and fourths over easily answerable questions. Or when they are equivalents of “can God build a wall he can’t jump over?”
I’m not claiming God doesn’t exist or science has answers to literally everything, just that goofy pseudoscience is a contributing factor pushing people away from the faith and hindering the growth of the congregation. Good science and good faith can coexist. Look at real colleges for examples of this, unlike NSA which clearly omits one and accuses it of wrongthink.
In the naturalistic evolutionary worldview, goofy pseudoscience is believing that somehow order evolved from chaos.
In the naturalistic evolutionary worldview, goofy pseudoscience is believing that living organisms originated from non-living matter.
In the naturalistic evolutionary worldview, goofy pseudoscience is believing the evolutionary chain of invertebrates, to fish, to amphibian, to reptile, to bird, to mammal, to ape, to hominid, to man.
In the naturalistic evolutionary worldview, goofy pseudoscience is believing that random chance, plus time, is the best explanation for the complexity of the universe and the diversity of life on Earth.
It is not a claim on origin. You’re fundamentally incorrect. Stay mad. And don’t surprised when this rhetoric pushes people away from your ever dwindling fundamentalist organizations to other denominations.
Not a claim on origin eh, not our fault for thinking so. Evolutionists themselves constantly drag origins into the conversation—whether it’s Miller-Urey, primordial soup, hydrothermal vents, panspermia, or the RNA world. Textbooks, museums, and “popular science” blur those speculations into the evolutionary narrative like it’s all one package. So it’s not “fundamentalists” confusing the issue—it’s the evolutionary establishment itself. And as for your line about “ever dwindling fundamentalist organizations”—tell that to Answers in Genesis. The Creation Museum and Ark Encounter are only expanding, drawing bigger crowds every year. If this really were “goofy pseudoscience” that was driving everyone away, you’d… Read more »
I’m not here to write essays so no, I’m not going to answer your meandering series of questions that you could just as easily find yourself with a Google search and cursory reading of abstracts and primary sources.
But I am curious if you can find data outside of your theme park anecdote about how evangelicalism is increasing in the states. Flat Earth conventions are pretty popular too from what I understand.
Scribbler, every word is spot on. And your last sentence drove it home: “Shrugging at the hard questions isn’t a refutation—it’s just evasion.”
First, I’m not mad. In fact, I think you’re projecting. You can’t answer these supposedly simple questions, so instead you sling insults. That’s your choice. Second, I’m not a Wilsonite. I’m a Reformed Baptist and an Amillennialist. Moreover, I do not subscribe to Christian Nationalism, nor do I subscribe to any form of dominion theology. Third, your statement is disingenuous: “Evolution explains the diversity of life, it does not assert an origin.” In reality, those holding to a naturalistic evolutionary worldview do in fact believe that the universe and all of life on earth can be understood has having evolved… Read more »
Can God build a wall he can’t jump over? If you say yes, no, can’t answer, or say it’s nonsensical, I win.
Continue to avoid the additional question where you can prove the congregation of evangelicals has been trending towards growth outside of how busy a theme park appears to be. Holy Land Experience 2.0.
I challenged your claim that “Evolution explains the diversity of life, it does not assert an origin.” Yet you come back with “Can God build a wall he can’t jump over?” This is just another deflection to avoid dealing with the actual argument. And then you deflect further by posting a picture of an evangelical theme park. What does that have to do with anything? Lastly, you seem to imply that Christians who argue against evolution cause people to turn away from the faith. In actuality, the theory of evolution has done a lot of harm to the Christian church… Read more »
That one made me smile
Ironic indeed, and very telling.
And Such a Turtle Would be Hard to Miss
Virgins and Volcanoes, p. 41
contrast this with the Bible actually teaching young earth and the science backing it up.
It is highly debatable whether indeed the bible actually does say the universe is young. It is not its purpose to give this kind of information which in any event would have been unintelligible to the original intended audience.
If my understanding of Genesis is correct then a lot of needless argument would be removed from the Christian scene, some of which I do not doubt puts thinking unbelievers off even giving the claims of Christianity the time of day,
This one made me smile.
also highly debated whether the Bible is true, God exists, Jesus is God, Catholicism is heresy. I don’t even understand how it could be unintelligible. The Bible says God created everything in six days. These six days were followed by many genealogies, none of which include Neanderthals.
quote from old earth Bible study curriculum “because death was around for millions of years before Adam, death is a good and natural part of creation.”
quote from Genesis “and there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.”
This all stems from an anxiety around if the text isn’t literally true, it cant be believed. How people reconcile with the numerous discrepancies surrounding the resurrection I’ll never understand. Kierkegaard referred to it as a leap of faith for a reason, but your insistence to have all the answers just serves to unnecessarily divide believers. Or just plan on another Thirty Year’s War.
I agree. If God meant each “day” to denote a very long period of time, then Scripture wouldn’t say “there was evening, and there was morning.” It wouldn’t make any sense following a plain reading of Scripture. Secondly, in Exodus chapter 20, Scripture says: “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For… Read more »
For evening and morning see above in answer to Scribbler. The week of Ex 20 is recurring, whereas the week of creation is not, so I don’t the pattern of 6 days followed by a day of rest has to entail Genesis being literal days. That used to be my understanding but I dropped it on re-reading the text more carefully, and having been exposed to the skepticism of secularists on another forum, and wanting to give a credible defence of Genesis. It seems to me the sabbath rest of God is still continuing, and we can enter into it!… Read more »
Ken, thanks for your respectful reply. Some of the early church fathers held to a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account, emphasizing the six 24-hour days, whereas other church fathers interpreted Genesis allegorically rather than literally. The Westminster Confession (1647) clearly affirmed that God created the world and all things in it “in the space of six days” (chapter 4, paragraph 1). In Annotations upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (the Westminster Annotations, 1645), the Westminster authors specified concerning Genesis 1:5 that in the latter part of the verse, the word day is the natural day, consisting of… Read more »
I agree that the literal 6 day view was held by some long before Ellen G White, but her vision and Price’s popular science based on it found their way into Morris and Whitcomb’s work, and they were very coy in admitting the connection, Price largely goes unacknowledged. In that sense YEC of the AiG variety is a relatively modern phenomenon. Whilst skeptics do not define the truth of scripture for us, they can ask awkward questions, such as the creation of light before the creation of the sun, moon and stars to give light on the earth. I don’t… Read more »
Thanks for your reply. Rather than seeing Genesis chapter 1 and 2 as competing accounts of creation (as many skeptics assert), we should see them as complementary. Genesis chapter 1 summarizes the entirety of creation, whereas Genesis chapter 2 focuses on the sixth day and all that is related to it.
The heavens and the earth already existed before the first ‘day’ which is when God said Let there be light. The expression evening and morning could at the very least have more to do with the theme of light and darkness, day and night that runs through the first chapter. God, like us, was working during the day in what followed.
Yes, they existed before light and time, no that doesn’t mean you can shove millions of years in before the existence of light and time.
”theme of light and darkness” you mean the recurring usage of the phrase evening and morning?
I don’t understand your last sentence.
What’s interesting when I say that I don’t believe Genesis dates the age of the earth, verses one and two being in the indefinite past, is the assumption that not taking it woodenly literally must entail a belief in millions if not billions of years. By definition if Genesis does not date the earth then it allows for any time period from billions to literal days. My last sentence was intended to mean that the creation week is a pattern for our human week. Creation was ‘all in a week’s work’, but the days are divine days the exact length… Read more »
I think that part of it would be the hope for a couple big reformation and revivals with CN being part of it, historically the light shines best when it gets really dark.
In the UK there may be a few small straws in the wind that the relentless decline may be coming to an end. This is particularly so amongst the young and men who want something that doesn’t change every 6 months, but it would certainly be premature to describe this as a revival.
Nevertheless there is hope that this may yet happen, and if it does it will be amongst churches that take the bible seriously.
I’m a little late to the comment section, but wanted to respond to Justin and his question about prayer. I would like to have heard a little bit more from Pastor Doug addressing some of Justin‘s nuanced criticism of public prayer. It is frustrating to sit an hour in prayer for everybody to say the same thing over and over and over – God heard the request the first time. Was it Whitfield who said something like “he prayed me into a right frame of mind and the right out of it”?? Jesus kept his prayers short and logical; we… Read more »