Contents
Interesting Question
Let’s say someone—who grew up in a Christian home, went to church when they were younger, etc.—gets a civil union with his girlfriend. Is this case something closer to marriage, or solemnified fornication? And how close to one or the other should Christian family members treat it as?
Thank you!Michael
Michael, it is not solemnized fornication, and it is not close to marriage. It simply is marriage. The presence of a pastor does not make the marriage possible, it simply enables the bride and groom to testify to their commitment to Christ in marriage. But the pastor does not “transubstantiate” the couple into a married couple.
Masculine Worship
What does a masculine worship service look like? Do you have a recording so I could see it? I’ve been working for a few years to change the way our services are structured, but it would be helpful to show what I mean to others. What songs do you use? Are there only guys singing? Stuff like that. How do I “practically” make it happen?
Thank you for your ministry. It’s helped me grow a lot over the years.Robert
Robert, two things. First, a video of a sample worship service has been recorded, and is in the production pipeline. We don’t record our worship services usually, because we don’t want our people to feel like they are worshiping in a studio. But we made a one-time exception with our dedication services for our new building. So that is on the way.
For the rest, it is kind of hard to describe, and I can only give you a few indicators. First, every aspect of the service is led by men—announcements, song-leading, choir director, Scripture reading, congregational prayer, distribution of the Lord’s Supper, preaching, and so forth. That does establish the tone. As for music, we sing from the Cantus Christi, which also helps. Men and women both sing, but with a number of our songs, the melody is in the tenor. We also sing quite a few fuging tunes, where the bass and tenor parts are broken out, and usually lead. In addition, the harmonizations of a number of our songs utilize open fifths, which create something of a stark and masculine feel. In short, this kind of thing does leave people with a sense that the service was masculine. But it is important to note that this does not exclude the women, not at all. They enjoy it as much as anybody.
For the rest, it is kind of hard to describe, and I can only give you a few indicators. First, every aspect of the service is led by men—announcements, song-leading, choir director, Scripture reading, congregational prayer, distribution of the Lord’s Supper, preaching, and so forth. That does establish the tone. As for music, we sing from the Cantus Christi, which also helps. Men and women both sing, but with a number of our songs, the melody is in the tenor. We also sing quite a few fuging tunes, where the bass and tenor parts are broken out, and usually lead. In addition, the harmonizations of a number of our songs utilize open fifths, which create something of a stark and masculine feel. In short, this kind of thing does leave people with a sense that the service was masculine. But it is important to note that this does not exclude the women, not at all. They enjoy it as much as anybody.
Bahnsen at Jackson
I recently read Greg Bahnsen’s “CHRIST IS KING-Theonomy and Civil Government.” I really had a hard time finding anything to disagree with in this short and concise book/series of essays. I know he was at the original RTS campus in Jackson, MS in early 1970’s. I’ve always heard that he and RTS had a falling out over theonomy etc and his tenure there was very short. Could you give me any details on that.Jerry
Jerry, sorry. I think your details are accurate as far as they go, but that is about as far as I go. I think there were likely some other factors as well—because there always are—such as Bahnsen being young and very brilliant.
Thanks for the Input, And . . .
Thanks for this article. Your commitment to God’s Word/Truth and to clarity are very refreshing. One thing you could do to help with clarity for those listening to your podcast rather than reading it is to give a cue when you begin a quote.Honey
Honey, thanks for the input. Let’s crowd source this one. I have gone back and forth on it. For those of you who listen instead of read, would it be helpful if I began citations with “quote . . .”?
Narcissism in the Church
I want to talk to you about narcissism in the church. About women being silenced when they’re being emotionally abused and when there is abuse and infidelity and being told that’s submission. there’s a lot about the CREC that I love but women being silenced when they’re being abused really bothers me. Enabling narcissists that are hurting people in the church is traumatizing people and it needs to be addressed.Reyna
Reyna, let me begin with agreement, and then move on to some cautions. The agreement is that whenever anyone is being mistreated, they ought not to be silenced or ignored. Full agreement there. Now the cautions. First, I have trouble with narcissism as a catch-all diagnosis. Many times it is hard to distinguish the symptoms of it from the symptoms displayed by someone with whom I am in strong disagreement. Just as Bierce defines a bore as someone who talks when I wish him to listen, so also it is too easy to define a narcissist as someone who won’t admit that I am right. Second, women can be narcissists also, and often when a situation blows up in the church, the pastors do not yet know which one is the gas-lighter and which one is being silenced. So careful investigation is not “silencing” on the part of the church. And then last, these terms are frequently used by bad actors outside the church who are not interested in the truth at all. They have weaponized this kind of jargon, and have made it much harder to minister to actual victims.
Hard Choice
I wondered if you had any input. I just finished a two-year youth pastor position at a PCA church. We love the church, but it was too far away, so we decided we had to move on. Very good friends of mine planted a church in a nearby city, and the church has flourished. I went to seminary for part of a time with two friends who started the church. So naturally, my family and I started to attend their church.
My family is growing here, and we love the church. However, the church leans very strongly, pre-millennial, and credo Baptist. I on the other hand, lean very strongly towards a post millennial outlook. On top of all this, I have definitely felt the call to preach and teach, and I have a great desire to do so. Yet, after meeting with my good friend/head Pastor, it is clear that I would have to be sympathetic to the pre-millennial view in order to teach.
I feel very lost. As I said, we love the church, and the teaching and sermons are extremely biblical to a fault. I also love my friends very much, and want to support them. I don’t want them to feel rejected if we choose another church. But again, as I said, I have a strong desire to teach and preach. Sorry for the rambling. I wondered if had any insight as to steps I should take moving forward. Thanks again.BS
BS, I am afraid I don’t have an easy solution for you. From what you describe, you are going to have to choose. As Chuck Colson once put it, “You can’t work for McDonald’s and sell Wendy’s burgers.”
Thought About It
Are you going to release a magnum opus?Will
Will, I have thought about it. And I have been chipping away at some possibilities. But nothing soon.
Eschatology and Christian Nationalism
I want to begin by thanking you and your family for your impact in my life. It was through one of your father’s coffee shops/book stores in Gunnison, CO that I found Reformed theology. Thank you! I am a seminary student at Westminster Theological Seminary and a pastor and have been wrestling with your brand of Christian Nationalism, trying to understand what you’re saying. I’ve also seen and read articles from others, such as Kevin DeYoung, who criticize, with varying degrees of charity, the ministry there in Moscow. Thinking about these things, I would like to put this to you and ask if I’m right in thinking that your Christian Nationalist endeavor rests upon your Postmillennialism. Now, I certainly agree with you that we should pass and desire to see passed just and righteous laws. That is obvious. But given your Postmillennial milieu, you expect for a carnal kingdom to appear someday apart from any cataclysmic return of Christ. Premillennialism agrees with you on this point, though they look for the necessity of Christ’s prior return. While you say that the kingdom will not advance through political means but only through the gospel of Jesus Christ, and I certainly “amen” that with you, it seems to me that your postmillennialism throws the weight in your actual ministry air-time behind those mechanisms of the expected and hoped-for coming carnal kingdom. While you say the right things and, so far as I can tell, have orthodox theology, for which I am thankful, you give much more air-time to political matters than to anything else. I’m assuming that’s due, again, to your postmillennial emphasis and the desire for a carnal kingdom partly defined by Christian control of the levers of power. Therefore, when I think about DeYoung’s critique in particular, while he commends the many wonderful things going on in Moscow . . . and I agree with those compliments and am thankful myself for Canon+ and the many other things you guys are doing out there . . . it seems to me that what he and others are pointing out, but don’t quite ever put their finger on . . . is that the center has slightly shifted due to postmillennialism. In other words, it seems many are trying to point out that the emphasis is on secondary, or peripheral, issues and therefore, something “feels” off. My question is, is this a fair critique? Does your emphasis rest primarily on the milieu of the carnal kingdom lent to you from postmillennial expectation? I don’t mean to be disrespectful, and forgive me, brother, if this comes off that way. I greatly respect you and the others in Moscow and am thankful for your ministry. I have seen it do much good. And at the same time, I find myself concerned with what seems to be the actual outcome and emphasis of postmillennial theology. Thank you for your time. May the Lord bless you in all your work for Him.Clayton
Clayton, thanks for the letter and for the question. Not surprisingly, I don’t think that “take” would be accurate. You use the phrase “carnal kingdom,” various times. I would much prefer to say “spiritual kingdom with an earthly manifestation.” Our version of Christian nationalism here in Moscow is certainly postmill, but there are other versions out there that are not. And last, as to whether my postmill-CNery is sucking me down into the tawdry work of politics, I would simply point to the books I have published. There are quite a few of them, and the ones that could be described as “political” are a mere handful, less than ten percent of them.
Upon Discovering Campbell’s Book
“The book is Disarming Leviathan: Loving Your Christian Nationalist Neighbor by Caleb Campbell.” I must know—how audible and deep was the laugh when you stumbled across this gem?Ian
Ian, I’ll have you know that I behaved myself, and nobody stared. Next installment, Lord willing, will be tomorrow.
Re “The Wine of Red Forgiveness”
I presume you’ve invited bro Campbell to blog back and forth with you about this, or some similar procedure?
As I may’ve mentioned here before, if bro Campbell (and most PCA elders) are not globalist Christians wanting to be ruled by the UN, nor imperialist Christians wanting to go conquering other countries, nor tribalist Christians wanting to Balkanize the US, then they’re nationalist Christians. Welcome to the club.
And for Presbyterians, was anyone at the Westminster Assembly NOT a nationalist Christian? They didn’t think they were writing the Constitution for one denomination among many; they thought they were writing the theological articles of the constitution of England (with Scottish help, and maybe tips of the hat to Ireland and even Wales?)Andrew
Andrew, yes, and amen. As for interacting with Campbell, I would be more than happy to—if what I am doing attracts his attention.
When I first saw the cover of Campbell’s book, I was confused. It says “disarming Leviathan,” which I naturally assumed to be the Federal Government, AND it says “loving your Christian nationalist neighbor.” We are going to do both? Maybe we will gain C.N.’s trust by showing him that we ALSO want to disarm Leviathan?
But, alas …Jennifer
Jennifer, yes. Alas.
Everybody Knows
Someone will say, “I concede the desirability and essential goodness of Christian morality, but that desirability does not prove that Christianity is true.” I am skeptical of that claim. That rationale is sound when we are talking about small things. I am not sure it applies to the biggest of things—where alternatives are few and mostly intolerable. When we’re talking about significant enough things, it may really be that the beautiful is the good is the true.
However, let’s assume that claim is sound for the moment, and let’s look at something even more basic: Is there a God?
I don’t believe anyone is really a moral relativist. I think everyone believes in objective morality, but some are prone to making lame excuses, and some are prone to indulging lame excuses. We all know murder is wrong. We know it as if Someone actually said, “You shall not murder.”
What accounts for this knowledge? Everyone experiences this commandment as a law—not a vibe, not an urge, a law: an instruction backed by authority. And none of us will allow anyone to plead ignorance of this law. Everyone knows this law. And everyone knows that everyone knows this law.
There can be no effect without an adequate cause. It is as though Someone spoke this law into existence in such a way that no one can escape its notice. It is exactly like that.Daniel
Daniel, thank you. Yes.
It All Depends
Got a question concerning financial transparency, specifically regarding a leader’s actions. Let’s say a pastor has used the church cards/checks for his personal use when those should be used for the church, but he’s quickly paid the money back yet he hasn’t told his congregation/committees about such actions, only the secretary & treasurer knowing. If these financial statements are later seen by the congregation, would this be sufficient grounds for removal? What if he pleads the fact he forgot his personal card and so he used the church card, and he’s very sorry won’t happen again . . . still grounds for removal? My thoughts are to question his sincerity and integrity with money, and he is therefore unfit to serve. Eager to know your thoughts. Thanks!Carson
Carson, the answer to this is that it all depends. If it happened one time when he was out of town, and he really did lose his personal card, and he informed the treasurer and paid it back immediately, then no. If he did it dozens of times over three years, and only paid it back when someone asked about it, then removal could certainly be on the table. So it all depends.
Thanks for Reading
I enjoyed your post from Aug 4, 2021, “The Coming Preference Cascade.” Sharp writing!
I posted this on Facebook and linking to your article.
“I cited this article by Doug Wilson earlier today, talking about preference cascades. It’s a very insightful article, so I’ll provide a link.
An excerpt:
“…bunglers never want to leave well enough alone, so they continue to bungle some more. At some point it gets to intolerable levels. And one individual starts to think, ‘Hey, this is getting to intolerable levels, but I guess that’s just me.’ But as time goes on, and the authorities continue to think that the climate control thermostat on the wall of their insular bubble is representative of the way it is outside the bubble, and they continue on with their clueless and dunderheaded ways, a time comes when that one individual looks across the room, and his eyes meet those of another individual. Recognition occurs. You too? They glance around the room, and recognize at least six others nodding their heads.”
“When this is not going on, the authorities seem like a fixture, like a granite wall that isn’t going anywhere. But when a crisis of authority sets in, the authorities, unaccustomed to having their authority questioned, start doing all the wrong things. They issue mandatory requirements, intended to display their authoritative decisiveness, but which only have the effect of setting the whole thing on fire. There is a way of commanding that is an exercise of authority, but there is also a way of commanding that simply serves as an accelerant to their vanishing authority. The more they issue risible decrees, the funnier it becomes.”
“The aura of authority is volatile, meaning that it can evaporate at room temperature. And if the temperature rises just a few degrees, then all of a sudden . . . the word that comes to mind is poof.”
Doug Wilson wrote this article back in 2021. He didn’t have to update it in order to keep it relevant. The Biden presidency kept it relevant for him. Hardest hit was the so-called ‘news’ media. Their authority evaporated once it became clear that they had to have known all along Biden was too cognitively impaired to serve as president. But they acted like the events had blindsided them, too.
“As Pastor Wilson said, ‘The word that comes to mind is poof.'”Lee
Lee, thanks very much.
A Question about Chaplains
I’m currently enrolled in the Master’s University and will be finishing my Bachelor’s in biblical studies by next fall, if God is gracious and sees me through it. I have been in contact with a Navy recruiter over the prospect of commissioning in the Navy as a chaplain. I have questions that are in the process of being answered, and I am even in the process of seeking out faithful Christian men who are currently serving as chaplains to ask the necessary questions that I have before seeking to go further.
My question to you is this: Based on your experience, do you think it is possible for a Christian to serve as a chaplain in the military in good conscience? I’m sure that you are in contact with military personnel regularly, who are seeking similar answers that are already serving our nation. If I’m going to do this, yes, I will be willing to throw my career away for the sake of Christ. At this point, I’m seeking answers as to whether or not this is something I should consider at all. I was in the Army, and those times were among the darkest in my life, and I was no Christian and wish that I had a chaplain to tell me so (and consequently, it causes me bewilderment at the concept of joining the Navy), and I know the spiritual desert that military service can be. If possible, I want to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to those in uniform.
Sorry for the longer email, and thank you for your time.John
John, there are many fine Christians in the military, and being a chaplain is an honorable calling. But as you alluded, you need to be prepared to wreck your career every day. Under Hegseth a lot of the DEI nonsense is on the run, but elections are a big deal for the military, and so long-term planning can be a challenge. But I wouldn’t rule it out automatically.
An Interesting Read Apparently
I hope you are doing well. I have recently begun reading “The Habsburg Way. 7 Rules for Turbulent Times” by Eduard Habsburg-Lothringen, the current Hungarian diplomat to the Holy See. I’m reading mostly for a historic curiosity about the Habsburgs in general, as well as because I believe this Habsburg to be quite a warm and inviting fellow who has some interesting thoughts on broader cultural topics.
This book details how he believes the Habsburgs, and the way they ruled, lived, etc, could assist us moderns in living in a constantly changing and rather turbulent world. Something he has now brought up in two chapters is his belief that one ought to be Catholic to pursue both holiness in life as well as excellence in getting through life’s difficulties and in a challenging era in human history. Just so you’re aware, I’m not a Roman Catholic; on the contrary, I belong to a local CREC. I have zero intention to convert to Roman Catholicism, neither is this book convincing me to do so.
My question more lies in the realm of Christian Nationalism, Mere Christendom, and theonomy. The Christian Nationalism discussion has been focused primarily in the United States, as this is where the discussion and debate seems to be happening in Protestant circles. Reading this book, however, reminds me that there are other culturally conservative Nations still in Europe, such as Hungary, as well as Italy and Poland. However, these three nations I’ve named are historically and staunchly Roman Catholic. If these nations were to become Christian nations once more, as they were during the first Christendom, how would this affect our understanding of theonomy, eschatology, etc, if at all? What does this do to the Christian nationalist conversation?ON
ON, I think your question has to do with whether such nations would be part of my “mere Christendom.” The answer, if we are talking about traditionalist Roman Catholicism, would be no, but they would be the ones saying no. The only way they could participate would be if they moved in a Protestant direction.
Sign of the Cross
On Reformed use of the sign of the cross
I recently heard a quote from Tertullian about Christians signing themselves with the sign of the cross: “At the beginning and during the performance of all that we do, when we go in and out of the house, when we dress ourselves, when we lie down to rest, in fact in everything, we mark ourselves on the forehead with the sign of the cross.”
I thought this sounded like it would fit in well with the Moscow project of “all of Christ for all of life.”
What are your thoughts regarding a Reformed person using the sign of the cross as a short, physical dedication of every daily activity to Christ, and as a reminder to themselves of His lordship over every aspect of their life?
It seems to me that, while in modern times the sign of the cross is associated almost exclusively with Catholicism and entangled in Catholic superstition (e.g. a 50 day indulgence each time you make the sign of the cross), that shouldn’t stop us from trying to reclaim the symbol as it was used in purer fashion by the early church.
Interested to hear your thoughts.
God bless,Ben
Ben, I remember reading somewhere that Calvin said that the sign of the cross was of ancient usage. I have no objection to it for private use, provided a superstitious meaning is not attached to it. But I would recommend against using it in public. As a public act, it is communication. And if a Protestant batter gets up to bat, and crosses himself, he just told thousands of spectators something erroneous. He just said, “I’m a Catholic,” when he isn’t.
Rogue Communion?
I have recently enrolled in a course of study at a theological seminary. At the chapel services at this seminary, communion is regularly celebrated, with members of the faculty who are ordained ministers presiding. My understanding is that the proper place for the celebration of communion is in the worship service of the local church, and the seminary, while a Christian community, is not a local church body. Would you say this is a good or wise practice, or not?Samuel
Samuel, I would hesitate to say that it is unlawful. The early Christians broke bread daily and from house to house (Acts 2:46). At the same time, I would want those chapel services to be under the authority of the church.
Epstein Fallout
Re: Elephant and the Rabbit
I am unfortunately one of the many Americans frothing at the mouth over the handling of the Epstein case. I am pretty angry at the president right now. I think the crux of your arguments was basically (to paraphrase), “If Trump was in the documents the Democrats would have weaponized them.” But what if multiple stakeholders are in them? What if Trump, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Israel, and the CIA are involved? Suddenly it’s not such a fun thing for the DNC to salivate over.
And I for one am TIRED of being asked to entertain a Trump legal strategy as anything but fickle and dishonest. This is the FOURTH time Trump has announced the imminent arrest of Barack Obama. We’re always about to prove election fraud. Don’t tell me Trump doesn’t have control of the “Deep State” when he has 6 Supreme Court justices, the director of the FBI, the Attorney General, a majority in the Senate, a majority in the House, and a multi-billion-dollar personal fortune. I’m tired of hearing about invisible boogeymen stopping him from jailing pedo-rapists. What resource exists that he lacks?
Pam Bondi’s DOJ memo was insulting to our intelligence (which is saying something given we just got done with COVID). Epstein’s plane had a crew of 6. None of them thought it was odd that Uncle Epstein had so many underage nieces to fly around? There were >1000 victims, but none of their parents, or guardians, are culpable? He amassed a billion-dollar fortune which not a single person has come forward to explain the origins of. And if he was an Israeli spy, why is that an excuse? I thought we preferred Israel over Islamic fascists because of the rape and subjugation of women?
Once again I’m a fool precisely because I lack the mystic discernment of knowing when Trump is Lying-Lying vs “Lying” vs lying “but you know what he really meant was this deeper truth.”Conny Spiracist
CS, there is merit in much of what you say!
EO?
Could you recommend readings for apologetics against Eastern Orthodoxy? I have talked with a few online and they usually have me beat on just history and philosophy spamming. I’m not a major in either field so it’s difficult for me to stick to the Scriptures when they want to leave the Scriptures for councils and philosophers. A major critique is the canon and my arguments never suffice for them. Is this battle worth fighting for right now? I’d like to hear your breakdown of why this religion is heretical, they have been quite cunning in their apologetic development and I see their influence is increasing in the face of liberalism infiltrating the Protestant church. Men are more inclined to EO because they don’t have churches with rainbow flags or congregants hopping and hollering in tongues. Thank you for your service to the church your content has blessed me in raising my family, God bless you.Ivan
Ivan, the only book I know of (which I own, but have not read) is Robert Letham’s book, Through Western Eyes.
Boys and Girls in PE
Beloved Brother,
I am currently teaching PE at a Christian school in Georgia. The boys and girls are combined. I see the obvious difference between girls and boys, and at times I don’t believe everyone else does, as far as physical education is concerned. For example, I would want the boys to be rough where necessary (like hockey or soccer), competitive, and have normal masculinity displayed, but the girls shouldn’t show forth that behavior. At the same time, I wouldn’t want the boys to display femininity. I wish I could separate the boys and girls, but alas! I am not able. Also, sometimes it seems that the parents want their girls and boys to all be gender neutral when it comes to sports and PE and the things in my field, which is repugnant to me. Do you have any suggestions for me on how to encourage godly masculinity and femininity in the PE classes I have?
Thanks in advance.Ryan
Ryan, there is no way to do this apart from conversations with the headmaster. Up to a certain age, mixed PE classes could be okay, but the goal needs to be separation.
Sanctification Books
So grateful for you. What have been some of your favorite books on biblical piety and sanctification? Thanks.Ben
Ben, Owen’s Mortification of Sin, Packer’s Knowing God, and Piper’s God is the Gospel.
The Premil-postmil issue is going to keep you from being able to preach there. Every paedobaptist has to have a credobaptist streak. Without it, one can’t evangelize, so you could preach there for a long time without it being a problem, that problem being a paedobaptistic family wanting a baptism. The premil-postmil issue determines how you understand Revelations. that is huge.
This indicates a misunderstanding about the boundary lines between these two views. The baptism of adult converts is no sort of obstacle or compromise for the paedobaptist.
While the credobaptist seeks to restrict the administration of baptism to only those who profess belief, the paedobaptist seeks merely to extend the administration of baptism to include the children of believers and would not restrict baptism to only the children of believers. The consistent paedobaptist minister would happily baptize an adult convert, and their household.
Did Jesus say go baptize teach or go teach baptize? We have one example of a household baptism, and all of the other baptisms are credo. Everyone reading this know it.
Since you asked – Matt 28:19 – Go, baptizing, teaching.
No dispute re the NT scriptural examples, and I didn’t come here to do a whole debate thing. I just wanted to correct your misconceptions about the paedobaptist position. All the best.
Which one are you referring to? I see four: Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer, and Stephanas. Further, is one not enough to establish a principle?
If Bible writers meant “all those of age in the household” were baptized, they had words to do so. In John 9 the blind man’s parents told the unbelieving leaders that they should ask him how he was healed: “he is of age.”
The great commission states that disciples are to be baptised which to my mind excludes infants who are not yet disciples by definition.
Why are infants not disciples? Disciples are those who are being taught to follow Christ.
Those who have committed to following Christ.
Is that definition derived from scriptural usage? Because I can’t think of anywhere in scripture where the meaning is restricted from its general one of “learner” to something more technically specific, limited to those already fully committed. But I may be forgetting something.
John 8:31, for one. There is more, but I’m getting ready to take off somewhere and don’t have time at the moment. Hopefully we can at least agree that being a disciple involves more than just being taught the facts?
(deleted)
Yes of course it is more than that, but not less.
Infants are too young to have any comprehension of Christian truth.
I don’t believe in infant baptism because it is not found in the NT, but pragmatically speaking from a UK persective countless millions have been deceived into thinking that their infant baptism and trying not to be too bad is sufficient for them to ‘go to heaven’ when they die, so I hold it not to be safe to practice the rite in view of the level of deception it has engendered in its time.
“Infants are too young to have any comprehension of Christian truth.”
The religion cares 0% what is in the head and 100% what is in the heart.
If you’re saying stupid people can’t be saved, well, ok then I guess,, stupid people are instrinsically damned. But otherwise this is a silly objection.
I have yet to see an infant make an appeal to God for a clear conscience.
Tell me about the people with mental problems, are they eternally irreconcilable to God? Do they have souls? Did Christ not die for any of them? Are they even worth keeping alive?
What has people with mental problems got to do with infant baptism?
your criteria exclude those people who can’t “make an appeal to God for a clear conscience” because of mental deficiencies.
Scribbler argues via non sequitur. Goal-post shifting, whataboutism, etc. Going around in circles with pointless thought experiments and false analogies, in an attempt to confuse, because defending their actual arguments on the merits is impossible. The goal isn’t to uncover the truth, it’s to win the argument. Which is done not by assembling the best collection of evidence in support of one’s own position, but by attacking the opponent, endlessly, answering every critique by changing the subject and going back on the attack. It is a form of gaslighting, and the goal is to establish authority. It’s not how serious… Read more »
Infants and those with mental disabilities do seem to have morphed into much the same thing!
Not unless you also want to say that you can’t teach them unless they are baptized
Regarding quoting, yes, that would help. Somewhat related, I asked Doug a question a few years back about an ironic or sarcastic line in his essay. I could not tell what voice he was speaking in, whether his own voice or the voice of the woke mob (probably).
Regarding communion services I would have thought the apostle Paul was more concerned with the spiritual state of the participants than the ‘format’ used. 1 Cor 11 doesn’t deal with who may administer communion, nor any kind of liturgy required, nor how often. There has been the development of traditions surrounding communion, indeed superstitions as well when it comes to the bread and wine being ‘consecrated’ and ‘changed’. It is sad when its purpose gets hidden in excessive ritual. I don’t see why any group of authentic Christians shouldn’t choose to celebrate the Lord’s supper when they gather together if… Read more »
The qualifier “authentic” reintroduces the leadership question (regarding “clergy” or elders) that was seemingly excluded by the informal nature of the group. Who determines “authentic Christians” and on what basis? Will the inauthentic be excluded from eating?
A small enough group can informally decide qualifications.
Bible mentions elders, but doesn’t fuss about having to have them or having to have them to do certain things.
But then you may end up breaking Paul’s charge to discern the body.
By authentic believers I simply mean genuine Christians, real believers as opposed to a mixed gathering which may have outsiders in it for whom communion would be inappropriate.
It seems to me there is no need for elaborate ritual or a special class of believer to organise a communion service. The fact this is still frequently the case to my mind indicates a failure to be liberated from the Roman Cathollic idea of a ‘priest’.
Jerry and Doug,
See here for details about what happened at RTS.
https://store.americanvision.org/products/greg-bahnsen-what-really-happened-at-reformed-theological-seminary-rts
Republicans running away because they don’t want these files released. What could Trump possibly by hiding? I guess we should all be word vomiting about some blonde chick in jeans instead.
yawn.
Aren’t you excited the Clintons have been handed subpoenas too? 🍿
“Republicans running away because they don’t want these files released.”
Republicans are the ones asking for these files to be released.
The DOJ, FBI, and Presidential administration are all trying to get these files released. So do be specific. Who is running away? Or were you just lying?
So Mike Johnson calling an early recess wasn’t running away after the house vote was shot down by the Republicans?
And trying to release them in what state? Before or after 1000 FBI agents were tasked to review and redact anywhere Trump was mentioned?
Why can the president think up declassifications in some cases but the entire federal government is unable to release files in other ones?
Republicans protect abusers. Liars. Cheats. Thieves. Adulterers. Another MAGA congressperson threatened an ex with revenge porn.
We’re done with your lies, and your witness is garbage.
Regarding quotes – I also had trouble knowing when Doug was quoting in his book review. It would be very helpful to indicate – at least in book review posts that are quote-heavy.
Re Doug’s “review” of Campbell’s book: the only person who has excluded Doug from Campbell’s description of America is Doug himself. He has invented windmills, and is on full tilt when facing them, confusing foolishness for bravery. The sense of entitlement is mind-boggling, like a spoilt child. It is “bracing” to see the bad faith readings on full display in real time. Because this is very basic stuff. If Doug cannot get the basic stuff correct — American contains more than one tradition, always has; one shouldn’t vote for sexual predators and thieves — then he should not be trusted… Read more »
CNN readers be comforted. Doug Wilson is only in DC to feed at the Israel trough. Nothing you haven’t seen before.
Which republican isn’t? Hell, Texas makes you sign an oath of loyalty to Israel to be a state employee.
An argument which only matters if you already oppose Israel. Did you have a reason I should oppose Israel?
No?
Well ok then.
Committing a genocide isn’t good enough? What would it take for you not to support Israel?
Which genocide? The Amalekites?
Gentiles have to hate Jews because Jews are the root. (Irony)
You understand there is a difference between the Jews and Israel? They are not one and the same. American Jews don’t support the genocide in Gaza being perpetrated by Israel, for example.
Yes, there is a difference but also you can say that Germans who don’t live in Germany are Germans even if they don’t support German policies. That doesn’t mean Germans in Germany aren’t Germans.
I was unaware that every Gaza citizen was being killed.
You call all Jews in the United States Israelis then? Religion and nationality are one thing? You do realize the comment you responded to referred to Israel and not Jews, so the distinction is necessary.
And does every single citizen in Gaza need to be killed before it’s called a genocide in your opinion? Not sure that’s how the classification works but please, enlighten me.
I don’t ever use the word Israeli but if I did, yes I would. My point was that Israel is the Jewish nation. They are all Jews. The reason why you and everybody else hates them is because they are Jews.
Genocide: the targeted slaughter of an entire group based on ethnicity, nationality, or religion.
Big assumption made by your part my friend. I hate the IDF and the Israeli government, not Jews. We should stop giving Israel weapons and mercenaries to kill non combatants at aid sites in a daily basis at this point.
How does what specifically Netanyahu and the IDF are doing in Gaza skirt your definition of a genocide? Is it just a simple act of Lebensraum?
Scribbler is lying, only ~70% of Israel are Jews, according to the state census (which defines “Jews” quite broadly as you might imagine). “Jews” consists of ethnic Jews and religious Jews, so even within that category it is important to distinguish what “the Jews” is supposed to refer to. Scribbler’s point here is to say that every “nation” is a monolithic religious entity with no deviation allowed. Obviously this is false, but Scribbler does not care about the truth, only making the case for his own power. (Next will come the claim religious nationalism it is “natural” b/c lobsters or… Read more »
So to say that a nation is Jewish because it is founded on Jewish principles, is historically Jewish, doesn’t allow non Jews in military, and is mostly Jewish in population is lying? not my point at all. I never said anything of the sort. so in arguing over whether Christians can hold power your big argument is to condemn us for not rejecting power. I care plenty about the truth. You just put out a comment slandering GOP Rep. Cory Mills, who’s accused by an ex represented by his political rival Sabatini. These are serious allegations, but they’re clearly being… Read more »
Also lobsters are wonderful but not an easy foundation for theology. I much prefer scripture.
if you want an argument for it being natural just look at the fact that every state had a religion until the Romans and there are still state religions today. Much better argument than lobsters