Show Outline with Links
Butter. Is There Anything It Can’t Do?
So it appears that butter played an important role in the Protestant Reformation. Seriously. No, seriously . . . check this out.
The Nashville Statement Fortified
So I worked with some friends to beef up the Nashville Statement. That effort can be found here.
Nancy and I had a delightful time in Rivne, Ukraine, speaking to some delightful saints there. They are pictured below, and some of the talks are available online here.
The Child Abuse that is Transgenderism
NFL & Five-Thirty Eight
For those who believe they have prophetic gifting, Five-Thirty Eight is giving you a chance to play along with making predictions for every NFL game this season. Play along here.
The Road Is Always Open
The Good Kentucky Senator Speaks Some Truth
For the first time in 15 years we are debating the congressional role in the declaration of war. pic.twitter.com/gjXOr96lpM
— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) September 13, 2017
Thank you Pastor Wilson. The Nashville Statement Fortified, as well as the Grace of Shame book available at Warhorn are excellent. I’m only 1/3rd of the way through the later and it is rich!
Down here in Southern Idaho, butter is a big deal! Maybe I can use this article to drum up some more dairy support for a Reformation Day celebration! Be blessed!
Add this to Nashville Statement Fortified and you cover all the bases:
Oh totally. There’s no truth and beauty in the world that can’t be contaminated some more by red pillians.
So name-calling is all you have? Cane’s post was Biblical (I Cor. 7, Eph. 5). But as he said, the truth may “make us uncomfortable” and the “current generation of church leaders will always refuse to allow women to be held to account in any way real. …this leadership believes that women can only really be guilty of bad feelings and regret.” Spot on.
There’s no name calling going on. In fact, I’m grateful for all those red pill posts. Between Eternal Subordination of the Son and posts like Cane’s, I’d have to be a fool not to see that things like the Nashville Statement are far more deeply rooted in men’s fear and desire to control women, than they are in representing God’s word or healing people’s sexuality.
And I’m thankful there are men standing up for Scriptural truth and not subjugating themselves to the modern-day Monstruous Regiment of Women.
And you are no doubt acting like a fool.
Like I said ,there’s no truth and beauty that can’t be contaminated by the red pill.
Isn’t Cane the one that makes his wife get on her knees and beg him not to leave her? I can’t recall, I tend to get my field reports all confused.
That sounds like an ugly attempt to libel him, but no, I’ve never read that.
There is no attempt to libel anyone. I’m not going to go searching for the precise post in which he writes about his wife. However, he is well known for writing such posts about women kneeling and begging. It’s biblical,donja know.
He said nothing about begging (more smearing from you). As for kneeling, it’s not something required by Scripture, but it’s not unbiblical either. It’s a lot less problematic than wives who henpeck and lord it over their husbands (i.e., the majority of Evangelicals) and/or frivorce them.
The “spread” of Protestantism. Good ‘un!
More on Nashville Statement
Unfortunately, the indulgence system was easily corrupted, and the practice of “selling forgiveness” for all sorts of things in the 16th century was “very, very widespread,”
Hmmm, that seems like a weird sentence. Seems like it presumes the underlying system was ok in principle, but was corrupted in practice. But was it not corrupt in principle, too? Or am I missing something?
I guess that would depend on your definition of “corrupt” and your view of the authority of Rome. I tend to agree with you, though.
Question: What is right when the genetic and morphologic sex don’t match? A woman gets married, undergoes infertility testing, and discovers she is genetically male with androgen insensitivity syndrome? I didn’t think the section on intersex conditions provided helpful guidance.
Heidi, the morphology is what counts. The woman you describe is a female (infertile) and not a male. I think the problem comes because we do not think through the issue in enough depth. Creationally XX is identical with female; XY male. Post-Fall this is usually the case but not always. Because it is usually the case when we discovered chromosomes we identified XX with what we already knew was female. Genetics didn’t teach us what female and male were, we already knew. We also discovered that not all XY were male but further understanding has shown us why. It… Read more »