its really difficult to misunderstand Doug because hes so careful with his words. Whether a person agrees or not, thats one thing, but its very difficult to misunderstand him.
Agreed. I think Christians should be in the fight, and also having a good time. We win in the end, and that should allow us to show grace to those we disagree with.
@@ReformationAgain25 Does it? My videos start getting ads after they get above 100 views, but that is youtube recovering server costs. My channel isn't even monetized.
@@joshuakarr-BibleMan I thought it was the case. Might not be for smaller channels. I just let them play if it's someone's channel that I want to support.
I would love it is there was someone making a UA-cam playlist tracking these conversations. First the original Article, 2nd Jeff's initial response and so on.
As usual, my understanding is greatly challenged in following this argument, nevertheless I press on because I always gain some measure of wisdom. My small bit of wisdom gained here is 1. Every time we sprinkle even a grain of Christ’s leaven it becomes a force of kingdom expansion in the world. And 2. If something can’t go on forever, it won’t. Change will happen. Therefore, see #1.
While I agree with you, one thing I think Christians are oblivious of is the emergence of a new idolatry. That is, the religion of humanism (the worship of man or the ideal man) which is posing as a non-religious philosophy. It has its rituals (daily praise of the oppressed), its morality (critical consciousness), its celebrations (special months and days for identities), its persecutors (oppressors of the marginalized), its missionaries (the activist), it's prophets (marx and other progressives in history) and it's utopia (the end of history). The spiritualism in this religion is the feelings of belonging which is manifest in DEI. It's doctrine are the philosophies of liberation. We should take this very seriously because this is very enticing. Though one must deny God and embrace the ideal man.
@manager0175 it's entirely based on God tho. The declaration says that GOD endowed us with certain unalienable rights and that Governments were instituted among men to look after those.
@@manager0175 very good point. But modern philosophers are making it into a religion. Those advocating new world order principles generalize that concept to oppose godly principle.
I advocate for a "Que no los dos?" avenue where CNs *BOTH* get into power of existing institutions now *AND* prepare for a future when the existing institutions go away and we will be the people with the answer already in place and working or ready to implement immediately. A certain group came to power in a certain central european country in the early 1930s by *BOTH* entering positions in the existing institutions of the time, then when the time was right, they already had a person for every position and a plan for every institution (current and/or future) *AND* in the span of a few months had completely taken over and set a new course for the country.
@@manager0175no idea why you commented this replying to the guy who said 'first' but whatever. Doug has been very clear on this issue. Separation of church and state is a Christian doctrine for eccumenical unity within the nation. It is not separation of Christianity and state, but separation of church and state. There is no established national denomination. That's what it means. That's all it means. Not that the government cannot recognize the deity of Christ. In fact they must kiss the Son.
@@manager0175most of the states had formal relationships with specific denominations when they ratified the Constitution, so the founders must not have had the same understanding of the first amendment as you seem to.
@@manager0175and so James Madison was opposed to ecclesiocracy (like the anglicans in England). They didn't want a king or other political head to be established over A state church. Your argument is either 1) the Constitution prohibits America from recognizing Christ and this is good (which is evil and unbiblical). Or 2) the Constitution prohibits America from recognizing Christ and this is bad (which makes the founding fathers and all of American history up until the late 19th century at the earliest VERY bad at following the Constitution). I offer a 3rd option where they didn't separate the state and the faith but simply the office of the head of the church and the office of the head of the state. A pattern set in separating the Levites from the line of Judah. Both have an obligation to seek the Lord, and so do we and our nation.
While the best case scenario would be Christian culture that feeds-into President Adam's paradigm, any objective observer of history must concede that, for some good and gracious reason , it pleased the Lord to apply the proverbial strong man model in actual space- time history. Take Nebuchadnezzar (eventually), Darius, David, and Oliver Cromwell. Because of love of country, I prefer John Adam's paradigm. However, because I basically understand the reality of the world my Lord has made, I have to concede that the latter paradigm may very well be providential. After all, there are some societies that are so completely godless that they need absolute monarchy, and that just happens to be the eternal sort of government that our Lord applies - together with His 144 elders, that is, His people.
I agree, I am an absolute monarchist. Why? Because that is most closely modeled after God's good design for creation. We live under an absolute monarchy (King of Kings and Lord of Lords, eh?). The problem people poke at is no man is perfect, thus you can't guarantee a good king, but I say the likelihood of 'good' leadership is much more likely when only one man needs to be good than if you need a group of men, or an entire nation to be good. Even more so, when you can 'remedy' a bad king easily and thus the monarchy is more devoted to raising good kings.
@@manager0175 Your comment echoes a certain Time Magazine cover. GOD IS DEAD. Saying it doesn't make it true. I would posit many in those countries would prefer the lives under those kings to the horrors that classic liberalism (yes, those classic liberalisms) and 'democracy' have wrought on their populaces. There's a reason why democracy and demon have the same etymological root, but I waste my time because you are an intellectual dwarf conversing with a giant, you don't understand half of the words I say, nor the nuance of my arrangement thereof. Either that, or maybe something more sinister. I have conversed with many who converse like you and lets just say, they weren't genteel, heh.
Just when I think you can’t possibly be more dapper, you go and put on spectacles.
Lol-) the sharp words still cut, but are they more 'gracious with glasses'?-) ..Naw
~ sDg
Really like Pastor Wilson's glasses.
its really difficult to misunderstand Doug because hes so careful with his words. Whether a person agrees or not, thats one thing, but its very difficult to misunderstand him.
I appreciate Doug’s more charitable approach towards fellow Christian brothers here, even in the face of their disagreement.
Agreed. I think Christians should be in the fight, and also having a good time. We win in the end, and that should allow us to show grace to those we disagree with.
...High Lords of Crapitalism wearing it around like a skin-suit!
What an awesome line!
The ad before the video was a Biden advertisement.
Now I need to go say an imprecatory Psalm.
LOL on the imprecatory Psalm! As bad as I hated that ad, I let it play because it generates revenue for the channel.
@@ReformationAgain25
Does it?
My videos start getting ads after they get above 100 views, but that is youtube recovering server costs.
My channel isn't even monetized.
@@joshuakarr-BibleMan I thought it was the case. Might not be for smaller channels. I just let them play if it's someone's channel that I want to support.
You are correct. The ad supports the channel, and costs the Biden campaign for the longer view.
@@michaellautermilch9185
Like I've said, the ads on my videos don't pay anything, excet youtube.
DWs whitt is so impressive. Great philosophical depth and analysis from the Christian perspective. Australia being Brittish Texans?😂😂😂😂
I love it.
Renaissance Popes would be a good metal band name
Wonderful take Pastor Wilson!
I would love it is there was someone making a UA-cam playlist tracking these conversations. First the original Article, 2nd Jeff's initial response and so on.
I would love to see P Andrew Sandlin or Jeffrey Ventrella sit down with Doug Wilson for a conversation.
Hallelujah
As usual, my understanding is greatly challenged in following this argument, nevertheless I press on because I always gain some measure of wisdom. My small bit of wisdom gained here is 1. Every time we sprinkle even a grain of Christ’s leaven it becomes a force of kingdom expansion in the world. And 2. If something can’t go on forever, it won’t. Change will happen. Therefore, see #1.
This is the kind of “third wayism” that I can get behind.
That was a good one
While I agree with you, one thing I think Christians are oblivious of is the emergence of a new idolatry. That is, the religion of humanism (the worship of man or the ideal man) which is posing as a non-religious philosophy. It has its rituals (daily praise of the oppressed), its morality (critical consciousness), its celebrations (special months and days for identities), its persecutors (oppressors of the marginalized), its missionaries (the activist), it's prophets (marx and other progressives in history) and it's utopia (the end of history). The spiritualism in this religion is the feelings of belonging which is manifest in DEI. It's doctrine are the philosophies of liberation.
We should take this very seriously because this is very enticing. Though one must deny God and embrace the ideal man.
@manager0175 it's entirely based on God tho. The declaration says that GOD endowed us with certain unalienable rights and that Governments were instituted among men to look after those.
@@manager0175 very good point. But modern philosophers are making it into a religion. Those advocating new world order principles generalize that concept to oppose godly principle.
Mark 4:26, 30, "The kingdom of God..." is brought into the secular sphere by kingdoming....
"A grand parade of misnomers" ... the lingua franca of Clown World
Are there not two kingdoms? A city of God and an earthly city?
via. Augustine?
I advocate for a "Que no los dos?" avenue where CNs *BOTH* get into power of existing institutions now *AND* prepare for a future when the existing institutions go away and we will be the people with the answer already in place and working or ready to implement immediately.
A certain group came to power in a certain central european country in the early 1930s by *BOTH* entering positions in the existing institutions of the time, then when the time was right, they already had a person for every position and a plan for every institution (current and/or future) *AND* in the span of a few months had completely taken over and set a new course for the country.
To paraphrase a secular luminary You can't immanentise the eschaton Voegelin I think
Good morning! Im the first comment!
I'm the first to like it.
I’m not first in anything but I’m commenting anyway
@@manager0175no idea why you commented this replying to the guy who said 'first' but whatever. Doug has been very clear on this issue. Separation of church and state is a Christian doctrine for eccumenical unity within the nation. It is not separation of Christianity and state, but separation of church and state. There is no established national denomination. That's what it means. That's all it means. Not that the government cannot recognize the deity of Christ. In fact they must kiss the Son.
@@manager0175most of the states had formal relationships with specific denominations when they ratified the Constitution, so the founders must not have had the same understanding of the first amendment as you seem to.
@@manager0175and so James Madison was opposed to ecclesiocracy (like the anglicans in England). They didn't want a king or other political head to be established over A state church. Your argument is either 1) the Constitution prohibits America from recognizing Christ and this is good (which is evil and unbiblical). Or 2) the Constitution prohibits America from recognizing Christ and this is bad (which makes the founding fathers and all of American history up until the late 19th century at the earliest VERY bad at following the Constitution). I offer a 3rd option where they didn't separate the state and the faith but simply the office of the head of the church and the office of the head of the state. A pattern set in separating the Levites from the line of Judah. Both have an obligation to seek the Lord, and so do we and our nation.
While the best case scenario would be Christian culture that feeds-into President Adam's paradigm, any objective observer of history must concede that, for some good and gracious reason , it pleased the Lord to apply the proverbial strong man model in actual space- time history. Take Nebuchadnezzar (eventually), Darius, David, and Oliver Cromwell.
Because of love of country, I prefer John Adam's paradigm. However, because I basically understand the reality of the world my Lord has made, I have to concede that the latter paradigm may very well be providential.
After all, there are some societies that are so completely godless that they need absolute monarchy, and that just happens to be the eternal sort of government that our Lord applies - together with His 144 elders, that is, His people.
I agree, I am an absolute monarchist. Why? Because that is most closely modeled after God's good design for creation. We live under an absolute monarchy (King of Kings and Lord of Lords, eh?). The problem people poke at is no man is perfect, thus you can't guarantee a good king, but I say the likelihood of 'good' leadership is much more likely when only one man needs to be good than if you need a group of men, or an entire nation to be good. Even more so, when you can 'remedy' a bad king easily and thus the monarchy is more devoted to raising good kings.
@@manager0175 I think you need to visit a dictionary before you talk to me again.
@@manager0175 Your comment echoes a certain Time Magazine cover. GOD IS DEAD. Saying it doesn't make it true. I would posit many in those countries would prefer the lives under those kings to the horrors that classic liberalism (yes, those classic liberalisms) and 'democracy' have wrought on their populaces. There's a reason why democracy and demon have the same etymological root, but I waste my time because you are an intellectual dwarf conversing with a giant, you don't understand half of the words I say, nor the nuance of my arrangement thereof. Either that, or maybe something more sinister. I have conversed with many who converse like you and lets just say, they weren't genteel, heh.
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Is this Doug's peak form? 🤓
Boost boost boost