The Joy Juice of Democracy | Doug Wilson
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- When the apostle John told Christians to keep themselves from idols (1 John 5:21Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)), he said this because there was actually a possibility that they might not do so. There have been times when true believers have been seduced by lies, and one of those lies has been “you can believe in me . . . I’m not an actual idol.”
So I have some questions.
In order to be an idol, does it have to be made up of molecules? And if it is possible to be an idol without being made up of molecules, is it possible for a society to establish such an ethereal and abstract thing as their idol? Is it possible for a people to have an idolatrous commitment to something like “democracy,” or “a secular state,” or “diversity?” The answer should be obvious enough.
Doug Wilson's Blog and Mablog video is presented by Canon Press.
It is hard to conclude whether it is the height or arrogance, ignorance, or both, that leads so many "christian leaders" to break their backs to appease worldly narratives by simply refusing to take strong, courageous and Biblical stances. People like Pastor Wilson, John MacArthur, Voddie Baucham and others are so refreshing.
Jack ~ Yes they do indeed!
There's no one I agree with all the time, but I still know blessing when I hear them:
Doug Wilson, James White, Eric Metaxas,
Voddie Baucham, Matthew Everhard,
John Harris, A.D. Robles, Justin Peters,
Tony Wood, Jared Longshore, Toby Sumpter,
Mike Winger, Joel Webbon,
John MacArthur, Alan Parr
Arrogance and haughtiness do not lead me to view pastors as bastions of courage, in fact, quite the opposite. Even if they are in disagreement with the world on certain things.
@@CornerTalkerAdd Jordan B. Cooper to your list! He's fantastic
It's all about the Benjamins in my humble opinion. God have Mercy on us All.🤷🏼♂️♥️🙏🏻🇺🇸
I will never grow tired of enjoying Doug's sharp rhetoric.
You took Owen to the proverbial woodshed in this video. Bless his heart, I hope he receives that correction with humility; would love to have him in our camp.
Whew, Pastor Doug you are a sharp voice of reason in the midst of this strawman slam dance we call a "Conversation." Thanks brother for your clear-eyed leadership on this subject.
He's literally touting Catholic integralist or nar 7 mountain mandates. He's using Jesus name to obtain power in a way that was never biblical
@@leighalaughlin4056 Which is it? Pentecostal NAR or catholic integralism? It is neither. Doug is suggesting, as a general a point of discussion, what he calls "Mere Christendom," or how to function as a basic Christian in a basic Christian culture. You know like the one we had in America since its founding until about 5 years ago. Basically, Doug and several other pastors are pleading with leaders, especially men, to return to a form of Christianity that does stuff instead of retreating into a pietistic pearl clutching framework.
Christian nationalism is not scriptural and hardens hearts against you. How has your life changed in 5 years? Do you believe Christians in the middle of the country are the most persecuted people on earth? Have you bought into this lie?
@@leighalaughlin4056 “Do you want to build a strawman?”
@@leighalaughlin4056 You are correct. And history has clearly shown that Christians with political power are always more corrupt, more violent, more incompetent than their secular counterparts. Doug touts "limited government" while supporting the party that supports the most expansive intrusion of political powers into everyone's lives.
I love it when Doug makes himself laugh.
Owens' talk fails and hinges on that one little sentence: "there is some form of a 'neutral' space created by the Lord Jesus Christ." Kuyper had it right. Owens has it wrong.
Owen is wrong on so many things, glad Doug took him on. Too many are appeasing him and listening to his nonsense
Absolutely right. No such thing as neutrality. The major problem with believing that there is is something always fills that void so quickly surrendered without even a single shot fired. I hope Owen sees sense; he is a gifted fella.
"They made kings, but not through me. They set up princes, but I knew it not. With their silver and gold they made idols for their own destruction." -- Hosea 8:4
i don't want religious freedom if it means some are free to worship moloch
Fine. Go start your own theocracy somewhere. They don't seem to fare well, if history is any indicator.... but maybe yours will be the first to succeed. 😂
I do not think you have thought about your comment very well.....At least I sure hope not....I'll give you permission to edit your comment.
@@joeadrian2860 how kind of you. I take it as given that "free" exercise of religion wouldn't include violation of the rights of humans and other animals. I assumed that was understood, but.... happy now?
@@drumrnva Did you fail to understand that when we are dealing with a nation guided by God's law that freedom is not license? It is quite obvious that a godly government or a godly people will be restrained by God's Word. It is the unrestrained, those who care nothing for the Law of God who will act selfishly. I don't know why you cannot figure that out yourself. Your assumption was correct.
@@joeadrian2860 Sorry, I don't understand the diff between freedom and license you're making here. I'm grateful to live in the USA where the gov't makes minimal intrusion into religious practice. It seems very reasonable to me that people with more than one world view can respect freedom of religion. Wilson's trying to imply that only Christians can manage it. Obviously untrue.
"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something. Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?"
Robert A. Heinlein
A constitutional republic would say: it doesn't matter who or how many people think they are wise. Did your neighbor assent to this? No? Then forcing your wisdom is intellectual and spiritual violence.
And precisely why we are a Constitutional Republic and not a mobocracy. In a Republic the individual’s God given rights are protected from the majority by the Constitution.
@CP-dk8oi Um, no. That's why I mentioned we're a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not a democracy.
@CP-dk8oi Yes, you are right-our understanding is indeed different. You just described libertinism, not a constitutional republic.
Thank you Pastor. The introduction sentence summed it up perfectly. As usual, I’ll need to listen more than once to digest. 🔥
This is the closest November has come to providing quarter. I will allow it.
Doug Wilson, like a fine vintage from the hill d’Hermitage, only gets better with age. Vive la Moscow!
I still understand why people are so against this idea. Doug has been clear, articulate, and persuasive for years about this. Owen comes across muddled and hard to follow.
Democracy within our great Republic.
America is a Republic.
Understand that
You can love your family. Just don't let your family get too big, kinism. Jesus must put limits on how many neighbors we love.
When the media says "democracy" they mean magic.
NYT one time released an article which sais elections may be a threat to democracy
Doug is not a stooge, just a boomer. He is OUR boomer as it happens.
"I do not believe in the forceful suppression of blasphemers in the new covenant era.. There is some sense a neutral space created by the Lord of the Church Jesus Christ... I believe in free speech, not speech codes."
Owen Strachan
It feels like I have been arguing for a large portion of my adult life with nonbelievers that Christians do not believe in fantasy make-believe stories. Professor Strachan has singly handedly set my hypothesis back by a good bit. What he says he does not believe, exists whether he acknowledges it or not. It's like denying gravity. What he says he believes in does not, in fact, exist.
Do you think that one disobedient act long ago somehow contaminated all of reality and sentenced all subsequent humans to a disease-like state by default?
@@wet-read yup
@@hudjahulos
And... that doesn't strike you as utterly ridiculous? Like, to use your own words, a fantasy make-believe story?
@@wet-read Nope. It especially doesn't strike me as ridiculous if the charge of ridiculousness comes from someone who believes the universe exploded into being from nothing for no reason, underwent hyperinflation, then billions of years later.. *squint and turn your head a little bit*, then you get bacteria which eventually become apes which eventually become us. This origins tale gives us every reason to trust our faculties because, as Darwin said "Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" You see? Everyone believes stories.
If you have an argument other than stale Hitchens-style incredulity, I'm all ears.
@@hudjahulos doesn’t your version posit something from nothing too.. but sans any theory or science or research, and adding in an all powerful creator who has a rest on the 7th 24hr day after making the sun only on the 4th day!? And then that supreme being got angry because the first human woman, who was made from the rib of the first man (tho nowadays we know better about ribs), ate a fruit and ever since then there’s been cancer and bad stuff? Take accountability for the level of fairy story you’re pushing! For another example, do you believe Moses was historic figure or legend?
When I hear Owen, I'm hearing an inauthentic, pearl clutching, manipulative, politician.
I began listening to The Covenant Household earlier today, going back to it for my drive home after leading my church's youth group I found that it had timed out and I no longer had access to it. I contemplated not finishing the last 8 minutes of the book. however, even though I am a minimum-wage church intern who is paying his university tuition, I instead decided to bite the bullet and subscribe to Canon Plus. I finished it off and am now listening to Mere Christendom, as I have time I will read Wolfe's book which I ordered last week. I'm not CN but I'm enjoying the argument for it, it's astonishing how different CN really is from how the G3 guys explain it.
I believe you’ll come to realize that your canon+ subscription turns out to be a high yield investment!
I’m not smart enough to respond to this, I’ll check back in a few years.
😂😂😂😂 I got you.. I feel so dumb.
I'm not learning anything Playing Call of Duty...lol
@@kronos01ful well we shouldn’t feel too bad. This guy is a little over the top, intelligence wise.
Keep listening and you'll be able to keep up. It took me awhile
I knew when I heard Dr. Strachan's talk that this beating would soon follow afterwards. The fact is Reformed Baptists (I am one of them) are just not good at communicating our distinctives and we are certainly not good at arousing enthusiasm for them. We have no Spurgeon. Libertarians have the exact same problem. They have no Patrick Henry.
The current iteration of Postmillennial Theonomy definitely has a Rushdoony, though. In fact they have a Doug Wilson. And that is turning out to be more than having a Rushdoony OR a Bahnsen.
I think there needs to be a synod or council or debate or something. A conference of conferences or something of the sort.
In my mind, there are two big hinderances on the table: (1) postmillennialism, and (2) a specific brand of covenent theology. The biblical-theological underpinnings of this discussion have been swallowed up in the fervor of the times. Some people below say they can't understand what Doug Wilson is talking about, or that he meanders or waxes eloquent etc. I don't find that to be the case at all. I keep up just fine, and I'm a B- student in life in general. I'm not smarter than anyone else here. Maybe I find it easier to follow along because I've been listening for quite a many years now. I have no criticism of Doug Wilson's ability to communicate. I have criticisms, but not that one.
I think what people are experiencing without realizing it is there is a LOT of heavy content in a short space presented with ANYTHING that comes out of Moscow. It's like a straight diet of steak. And I suppose some people find that off-putting.
But that's the thing, we're on full-time steak and maybe we need to re-visit milk. Or maybe a better way to put it is, the content needs to be unraveled a bit. What is the THEOLOGICAL foundation of what is being said? What are the downstream implications? Are we already swirling around in a whirlpool created by a misstep that occurred upstream?
Maybe I'm wrong but I think this comes down to covenant theology. And this is an opportunity to go back to those same issues on the table 400 years ago that created distinctions between Particular Baptists and their Presbyterian brothers. The force of these well-written (and spoken) blogs is in their tight, logical presentation. But Westminster Federalism MUST be assumed in order to make these arguments. In fact, there really isn't "pure" Westminster covenent theology underneath all this. It's modified. Those modifications should be made clear, along with the rest of the critical issues such as how we deal with the continuity/discontinuity of the Old and New covenants, what is the nature of the covenants, the purpose of the Law, and all the other relevant theological topics that give this whole discussion any meaning. There is a historical examination of theonomy that is appropriate here as well. From time to time, some of the concerns are acknowledged, but they are always countered with a statement that amounts to "but if Jesus is Lord, we really don't have to talk about that, right?" I don't care WHO you are, anytime you encouter folks who are enthusiastic about their distinctives (and I include myself in that), you are going to hear the same passages referenced over and over and over. But a quorum or conference or such gives opportunity to bring the FULL counsel of scriptures into the matter.
None of this means ANYTHING apart from SCRIPTURE, folks.
Further, I don't see how any of this survives without postmillennialism. All of the implications that escort that issue need to be laid out on the table for everyone to see.
And really it SHOULD be Reformed Baptists who force the hands to do this work. The implication that hypocrisy, or inconsistency, or lack of commitment, or lukewarmness, or cowardice, or giving-up-ness, or all the rest of it, is NOT sufficient to say the books have been closed on this discussion. But I admit, you took our firebrand when you got James White.
Well, I can say all that and I also have to admit that I have no qualification to do the job that I say others should be doing. But I have a way to get ALL of you: PRAYER.....prayer for you and for us all, and for there to be a synod or caucus or whatever, something like a multi-day situation, so we can all organize these issues with some biblical clarity.
And it should be Baptists who do this. There will definitely be fried chicken and plenty of pie if we do it.
I think of the passage in Hebrews where the expectation was that the congregants ought to have been feeding on the meat of the Word of God but they were still immature needing the milk. I wonder, I really wonder how much meater that incredible book would have been if they were ready for it?? But the Lord is the judge of each one of us and those who cannot understand for one reason or another and still need milk but yearn for a deeper walk with Christ and who remain humble, they are the Lord's possession and He is able to make faith grow and we are called to be gentle and patient. The one's that get me are the ones who display arrogance and a head knowledge instead of love. Some expose themselves as what they truly are but others are tares that God will sift out at the end of days. Lord bless.
@@joeadrian2860 yeah my reference to milk was misplaced. Or misused. Or, just wrong haha. My intent was to suggest that maybe we should flesh this out "by the numbers" as we used to say in the Marines, so that everyone has a clearer view of exactly what they agree or disagree with.
So good. I love Owen Strachan, but you make excellent points.
Doug, I am a Fundamental Baptist. I value your talks…. Very much. I know you have a voice….
Fundamental Baptists and the Gothard movement are being greatly confused as the same thing. The woke culture is using it to target Christianity, and to target me and my wife for our favor of patriarchy, and etc. Would you consider making a video discussing the distinction between the Gothard movement and Fundamentalists?
It seems that many fundamental baptists are drawn to the teachings of Gothard. I realize the two should not be conflated or confused as Gothard promotes a false gospel. However, it might be good to consider why that is.
I think in my time ministering and preaching…. I have noticed that nearly every denomination consists of individuals who are attracted to all sorts of erroneous beliefs….. I definitely agree…. It is hard at times, even frustrating, to deal with people who are confused doctrinally about certain things, but there are times when those things are worth separating over, and some of those things will take years, possibly even centuries to correct in a church as God has men stand up and preach the truth.
I think such could be said with Charismatics when they confuse baptism to have a brother doctrine called the second baptism. When Ephesians tells us there is only one true baptism…. With that being said, many times even the doctrine of the second baptism is confused with salvation, and so SOME Charismatics mistake the experience of what they call the second baptism to be salvation itself, and it creates confusion.
But even then, I’ve met some Charismatics who see through that nonsense.
Even some reformed denominations believe in baptismal regeneration which can at times mistake (water) baptism to be salvation, with a a failure to truly understand the gospel itself.
Nearly every denomination has false teachers within them, pulling the people in all sorts of different directions. I don’t think the answer for me would be to go to a Charismatic church, or for me to go to a reformed church, because there are plenty of things I don’t agree with…. Each denomination appears to have some form of a false gospel being preached in it…. That is why I have learned that I cannot say Fundamentalists are “better” or Reformed Presbyterians, or even Charismatics…..
Some could be, by our earthly judgment, be discerned as more heavily confused about doctrine than one denomination, but then again, I think we need to stop and realize the doctrinal issues which existed in churches Paul, and even Jesus Himself addressed in Revelation….. just because doctrinal problems exist in one denomination, doesn’t mean that the “obvious” answer is to separate and somehow create a perfect church and grab a following of your own…. So, I find the only good answer is for me to rebuke and correct the errors accepted amongst us, and allow Jesus to work.
My second thought is that I believe many Fundamentalists liked some of those teachings is because we already had standards about dress for women and men, and we already had similar authority structures in the home…. But Gothard, took it to a new level, and so some lacked discernment and just readily accepted it. But, there are also plenty of unbelievers in our churches who doubtless would accept any method to draw close to God. But, there are still plenty of Fundamentalists who could spot out the error of Gothard easily….
The majority of Christians I meet on a daily basis whether from Southern Baptist, or any denomination appear to lack discernment or even simple knowledge about the Bible…..
Our issue in America as a whole is we do not prioritize TEACHING the scripture as we ought to. So, people have a very sloppy handeling of the Word of God.
A multi ethnic state is what the Assyrians "strengthened" Israel with back in the day. The Northern tribes never recovered.
I wonder how Owen feels about “democracy” after yesterday’s vote in Ohio to enshrine child murder in the state constitution. The people spoke and the freedom of religion for Molech followers won the day. If Owen is consistent he’ll have to applaud this as right and good since it followed the democratic process.
Yeah dude….democracy. The majority opinion should dictate law. Especially considering you aren’t being directly harmed by this democratically chosen freedom.
We aren’t a theocracy after all.
Yep, the overwhelming majority of Ohioans have chosen to keep abortion accessible. You can still never get an abortion Scott. Chill
@@aallen5256 that’s always been the most….interesting point of this entire pro life pro choice discussion-those who are against abortions don’t have to get abortions. Problem solved.
Democracy is mobocracy, or majority tyranny. If a majority votes to slaughter helpless humans, democracy will allow it, because democracy says that the voice of the people is the voice of god, or at least can overrule the word of God. In this sense, democracy is idolatry of majority.
@@aallen5256if the majority allowed for child rape, but aallen5256 is free to not rape children, would you still feel something is wrong in the state of Ohio?
Can Jared Longshore and Doug Wilson ever publicly offer (once a year) to do a formal debate with the G3 guys? If G3 turns it down (and continues to do so year after year)... let the record then stand. Might be a powerful message.
Democracy is like 10 wolves and one lamb sitting around the table and vote on whats going to be lunch!
Thank you, Doug
Democracy just means a country controlled by people with recognizably secular-humanist last names.
Biden, Obama, Cortez, Omar, Clinton, McConnell, etc eh
@cosmictreason2242 yeah, biden and Clinton are running the country with some Somalian congress critter from Detroit and the geriatric walking stroke victim.
NB: your inclusion of Clinton and Obama indicates you accept that powerful people who are not in public positions of power are actually pulling the strings, you're just sure they aren't who I say they are.
Democracy is not a good system if there is universal suffrage with loose social controls.
@@Ransetsu Yeah! More social controls and regulations! Bigger more authoritarian government! Less votes for the population! Hurrah!
@@aallen5256 Solid church structures and strong families are social controls. Think man, think!
OK, hearing him call our leaders "rulers" was a turnoff right out of the gate. Moving on.
Get ‘em, Doug!
“Can you imagine an atheistic culture going for a thousand years producing these kinds of freedoms? No” (paraphrase) - definitely agree here, could use some ideas on why this is a good statement. I could see myself stating this argument to my atheist friends and them cheerily replying “why yes that would totally happen” and I need to respond with something other than a choking noise.
Hey, I’m seeing this late at night, and don’t have the bandwidth for a full essay, but felt a strong burden to at least “point and grunt” in the general right direction.
Any idea of rights and freedoms has to go back to the source of those rights and freedoms, which in Christianity, is the fact that we’re created by God in His image to fulfill a unique role in that creation, and He’s given us those rights, as well as guidelines for how to live together in what we call “society.” Those rights are intrinsic, and those morals cannot be altered.
In atheism, where does any of that come from? Where do you even begin to define a human right? What does “right” even mean, and how and when is it different from a human “wrong?” What you tend to get instead is an ever-changing landscape of ideas, and humans become enslaved to whichever idea sounds convincing enough, or carries a big enough club, to dominate that landscape.
And, as if it wasn’t enough that the ideas are competing against each other, each idea itself is constantly changing and warping as different thought leaders climb into the driver’s seat, all trying to outdo each other in being revolutionary. Under the tyranny of these ideas, we are granted “privileges” (sometimes borrowing the Christian language of “rights”), which can easily disappear as soon as they become inexpedient or “outdated.” If there is no God, then there’s also no claim we can make as humans to stop this from happening. We would have to be at the top, and have the winning idea, or be a slave and serve whichever idea is winning.
Again, it’s not the book I wish I could have written, and I’d love to attach as many reference materials as I can find. “The Quest for Cosmic Justice” by Thomas Sowell is good, but it’s also very political, rather than purely philosophical… Still a good read, though I’m sure there are better ones for this topic.
I just had to reply because I’ve been there too. You get a bunch of type A’s in a room, each trying to prove he’s the smartest, and all ready to use you as an easy target to mine XP if you dare to say something they all disagree with. Stay strong, brother.
It’s tricky! Your atheist friends could easily say that no religious culture has generated the sort of freedoms that rose out of secular humanism and the enlightenment - most religious societies ran concurrent with slavery for almost their entire existence, until the enlightenment, and the existence of religion / Christianity / the bible has never prevented terrible wars and atrocities, even from being persecuted on other Christians; like the 30 years war, or the witch hunts. The idea that Christianity encourages freedom is a really leaky boat considering the number of capital punishment crimes listed in the OT and all the book banning, naysaying of gay people, restriction of abortion access, etc. enacted by fundamentalist politicians today.
Look at what happens when societies become explicitly atheistic--there's no need to speculate. The French Revolution and various Marxist states come to mind. We've done this experiment and we've got the mass graves to prove it.
@@brentives4688 look at all the history of Europe - it’s 2000 years of warring Christian states, conquering and subduing each other, bickering about rituals and going to war over whether Mary should receive prayer, etc.! When has Christianity prevented mass graves?? 30 years war? Crusades? Witch trials? Genocide of the native Americans?
@aallen5256 I suppose that if they responded to him with such a masterful and irrefutable argument as you've outlined, he could potentially ask them "what makes any of those restrictions or viewpoints problematic?" They would need to present an argument much stronger than the usual "because some people think that's bad."
Because God transforms US WE do not transform Unbelievers, except by conversion. No "conversion" by the sword.
Thanks for your work!
Well said sir!
I believe in the Monarchy. Even so, Come Lord Jesus!!!
What monarchy?
I believe in the Tri- archy.
@@wet-read the only that really matters. Almighty God on his Throne.
Funnily enough, it has been the arguments of anti-CN people that have convinced me of the need for CN more than the arguments of the pro-CN side. All they do is strawman the CN position and then get angry when you can a sin a sin.
Yeah, similar. Anti-CN folks also seem to be unaware that there are degrees in one’s position on the question. I think this causes them to sort of inappropriately bundle too many people together and summarily dismiss them using an extreme degree as the reference.
But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.
-Lysander Spooner
spoken like a true Nazi....The third point of consideration: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" as Adams said right? So how about training your children correctly in the way of the Lord (Law of God) so that when they are old, they will not depart? But deconstructionists like you rather just tear it all down. You want the easy approach because that is exactly what is happening in the anti-culture in which we exist. But that will not solve anything. G3 is off balance.
False logic.
@DWS1023 how so? Seems pretty ironclad to me.
@@meincomf516 Replace "constitution" with "Bible" and reread the comment.
@@DWS1023 I've had a couple of battles with our Nazi friend in the past. He likes to throw out a few comments here and there to show that Nietzsche has all the answers lol!
"The people did what was right in their own eyes."
Is this not the definition of democracy?
Actually, it is.
No, not quite. Democracy does theoretically entail the group collectively deciding something and abiding by that decision. One can set up a limited democracy in which the people (demos) has jurisdiction to decide some things (their representatives) but not other things (laws). But if each person gets to live according to his own will, that's closer to anarchy. If there are limits on what kinda things each person gets to decide that would be closer to libertarianism. But if there are good laws and limits in place and people do "what is right in their own eyes" regardless, that's rebellion.
@@Jo-xf3kw I didn't say there aren't other forms of government
@@aguy446just answering your question. No, that is not the definition of democracy.
@Jo-xf3kw Ok congrats on being pedantic and obnoxious
@ 10:43...To say that you, "believe in democracy, not dictatorship", and then later on utter that you, "believe in the Constitution...", is positing a political self-contradiction.
The framers of the Constitution regarded democracy as an abhorrent form of governance.
In a democracy, the majority rules; in a republic, the individual is protected from the majority.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
~Benjamin Franklin
I have two points to add. First, for those who want common sense solutions for the American people, it should be pointed out that it’s quite likely that common sense is Divinely inspired. Perhaps even derived from Scripture. It does seem that way when you consider that there is a complete lack of common sense in the secular/Godless places in the world. Second, does Owen not realize that religious liberty wasn’t even a thing until there was a Christian Caesar. It was illegal to be a Christian before that. Those are just a couple of thoughts that made me chuckle.
Well done.
"last and often unrecognised would be the abstract idols. A lot of these are the great isms...like socialism, fascism, or communism...." Can we add nationalism (and Christian nationalism) too? 🤣 Oh, I thought of another one....Calvinism. Let's not forget that Christian leaders and their isms can also become idols. We ALWAYS like raise up fear about those who are on the other side of the wall and forget that Satan is behind the wall and in our camps wanting us to forget who Jesus is and instead follow imperfect leaders without question and with complete obedience.
@CP-dk8oi what is evil about drag shows??
@CP-dk8oi have you ever actually seen a drag show? Or met a drag queen?
@CP-dk8oi So, you've never even been to a drag brunch, and you've never met a drag queen, and you're completely unable to explain what's evil about either!! Or is it just because Deuteronomy says so? Doesn't Deuteronomy also prescribe 50 silver shekels as the price to sell a violated daughter as bride to her violator??
So good! 🎯💥 🔥
It has always bugged me that many people compare the early church in Rome to modern times in America. You had to render unto Caesar since you didn't have a voting block, or a system in place, that could elect leaders to push for and pass laws. Rome and America are two very different cultures, governments, and situations. To me all the folks who push for this are trying to make sure that Christ stays out of the political system but are perfectly happy to bring in the alphabet god into that same political system. They think they are morally soupier when they actively allow for evil to grow and advocate for Christ to have more limited authority over our communal daily lives. Their end result is the repression of God and the advancement of evil.
USA is a Constitutional REPUBLIC...time to re-read the documents... the Federalist Papers, is a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison between October 1787 and May 1788. The essays were published anonymously, under the pen name "Publius," in various New York state newspapers of the time. The Constitution was ratified in June 1788, but because ratification in many states was contingent on the promised addition of a Bill of Rights, Congress proposed 12 amendments in September 1789; 10 were ratified by the states, and their adoption was certified on Dec. 15, 1791.
We need a flag. I'll work on it
How about the Christian flag? 🤭
@@sundancefriend327 it's ugly and has too much baggage imo
Kuyper neutral space - I need to think about that. Very good!
When exactly has God ever been neutral?
Repent and trust in Jesus you will be saved I love yall and God bless y'all
Socialism, Communism, Secular Globalism, et al will "brook no rivals".
But The King of All Kings must?
Strange indeed eh?
Unless Mike has Repented of His squashing the "Bill of Equal Protection" in Louisiana, and so on; Please examine the [already examined] independent lines of True Witness. May YHWH Grant such Repentance n Faith In CHRIST, Alone. There is No Other WAY.
Let me be extremely Clear By GOD, The LIVING LOGOS: The blood of Those Precious Little One's Is on Mike's hands in a very direct way (from the things He's said, He should/would Know this).
Owen, are you listening?
I appreciate much of what your content, but Dr Strahan's as well. But my measuring stick is scripture; nor each other. And when I study scripture I find that Christian nationalism; as it's been defined, doesn't measure up. But neither Strahan's ideals.
I guess we can't control where the flames might huh?
Shot being fired in random directions hitting people who had nothing to do with what was being said.
Being Orthodox, I see the natural order is monarchy. The monarchical structure exists within the Trinity and is the natural order of all hierarchical structures.
It’s the kingdom of God- not the Democracy of God!
No king but Jesus
I disagree with the concept of earthly monarchy. When the people of Israel demanded a king, God gave them Saul, but warned that it was a bad plan. It is, then, not His perfect will.
Where’s the links in the description to the free books?
Eccl reminds your repeating vanity in time vanities with good and bad trap in JOB outside tales won't save all things bewitched some thought just love it like dead temples stone rocks fall down, alive stone freedom temple MAN mind does miss judgment of others who dead to Father Spirit can't judge only forgive returned.
Doug says he believes in "religious liberty". Does Doug not realize that the first 4 of the 10 Commandments forbids religious freedom and freedom of speech?
Whatever "religious liberty" means, it categorically cannot mean everyone can do whatever they want if they slap a thin veneer of religion on it. Every society forbids certain public expressions and freedoms of speech. That can't be held against Christianity specifically. I think what Doug means here is what we would call freedom of conscience. Civil law only regulates social behaviors and norms, not privately held beliefs. I think the reason that personal belief isn't regulated is because then we would require thought police to enforce the law, and man isn't capable equipped or authorized for this task.
He unpacks the thought in greater detail in his John Calvin lecture - ua-cam.com/video/_Kn4lXro6C4/v-deo.html&ab_channel=CanonPress
@@hudjahulos You said: " I think what Doug means here is what we would call freedom of conscience.". Too bad that is not what Doug said. And again, the first 4 of the 10 Commandments forbids freedom of religion and freedom of speech. That is not a restriction of what people privately THINK, it is a restriction of what people SAY and DO.
Is there possibility of a Christian Culture?
Yes. It's harder to see the example in America, it seems to me, due to information overload. But I'll give an example where I see it demonstrated. There is a huge difference between Communist Slavic culture and Christian Slavic culture. There are shared elements to be sure (the Slavic part) but the Christain vs Communist difference is quite stark. This makes the Slavic Christain culture far more similar to American Christain culture than to its Communist Slavic counterpart. I'd say also that there is no monolithic Christain culture, but there is a distinct Christain culture that permiates and filters out the ungodly elements of a people group that, in turn, makes those people groups far more similar to each other than to their godless counterparts.
"...grace does not erase nature, but rather completes it." Doug used this quote in the video, but I'd say 'grace does not erase nature but rather purifies it.' Some elements get eliminated and some get cleaned up.
Get your act together Owen.
What if we have no Caesar but a Christian Prince
No. We already have a King. We need presbyters.
Doug continually tries his presuppositional game to justify "Christian nationalism" ends. However, just like all presuppositionalists, they never show the step by step connections from where they start, to their stated conclusions. And there is a good reason for this, the connections are not there. Presuppositionalism is a failure of a methodology, failure of an apologetic.
" And there is a good reason for this, the connections are not there." ~ Care to grace us with an example?
@@noxvenit Sure. Give us a step by step demonstration starting with the presuppositional "Christian worldview" and the so called "law of non-contradiction" and "law of identity". Give a step by step demonstration starting with the presuppositional "Christian worldview" and the scientific method we have been using since about 1600. Every presuppositional apologist I have asked about this has failed miserably. Give a demonstration to justify the difference between "truth functional (logical) true" and "truth" per se. Usually, they have very little (if any) formal training in logic or logical inquiry. I contend, if they did, they would see its colossal failure on just about every claim they make.
@@manager0175 "Usually, they have very little...formal training in logic or logical inquiry." ~ Perhaps you've met the wrong ones. And your academic credentials amount to what? You demand conformity to "the scientific method" as if it is not philosophically problematic in several respects, including its own presuppositions. But never mind that; this reply by you is not what I asked you for, an example of the "connections...not [being] there".
@@noxvenit I have 35 undergrad hours and 25 grad hours in logic, mathematical logic, deductive logic, inductive logic, modal logic, scientific reasoning, philosophy of language, language analysis plus over 30 years of private studies. Aside from Alvin Plantinga (not a presuppositionalist, but is very highly trained in logic) and Greg Bahnsen, who else in the presuppositional circle has been formally trained in logic and critical thinking? You still have not presented anything in response to my queries. Are you going to respond?
@@noxvenit you asked for examples of Wolfe’s racism from another commenter and received many and never replied. You should feel embarrassed
Hey Doug, when are we going to hear about who funded your trip to Palestine?
@CP-dk8oiThose of us who have excepted DW as a Christian authority have a right to know if Christ Haters are paying his bill to their Godless Sayan worshiping sodomite Utopia and are propagandizing him. He would not be the first.
it seems that when postmodern man talks of "ethnicity" he's referring to biology. the idea of culture being an innate part of ethnicity seems to escape him
What do you mean culture is an innate part of ethnicity? Like pagodas are innately Japanese? Or fish and chips are innately British?
@@aallen5256 those are simple examples, but basically yeah
@@buglepong Could you give more complex examples??
I'm struggling with how enjoying battered fish could be innate to British people?! Are you using 'innate' to mean genetic? Like, if a white British person was brought up faraway from the UK, you think they would still crave and enjoy fish n chips regardless of having never eaten them?
@@aallen5256 a "british person" brought up far away from the uk is probably what you call an australian, south african, new zealander, etc etc. You know, because british people went there a while ago
@@buglepong can you not give any examples of your own??
I require no legal representation.
I have yet to read a single argument against Doug that manages to even lift its head, much less take flight…hater’s gonna hate nonetheless…
What’s the best argument you’ve seen??
Doug why weren’t you invited to G3? Because you’re a blasphemer to them?
Owen is obviously very ignorant, and one wonders why and how he has been given such a platform for promoting his confused ideas. He makes several "I believe" statements, while apparently not understanding that the things he believes in are not compatible, to say nothing of the deeper critique given by Wilson here.
Lol. Doug accuses Owen of toggling back and forth on definitions but does the exact same thing himself.
How so? Can you give me an an example in this video, or are you saying that he flip-flops generally? If generally, could you give me an example?
@@timhawley3721 He is spouting off because he is NOT going to find it. Why people just shoot off stuff like this only reveals that they are.
He talks about kinism and then bring up a CS Lewis quote about kin, but fails to define that one group is talking about skin color and one is talking about immediate blood relatives.
Then later on the “multi-ethnic state” topic, he fails to properly distinguish between “ethnic” in the skin color sense and “ethnic” in the worldview sense. The violence we keep seeing in Europe isn’t because of a mix of skin colors. It’s because of an irreconcilable clash in worldview and religion. But the two definitions aren’t distinguished, so he accuses Owen of supporting a multi-ethnic state in the worldview and religion sense rather the skin color and racial sense.
@@rebeccastanley9920 Hmmm. I do believe he was addressing particularly Owen's misconception right? I think he also knows the differences that you speak of but assumes his listeners are able to discern the difference? But what do I know. I'll listen again and perhaps give a more intelligible response.....Or another smarter than I can check you into the side board or not.
@@rebeccastanley9920Kinism is the attitude of preferential treatment of one’s own kind. Most intimately it would include family members. Less intimately It would include shared ethnicities, shared worldviews, shared theologies. The Lewis quote isn’t speaking on a fundamentally different concept, simply the most intimate version of that concept . Who exactly do you think is raising flags over skin color? Is skin color even in the discussion anywhere? Yes, of course Wilson is criticizing Owen of supporting a multi-worldview, multi-ideological theonomy. And yes, this is the cause of Europe’s decimation and increasingly ours. It is Biblical to support one’s own kind. Skin color is not even on the table for discussion by anyone involved in the conversation.
Cracker Barrel Nationalism ...
This message seems too abstract, too complicated for flame-throwing NQN
every time Doug Wilson posts something, I click on it, listen for about ten minutes, and realize "I have absolutely no clue what this is about". Then I try three more times to listen and understand before I realize I'm wasting my time. If he wanted to communicate something instead of writing some erudite form of poetry, he would have just used clear language.
@@josephbrandenburg4373
If he did I would miss how incredibly well the ideas were expressed.
For example, he once talked about the benefits of Trump’s presidency by saying something like ‘it’s about time someone smelled burnt marshwiggle’. Many people would not get the reference or figure out how to apply it, but to those who understood it - Wow! So much richer than saying ‘he showed us bad stuff was happening’.
@@Globeguy1337 I don't mind a clever allusion or quotation. I like it when Wilson expresses himself clearly... but he usually uses so many layers of metaphor and irony that his posts are impossible to follow in spoken-form. Maybe they'd work as blog posts. Maybe it's his deadpan delivery. Either way it seems his goal is to present his own cleverness and dry wit, even at the expense of clarity.
Honestly it's a little unfair of me... but the truth is, I don't care enough about what he has to say to do all the work of figuring it out. And I'm at least mostly on his side! Even in the places I disagree (Calvinism, his weird takes on male/female dynaimcs), I think he's one of the best representations of his point of view. So it's a shame when he conceals his points of view and reasoning behind... what I see as nothing more than an exercise in literary masturbation.
A big part of the reason it bothers me is that I think Wilson is not clever enough to make it work. He's like a programmer who writes an elaborate system of classes and polymorphism and design patterns of every description - when a simple function will do. And to quote a certain, brilliant, schizophrenic programmer: "An idiot admires complexity, a genius admires simplicity."
@@josephbrandenburg4373
I believe they are blog posts - these uploads are just direct readings of them.
I admit I miss some points, too. In such cases I infer the general point from flow and context if I don’t want to research it (which is most of the time haha).
I have my disagreements/uncertain areas with him as well, but the male/female stuff is actually some of my favorite material from him.
@@Globeguy1337 🤔 It's always possible that I misunderstood his point of view in those videos... maybe I'll rewatch them. Mind if I ask what you liked about them, and why?
I guess I'll find the original blog posts and read them instead, maybe I'll understand it better that way.
Lies, Jesus did not believe in religious freedoms. Show me the bible verse. Doug why do you teach the things of man and not of God?
So you want a theocracy?
@@wet-read I want is you to posting the Bible verse where Jesus said we have freedom of religion. Also what you and I want is irrelevant.
@@greengateacreshomestead4324
It doesn't matter. I get knowledge and insights and inspiration from books sometimes, but I never let them order me around. I don't think books should order anyone around.
@@wet-read We are talking about The Book (Bible) or The Books of the Bible, those books are the very words of God. Jesus said that the Earth and Heaven will pass way but his words will stand. Is not about inspiration or insights I don't really care for those, I do however care for Life, and the ONLY book that talks about Life is The Bible. Christ is The Way, The Truth and The Life, that is the only thing man should be consumed by.
@@greengateacreshomestead4324
Yeah, I gathered that you think all of that. But not everyone does. And that's fine. Freedom of religion means freedom from religion, too.
4:45.😹.
Why didn’t you play Owen’s actual point??? It is highly disturbing to see you (Doug Wilson) pick at Strachan’s perceived logical inconsistencies while not addressing the main point he was making in his speech. The fact is Stephen Wolfe teaches Christian racism. And you publish his book and intentionally don’t address the remarks of the critics who rightly stand up against his false doctrine??? The answer to woke racism is not Christian woke racism. I don’t think Stephen Wolfe knows the LORD Jesus Christ and at best you are in sin and rebellion against the God who reconciled Jew and Gentile for promoting his heresy. You will say “But Deuteronomy 7:3 says not to intermarry...” quite right but not to intermarry among the pagans. A Jew is not one outwardly but one inwardly. Christians are free to marry who they like but only in the LORD. Multi-ethnic marriage is literally in the genealogy of the Savior. How dare you! The puritans spoke of “professors” who knew all about doctrine and Bible but they were not inwardly changed. I don’t think you are actually born again by the living God. Marking and avoiding you now. Repent!
"The fact is Stephen Wolfe teaches Christian racism." Shocking news to my hispanic family. On which pages of his book will we find this?
@@noxvenit Hello. I have gathered the various quotes for you and I will post them in a separate reply/replies to you as they are long. But please understand what Doug Wilson just did. He played 2 minutes of a speech by Owen Strachan out of context and picked apart his disagreements with Owen as if the point of Owen's speech had anything to do with the what Owen was saying in those 2 minutes. The segment that Doug Wilson used in this video comes from the 33:00-35:00 minute markers of Owens 44 minute speech at G3 where he spent the first 25 minutes explaining that Stephen Wolfe is advocating and defending racism. At the 25:00 marker he begins responding to Wolfe in a 7 part rapid fire bullet point manner. Doug Wilson took ONE of those of those 7 bullets against racism and passed it off to you as if being for the constitution but against CN was the point Owen was making. He is being intentionally deceptive. Everyone needs to flee this channel.
@@noxvenit You also need to read Kevin DeYoung's TGC article entitled "The Rise of Right Wing Wokeism."
DeYoung notes,
Wolfe says a mark of nationalism is that “each people group has a right to be for itself” (118), and that “no nation (properly conceived) is composed of two or more ethnicities” (135), and that our “instinct to conduct everyday life among similar people is natural, and being natural, it is for your good” (142), and that “to exclude an out-group is to recognize a universal good for man” (145), and that “spiritual unity is inadequate for formal ecclesial unity” (200), and that “the most suitable condition for a group of people to successfully pursue the complete good is one of cultural similarity” (201)…. If there were no other problems with the book, Wolfe’s vigorous defense of becoming “more exclusive and ethnic-focused” (459) should stop in their tracks all who are ready to follow Wolfe’s vision for national renewal. The fact that the left thinks racism is everywhere doesn’t mean racism is nowhere. Wolfe may eschew contemporary racialist categories, but he doesn’t make clear how his ideas on kinship are different from racist ideas of the past that have been used to forbid interracial marriage and to enforce the legal injustice of “separate but equal.”
Young points out that Wolfe and the Christian Nationalists are looking for a “measured theocratic Caesarism” and a “world shaker of our time” (279) and for a Christian prince to punish false teachers and regulate acts of religion (356-357). “Our time calls for a man who can wield formal civil power to great effect and shape the public imagination by means of charisma, gravitas, and personality” (31).
[Me not DeYoung: This sounds eerily popish. Note: in the 1920s there was this new group in Italy called Antifa. They were going around burning down buildings and rioting in the streets. The conservative Catholics saw this obvious evil on the left and they swung the country far right, right into the arms of Bennito Mussolini. That’s a fact. These guys are asking for a tyrant. It's 1 Samuel 8. Give us a king who can fix this mess. Plato said that democracies would fail because they are built around tolerance and over time you tolerate certain people and ideas that should not be tolerated until it reaches a point where the tyrant steps up and says, “I can fix this, I just need some emergency powers.” These men are asking for the antichrist and they don’t even see it. That’s terrifying.]
@@noxvenit Owen Strachan writes an amazing article entitled "Stephen Wolfe's Ideas" where he shows racist comments from Wolfe on social media. I keep trying to post some of the comments but UA-cam keeps censoring the content. So search for that article.
@@Sentinel517 I appreciate this, and Owen's speech is two more down in my queue, so I will hear it in a few hours. As for Wilson's segment, I don't understand your complaint. In commenting on any argument, however presented, one always selects what one regards as the most salient portion; it is understood that as long as one cites the larger context, this is an acceptable practice. Yes, Doug present two minutes, but he also linked to the entire speech, thus opening himself up for redirect. This is not how I would define intentionally deceptive practices. Besides, I asked for citations to pages in Wolfe's book. Perhaps you provided them in the three replies which, for unknown reason UA-cam isn't letting me see.
C A L V A N I S T B U L L S H I T is the thing to avoid.
If you're gonna be a hater at least you could spell calvinist correctly
Also, repent. Cursing is sinful.
@@matthewmidea4754 you got the point didn't you?
@CP-dk8oi i do. I am just low on patience these days.
People who attack Holy Tradition should know better.
...we luve lives that are nearly fully alien to the Apostles.
...how we view the world is seriously slipping away from Christian Faith.
Bro is reading from promoter…
And I'm a white guy. And water gets you wet. Dogs are cool....So what?
Because he’s reading the blog he wrote dude. This is the audio version.
I'm saying that criticizing him for reading from a prompter or even making a note of it is odd. Do you expect him to memorize the entire blog he wrote word for word? He's reading off the prompter to create the audio version of the blog so it is more accessible to people. Nothing here to criticize.@CP-dk8oi
Love NQN - but you’re lookin rough Doug, hopefully you’re taking care of yourself, we need many more NQN’s to come
Try being discreet in your comments.