I agree with the final conclusion that Christians should not be submissive to 21st century progressive interlocutors. It makes me think about Tim Keller hemming and hawing when questioned about homosexuality and how I felt he should have just flatly stated: "The Bible has it right about homosexuality".
How many people in America today live under a mountain of debt? The borrower is the slave of the lender, and a country perpetually indebted is a country perpetually enslaved.
Jon. You covered a lot with this video and I agree with your 'reframing' necessity overall (but it is just a huge undertaking and perhaps drowned out by fellow conservatives and Christians due to the level of knowledge of history necessary to nuance the discussion). I often ask people if they think we are evolving morally to test their 'framing' assumptions (thank our modernity and its assumptions). I may also ask people if we will eventually do away with employee/employer business model in the future under the same arguments used for abolishiing servitude/enslavement? I've always contended [and you alluded to this I felt] that recent cultural movements (whether moral, immoral, or amoral) are a mix of technology, people fighting for their personal / 'tribal' benefit, and to lesser extent, the conscience. But often to me, it seems since the OT, people of conscience (to a level to militate against the zeit geist or man-pleaser temptation) are few and far between. Often it is a convenience conscience when the tides are turning. Also, we have a huge deficit in abilty to learn from history because to me the historians don't help our knowledge of history and we are more confused than ever. I would end with this on the 'reframing': that Christians need to help the world redefine terms- the concept of 'rights' and jurisdiction. Rights are not some autonomy from God's rule or even heirarchies so called; but more a definition of our responsibility over that we've been given jurisdiction and a challenge to who has jurisdiction over what. We do, as apologists, have to have an answer to 'Does God's precepts and Christian society make a positive difference?', but at end of day, believers are not people who hold to results-based faith only.
Thanks for having the guts to point out that first wave f......ts of the 19th century were not a healthy movement that was only focused upon one issue of suffrage. My understanding of them is that they were very much promoters of misandry, that they were very unpopular with women as well as men, and that they even denied the existence of female orgasm, which is astonishing considering that it was not a forgotten topic in the literature of the pre-19th century world. It's easy to imagine that there would have been an anti-natalist motivation in this: demonize male sexuality by portraying it as inherently selfish, and manipulate women into joining them in the workforce instead of being at home with children.
That’s why you’re in this position, Jon! I’ve been listening to you for quite a while now and I always look for your opinions on culture and evangelical world. Your knowledge and high view of Scripture displays your balanced approach. Thanks ☺️
Thank you Jon, and give Was a bit of a break ....he's Canadian, and quite young. l think he has a blessed future, and am thankful God is using him to speak up for true Christianity. :) ~ Canada.
I don’t have specific links right now, but I believe that providing the correct arguments for these battles is what a lot of the recinstructionists did, including the dreaded Doug Wilson (Black and Tan). Plus’s the answer is simple: “That part of what ‘so and so’ did was sinful according to this verse and that part isn’t sinful or wrong because the Bible says so.” “But I don’t agree and I posit that it was wrong!” Silver bullet is then “by what standard?” Presuppositionalism (AKA Biblical apologetics) always wins the fight.
God has always worked outside our institutional boxes. The simplicity of true Christians beyond our full time professional Christians. Wilberfors sic would be an example. New Testament leaders elders and deacons were warned against greed and comfort. Francis Scheafer’s cautionary phrase about “comfort and affluence “.
Thank you, Jon. This episode is very insightful and reveals some blind spots of arrogance of how the Church in many ways tries to prop up our modern day social structures by how we try to reconcile the Bible to it. Which is crazy considering the Bible is God's word.
Hi Jon Thanks for the video, very helpful. What did you make of Wes’ defence of the use of numbers as symbols in the Bible, seemed to be not wanting to commit to a literal reading.
The people today do not have any idea of what slavery was about. Black slavery in Europe started with the Italians and Portuguese. And everyone around the world had slaves at that time. Also, the Quakers had black slaves, but they didn't work out in the more northern colonies. And, Christians in America were against slavery but wanted to get rid of it slowly, which is what they were doing before the War Between the States. The government kept records on the position of people regarding slavery. And books and records on this subject were printed, which can now be accessed on the net. They also kept records on the treatment of the Indians. We've been told to look at the wrong things as far as history goes. For instance, black free people and women were expected to be able to read and write in 1850 and before, as well as white men. And they kept records of how many people went to what churches. And how many owned slaves and where they were. The English started using black slaves instead of British convicts, because the convicts couldn't take the climate in the Caribbean. They continued to use them in areas where the climate was oppressive to white agricultural laborers. And, the use of machines invented by Christians caused the demise of slavery. Machines instead of muscle. Even though the modern folks will say Eli Whitney caused more slavery, capitalism and machines eventually got rid of it. And, America was a capitalist country from the beginning.
A society in which females are unambiguously taught from girlhood upward that obeying and honoring their husbands when they become married is an important value, is a society that is abhorrent in the eyes of 21st century progressives. And the kind of people who staff seminaries and other elite evangelical institutions would substantially share those feelings. Most of today's evangelical pastors would doubtless feel queasy about any society with such norms. Meanwhile whose side is the Bible on?
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast no, i've been on reels and shorts and the amount of this stuff that is mixed witht eh proliferation of conspiracy context is astounding, people are looking for "hidden truth" and its not getting any better.
I mean, you noted the junk Rainbow books. But he also had Rosaria Butterfield. So I'd say he put a range of pertinent books to make the inquirer interact with the issue from all sides. I may think that's not the best idea for every person. But given he's aiming primarily at students and academics, it's not terrible.
This kind of apologetics is probably to some degree necessary, a push back against absolutes of the movements of narcissistic & power-hungry righteousness, but it is not the kind I am most interested in. I am interested in the complete psycho-social complex of these movements, what drives them? Where do they fail to be honest? Where do we have to admire to some degree, at least when they are honest and not enmeshed in layers & layers of distortion-especially about the PRESENT evil in themselves & in culture they so successfully just ignore. Also, I think the larger, deeper, questions should always demand center stage in apologetics: What is the nature of evil? What does it say about the human condition. How do various stances speak to all of it. the whole of reality, the human condition, and the spiritual world of faith and belief, truth itself.
This is just not true. Take Dr. William Lane Craig for example, the most influential apologist of our age. He is a complementatian, opposes homosexuality, does not support the political left. The same is true of many of the truly intellectual apologists.
But while these guys may write a cool apologetic, what we need more is a testimony that is written or spoken in saving faith in Jesus, out of the conviction of the Holy Spirit. The constant emphasis on intellect is an emphasis on flesh (NOT okay, much less desirable!), yet that's what we're sold on. So the result is often that we have all these arguments, and labor to produce better and sharper, more "decisive" arguments, but we act as if the Holy Spirit doesn't exist, conceding Him to the charismatic deceivers on TV. Which is odd, because He is the Spirit of truth. Could it be that we are more interested in saving face in front of the "militant", fierce atheists, and proving that we're not the idiots they claim we are? In how many of these great, intellectual battles, do we find Christians, or supposed Christians, gloating about "destroying", "crushing," "decimating" the opponents, when, if we believe at all, we'd know that the sin in that destroys any benefit of the supposed triumph in reasoning, as far as faith in Jesus is concerned. Because we do want people to believe in Jesus, don't we, not to just "win" a stupid online debate? I speak as a person who had no intention of debating, but just intended to answer an ugly doctrine with verses from the Bible, but I allowed myself to be (viciously!) trolled into fighting back. The result is not worthy of the name of Jesus Christ, but it frankly seemed to be all there was representing Christianity online. Because, we don't want "dominion", right? "Dominion" is Jesus's, and He will take it in this world, only after He returns in the clouds, returning just as the angel said He would, and not before-right? Because when we take over, saying that He is essentially taking over through us, making us Jesus, or the vicarious representative of Jesus, that doesn't mean that He has anything to do with it. If we start a so-called theocracy, but the true, living God has not started it, how is that not antichrist? Were declaring ourselves to be Him, when we claim to be doing His work, by His command, when wHe has t commanded, but we have comma ded ourselves "for" Him, gathering power unto ourselves. And everyone who is His, knows that we are not Him! The movement to gather dominion unto ourselves is very strange. It is coming mostly from two sides, the Calvinists, and some of the Charismatics and Pentecostals. That seems like an odd mix, but it is possible that there is more they have in common than is superficially obvious. But the drive to take over society is not from God, if we go by the Bible. Because, only if we believe that much of the Bible is a lie, will we believe that we are called to take the world over. "Seven mountains of culture" ought to be a warning, that this movement is ungodly, and willing to be horribly more ungodly, or send us in that direction, to the extent of the woman who "rides the Beast", because she sits on seven mountains, according to Revelation 17, and these people know that. You might want to check out some more information about this "woman", in Revelation 17 and 18: what she gets drunk on, for instance. But Calvinists generally hate eschatology, scoffing at it, but you wouldn't think they would share the eschatology of William Branham, and (now) NAR, etc. Nah, "Manifest Sons of God"/"Joel's Army" are totally the wrong fashion statement for Calvinists! They are rooted in "classy", pewter-buckle conservatism; that and conservative disgust and impatience, and maybe a little lust for and (fashionable!) "will to" power, and just wanting it to break out into open warfare, in complete disregard for what the Bible says about it. But either way, signs of the time mean nothing to people who routinely disregard them as a matter of faith. And some of them project that they will have re-created the world into a pretty good place in the 30,000-40,000 years they say it will take before Jesus returns to sign off on their work. Odd that they can stand being grouped, through their eschatology, with William Branham, though. . "My kingdom is not of this world"-somebody said that. It will be His when He returns, as He said He would, but if it chafes you too much to have to be patient and watching, as I believe He also talked about, then I guess you could try to take over, AS Jesus, but you aren't anymore Jesus than that pink-haired false prophetess, when she lowers her voice and pretends to be Jesus. Either we fear God or we don't, but nobody fears Him who pretends to be Him.
Acts 1:9-11 ¶ And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
A hat tip to the British. Most don't know this, but I consciously try to incorporate British spellings. I use the Oxford over Websters. I'll let people try to guess why that might be. :)
The main point of Apologetics is to bolster those who already believe. Not to convert. It can often create an adversarial relationship with those you are trying to reach by focusing too much on "winning" an argument through manufactured evidence and confirmation bias logic, rather than fostering genuine connection and understanding. It leads to neglecting the emotional and spiritual aspects of faith that might be more important to someone questioning their beliefs; this can lead to a perception of arrogance and a lack of empathy. "Antient societies treat their women..." The antient Norse allowed divorce. SEVERELY punished infidelity and spousal abuse. Rape got the perpetrator executed. Tacitus wrote of the Norther European Pagans enforcing things like hospitality, fidelity, abstinence (including the men), moderation.... Women ran the house/farm, could own a business, hold title, command large scale military.... The Old Testament ABSOLUTELY treated women horribly. But you saying "Well, some antient societies..." without even knowing said societies is nothing but a desperate Whataboutism. So, you don't view women as equal? You don't think they should have the same rights? The idea that women are equal to men in the image of God, as stated in Genesis 1:27. The idea that women and men are representatives of God and are called to carry the message. The imago Dei is a foundational concept in Judeo-Christian belief, and it describes the unique relationship between God and humans. Interpretations change because cultures change. No 1st Century Christian would look at you like one of them. Completely different culture. You wanting to an anachronistic is all on you, but it makes you stagnant, obsolete, and in the way. The premise that we are all "called by God" suggests a community that makes it easier to acknowledge that call. If God loves us equally, and if we are called to become more like God, this means that we should above all imagine a community that makes it easier for us to love one another. This is where the doctrine of imago dei becomes an argument for social equality. The point isn’t simply that love can motivate our efforts to feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, and heal the sick. Love of neighbor may indeed lead to social equality, but I think something else is more important: social equality eases the way to love of neighbor. Big inequalities of wealth and rank leave the members of a community with few common experiences, and this makes it unnecessarily difficult for them to see one another as neighbors. The reduction of social inequality makes for common experiences; common experiences make for a humane community, for a lively and unforced awareness of one another’s humanity. Social equality is a means toward a certain kind of community, a kind of community that is in turn a means toward understanding one’s neighbors and oneself. Using religion to bolster preconceived identity politics and bigotry is completely misusing the faith. Which is blasphemy. Well, yeah. The whole "They will know you by your works..." Other religions were doing it BEFORE Christianity. Well, there's OT law (that copies Mesopotamian, word for word in many places), or you have what Jesus teaches (which has many ideals that were taught before him) which contradicts the OT, or Paul, who came AFTER Jesus ( and majority of time contradicts Jesus). So, do you follow laws from a culture that hasn't existed for a couple thousand years, they guy the religion is named after, or a guy that came in after the fact? Only one makes you a Christian. There were no seances in the basement. Stop lying. Yes, I just called you a liar. The Woman's Bible is a collection of critical commentaries on texts within chapters of the Bible directly referring to women with its purpose being to explore man's translations and their interpretations of Scriptures that make woman inferior to man. It's NOT a devotional bible. Thanks for showing us you never read. Other wise the whole "They removed the parts" comment (which is a lie) would not have happened. Not all marriage is slavery. Certain kinds are. Stop being so melodramatic because your fragile masculinity is "threatened". "It relies on your audiences ignorance..." Like you are doing...... "Why is that the one..." Because women have had enough. Women in general are the ones that push culture in one way or another. And men having their "masculinity" that they claim because some guy 2000+ years ago said so is so "threatened". 7 minutes in.... nothing you are saying is Christian doctrine. You're misusing a religion to further your preconceived notions and confirmation bias. Which is blasphemy. False teacher.
Sam Allberry? Yikes!! Huff is not solid. He also thinks the Earth is billions of years old apparently. Side B, denial of Genesis, no gospel presentation on Rogan....
So I’m going to suggest that there’s some historical problems with some of these issues you bring up. 1) We did not have 1700 years of Christianity prior to the abolition of slaves. We had 1700 years of the RCC before the abolition of slavery. Western Christianity, by which I mean ‘Protestantism,’ did not start until the 1500s. 2) You act as if the abolition movement in America wasn’t truly Christian because of the heterodoxy of many of their views. That’s fair. The Beecher’s, for instance, had many problematic religious views. But I’m not sure that you could say that all abolitionists had the same views, or even that the progressivism of the abolitionist movement wasn’t motivated by Christian morality. Let’s face it: You don’t think they were real Christians because you disagree with their social agenda. But just last week (I think) I heard you discussing inviting atheists to talk at your conference because they had the same social agenda that you did. You reject the Christian morality of the abolitionists because you don’t like their progressivism, but have no problems with atheists that do share your social ideas. Heterodox Christians are somehow worse than atheists. I’m not sure that really works for me.
I agree with the final conclusion that Christians should not be submissive to 21st century progressive interlocutors. It makes me think about Tim Keller hemming and hawing when questioned about homosexuality and how I felt he should have just flatly stated: "The Bible has it right about homosexuality".
Man, Jon, you are spot on! Excellent! Very useful.
How many people in America today live under a mountain of debt? The borrower is the slave of the lender, and a country perpetually indebted is a country perpetually enslaved.
Somebody’s done Financial Peace University
I agree. I had the same thought whilst watching a video about our politic system here in the UK
As always Jon, a wonderful, balanced, and thoughtful Biblical perspective on politics and current events. Thank you so much!
Jon. You covered a lot with this video and I agree with your 'reframing' necessity overall (but it is just a huge undertaking and perhaps drowned out by fellow conservatives and Christians due to the level of knowledge of history necessary to nuance the discussion). I often ask people if they think we are evolving morally to test their 'framing' assumptions (thank our modernity and its assumptions). I may also ask people if we will eventually do away with employee/employer business model in the future under the same arguments used for abolishiing servitude/enslavement?
I've always contended [and you alluded to this I felt] that recent cultural movements (whether moral, immoral, or amoral) are a mix of technology, people fighting for their personal / 'tribal' benefit, and to lesser extent, the conscience. But often to me, it seems since the OT, people of conscience (to a level to militate against the zeit geist or man-pleaser temptation) are few and far between. Often it is a convenience conscience when the tides are turning. Also, we have a huge deficit in abilty to learn from history because to me the historians don't help our knowledge of history and we are more confused than ever. I would end with this on the 'reframing': that Christians need to help the world redefine terms- the concept of 'rights' and jurisdiction. Rights are not some autonomy from God's rule or even heirarchies so called; but more a definition of our responsibility over that we've been given jurisdiction and a challenge to who has jurisdiction over what. We do, as apologists, have to have an answer to 'Does God's precepts and Christian society make a positive difference?', but at end of day, believers are not people who hold to results-based faith only.
Thanks for having the guts to point out that first wave f......ts of the 19th century were not a healthy movement that was only focused upon one issue of suffrage. My understanding of them is that they were very much promoters of misandry, that they were very unpopular with women as well as men, and that they even denied the existence of female orgasm, which is astonishing considering that it was not a forgotten topic in the literature of the pre-19th century world. It's easy to imagine that there would have been an anti-natalist motivation in this: demonize male sexuality by portraying it as inherently selfish, and manipulate women into joining them in the workforce instead of being at home with children.
Great thoughts !! I hope people are listening.
That’s why you’re in this position, Jon! I’ve been listening to you for quite a while now and I always look for your opinions on culture and evangelical world. Your knowledge and high view of Scripture displays your balanced approach. Thanks ☺️
On the Huff book recommendations he stated that some are good and some are junk because a student should read the range views to understand.
I thought Tom Holland was the guy who played Spider-Man.
Well it’s like Superman with the dual personalities. Holland is both a teenage actor and an elderly historian.
@@SerenityNow22Not elderly
That was very thought-provoking.
Both this and Right Response’s latest video have really got me thinking.
God bless brother
Thank you Jon, and give Was a bit of a break ....he's Canadian, and quite young. l think he has a blessed future, and am thankful God is using him to speak up for true Christianity. :) ~ Canada.
I don’t have specific links right now, but I believe that providing the correct arguments for these battles is what a lot of the recinstructionists did, including the dreaded Doug Wilson (Black and Tan). Plus’s the answer is simple: “That part of what ‘so and so’ did was sinful according to this verse and that part isn’t sinful or wrong because the Bible says so.” “But I don’t agree and I posit that it was wrong!” Silver bullet is then “by what standard?” Presuppositionalism (AKA Biblical apologetics) always wins the fight.
God has always worked outside our institutional boxes. The simplicity of true Christians beyond our full time professional Christians. Wilberfors sic would be an example. New Testament leaders elders and deacons were warned against greed and comfort. Francis Scheafer’s cautionary phrase about “comfort and affluence “.
Thank you, Jon. This episode is very insightful and reveals some blind spots of arrogance of how the Church in many ways tries to prop up our modern day social structures by how we try to reconcile the Bible to it. Which is crazy considering the Bible is God's word.
Im new here so please be patient, but what can we infer about a proper Christian view of slavery from Philemon?
Hi Jon
Thanks for the video, very helpful.
What did you make of Wes’ defence of the use of numbers as symbols in the Bible, seemed to be not wanting to commit to a literal reading.
I've said for decades now, we're all slaves of a different kind.
The people today do not have any idea of what slavery was about. Black slavery in Europe started with the Italians and Portuguese. And everyone around the world had slaves at that time. Also, the Quakers had black slaves, but they didn't work out in the more northern colonies. And, Christians in America were against slavery but wanted to get rid of it slowly, which is what they were doing before the War Between the States. The government kept records on the position of people regarding slavery. And books and records on this subject were printed, which can now be accessed on the net. They also kept records on the treatment of the Indians. We've been told to look at the wrong things as far as history goes. For instance, black free people and women were expected to be able to read and write in 1850 and before, as well as white men. And they kept records of how many people went to what churches. And how many owned slaves and where they were. The English started using black slaves instead of British convicts, because the convicts couldn't take the climate in the Caribbean. They continued to use them in areas where the climate was oppressive to white agricultural laborers. And, the use of machines invented by Christians caused the demise of slavery. Machines instead of muscle. Even though the modern folks will say Eli Whitney caused more slavery, capitalism and machines eventually got rid of it. And, America was a capitalist country from the beginning.
A society in which females are unambiguously taught from girlhood upward that obeying and honoring their husbands when they become married is an important value, is a society that is abhorrent in the eyes of 21st century progressives. And the kind of people who staff seminaries and other elite evangelical institutions would substantially share those feelings. Most of today's evangelical pastors would doubtless feel queasy about any society with such norms.
Meanwhile whose side is the Bible on?
I couldn’t agree more.
need to talk about the rise in dualism, platonic schemes, hermeticism etc
Have you been listening to James Lindsay?
🤣🤣@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast no, i've been on reels and shorts and the amount of this stuff that is mixed witht eh proliferation of conspiracy context is astounding, people are looking for "hidden truth" and its not getting any better.
conspiracy content***
Ouch. GOD bless you.
I mean, you noted the junk Rainbow books. But he also had Rosaria Butterfield. So I'd say he put a range of pertinent books to make the inquirer interact with the issue from all sides. I may think that's not the best idea for every person. But given he's aiming primarily at students and academics, it's not terrible.
Wes Huff is a Complimentarian, I'd also watch the Julian Dorey podcast with Wes Huff
Will do, thanks!
This kind of apologetics is probably to some degree necessary, a push back against absolutes of the movements of narcissistic & power-hungry righteousness, but it is not the kind I am most interested in. I am interested in the complete psycho-social complex of these movements, what drives them? Where do they fail to be honest? Where do we have to admire to some degree, at least when they are honest and not enmeshed in layers & layers of distortion-especially about the PRESENT evil in themselves & in culture they so successfully just ignore.
Also, I think the larger, deeper, questions should always demand center stage in apologetics: What is the nature of evil? What does it say about the human condition. How do various stances speak to all of it. the whole of reality, the human condition, and the spiritual world of faith and belief, truth itself.
Yes, we Christians had slaves. But we "treated them better". We were the slave owners with a heart.
12:30 what about Woolmen? He started the movement
This is just not true. Take Dr. William Lane Craig for example, the most influential apologist of our age. He is a complementatian, opposes homosexuality, does not support the political left. The same is true of many of the truly intellectual apologists.
He's wonky on the doctrine of the Trinity, creationism, and soteriology, not to mention his bizarre commitment to Molinism.
@@timbushong4387most of that can just be explained with him not being a Calvinist. Many people like that.
But while these guys may write a cool apologetic, what we need more is a testimony that is written or spoken in saving faith in Jesus, out of the conviction of the Holy Spirit. The constant emphasis on intellect is an emphasis on flesh (NOT okay, much less desirable!), yet that's what we're sold on. So the result is often that we have all these arguments, and labor to produce better and sharper, more "decisive" arguments, but we act as if the Holy Spirit doesn't exist, conceding Him to the charismatic deceivers on TV. Which is odd, because He is the Spirit of truth.
Could it be that we are more interested in saving face in front of the "militant", fierce atheists, and proving that we're not the idiots they claim we are? In how many of these great, intellectual battles, do we find Christians, or supposed Christians, gloating about "destroying", "crushing," "decimating" the opponents, when, if we believe at all, we'd know that the sin in that destroys any benefit of the supposed triumph in reasoning, as far as faith in Jesus is concerned. Because we do want people to believe in Jesus, don't we, not to just "win" a stupid online debate? I speak as a person who had no intention of debating, but just intended to answer an ugly doctrine with verses from the Bible, but I allowed myself to be (viciously!) trolled into fighting back. The result is not worthy of the name of Jesus Christ, but it frankly seemed to be all there was representing Christianity online.
Because, we don't want "dominion", right? "Dominion" is Jesus's, and He will take it in this world, only after He returns in the clouds, returning just as the angel said He would, and not before-right?
Because when we take over, saying that He is essentially taking over through us, making us Jesus, or the vicarious representative of Jesus, that doesn't mean that He has anything to do with it. If we start a so-called theocracy, but the true, living God has not started it, how is that not antichrist? Were declaring ourselves to be Him, when we claim to be doing His work, by His command, when wHe has t commanded, but we have comma ded ourselves "for" Him, gathering power unto ourselves. And everyone who is His, knows that we are not Him!
The movement to gather dominion unto ourselves is very strange. It is coming mostly from two sides, the Calvinists, and some of the Charismatics and Pentecostals. That seems like an odd mix, but it is possible that there is more they have in common than is superficially obvious. But the drive to take over society is not from God, if we go by the Bible. Because, only if we believe that much of the Bible is a lie, will we believe that we are called to take the world over. "Seven mountains of culture" ought to be a warning, that this movement is ungodly, and willing to be horribly more ungodly, or send us in that direction, to the extent of the woman who "rides the Beast", because she sits on seven mountains, according to Revelation 17, and these people know that. You might want to check out some more information about this "woman", in Revelation 17 and 18: what she gets drunk on, for instance. But Calvinists generally hate eschatology, scoffing at it, but you wouldn't think they would share the eschatology of William Branham, and (now) NAR, etc. Nah, "Manifest Sons of God"/"Joel's Army" are totally the wrong fashion statement for Calvinists! They are rooted in "classy", pewter-buckle conservatism; that and conservative disgust and impatience, and maybe a little lust for and (fashionable!) "will to" power, and just wanting it to break out into open warfare, in complete disregard for what the Bible says about it. But either way, signs of the time mean nothing to people who routinely disregard them as a matter of faith. And some of them project that they will have re-created the world into a pretty good place in the 30,000-40,000 years they say it will take before Jesus returns to sign off on their work. Odd that they can stand being grouped, through their eschatology, with William Branham, though.
.
"My kingdom is not of this world"-somebody said that. It will be His when He returns, as He said He would, but if it chafes you too much to have to be patient and watching, as I believe He also talked about, then I guess you could try to take over, AS Jesus, but you aren't anymore Jesus than that pink-haired false prophetess, when she lowers her voice and pretends to be Jesus. Either we fear God or we don't, but nobody fears Him who pretends to be Him.
Acts 1:9-11
¶ And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
The thumbnail spelling is 'offencive'.
A hat tip to the British. Most don't know this, but I consciously try to incorporate British spellings. I use the Oxford over Websters. I'll let people try to guess why that might be. :)
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcastbecause Oxford English is the forerunner of Webster English?
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcastbecause Oxford English is the forerunner of Webster English?
@this is so interesting to me. Why do u prefer oxford over websters. Is websters woke?nversationsThatMatterpodcast
Actually offensive, I think.
👀👀👀
Presup???!
Not really but presups should appreciate
@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast Lez goo
The main point of Apologetics is to bolster those who already believe. Not to convert.
It can often create an adversarial relationship with those you are trying to reach by focusing too much on "winning" an argument through manufactured evidence and confirmation bias logic, rather than fostering genuine connection and understanding.
It leads to neglecting the emotional and spiritual aspects of faith that might be more important to someone questioning their beliefs; this can lead to a perception of arrogance and a lack of empathy.
"Antient societies treat their women..."
The antient Norse allowed divorce. SEVERELY punished infidelity and spousal abuse. Rape got the perpetrator executed. Tacitus wrote of the Norther European Pagans enforcing things like hospitality, fidelity, abstinence (including the men), moderation.... Women ran the house/farm, could own a business, hold title, command large scale military....
The Old Testament ABSOLUTELY treated women horribly. But you saying "Well, some antient societies..." without even knowing said societies is nothing but a desperate Whataboutism.
So, you don't view women as equal? You don't think they should have the same rights?
The idea that women are equal to men in the image of God, as stated in Genesis 1:27.
The idea that women and men are representatives of God and are called to carry the message.
The imago Dei is a foundational concept in Judeo-Christian belief, and it describes the unique relationship between God and humans.
Interpretations change because cultures change. No 1st Century Christian would look at you like one of them. Completely different culture. You wanting to an anachronistic is all on you, but it makes you stagnant, obsolete, and in the way.
The premise that we are all "called by God" suggests a community that makes it easier to acknowledge that call. If God loves us equally, and if we are called to become more like God, this means that we should above all imagine a community that makes it easier for us to love one another. This is where the doctrine of imago dei becomes an argument for social equality. The point isn’t simply that love can motivate our efforts to feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, and heal the sick. Love of neighbor may indeed lead to social equality, but I think something else is more important: social equality eases the way to love of neighbor. Big inequalities of wealth and rank leave the members of a community with few common experiences, and this makes it unnecessarily difficult for them to see one another as neighbors.
The reduction of social inequality makes for common experiences; common experiences make for a humane community, for a lively and unforced awareness of one another’s humanity. Social equality is a means toward a certain kind of community, a kind of community that is in turn a means toward understanding one’s neighbors and oneself.
Using religion to bolster preconceived identity politics and bigotry is completely misusing the faith. Which is blasphemy.
Well, yeah. The whole "They will know you by your works..."
Other religions were doing it BEFORE Christianity.
Well, there's OT law (that copies Mesopotamian, word for word in many places), or you have what Jesus teaches (which has many ideals that were taught before him) which contradicts the OT, or Paul, who came AFTER Jesus ( and majority of time contradicts Jesus).
So, do you follow laws from a culture that hasn't existed for a couple thousand years, they guy the religion is named after, or a guy that came in after the fact? Only one makes you a Christian.
There were no seances in the basement. Stop lying. Yes, I just called you a liar.
The Woman's Bible is a collection of critical commentaries on texts within chapters of the Bible directly referring to women with its purpose being to explore man's translations and their interpretations of Scriptures that make woman inferior to man. It's NOT a devotional bible. Thanks for showing us you never read. Other wise the whole "They removed the parts" comment (which is a lie) would not have happened.
Not all marriage is slavery. Certain kinds are. Stop being so melodramatic because your fragile masculinity is "threatened".
"It relies on your audiences ignorance..." Like you are doing......
"Why is that the one..." Because women have had enough. Women in general are the ones that push culture in one way or another. And men having their "masculinity" that they claim because some guy 2000+ years ago said so is so "threatened".
7 minutes in.... nothing you are saying is Christian doctrine. You're misusing a religion to further your preconceived notions and confirmation bias. Which is blasphemy. False teacher.
Sam Allberry? Yikes!! Huff is not solid. He also thinks the Earth is billions of years old apparently. Side B, denial of Genesis, no gospel presentation on Rogan....
Tbf he does say on his page that some of the books in those lists are are good and others, bad but that a student should read a range of views.
So I’m going to suggest that there’s some historical problems with some of these issues you bring up. 1) We did not have 1700 years of Christianity prior to the abolition of slaves. We had 1700 years of the RCC before the abolition of slavery. Western Christianity, by which I mean ‘Protestantism,’ did not start until the 1500s. 2) You act as if the abolition movement in America wasn’t truly Christian because of the heterodoxy of many of their views. That’s fair. The Beecher’s, for instance, had many problematic religious views. But I’m not sure that you could say that all abolitionists had the same views, or even that the progressivism of the abolitionist movement wasn’t motivated by Christian morality. Let’s face it: You don’t think they were real Christians because you disagree with their social agenda. But just last week (I think) I heard you discussing inviting atheists to talk at your conference because they had the same social agenda that you did. You reject the Christian morality of the abolitionists because you don’t like their progressivism, but have no problems with atheists that do share your social ideas. Heterodox Christians are somehow worse than atheists. I’m not sure that really works for me.