The qumran community were the forerunners of the early Christian mystics, who were in turn the forerunners of the medieval mystics were the forerunners of the Quakers and Anabaptists, who were in turn the forerunners of the Methodists, who were in turn the forerunners of modern charismatics. There needs to be a name for this persistent heresy.
😁3👍2
Let us cheer our hearts with this consolation, when we see tyrants insolently and fiercely attack the Church of God; for the Lord will at length compel them to stop, and the more cruel they have been, the more severely will they be punished. The Lord will destroy them in a moment; for he will raise up against them enemies who will instantly ruin and punish them for their iniquities.
Here we ought also to acknowledge the providence of God in the overthrow of kingdoms; for wicked men imagine that everything moves at random and by the blind violence of fortune; but we ought to take quite another view, for the Lord will repay their deserts, so that they shall be made to know that the cruelty which they exercised against inoffensive persons does not remain unrevenged.
-- John Calvin, Commentary on Isaiah (Chapter 33)
Here we ought also to acknowledge the providence of God in the overthrow of kingdoms; for wicked men imagine that everything moves at random and by the blind violence of fortune; but we ought to take quite another view, for the Lord will repay their deserts, so that they shall be made to know that the cruelty which they exercised against inoffensive persons does not remain unrevenged.
-- John Calvin, Commentary on Isaiah (Chapter 33)
👍3
A common refrain voiced against theonomists and those with optimistic eschatologies is Jesus' statement in John 18:36: "My kingdom is not of this world." The confusion lies in that little preposition "of." We thenomosists and postmillenials 100% agree that Christ's kingdom is not "of" this world; it did not originate here, nor is it confined to this world. However, that doesn't mean the kingdom of God is not "in" this world. As Calvin notes in his commentary on the passage:
Yet it deserves our attention, likewise, that it is not said, that the kingdom of Christ is not in this world; for we know that it has its seat in our hearts, as also Christ says elsewhere, "The kingdom of God is within you," (Luke 17:21). But, strictly speaking, the kingdom of God, while it dwells in us, is a stranger to the world, because its condition is totally different.
Perhaps the best summary is to say the kingdom of God includes this world, but it also far transcends this world.
Yet it deserves our attention, likewise, that it is not said, that the kingdom of Christ is not in this world; for we know that it has its seat in our hearts, as also Christ says elsewhere, "The kingdom of God is within you," (Luke 17:21). But, strictly speaking, the kingdom of God, while it dwells in us, is a stranger to the world, because its condition is totally different.
Perhaps the best summary is to say the kingdom of God includes this world, but it also far transcends this world.
👍9
Forwarded from Gildas’ Plea
Are Ordained Deaconesses Compatible With Historic Christian Orthodoxy?
Unfortunately today the popularisation of deaconesses is widespread. So much so, that even the ultra-conservative churches have fallen to it. But is it biblical?
The term “diakonos” is used of an office with special requirements that women cannot meet. “Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain,” (1 Tim. 3:8). And, “Let deacons be husbands of only one wife [lit. one woman man’] and good managers of their children and their own households,” (1 Tim. 3:12). See also Phil. 1:1.
Therefore, it is impossible for the concept of a deaconess to be compatible with Christian Orthodoxy. So we must respect the God ordained clergical institutions and do away with this concept.
Soli Deo Gloria
Unfortunately today the popularisation of deaconesses is widespread. So much so, that even the ultra-conservative churches have fallen to it. But is it biblical?
The term “diakonos” is used of an office with special requirements that women cannot meet. “Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain,” (1 Tim. 3:8). And, “Let deacons be husbands of only one wife [lit. one woman man’] and good managers of their children and their own households,” (1 Tim. 3:12). See also Phil. 1:1.
Therefore, it is impossible for the concept of a deaconess to be compatible with Christian Orthodoxy. So we must respect the God ordained clergical institutions and do away with this concept.
Soli Deo Gloria
👍5
The threefold distinction in the law and why the civil law is still in force:
Historically, Reformed theologians have made a threefold distinction in the law: the moral law, civil law, and ceremonial law. This is a good and helpful distinction, but while these parts of the law are distinct, they are not separate and they overlap to some degree.
For example, an Israelite making a sacrifice in accordance with the ceremonial law was a moral and godly thing to do. Likewise, a town's elders ruling justly in accordance with the civil law was a moral and godly thing to do.
And while the ceremonial law was very clearly fulfilled directly by Christ, no such word was ever given on the civil law. Hence, Christians should still obey it where possible and work to create governments which do as well.
Historically, Reformed theologians have made a threefold distinction in the law: the moral law, civil law, and ceremonial law. This is a good and helpful distinction, but while these parts of the law are distinct, they are not separate and they overlap to some degree.
For example, an Israelite making a sacrifice in accordance with the ceremonial law was a moral and godly thing to do. Likewise, a town's elders ruling justly in accordance with the civil law was a moral and godly thing to do.
And while the ceremonial law was very clearly fulfilled directly by Christ, no such word was ever given on the civil law. Hence, Christians should still obey it where possible and work to create governments which do as well.
👍3
Student loan forgiveness is welfare for rich, lazy liberals. I won't weigh in on the ethics of taking advantage of this theft as a Christian (other than that I believe we should not). However, conservative and Christian politicians should take note. The regime is stealing from its enemies to give to its friends. This is war, and I would take this as license to do the reverse to the left. Here are some ideas which should become mainstream conservative proposals:
- $3k/year/kid homeschool stipend
- School property tax exemption for those who don't use public schools
- Large grants to Christian schools and colleges, no strings attached
- "Homemaker" tax credit applying to families supported by one full-time income
- Eliminate government-backed student loans altogether.
- $3k/year/kid homeschool stipend
- School property tax exemption for those who don't use public schools
- Large grants to Christian schools and colleges, no strings attached
- "Homemaker" tax credit applying to families supported by one full-time income
- Eliminate government-backed student loans altogether.
👍6🔥2🤔1
Forwarded from Gildas’ Plea
The Reformed Doctrine of Infant Baptism
In Genesis 15 God made a covenant with Abraham. This covenant was sealed with the sign of circumcision in Genesis 17. Circumcision was not just a physical thing for the marking out ethnic Jews, but it was full of spiritual meaning. It pointed to humility, new birth, and a new way of life (Lev. 26:40-42; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 6:10; 9:25).
Remarkably, this deeply spiritual sign was given to Ishmael as well as Isaac, even though only Isaac was the continuation of the promised line. This is because circumcision didn’t automatically mean the recipient of the sign was in possession of the thing signified.
It is upon this same covenant principle that Children are baptised today. For as the sons were still apart of the Abrahamic covenant and were circumcised, there is no reason why children should now be excluded in the New Testament sign of baptism. For we know from Colossians 2:11-12 that baptism and circumcision carry the same spiritual import.
Soli Deo Gloria
In Genesis 15 God made a covenant with Abraham. This covenant was sealed with the sign of circumcision in Genesis 17. Circumcision was not just a physical thing for the marking out ethnic Jews, but it was full of spiritual meaning. It pointed to humility, new birth, and a new way of life (Lev. 26:40-42; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 6:10; 9:25).
Remarkably, this deeply spiritual sign was given to Ishmael as well as Isaac, even though only Isaac was the continuation of the promised line. This is because circumcision didn’t automatically mean the recipient of the sign was in possession of the thing signified.
It is upon this same covenant principle that Children are baptised today. For as the sons were still apart of the Abrahamic covenant and were circumcised, there is no reason why children should now be excluded in the New Testament sign of baptism. For we know from Colossians 2:11-12 that baptism and circumcision carry the same spiritual import.
Soli Deo Gloria
👍3
Question for all non-theonomists:
Let's grant for the sake of argument you're correct and the civil law is no longer in force. Shouldn't you still want it to be the law of the land since it is blessed and perfect? Or do you think it's not perfect and sinful, depraved man can come up with a better system of civil law than that delivered by God?
I'm consistently perplexed as to what flaw non-theonomists find in God's law which causes them to not want it enforced. I can only conclude they possess impaired logical capabilities or a straightforward dislike of God's law.
Let's grant for the sake of argument you're correct and the civil law is no longer in force. Shouldn't you still want it to be the law of the land since it is blessed and perfect? Or do you think it's not perfect and sinful, depraved man can come up with a better system of civil law than that delivered by God?
I'm consistently perplexed as to what flaw non-theonomists find in God's law which causes them to not want it enforced. I can only conclude they possess impaired logical capabilities or a straightforward dislike of God's law.
👍8
It's unfortunate that the Queen of England is now dead. Balanced take incoming:
Yes, she presided over the worst days of British history, but she had no actual power to change things. Still, she should have used her platform and voice more actively. However, symbolic royalty should be treated as symbolic, and what was she a symbol of? A strong, prosperous, free, ethnically British and religiously Christian Britain.
These are very good things, and despite her shortcomings, it's unfortunate this living relic of a lost age is gone. God save the queen.
Yes, she presided over the worst days of British history, but she had no actual power to change things. Still, she should have used her platform and voice more actively. However, symbolic royalty should be treated as symbolic, and what was she a symbol of? A strong, prosperous, free, ethnically British and religiously Christian Britain.
These are very good things, and despite her shortcomings, it's unfortunate this living relic of a lost age is gone. God save the queen.
👍13👎3
Protestant Post pinned «In this article, we outline the ideal legal status Christians should strive for on abortion. With Roe v. Wade gone, dozens of state laws, each with their own nuances and loopholes will come into play. Christians having a full-orbed position on abortion will…»
Right wing Telegram has been embroiled in a debate this week: "Which is more based, Christianity or paganism?" All one needs to do is look to see which one the left has spent all its time trying to destroy. Just observe which one has a centuries-long track record of maintaining traditional societies.
If that isn't clear enough, I'll give you a hint: It's not the one where they have gay orgies in honor of the penis god.
If that isn't clear enough, I'll give you a hint: It's not the one where they have gay orgies in honor of the penis god.
👍12🔥5
Why is wisdom portrayed as a woman in Proverbs?
Wisdom is defined as "the fear of the Lord." Fear, respect, and honor are feminine traits, seen most clearly, perhaps, as the defining quality of a wife's relationship to her husband. It's also seen in the Church's relationship to Christ, where she takes the feminine role.
Importantly, this does not diminish the masculinity of any of the individuals who constitute the Church, nor does it mean gaining wisdom is a feminine pursuit. On the contrary, another reason wisdom is presented as a female is that God has given men an unquenchable drive to prove themselves to a woman and so earn her admiration: "She will give you a crown of glory" (Prov. 4:9).
So wisdom is presented as a woman partially to tap into the masculine mindset. And of course, we should note two other things while reading Proverbs: 1) the opposite of wisdom, the honey-lipped harlot, is also a woman. 2) Almost the entire book is written as a father instructing his son (except for, ironically, Proverbs 31, which was an oracle taught to King Lemuel by his mother).
Wisdom is defined as "the fear of the Lord." Fear, respect, and honor are feminine traits, seen most clearly, perhaps, as the defining quality of a wife's relationship to her husband. It's also seen in the Church's relationship to Christ, where she takes the feminine role.
Importantly, this does not diminish the masculinity of any of the individuals who constitute the Church, nor does it mean gaining wisdom is a feminine pursuit. On the contrary, another reason wisdom is presented as a female is that God has given men an unquenchable drive to prove themselves to a woman and so earn her admiration: "She will give you a crown of glory" (Prov. 4:9).
So wisdom is presented as a woman partially to tap into the masculine mindset. And of course, we should note two other things while reading Proverbs: 1) the opposite of wisdom, the honey-lipped harlot, is also a woman. 2) Almost the entire book is written as a father instructing his son (except for, ironically, Proverbs 31, which was an oracle taught to King Lemuel by his mother).
👍2
To function, society must reward wise long-term planning and the ability to defer gratification.
I will completely grant the validity of any criticisms of the greed and usury of high finance. However, interest itself is generally a good thing in that it penalizes people with high time preference who want cash immediately and benefits people who frugally save over time. (Of course, I'm thinking of individuals here; institutional players are a separate issue.)
For further reading: https://protestantpost.substack.com/p/the-ethics-of-interest-and-usury
I will completely grant the validity of any criticisms of the greed and usury of high finance. However, interest itself is generally a good thing in that it penalizes people with high time preference who want cash immediately and benefits people who frugally save over time. (Of course, I'm thinking of individuals here; institutional players are a separate issue.)
For further reading: https://protestantpost.substack.com/p/the-ethics-of-interest-and-usury
Protestant Post
The Ethics of Interest and Usury
A Biblical and Economic Assessment
👍5👎2
An interesting border restriction imposed by Mexico is the "forbidden zone." Essentially, foreigners are not allowed to purchase property within 100 km of the border or within 50 km of the coast. This discourages dual residences and aliens from purchasing property in the most valuable and populated areas (generally near the coast). Americans — myself included — are frequently unaware of how restrictive other nations' border laws are.
👍1
Hermeneutical question for y'all today. In a Twitter thread addressing the response of "What about Pricilla, Junias, Phoebe, Debrah…?" when talking about whether women should be pastors or not, the tweeter said:
"A great rule for reading the Bible is always to defer to the clear texts to interpret the unclear ones."
Even outside of the woman "pastor" conversation, what do y'all think about this interpretation method?
"A great rule for reading the Bible is always to defer to the clear texts to interpret the unclear ones."
Even outside of the woman "pastor" conversation, what do y'all think about this interpretation method?
👍1
The Three Uses of the Law are commonly called the schoolmaster (to lead us to Christ), a curb (to keep us from sin), and a guide (for believers on the path of righteousness). In Calvin's words:
1) First, by exhibiting the righteousness of God—in other words, the righteousness which alone is acceptable to God—it admonishes every one of his own unrighteousness, certiorates, convicts, and finally condemns him.
2) The second office of the Law is, by means of its fearful denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment, to curb those who, unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice.
3) The third use of the Law has respect to believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns.
1) First, by exhibiting the righteousness of God—in other words, the righteousness which alone is acceptable to God—it admonishes every one of his own unrighteousness, certiorates, convicts, and finally condemns him.
2) The second office of the Law is, by means of its fearful denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment, to curb those who, unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice.
3) The third use of the Law has respect to believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns.
🔥5