Видео

I immediately noticed how many ladies were on the security detail. As with most everything around Trump there's always mystery and then exposure. Even many of the people that he's let around him has been to their own shame and exposure.

Thank you!

Thanks, Jared. I can't imagine going about my daily life, going to work, and doing my thing and then there's a draft and Leah gets drafted, not me. There is just no way that I'm sitting around at home with my family and letting her go off to fight in a war somewhere.

Thank you for talking to Dr Edgington on this. Insane that the church isn't leading on this front. Lord have mercy...

Brother, i wish i could have been there! Possibly 2025!

Be there next year! I’m excited

Good talk. I really appreciate how the elders at our church, and you and Jordan, focus on this. Things just go so much better when men understand their roles, lead their families, and raise up their children well as God commands. And that goes double for the leadership of the church. It's important to obey God's commands just for for obedience's sake and because things just go better when you live according to God's design, but on this topic in particular there's an even more glaring issue that you touched on. 1 Cor. 14:33-35 and 1 Tim. 2:12 are straightforward and extremely clear. Knowing those verses, it is not possible for a church to have a female pastor and to claim that it is a misunderstanding or a difference of opinions or something. At that point, you have a church that knows the commands of God and intentionally chooses not to do them at the leadership level. If they ignore such straightforward and clear commands as that, what else do they ignore or twists for their own purposes? That is not a church I would bring my family to.

Excellent commentary on this. Thank you for your continued boldness, Jared! Miss your family and Christ Church!

Great stuff brothers

It’s deeply disturbing how little this is discussed in the church. It’s almost as if a spell has been cast over church leaders on this subject.

This has been an incredibly helpful episode and an encouragement to wisely sort out the things that have been looming in head.

LOL.

I commend Dr. Edgington for being a voice in this matter. We really need to spread this message. This is a big breakthrough in counseling. And what is the current state that happening now. Its spiritual warfare.

The message of not fearing the spiritual forces of evil is a good message. The context of how it was used was poorly done. i appreciate the message in relationship to people who are looking at potential supernatural forces and experiences of darkness. Giving in to fear. To them the warning is valid. While there are some who do go down this path. Many, are either trying to understand what has been lost over time, and or to get a better understanding of how, what we are seeing relates to the Bible. -Heiser never feared or suggested through his work that we should fear Satan of the spiritual forces of evil. Only that the spiritual realm was more complicated than the western church remembers. That much of the knowledge of the complexity has been lost over time. -Psalms 82 was just the beginning of Heiser's journey to understanding. Heiser's book was not written about one chapter in the Bible. It was written about a largely ignored and forgotten theme that runs throughout the Bible. He used dozens of verses that supported what he was saying. -The commentary you read from to refute Heiser's understanding of Psalms 82. Was poorly considered, and poorly chosen. 1) Elohim are not humans. Elohim are spirit, or Spirit rulers. God standing in the presence of Gods is not able to be translated as God standing in the presence of humans. You don't get to split up the word Elohim that way. 2) The commentary you read. Did not intellectually argue against what Heiser and the Bible says. He ran away from the proper reading, in saying he did not want to think about it that way and its implications. This is NOT sound advice from reason and learning. - Acts 19. This story does far more to discredit your message. Than it does to support it. Evil spirits exist. They were being cast out. So much so that even unusually odd examples of the Pauls work, through the authority of Jesus worked to cast out evil spirits. The sons are as representational of the people who would follow your message, as they are of the people who only interest themselves in fear mongering. The Sons of Sceva were ignorant of what they were trying to do, and how they were doing it. i watched 4 hours of Heiser doing a lecture on the differences between pre, mid, post tribulation rapture and amillennialism. It was very insightful. In that time he never took a strong personal stance on any of those positions. i think you can find a super cut of it on the youtube channel Bible and a Bicycle which has it edited down to about, 45 minutes. Including his personal thoughts. What i learned about Heiser. Is that despite his proclivity for going on fringe shows. He was first and foremost a very serious scholar. Of the shows you mentioned. i'm only familiar with Blurry Creatures. They do tend to lean into that fear of the unknown. In that your warning about not giving into fear and knowing the Jesus is King is very important and relevant. That said. The guests that they have on who are of strong faith. Do not fear the supernatural. Shows like theirs are also an amazing bride and, gateway to many who don't know how mentally deal with the idea of all sorts of odd phenomenon in relation to the Bible. I heard an episode. Likely their 100th. Where they edited in many voice messages from various people who were thanking the show for bringing them back to strong faith in the Bible. For all the importance of your warning. The Lord works in mysterious ways. Science has replaced God in the hearts and minds of many. This is done to make people susceptible to lying signs and wonders that are coming. When the restrainer is removed. Many of the people who watch these shows. May do more to evangelize. Than many Christians who faithfully go to church each Sunday. The Lord works in mysterious ways. You are passionate. That is why, your message and appeal was through passion rather than logic and reason. i'm sure you often use the passion in your heart for many good deeds. Passion is not understanding. The commentary you chose. Used passion rather than reason. You tried to scare people way from looking into Heiser's work. Through a passionate plead of fear. It is ironic that you warn people about giving into fear. As you are using fear to encourage people to remain ignorant. Use your passion to guide and inspire. But don't confuse passion for wisdom or understanding.

Protestant confusion

Unless its a gurl.

😴 "Promo sm"

Have you challenged white pastors who support an immoral, unethical, porn star chasing Donald Trump. I believe it is spiritually and morally impossible for a committed Christian to support Trump. Also please please please look up the original definition of woke. It is not the bastardnized definition some on the left and a lot on the right have turned into their agenda.

Adelphoi... Brothers. Lol. You should know that its not referring to men only. Dont get a dictionary, lexicon or interlinear. Dont do that. You Worldview might break.

Anthony Moore was Matt's black 7. Devastating moral failure.

You have an amazing wife to be able to take care of S🎯 much! I’m having to get a medial meniscus repair myself at 49. I also have multiple sclerosis… i Have to shave my hair to the scalp. I too have( this made me tear up) thermal regulation problems. And I just LEARNED what to mention to my doctor… wowzer! I have degeneration on my thalamus and lesions on my spine. I’m so strong yet we are so fragile. Mind over matter is my motto. I’m also bone on bone opposing hip. My ortho says I’m too young and active to get implants. I would pop it out and loose flexibility. My husband is the backbone here. I can’t imagine how strong your wife is. I moved to LC with 3 duffel bags and 8.5 m pregnant. I was so scared. No family just faith in God that our son Danger and my husband that we were gonna make it. I had my second c section alone, do to my son being 3. We got into hunting when I started hiking with my babies in what I called God’s Medicine Cabinet… I learned and spent 4 years of fungi studies. And one led to another. And we are now full throttle… I tried a church here as Baptists but I didn’t get a humble feeling from that main church. So , I feel pretty lonely socially wise. I hope one day we may connect in that area at some point. In the meantime, I will continue raising our children alone out here in on the coast… And much respect to your family. We have so many crazy stories.. as skateboarders, skim-boarders, surfers, fishing and hunting- God sent me back from death to start a new generation out west…..🤙🏽in Gods hands we are

1 tim 3:11.... Likewise, women. Likewise. Likewise. Its so sad to see pastors so called flounder.

This is a very insecure man

Get some therapy, friend.

Very much appreciate the wisdom on display here. You're definitely foreseeing the evil and preparing to counter it.

Hope your family feels better soon brother! Thanks for faithfully sharing content

Wow! & You call yourselves Christians??? Good job! Spread more lies, & misinterpretations. Jesus would be ASHAMED of you, spreading hate in HIS name. Look into the early versions of the Bible. Before MEN got their hands in it.

The God of fecundity.

She's a good soldier. But she's not good or even capable of the ordained servant role to the church in the official capacity, called, gasp, Deacon.

The outside of this cup is nice. But the inside is foul. How the women are treated. The way to hobble the church is by subjecting women to bloated and wretchedly insecure male egos.

Ministering is not pastoring. Women can be ministers, not pastors or elders. Women have approved, ordained deacon role. And to teach the younger women in the church. the fruit of your bois club churches see exibit A, your "bad elder wives" episode. This is yalls fruit. These type of churches that demean the 1tim 3:11 female deacon/deaconesses role, it makes sense thst the women in theese churches are unruly. No woman is leading the women. No deaconesses.

Deaconesses, female deacons are biblical. 1tim 3:11, among others. Also in 1 tim 3:11, there are no possessive pronouns for "wife"/"woman"... Btw greek doesnt have a word for wife. Pastor John MacArthur also pro female deacon role

Pastors wives don't have qualifications, ordination or authority... Deaconesses do. 1Tim 3:11.

Man, that's pretty good. I have to say, I've had a bit of anxiety over what has been happening at Moscow, and I have to admit I've been hoping to hear something from somewhere that would give me a bit of peace on it. You seem to be the guy that fits the bill as far as that goes. I think I am a bit "harder" on Moscow, mostly because as time goes on they look less and less like anything historical. They are too "Wilson-y" and I am always suspicious of highly personalized theological systems. And I think that's the thing with DW; his system is more logical than Biblical (in the sense that it relies more on extracted logical conclusions rather than historical confessions, biblical theology or even exegesis), expressed primarily in political activism (which gives it odd similarities to both dispensationalism and Roman Catholicism), and intentionally eccentric and therefore intentionally combative. The main benefits we get from Moscow are it's empahsis on classical Christian education, much of it's edifying materials on the family, and the disruptive activities as far as how they have confronted mainstream evangelicalism. That has been a huge breath of fresh air. At the same time, it is becoming more common to hear them referred to as a cult or even worse (thinking in terms of politics as far as "worse") and while I wouldn't agree to any of that today, I understand where those feelings are coming from. In that sense they are exceptionally polarizing. The sad part to me is the polarization is not centered on theological concerns. And that is the space where the so-called "defections" come into the picture. I don't think I've ever cared about a Baptist switching over to Presbyterianism. I've seen it happen both ways and it's not an emotional event to me. It's a thing that centers on the scriptures. I guess the effects it can have on family and other relationships are emotional. But that only comes along if you happen to be near enough to the situation to see it from that perspective. For me personally, seeing James White jump on the train was disturbing because I have listened to the DL for so very long, and am accustomed to hearing precision from the guy. He's never been heavy on eschatology. So when he finally jumped on the DW train, I thought well OK, we'll hear about it like we have everything else. Instead of the kind of precise, Biblical discussion I have heard for so many years, what we got instead was emotionalism and even invective. Two things I have learned from James White the last 2-3 years: (1) he REALLY loves his family, especially his grand kids which seems to be his primary reason for becoming postmillennial, and (2) he can really preach a lot about Psalm 2. I would equate what I have learned from James White over the last 25 - 30 years to be at least as beneficial as getting an undergraduate degree in Biblica Studies. But I would also say that NONE OF THAT came to me since he jumped on the Moscow train. The last couple years in particular, I just haven't been able to listen to the DL all that much. Ironically, all these years he has said that anyone who gets obsessed with eschatology becomes nearly impossible to listen to, because it becomes ALL they talk about. And that has been borne out. So for myself, the so-called "defections" have not really affected me EMOTIONALLY, with the possible exception of James White, but rather in the other areas that you point out: the responses. Because jumping from "Baptist" to "Moscow" isn't really switching over to Presbyterianism. It's switching over to a very specific form of theonomic postmillennialism. It's not like my buddy deciding to head over to the local PCA after years at First Baptist. The Moscow program is a LOT different than deciding to become PCA. The responses from the Reformed Baptist side of the house have been exactly as you have described. And my criticism has essentially been the same. The big-name guys just aren't getting it done. I think Kevin DeYoung got much further down the road than Owen Strachen, but still was a bit disappointing in his unwillingness to address the theological issues on the table with DW. I think I would be a bit happier if these new postmillennial Reformed Baptists could/would explain how their postmillennialism and theonomy even fit within a covenant Baptist framework. Joel Webbon really presses hard on 1689 Federalism AND theonomic postmillennialism......HOW he gets those two things in the same boat together has never been explained. And frankly I've never really been fully comfortable with Joel Webbon. There's just something off about that guy. He says the most outlandish things sometimes, just rushes to the most controversial conclusion he can come up with in any kind of disagreement. And he's been talking about giants and stuff a lot lately.......I don't know about that guy man. So on the Reformed Baptist side, it's still been slim pickens to say the least, and the switch overs just haven't always made a lot of sense to me. I would say that has been more frustrating than anything, but in the case of James White it has been a bit more of issue since I was hitting that content for so many years on a regular basis, and these days I just don't want to hear any more about an eschatology that he has never squared up with what he has taught for so many years. I think you are very gracious, informative and I think your attitude toward these things is something to emulate. So that has been a blessing to me

Just want to note, you make the connections in DW's federalism and present a very excellent critique and reassertion of the Westminster view in your video here. It is too bad more of the mainstream criticisms from the big-name guys aren't as Bible-centric and edifying as yours is here.

I am a Reformed Baptist and have been listening/reading DW for a very long time now, I guess right at 20 years. I don't doubt that you are more familiar with his work than me. However, I think you give him too easy a pass on Justification. And to say he is "clear" on Justification is definitely a stretch. The discussion you have around the 10 minute mark is pretty much straight-down-the-middle Westminster Federalism. But DW is not a Westminster Federalist. That's why several Presbyterian fellowships wrote statements warning against Federal Vision. One of the major tenets of Federal Vision is the "objectivity" of the covenant, which is all-together different from what you describe when you talk about the household and the covenant around the middle of your video. Now you might say that DW has distanced himself from FV, but the fact is he really hasn't. DW has a really strong (and bad) habit of getting caught right along with the rest of the bad kids doing something they know they shouldn't be doing. But when they have to go to the principle's office, DW points the fingers at all the other kids and promises to do better next time. Even if he has to admit he wrong about "something" he won't name it, won't admit he's the guy who gave little Timmy the firecrackers, and then walks away and says he never wants to talk about it again.....while he still has more firecrackers in his pocket. DW's little article "Federal Vision no mas" is exactly this kind of thing. A couple other things you mention are present in those "among" DW are more of those kinds of things; he won't say WHERE he lands on a lot of things, and he's too obvious when he is put on the spot and "pleads the fifith." All of this is the OPPOSITE of "clear" and it's really a debate tactic rather than the habit of an expositor. If he were being clear he would just say it: "I believe in one big giant covenant, and while I will very mildly agree there are two administrations these differences are so negligible that I SHOULD say there is virtually no difference between the old and new covenants. I might say there is not covenant of works if I really want people to understand me. Justification is a matter of covenant membership, which means I teach salvation by works. Since I'm being honest here, I won't weigh that statement down with quotes from Chesterton or various equivocations designed to dampen the shock you just felt from that statement. I also want a big-government empowered to deprive ANYONE (including, say, Baptists) of their Constitutional rights (including religious liberty) and give the government power over your private life. I might not do this myself on day one, but you can be assured the next administration will get it done. I am NOT Reformed, at least not with a big "R"; my covenant theology is fundamentally different from Westminster in ways that would make even a dispensationalist blush, I don't make Reformed distinctions between the common (civil) and holy (church) authorities, I practice paedo-communion because my understanding of Justification is not Reformed, I keep getting excommunicated by Reformed denominations, and even wrote a book about none of this mattering because being Reformed isn't enough (which doesn't matter because I'm not really Reformed anyhow)." And I could go on about the many ways that DW could definitely be MORE CLEAR about where he stands on things, and what he's asking people to do. Which is why in the last year or so, rather than recommend DW, all I have been able to say is "beware of men who become obsessed with taking the world over for God." There is a sharp and very important distinction to make with DW. It is ONE thing to "win the world to Christ." That is what we should do. But it is a whole OTHER thing to say "TAKE OVER the world for Christ." These are in no way the same activity. DW intentionally blurs the line on these two statements. He CONCEALS many things, although I would agree, he does it in the open. But he knows good and well, the average church-goer is not going to sort through his dozens of books, lectures and sermons to try to piece together every nuanced statement DW has made on every given topic, even the important ones. All of this is justified though, because his covenant theology is not just objective for infants. No violation of anyone's conscience or will has occurred if you can characterize these activities as "calling in God's sheep." I think in this regard, NO ONE has acknowledging just how dangerous this iteration of theonomic postmillennialism is. It's just more "I know what's better for you than you do" and "doing good to you whether you like it or not" kind of thinking. It's the same threat humanity has faced from tyrants since at least Bable. But people shouldn't have to read books going to back to the 80's to figure out where a pastor stands on Justification. DW should be able to clearly state exactly where he stands and what he is calling people to agree to. And this is something he COULD do but doesn't. Instead, DW uses his many published books as a form of plausible deniability. When Joe the average member of the First Baptist Church in some Texas suburb gets a visit from men dressed in black suits, it's going to come as quite a shock when he begins to realize some of the things he's been agreeing to. The fact is, Moscow is playing the same games Progressives are playing. Moscow does not argue against tyranny, they just call it tyranny if the OTHER guy gets elected. The theonomic postmillennialism of DW is literally no different from Progressivism. They both argue the American experiment FAILED and must be replaced with something else. That something else is RELIGIOUS in nature, and it doesn't matter which one you choose, BOTH of them are going to make some major adjustments to the boundaries of your freedom as an individual. BOTH of them appeal to authorities BEYOND the civil magistrate to justify the use of the civil magistrate to FORCE compliance with their very specific theological precepts. Moscow is the precise opposite side of the coin of contemporary Marxist Progressivism. As soon as we begin to engage these two as binaries that EXCLUDE our established system of government (which DW does by denouncing the "myth of neutrality") then we are officially as DUMB as Europe has been for a very long time, arguing over the difference between democratic socialists/marxist-leninists/communists/"anti"fascists. There was a time when Americans looked at all that and said "don't those dummies know they're all the same???" Well, DW is working with the rest of the establishment(s) to make sure we become as dull-minded as our continental cousins. Now I know some of this can seem over the top and the fact is, I also have benefitted greatly from DW over the years. But as I have thought about this over the last 2-3 years, I realized the benefit I got from Doug was mostly in the areas of rhetoric and logic. Not so much theology. I have actually found DW to be pretty darn close to my own position politically as a classical liberal, or libertarian, or "old conservative" as it were. If Doug were king of the theocracy tomorrow, I don't think I would be immediately beheaded or drowned or whatever. No one would. But that's the problem with dictatorships and other authoritarian systems of government: the nice guys are always replaced by monsters. But it almost NEVER happens that way even. Typically, that kind of power makes even the "nicest guy" a cruel version of his former self. Haven't we had enough of Popes and Kings and "Great Leaders"? Well of course we have. All of this has been done before. But you can't tell Doug Wilson, because his very specific brand of covenant theology and very specific eschatology and very specific theonomy will lead us all to a DIFFERENT outcome than we have seen play out over and over and over......all the time, being pushed along by men who promise Utopia if ONLY we "believe" this thing that is just a little bit different from what we see in historical Christianity. And I don't mean with the flamethrowers....I mean with giving the babies crackers and the THEOLOGICAL issues. The fact is, Doug Wilson is quite unorthodox at the LEAST (which is how I would put it) and a heretic at worst (according to at least one Presbyterian denomination). It is NOT his eccentric theology that attracts people; his is cleaning house with disaffected evangelicals and orphaned Baptists with no confessional home of their own. He's re-appropriating the "Left Behind" end-times fanatics of the previous quarter century. Moscow's political form-factor is exactly the same as the Progressive Left; it's eschatological configuration produces the exact same result of semi-pelagian dispensationalism. In that regard, it has breathed new life into a dying movement of religiously ignorant pietistic political activists. It's really a sad thing to see. And while you might think I have DWDS (derangement syndrome) I have to disagree, because I have no personal ill-will toward the guy. I find much of his criticism of "Big Eva" or "corporate Christianity" to be right on the money. I just think he is using this moment, while we are surrounded by all these failures among those we have trusted, to lead many into a theological tradition that does not exist apart from Doug Wilson, and at great risk to the well-being of many who would do much better to find someone who will keep their focus on Christ and living out the Gospel, rather than being tempted into yet ANOTHER Utopian dream that God has neither commanded nor promised to bless. Also, I fear (but do not hope at all) that this will end unpleasantly.

Dude, you are spot on! Well said! ❤ thank you for your succinct and clear nutshelling of this article and situation.

lovely collection thank you

I hadn't considered the jealousy angle, interesting. I simply saw Strachan see a niche whereby he could establish his Big Eva credentials. Likely a combination of both?

I think this is a light burden, but heavy responsibility, if we remember that our failures are covered by blood, but that our talents also must get a return from God rather than being buried in the ground. Covenantal frameworks that deny disciplinary cursing would depart from our expectations on what a covenant is or does (which seems to be what Deuteronomy shows us for Israel- Israel is disciplined into death but also promised a Ressurection from the dead to a new covenant). I think the parallel would be manifest in God’s mercy working despite us down the line of our failure in an Aaron Burr, and subsequent blessing in a Ressurection of that line from the dead eventually. Only presupposing the new covenant is new, not only as an administration, but as a historical covenantal form without the real threat of in-time covenantal consequences of being cut off for disobedience, would lead to rejecting the possibility of conditional graces to our kids, in my opinion. This was a model way to disagree, brother. Thank you.

Good work

I love Doug Wilson. I don’t understand the fear and loathing he generates among some of the more pious evangelicals.

Great discussion!

I'm an independent Christian and I agree with you.

Covenatalthinking is right...we serve a covenant God. You are baptist?

Great and thoughtful video.

Winsomeness at all costs is a problem, yes. But that doesn't mean Trumpism and moralism are the way, either. There's too much retreatism going on. Too many are smug about owning the libs, preaching self-righteous-sounding moralism rather than the gospel and repentance.

Wait...... What the heck is wrong with pancakes?! 😆

Contemporary rhetoric is predicated upon construing your enemy's words to mean something as wrong as they can get away with. E.g. "you people" is construed to be a racist slur. If you fail to recognize this, and try to accommodate it, your words become watered down, ineffectual mush. The Moscow Mood seems to recognize it and respond with an upraised middle finger and straightforward, triggering words backed seamlessly by Scripture. (The 3rd Commandment says nothing about flipping the bird.)

I don't think Doug Wilson's language honors Christ sometimes. I can understand getting frustrated by leftists like the LGBT activists though I don't think this frustration justifies his coarse language. And Kevin DeYoung and the Gospel Coalition haven't spoken out against woke pastors enough either. Each side has its faults. I haven't followed G3 much but I have heard Strachan isn't willing to address the issues with those he is criticizing especially regarding "Christian nationalism." I'm pretty sure the left are lumping all biblical Christians into that category.