Good discussion. I appreciated being able to hear both men's conviction in this matter. Most importantly though, at the end locking arms to realize we have a common enemy and it's not each other.
I've watched James White contend with all sort of folk, I've seen the anger in his eyes in some debates when his position is being misrepresented. Never have i seen him use vulgar language, strong words, Yes, insults to the intelligence of his opponent, Yes, but not like the low life thugs, we are royalty and that should inform the kind of language we use.
Idk if most people would catch this (Doug didn’t) - but half way through the discussion Gabe Hughes conceded on the language aspect and switched the main issue from language to attitude.
I wish the moderator would be silent and let the two pastors debate. He constantly interjects his own questions and rephrasings of Pastor Gabe’s words as soon as the pastor presses Doug with tough questions. Why can’t he just shut up and let these men debate this ?
Very good discussion, because it causes us to look unto Jesus for clarification, discernment, and the righteous action to follow, that is His word. That is the very action of faith, and with our feeble brains, we strive in our weaknesses, trusting in Him to be our strength. This advertisement in question, I believe, falls in the category of a Provocation for Christ!?! Promoting and working the good work of furthering the Gospel message and advancing the Kingdom of God, might include a provocation, and be seen as such to a fallen world audience. Even the Gospel itself is provocation and foolishness to the world. By cunningly working together, believers can and should be bold in such things that glorify our God and Saviour. So, my conclusion at this point is to only take part in this type of activity, sparingly and where 2 or more are present. The question of, "Should we cuss?", has always been a challenge for me when I hear a beloved brother or sister say such things. This Podcast, along with my current understanding of Gods Holy Word, has helped me very much!! Thank you.
I agree I've never been big on profanity. Serious question there not a list of words you can or can't say in the Bible , so who gets to say what profane is ? I've seen people get upset over the word freakin. So who dictates it ?
Are you an anabaptist on the issue of lawful vows? If not, to quote James White, do you use the same pattern of exegesis to come to your ethical standards on this issue as on lawful vows and oaths? Can you explain the conceptual difference in argumentation and exegesis between the 1689's position on lawful vows and oaths, and the arguments from NSA in defense of limited use of vulgarity? Or do you take "Make no oath at all," identically to "No foul language"? Is one allowed to swear to God in their marriage? Or are we all breaking the "Make no oath" command?
So i saw an ad from the Gaea app while i was watching this on accessing the pineal gland to awaken kundalini. I should have derogatory and hateful feelings toward this ad, or no? And if i should have them, is there ever a scenario wherein it would be prudent to in some way express them?
I have yet to get a response from anyone I have asked this, but can anyone explain the conceptual difference in argumentation and exegesis between the 1689/Westminster position on lawful vows and oaths, and the arguments from NSA in defense of limited use of vulgarity? Or do you take "Make no oath at all," identically to "No foul language"? Are we all sinning in our marriage vows? The only consistent option seems to be to take the Anabaptist position on lawful vows and oaths. If not, to quote James White, do you use the same pattern of exegesis to come to your ethical standards on this issue as on lawful vows and oaths?
I wish that they had gone more into detail about the meaning of the middle finger. It seems like that is the meat of the issue. Gabe should have pressed Doug and just straight up asked him what do you think the gesture means?
"The middle fingure is something that is always out of aggression and malice" - Gabe Yes Gabe and I am not ashamed to say that I have aggression and malice toward the devil, false gods, blasphemy of all kinds and all of God's enemies.
Then you're prepared to rush in where angels (such as the archangel Michael for example - see Jude verse 9). They won't even 'bring a reviling accusation' against Satan. I'd be very careful if I were you.
@@nando7522 Way to go with the strawmanning there! You know full well that I didn't advocate doing or saying nothing. There's a whole world between using vulgar language and saying nothing, Horatio. But I notice you sidestepped Jude 9. Go and meditate on it, my friend - and the next couple of verses.
@@tdh1689 I will do that. Thank you. Please notice what I said in my response. I said "we" and not "you". I don't know you so I don't know if you're the type that uses Bible verses to justify never doing anything "offensive".
@@nando7522 The clear implication of your response was that the only options open to us are using obscenity or doing and saying nothing, and also that I was advocating the latter.
According to the Text, the context of Galatians points to "I owe, those who are troubling you are going to cut themselves off" referring to circumcision. Just as foreskin is cut off, just as sins are cut off in circumcision of the heart, so those who are so gung-ho for circumcision that they trust it against the Gospel are going to cut themselves off from the expected inheritance. I don't know of anything in the Text to suggest the Holy Spirit was inspiring a meaningless and vulgar cursing, rather than a meaningful and fitting warning.
Is it really the communication method or is it actually what is being communicated? It is puzzling that the pearl clutching is far more intense over the rare "off-color" comment or gesture made out of frustration at the culture falling apart all around us, than the reaction to the culture itself. Another application of "straining on a gnat and swallowing a camel", perhaps? It seems the church in Europe can serve as an example of the church being far too compliant to the culture.
First, Jehu doing what he did is not necessarily a commendable action. There are many things in the OT that are simply a record of what took place and not a prescription the child of God ought to follow. Second, a true Christian is commanded to be separate or different from the non-Christian. Where in Scripture does it encourage a Christian to actually use the "tools" of the world against or toward non-believers themselves?
Against non-believers, perhaps not. Against desecration, when Jesus used violent, offensive force in the temple in open rebellion of the rules and what be considered a crime in the USA today. Literally a violent crime and multiple torts civilly.
Time and place. Everything has its time and place, when used wisely. Is this an example? I'm not convinced. But you cannot blanket condemn it all places in all times
The English longbowmen had a gesture we still have today that I think would have fit the video better. The first two fingers in a v shape, knuckles towards the target person. It means ‘I’m going to kill you, specifically.’ Or in modern parlance ‘I’ll have you.’ Directed towards the idols, I think this is what NSA was going for. That aside, I find it very unfortunate that there are so many people going after NSA on this without giving them credit for their stated goal, which is to train the kind of pastors who relish destroying the idols of our culture. Perhaps less hand wringing and more idol smashing would have brought our culture to a better place than we find ourselves.
That is not what the gesture means now. So it doesn't matter how it originated. It is understood in our day and age as an attitude of anger and defiance, two qualities that are opposite the fruit of the spirit.
@@fredbutler5358 Yes, that's fair enough. Especially when it would seem that certain apparently intelligent Christians can't even work out the clear meaning of the middle finger! Ultimately I just don't understand why there's any need for such things, even in the most robust critique of sin. I can call out vileness in no uncertain terms without resorting to any kind of vileness myself.
@@fredbutler5358Respectfully, incorrect. Anger and defiance toward things God is angry at and hates is commensurate with the fruit of the Spirit. 'Zeal for your house will consume me,' it was said of Our Lord, Who possessed the Spirit without measure. 'Never be lacking in zeal,' Paul then told Timothy.
@@JeremiahSherlock-j6q A couple of things. First true zeal will be restrained by the spirit. There is no need to speak profane words at sin. God does not use sinfulness to rebuke sinfulness. Second. The zeal is focused toward the house hold of God, not unbelievers. It would be right to zealously confront acts of sodomy and defiance against God taking place in the fellowship hall. The world, I expect to act that way and they need the gospel, not profanity laced cursing.
It’s clearly wrong. I appreciate the motivation of Doug Wilson and others that are trying to push back against a lot of the weakness and corruption in Christianity but this just seems to be a clear case of going too far in the opposite direction. It’s good to be manly. Profanity and vulgarity is not manly.
I think they made a mistake. They might have realized this and then should just apologize, but I don't see any argument Biblically faithful in their defense. No beef with Doug though, but they were wrong.
I honestly don't think Doug is being honest when he says he's willing to lift the middle finger. If he hasn't done it yet, what circumstances would qualify that he hasn't yet experienced? He's faced just about everything you can face besides the guillotine.😂
Saying let him be accursed is different from saying Raca, no? I would understand that to mean that you treat them as having a plague, no? It is no longer bringing every thought captive when we begin to use the middle finger. That is what LGBT folks do when they have no argument, why should we result to such
I love Doug and the "Moscow mood" but this cannot be defended. The mature thing to now would just be admit it missed the mark and move on. Don't defend it.
Apparently, womanly Christian men have a very wide definition of profanity. Most of the prophets would be considered ‘profane’ by today’s effeminate pastors.
Tell me you let your kid do something and you unwisely allowed it without saying you let your kid do something and unwisely allowed it! 😂 bad arguments always win with speed and force but are never right! 😮
I think one thing they are missing in this discussion is who is the f u aimed at, and for what purpose. Vulgarity in general is not specific enough to talk about why the f u could be wrong or right. First off, f u is a way of saying "Be destroyed. " i would contend that while with Paul, we must affirm that God is just when those who reject Jesus will ultimately be destroyed (hence his saying "may those who don't love Jesus be accursed"), Paul was NEVER giving the finger to those guys. He was giving his life that they would repent and receive the good news. When Jesus was calling the Pharisees white washed tombs, he wasn't giving them the finger, not did Paul give the finger EVEN IN ATHENS, a city full of idolotry. No, he preached the gospel and called them to repentance so they might have life. So the idea of giving the finger to the Paris abomination is wrong if the idea is to flip off those lost souls participating. No, we should say may God have mercy on them, and bring them to repentance and faith. Now, who might we say "be destroyed" to in the right situation? I would say only the devil or his demons, or hence directly at the idol itself. . There is no mercy for them. But if we do that without care, we may end up fighting demons in the flesh. I would rather say to the demon"be gone", and leave it's destruction to God. But would i judge someone who has their child's life destroyed by a demon for crying out, "f u demons.?" No. It's appropriate, but i don't see a place it would be toward other humans who until they are dead are still able to turn in repentance.
@@troyanderson1650 you just spoke something untrue about me. Slander. You also are coming across as an emotional evanjellyfish. See I can play the Moscow talking points game also. Sad.
Unfortunately, Gabriel has straw-manned his argument -- and has no leg to stand on. He brings up the same "decorum" and "striving for no quarreling" bible versus, which have no relationship to Doug Wilson/New Saint Andrews' strategic tactics in the real world.
Gabe just because YOU thought the ad was saying vulgarity is ok does not mean that that was what the ad was saying. This is how the leftists do things. You say something specific and explain it to not be a blanket statement and then they go ahead acting as if you said it as a blanket statement. What this means is that your not actually concerned about actual holiness but only apparent holiness.
@@b.t.3406 I mean in a recent debate he said that you can’t just write a just bill that God would bless, you have to consider who’s going to be voting for it, and you might have to allow for some murder in order to get it to pass.
Good discussion. I appreciated being able to hear both men's conviction in this matter. Most importantly though, at the end locking arms to realize we have a common enemy and it's not each other.
If the church has to be like the world to gain the world, it's no longer the church but the world.
I agree. We should violently reject idolatry, not defend it from mean gestures like the world does.
I've watched James White contend with all sort of folk, I've seen the anger in his eyes in some debates when his position is being misrepresented. Never have i seen him use vulgar language, strong words, Yes, insults to the intelligence of his opponent, Yes, but not like the low life thugs, we are royalty and that should inform the kind of language we use.
The audio was SO bad for this video. Please, please fix it so my ears don’t bleed. Thanks for covering this important topic!
Idk if most people would catch this (Doug didn’t) - but half way through the discussion Gabe Hughes conceded on the language aspect and switched the main issue from language to attitude.
I wish my husband and I could have sent our children to NSA. The ad makes me wish so even more.
I wish the moderator would be silent and let the two pastors debate. He constantly interjects his own questions and rephrasings of Pastor Gabe’s words as soon as the pastor presses Doug with tough questions. Why can’t he just shut up and let these men debate this ?
Yes please
Very good discussion, because it causes us to look unto Jesus for clarification, discernment, and the righteous action to follow, that is His word.
That is the very action of faith, and with our feeble brains, we strive in our weaknesses, trusting in Him to be our strength.
This advertisement in question, I believe, falls in the category of a Provocation for Christ!?! Promoting and working the good work of furthering the Gospel message and advancing the Kingdom of God, might include a provocation, and be seen as such to a fallen world audience. Even the Gospel itself is provocation and foolishness to the world. By cunningly working together, believers can and should be bold in such things that glorify our God and Saviour. So, my conclusion at this point is to only take part in this type of activity, sparingly and where 2 or more are present.
The question of, "Should we cuss?", has always been a challenge for me when I hear a beloved brother or sister say such things.
This Podcast, along with my current understanding of Gods Holy Word, has helped me very much!! Thank you.
God said through the apostle Paul let no profane word proceeded out of your mouth. God says don’t use it, and none of us are smarter than God.
What word does Paul use to describe his own works before God?
I agree I've never been big on profanity. Serious question there not a list of words you can or can't say in the Bible , so who gets to say what profane is ? I've seen people get upset over the word freakin. So who dictates it ?
I guess the prophets and apostles were sinning when they used curses. 🤷
@@Darcyholteif God was standing In front of you would you feel comfortable swearing?
Are you an anabaptist on the issue of lawful vows? If not, to quote James White, do you use the same pattern of exegesis to come to your ethical standards on this issue as on lawful vows and oaths?
Can you explain the conceptual difference in argumentation and exegesis between the 1689's position on lawful vows and oaths, and the arguments from NSA in defense of limited use of vulgarity? Or do you take "Make no oath at all," identically to "No foul language"? Is one allowed to swear to God in their marriage? Or are we all breaking the "Make no oath" command?
Where can I watch thius video/advertisement?
We're saving for our grandchildren to attend New Saint Andrews College. This ad like all the others ruffle the appropriate feathers.
Love the Moscow mood!
So i saw an ad from the Gaea app while i was watching this on accessing the pineal gland to awaken kundalini. I should have derogatory and hateful feelings toward this ad, or no? And if i should have them, is there ever a scenario wherein it would be prudent to in some way express them?
I have yet to get a response from anyone I have asked this, but can anyone explain the conceptual difference in argumentation and exegesis between the 1689/Westminster position on lawful vows and oaths, and the arguments from NSA in defense of limited use of vulgarity? Or do you take "Make no oath at all," identically to "No foul language"? Are we all sinning in our marriage vows?
The only consistent option seems to be to take the Anabaptist position on lawful vows and oaths. If not, to quote James White, do you use the same pattern of exegesis to come to your ethical standards on this issue as on lawful vows and oaths?
I wish that they had gone more into detail about the meaning of the middle finger. It seems like that is the meat of the issue. Gabe should have pressed Doug and just straight up asked him what do you think the gesture means?
"The middle fingure is something that is always out of aggression and malice" - Gabe
Yes Gabe and I am not ashamed to say that I have aggression and malice toward the devil, false gods, blasphemy of all kinds and all of God's enemies.
Then you're prepared to rush in where angels (such as the archangel Michael for example - see Jude verse 9). They won't even 'bring a reviling accusation' against Satan. I'd be very careful if I were you.
@@tdh1689
I know. So careful indeed that we are willing to do and say nothing.
@@nando7522 Way to go with the strawmanning there! You know full well that I didn't advocate doing or saying nothing. There's a whole world between using vulgar language and saying nothing, Horatio. But I notice you sidestepped Jude 9. Go and meditate on it, my friend - and the next couple of verses.
@@tdh1689
I will do that. Thank you. Please notice what I said in my response. I said "we" and not "you". I don't know you so I don't know if you're the type that uses Bible verses to justify never doing anything "offensive".
@@nando7522 The clear implication of your response was that the only options open to us are using obscenity or doing and saying nothing, and also that I was advocating the latter.
BTW - it is my understanding that Marin Luther was known to swear when confronting gross error against the truth of the Gospel?
Doesn’t mean he was right though
@@alreyindustries IDK, the best of men or men at best.
According to the Text, the context of Galatians points to "I owe, those who are troubling you are going to cut themselves off" referring to circumcision. Just as foreskin is cut off, just as sins are cut off in circumcision of the heart, so those who are so gung-ho for circumcision that they trust it against the Gospel are going to cut themselves off from the expected inheritance.
I don't know of anything in the Text to suggest the Holy Spirit was inspiring a meaningless and vulgar cursing, rather than a meaningful and fitting warning.
Is it really the communication method or is it actually what is being communicated? It is puzzling that the pearl clutching is far more intense over the rare "off-color" comment or gesture made out of frustration at the culture falling apart all around us, than the reaction to the culture itself.
Another application of "straining on a gnat and swallowing a camel", perhaps?
It seems the church in Europe can serve as an example of the church being far too compliant to the culture.
Is it possible that both are wrong, but that the lack of outrage over one does not justify the usage of the other?
First, Jehu doing what he did is not necessarily a commendable action. There are many things in the OT that are simply a record of what took place and not a prescription the child of God ought to follow. Second, a true Christian is commanded to be separate or different from the non-Christian. Where in Scripture does it encourage a Christian to actually use the "tools" of the world against or toward non-believers themselves?
Against non-believers, perhaps not. Against desecration, when Jesus used violent, offensive force in the temple in open rebellion of the rules and what be considered a crime in the USA today. Literally a violent crime and multiple torts civilly.
Time and place. Everything has its time and place, when used wisely. Is this an example? I'm not convinced. But you cannot blanket condemn it all places in all times
The English longbowmen had a gesture we still have today that I think would have fit the video better. The first two fingers in a v shape, knuckles towards the target person. It means ‘I’m going to kill you, specifically.’ Or in modern parlance ‘I’ll have you.’ Directed towards the idols, I think this is what NSA was going for.
That aside, I find it very unfortunate that there are so many people going after NSA on this without giving them credit for their stated goal, which is to train the kind of pastors who relish destroying the idols of our culture. Perhaps less hand wringing and more idol smashing would have brought our culture to a better place than we find ourselves.
This is a good point. A little more attention given to etymology could have given them an option that's rude without being crude.
That is not what the gesture means now. So it doesn't matter how it originated. It is understood in our day and age as an attitude of anger and defiance, two qualities that are opposite the fruit of the spirit.
@@fredbutler5358 Yes, that's fair enough. Especially when it would seem that certain apparently intelligent Christians can't even work out the clear meaning of the middle finger! Ultimately I just don't understand why there's any need for such things, even in the most robust critique of sin. I can call out vileness in no uncertain terms without resorting to any kind of vileness myself.
@@fredbutler5358Respectfully, incorrect. Anger and defiance toward things God is angry at and hates is commensurate with the fruit of the Spirit. 'Zeal for your house will consume me,' it was said of Our Lord, Who possessed the Spirit without measure. 'Never be lacking in zeal,' Paul then told Timothy.
@@JeremiahSherlock-j6q A couple of things. First true zeal will be restrained by the spirit. There is no need to speak profane words at sin. God does not use sinfulness to rebuke sinfulness. Second. The zeal is focused toward the house hold of God, not unbelievers. It would be right to zealously confront acts of sodomy and defiance against God taking place in the fellowship hall. The world, I expect to act that way and they need the gospel, not profanity laced cursing.
It’s clearly wrong. I appreciate the motivation of Doug Wilson and others that are trying to push back against a lot of the weakness and corruption in Christianity but this just seems to be a clear case of going too far in the opposite direction. It’s good to be manly. Profanity and vulgarity is not manly.
It is a finger I would flip off an idol anytime..sadly i have flipped off people
I think they made a mistake. They might have realized this and then should just apologize, but I don't see any argument Biblically faithful in their defense. No beef with Doug though, but they were wrong.
I honestly don't think Doug is being honest when he says he's willing to lift the middle finger. If he hasn't done it yet, what circumstances would qualify that he hasn't yet experienced? He's faced just about everything you can face besides the guillotine.😂
Saying let him be accursed is different from saying Raca, no?
I would understand that to mean that you treat them as having a plague, no?
It is no longer bringing every thought captive when we begin to use the middle finger. That is what LGBT folks do when they have no argument, why should we result to such
I love Doug and the "Moscow mood" but this cannot be defended. The mature thing to now would just be admit it missed the mark and move on. Don't defend it.
Apparently, womanly Christian men have a very wide definition of profanity. Most of the prophets would be considered ‘profane’ by today’s effeminate pastors.
There is no justification for that gesture, or using vulgar language.
You would have hated the Old Testament prophets and their ‘profane’ attacks.
who had his head chopped off?
Paul
Tell me you let your kid do something and you unwisely allowed it without saying you let your kid do something and unwisely allowed it! 😂 bad arguments always win with speed and force but are never right! 😮
One either depends on the power of the Spirit of Promise or they rely on their own power and understanding! Ad is a failure!
I think one thing they are missing in this discussion is who is the f u aimed at, and for what purpose. Vulgarity in general is not specific enough to talk about why the f u could be wrong or right. First off, f u is a way of saying "Be destroyed. " i would contend that while with Paul, we must affirm that God is just when those who reject Jesus will ultimately be destroyed (hence his saying "may those who don't love Jesus be accursed"), Paul was NEVER giving the finger to those guys. He was giving his life that they would repent and receive the good news. When Jesus was calling the Pharisees white washed tombs, he wasn't giving them the finger, not did Paul give the finger EVEN IN ATHENS, a city full of idolotry. No, he preached the gospel and called them to repentance so they might have life. So the idea of giving the finger to the Paris abomination is wrong if the idea is to flip off those lost souls participating. No, we should say may God have mercy on them, and bring them to repentance and faith. Now, who might we say "be destroyed" to in the right situation? I would say only the devil or his demons, or hence directly at the idol itself. . There is no mercy for them. But if we do that without care, we may end up fighting demons in the flesh. I would rather say to the demon"be gone", and leave it's destruction to God. But would i judge someone who has their child's life destroyed by a demon for crying out, "f u demons.?" No. It's appropriate, but i don't see a place it would be toward other humans who until they are dead are still able to turn in repentance.
Never heard a pastor justify himself more than DW, it’s old.
Pretty sure he was asked point blank to justify himself. What was he supposed to say?
@@troyanderson1650 been following him for 30+ years. Can't remember the last time he's admitted he wrong, or even sorry
@@pewburrito Then you haven't followed him. If you don't care for a guy that's one thing, but speaking untrue reflects more on you.
@@troyanderson1650 you just spoke something untrue about me. Slander. You also are coming across as an emotional evanjellyfish. See I can play the Moscow talking points game also. Sad.
@@pewburrito Slander is something untrue which you spoke about Pastor Doug Wilson.
Unfortunately, Gabriel has straw-manned his argument -- and has no leg to stand on. He brings up the same "decorum" and "striving for no quarreling" bible versus, which have no relationship to Doug Wilson/New Saint Andrews' strategic tactics in the real world.
Gabe just because YOU thought the ad was saying vulgarity is ok does not mean that that was what the ad was saying. This is how the leftists do things. You say something specific and explain it to not be a blanket statement and then they go ahead acting as if you said it as a blanket statement. What this means is that your not actually concerned about actual holiness but only apparent holiness.
Gabe wasn't the only one saying that. There were tons of folks pointing it out, including, according to DW, people who are supporters of NSA.
@@fredbutler5358
Yeah same goes for them. This doesn't change anything. Or should we believe something just because the majority is saying it?
39:00 “Pragmatism doesn’t work”
Then why are you pragmatic about abortion, Doug?
He isn’t.
@@b.t.3406 I mean in a recent debate he said that you can’t just write a just bill that God would bless, you have to consider who’s going to be voting for it, and you might have to allow for some murder in order to get it to pass.