Roughly speaking, postmodern contextualism has at its heart the twin convictions (1) that claims to human knowledge always come within a linguistic, social, and cultural context, and (2) that this threefold context makes it impossible to know universal, transcendent truths. For the postmodern contextualist, truth is local to a particular culture or society; truth is culturally relative. More modest forms of contextualism might allow that sciences can arrive at universal truths, but a detailed look at the social contexts of sciences and the social flow of scientific claims to knowledge shows that sciences are the product of scientists, and scientists are social people.

This article is excerpted from Vern Poythress’s Making Sense of the World: How the Trinity Helps to Explain Reality.
A Christian view of metaphysics (the fundamental nature of reality) contrasts with competing views from the history of philosophy. A survey of these views could easily fill a large book.[1] The following analyses sample and simplify some of the principal views that have most influenced the Western world.[2]
Criteria for Evaluation
We will evaluate each view from three perspectives.

God. Does this view cohere with the existence of the Trinitarian God?
Knowledge. Does this view give an adequate account of how we can know that something is true?
Ethics. Does this view offer a solid basis for ethics?

Without an ethics that supports truth-telling and honesty, no view can sustain itself plausibly. Ethics is one point at which we can test a view according to Jesus’ principle “Thus you will recognize them by their fruits” (Matt. 7:20). Both actual behavior and proposals for ethical principles can be considered to be the “fruit.” Of course, the fruit has to be judged by biblical standards. If the fruit is bad, it shows that the root is bad, though it does not yet show specifically what went wrong with the root.
Philosophical Materialism
The most prominent metaphysical view today is philosophical materialism.[3] Philosophical materialism says that reality consists of matter and energy in motion. There are some variations among advocates of philosophical materialism. “Hard” materialism denies the existence of anything except matter and motion. “Soft” materialism says that while matter and motion are the foundation and the final explanation of all reality, complex combinations of matter can give rise to complex phenomena that we consider to be distinct—human beings, ideas, conscious experience, moral standards, and so on.
What is wrong with philosophical materialism?
God. God is not material. Either explicitly or implicitly, the various forms of materialism deny that God exists.
Knowledge. Materialism cannot give an account of itself, because the philosophical idea of philosophical materialism is not material. Alvin Plantinga makes a similar point in his extended interaction with materialistic Darwinism—a specific embodiment or type of materialism.[4] Of course, soft materialism can affirm a kind of existence of persons and ideas and abstract concepts. But how can we assure ourselves that our ideas of truth correspond to the world? Materialistic Darwinism promises only that we are constructed so as to enhance survival. But survival would appear to depend on the movements of molecules and nerve impulses and other material events. How do we know that these movements correspond to mental ideas in a way that makes these ideas true?
Ethics. If matter is ultimate, then in the final analysis human beings are nothing more than clumps of matter. Ethical values, commitments, and choices are nothing more than personal preferences. For example, you prefer vanilla ice cream and your friend prefers chocolate. Likewise, you may prefer to help the old lady across the street, but your friend prefers to mug her. There is no transcendental set of values to which to appeal to adjudicate right actions from wrong ones, because a value is not a material thing. Ethical choices are merely the result of the motions of atoms and molecules, and atoms and molecules do not care about ethics! The natural endpoint for the ethics of philosophical materialism is the motto “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (1 Cor. 15:32).
Pantheism
Next, consider pantheism. According to pantheism, all is “God.” Or, in panentheism, all is a part of God.
What is wrong with pantheism?
God. The Bible teaches a clear distinction between God, who is the Creator, and the world, which is created. Pantheism and panentheism have a kind of “god,” but it is not the God of the Bible.
Knowledge. Since each individual allegedly “is” God, it would seem that each individual unproblematically knows everything. If that is true, why are there differences in belief? Moreover, the collapse of distinctions among things in pantheism threatens to collapse the distinctiveness of statements about things in the world. If all is genuinely and thoroughly one, there is no room for distinctions. Each individual may indeed know everything that is to be known, but what is to be known is only one thing, which is a blank darkness.
Ethics. Pantheism cannot distinguish between good and evil because both are a part of the ultimate nature of reality.
Skepticism
Next, consider skepticism.[5] Skepticism denies that we can know the ultimate nature of the world. (This position is distinct from the more modest negative observation, “I do not currently know what is true.”) Since this denial is a kind of minimal theory about the nature of the world, we count skepticism as a metaphysical system.
What is wrong with skepticism?
God. Skepticism denies that God can make himself clearly known, as he has in fact done in nature (general revelation) and Scripture (special revelation).
Knowledge. Skepticism has trouble providing a foundation for itself. How can it be known that nothing ultimate can be known? That idea is self-defeating; it implies that we have investigated the world and drawn valid conclusions about it, the most basic of which is that we cannot know the world.
Ethics. Skepticism offers no basis for ethics.
Kantianism (with many variations)
Next, consider the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804).[6] Kant argues that true metaphysics (knowing the fundamental nature of reality) is impossible. No one can know what Kant calls “the thing in itself ”—a thing as it really is apart from our perceptions—because all our knowledge of the world is filtered by our mental and perceptual categories of knowing. We know the content of our minds and our perceptions—not the reality of the world. Kant called “things in themselves” noumena and things as they appear to us phenomena. Thus, a rational metaphysical analysis of the thing in itself, as an ultimate constituent of reality, is impossible.
But Kant still offers us a system. Its starting point is epistemology, not the thing in itself. In his epistemology, Kant tries to establish what can and cannot be known, as well as the conditions for knowing anything. Thus, there is an ultimate structure within Kant’s epistemology. The ultimate structure is not the thing in itself, but Kant’s four categories of knowing —quantity, quality, relation, and modality and their respective twelve subcategories—which order our spatiotemporal perception of things.[7] The noumenal is distinguished from the phenomenal, and pure reason from practical reason. Whatever is phenomenal, what comes to us through our senses, comes to us already within a framework of the categories.
What is wrong with Kantianism?
God. Kant’s system is antagonistic to the Bible because in his system God belongs to the noumenal. God cannot directly reveal himself in the world through appearances. But this is precisely what he did at Mount Sinai, and what he did in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Moreover, in Kant’s system, man virtually takes the place of the Christian God. He “creates” the world as we know it by the imposition of the categories that already exist in his mind.
Knowledge. Kant’s system cannot account for scientific knowledge based on the phenomenal, though it claims to offer an account. The laws of science are particular laws, not just a generic deduction from the principle of causality.[8] For example, Isaac Newton’s law of gravitation says that any two massive bodies exert attractive forces on each other. The magnitude of the force is proportional to the mass of each of the bodies and is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.[9]
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Written by Thomas R. Schreiner |
Monday, September 30, 2024
Believers must ready themselves. Some are destined for captivity, and to captivity they will go. Others are destined to be killed by the sword, and so it will be (cf. Jer. 15:2; 43:11). Such events do not mean God has abandoned or forgotten about them; the power of the beast does not suggest God’s sovereign rule over the world has been surrendered, for the beast exercises authority only by God’s will. Hence, believers are called upon to persevere and remain faithful to their Lord.

Read the Passage
1And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems on its horns and blasphemous names on its heads. 2 And the beast that I saw was like a leopard; its feet were like a bear’s, and its mouth was like a lion’s mouth. And to it the dragon gave his power and his throne and great authority.
11Then I saw another beast rising out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon.12It exercises all the authority of the first beast in its presence, and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound was healed.13It performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in front of people,14and by the signs that it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast it deceives those who dwell on earth, telling them to make an image for the beast that was wounded by the sword and yet lived.15And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain.16Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead,17so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.18This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.—Revelation 13:1, 2; 11–18
A Great Beast
John sees a beast rising out of the sea, summoned by the dragon on the seashore (12:17). The sea was a place of chaos, danger, and evil for the Hebrews (cf. comment on 21:1). The vision draws on Daniel 7:3, where Daniel sees “four great beasts . . . out of the sea.” The beasts in Daniel represent great empires, and a great empire — almost certainly Rome — is in John’s mind as well. The kingdom rising out of the sea is not humane, civil, or supportive of its citizens. Instead, it is like a ravaging and ferocious beast, preying on its citizens.
The beast described here is probably the fourth beast seen by Daniel (Dan. 7:7, 19, 23). The beast in Revelation has extraordinary power, for it has ten horns, with ten diadems (Rev. 17:12; cf. Dan. 7:20, 24)—symbols of ruling authority—on its horns. It has seven heads, also signifying its authority and power. The dragon had seven heads and ten horns (Rev. 12:3), and he clearly has given his authority to the beast. The beast with its horns and diadems parodies the Christ (cf. 5:6; 19:12), just as the dragon does. The seven heads bear blasphemous names, which are perhaps Roman claims to deity, such as “Lord,” “son of God,” and “Savior” (cf. also 17:3), revealing again the divine pretensions of the beast. The beast is not confined to the Roman Empire; it refers to Rome but applies also to every manifestation of evil in all governments throughout history, and also to the final conflict to come at the end.
The beast coming out of the sea is like a leopard, with feet like a bear’s and a mouth like a lion’s. In Daniel’s vision of the four beasts, the first (Babylon) was like a lion with eagles’ wings (Dan. 7:4), the second (Medio-Persia) was like a bear (Dan. 7:5), and the third (probably Greece) was like a leopard (Dan. 7:6). John sees these beasts consummated in Daniel’s fourth beast, which is the beast he describes here (probably Rome; cf. Dan. 7:7, 19, 23). This beast is not autonomous but derives its totalitarian rule from the dragon, and thus its governing authority is demonic (cf. 2 Thess. 2:8–9).
One of the heads of the beast had a mortal wound, from which it recovered (cf. 17:8). Many understand this to refer to an individual, which is certainly possible. After Nero’s death in AD 68, a tradition arose that he would return (perhaps from Parthia) and rule again, and John might have had that tradition in mind. But if John wrote in the 90s, his most plausible date, it is quite unlikely this tradition would be in mind, since Nero was long gone. It is more probable, then, that the reference is to the empire as a whole. The deadly wound signifies the apparent demise of tyrannical rule. Rome’s dominion looks as if it has been dethroned and removed forever. And yet the empire is not destroyed; just when it seems that its tyranny has ended, its power is resumed. The so-called death-blow is ineffective. In response, the world is astonished with the beast and gives its allegiance to him, for the revival of a demonic empire is a kind of resurrection, and so once again the beast parodies the Christ.
Worship of the Beast
The staying power of the beast and its empire leads to worship of the dragon and the beast. The dragon is worshiped for giving authority to the beast. The beast is worshiped because of his so-called resurrection. He is considered incomparable and omnipotent, like God (cf. Ex. 15:11; Ps. 89:7). People worship the beast, believing he cannot be resisted or overcome. As has often been observed in history, people support a winner.
Twice in this verse we are told what “was given” to the beast: a mouth to utter proud, blasphemous words, and authority for forty-two months. The clause “it was given” (edothē) appears four other times in this chapter (13:7 [2x], 14, 15). In the comment on 9:1, I defended the notion that God is the implied subject of this passive construction. Although the dragon actively gives (edōken; 13:2, 4) his authority to the beast, God reigns and rules over what the beast carries out, allowing or permitting the beast to exercise his authority. Even though God ordains what the beast does, he does not have the same motivations or intent as Satan. God’s judgment is his “strange” work (Isa. 28:21), and he calls on the wicked to repent and live (Ezek. 18:23, 32), while Satan rejoices when people are destroyed. The “secret things” belong to the Lord (Deut. 29:29), and hence we cannot fully chart or explicate the logical relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
The Beast’s Opposition to God
The beast is full of himself, uttering “haughty and blasphemous words” against God, just as Antiochus IV Epiphanes did in his day, functioning as a type of the coming beast (cf. Dan. 7:8, 20; 11:36). Such activity fits also with the “man of lawlessness,” who exalts himself as divine (2 Thess. 2:3–4). The beast is allowed to exercise his authority for forty-two months. Some understand this to be a literal three and one-half years before Jesus returns. But John is more likely describing the entire period between Jesus’ first and second coming (cf. comment on Rev. 11:2); John wrote not of days far removed from his readers but of the impact of the Roman Empire on them. All totalitarian governments arrogating to themselves divine authority reveal that they too are the beast.
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

“No one, least of all Christians, should welcome civil war in the Church. But too many Church leaders have grown arrogant due to the rank and file’s reluctance to seem unpleasant or uncharitable by confronting their deceit and manipulation, and a unity based on acceptance of false teaching is a unity of the damned. As Aragorn says to Theoden, king of Rohan, in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, open war is upon us whether we would risk it or not. Or, as Moses says to the Gadites and Reubenites in Numbers 32, “Should your fellow Israelites go to war while you sit here?”

One of the most important books of the year is Shepherds for Sale by Megan Basham. Yesterday I did an 1800-word review of this very much needed volume. What I said in my write-up briefly lays out what is found in it, and why it is such a significant book for Christians to be aware of: Link
But one can only do so much in a short review. So I need another article or two to properly do the book real justice. Here I can get to some of the areas/chapters that I was not able to cover in my previous piece. As already stated, this book primarily focuses on American evangelicalism and how so many leaders, pastors, organisations and denominations have been selling out to radical leftist agendas and ideologies.
Thus the subtitle of her book: “How Evangelical Leaders Traded the Truth for a Leftist Agenda.” In yesterday’s piece I mentioned other books that have done similar sorts of things. But this one may be the best so far in offering a wealth of detail and documentation: fifty pages of endnotes in small print is an indication of this.
Chapter Five of the book is on the Covid wars and how the government used pastors and churches to spread its message and methods, including the need for total lockdowns, mandatory medicine, forced vaccinations, and highly questionable science.
The chapter especially zeros in on Francis Collins, the National Institutes of Health director. A quick look at the index reveals that she spends more time on this individual than any other person in the book. And there is very good reason for this.
She actually had a chance to interview him for the book, but oddly enough the interview was dropped at the last moment. Hmm. She was keen to ask him some tough questions, something the mainstream media had refused to do with him and Fauci.
She explains in great detail how Collins almost single-handedly did the bidding of the State as he readily and fully pushed the party line. She writes: “In late August 2020, BioLogos, a faith and science organization Collins founded that merges Darwinian evolution and Scripture, released a public statement titled ‘Love Your Neighbor, Get the Shot’ in favor of vaccines, masks, and lockdown orders.”
Many well-known evangelicals were happy to be signatories to this, including N. T. Wright, Philip Yancey, David French, Timothy Dalyrmple of Christianity Today and Walter Kim of Baker Publishing. These folks took a pledge ‘because of their faith in Jesus Christ’ to do the following, and more:
-“Wear Masks” because “Mask rules are not experts taking away our freedom, but an opportunity to follow Jesus’ command to love our neighbors as ourselves (Luke 6:31).
-“Get vaccinated” because “Vaccination is a provision from God.”
-“Correct misinformation and conspiracy theories when we encounter them in our social media and communities.” Because “Christians are called to love the truth, we should not be swayed by falsehoods (1 Corinthains 13:6).”
…Elsewhere the document got a lot more specific, and it suggested that the signers were agreeing to treat medical opinions that didn’t align with those of Collins and Fauci as conspiracy theories as well. (p. 95)
In this regard they worked overtime to demonise experts who dared to hold a contrary point of view, including Stanford professor of medicine and health policy Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. Says Basham:
Bhattacharya and some of his “non-consensus” colleagues – like biostatistician and Harvard professor of medicine Martin Kulldorff and Oxford infectious disease epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta – opposed pandemic policies like lockdowns, and they questioned conventional scientific wisdom about the severity of the virus. They were beginning to advocate publicly for different approach, one that didn’t require everyone to isolate and social-distance but instead focused on protecting vulnerable populations, like the elderly and the immunocompromised. This non-consensus group would eventually release their public proposal for herd immunity as the Great Barrington Declaration, and tens of thousands of epidemiologists and public health scientists, including a Nobel Prize winner would sign it. As the pandemic progressed, they also spoke out against mask and vaccine mandates and called for more serious consideration of vaccine injuries and risk. (p. 96)
When that first came out I wrote it up and quoted from it. It is still a vitally important document: Link  
But Collins and Co wanted nothing to do with it:
In private emails in October 2020, Collins deemed the Great Barrington authors “fringe epidemiologists” and worried that they were “getting out of control, and getting too much traction.” He urged Fauci to make sure the work of the Great Barrington doctors faced a “quick and devastating takedown.” This didn’t mean seriously engaging with the scientific arguments presented in the Great Barrington Declaration – neither Collins nor Fauci ever did that. It meant relying on media connections to ensure the declaration was dismissed as quackery. (pp. 96-97)
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Wherever you want to lay the blame for the disintegration of male and female relationships—the industrial revolution, the sexual revolution, the tech revolution, the invention of the birth control pill, the legalization of abortion, any moment will do well enough—the point is that women have been trying to redress their grievances without facing the spiritual verities at the back of the problem, that God exists and that men are people, too. Until the whole patriarchy has been smashed—whatever is left of it—the “conversation” will persist. These agitated efforts, the background noise of modernity, reach a fever pitch when a feminist gives birth to a son.

Researchers say the United States is dealing with an “epidemic” of male loneliness. Though, as Los Angeles Times columnist Jean Guerrero notes, shocking numbers of men feel that no one “knows” them. Worse, Guerrero says the data shows that men are “less skilled than women at making friends.” This is the case despite a long effort to socialize boys. In fact, according to Guerrero, “Young men, who tend to be more progressive and are presumably more comfortable with intimacy than their elders, are … the most isolated.” How can this be?
Ruth Whippman’s BoyMom: Reimagining Boyhood in the Age of Impossible Masculinity sheds some light on the trouble, though not, perhaps, in the way she intends. A self-proclaimed feminist with impeccable progressive credentials, Whippman analyzes her tortured feelings about being the mother of her three young boys. She is anxious for their well-being, anxious to survive their Nerf wars and aggressive wrestling, but especially anxious that they not end up as misogynist creeps who abuse women. And yet, confused as she may be, her thinking drives her toward some surprising insights.

Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Parents can only instruct their children “by the way” (Deut 6) if parents and children are in the same place at the same time, a lot of the time. This proximity is what our society is so eager to dissolve and what we easily surrender. Yet it is not just time at home that matters. “Children obey your parents in the Lord” is not a lone imperative. Paul gives that instruction in tandem with instructions to husbands and wives.

O, the Shame
Staying out of paid work to raise children is one of the great immoralities of our time. I’ve been one of those questionable, anachronistic women for almost twenty years. It would have been fewer years if I had fewer children. If I had lived my adulthood differently, I could be deep in postgraduate degrees, leadership positions and assets, with a reasonable superannuation portfolio accumulating. I have none of these, apart from assets which have come through my husband’s work. On paper, I am completely dependent and decidedly behind. Unlike my husband’s, my life, limbs and labour are very cheap to insure. While staying home to raise children is costly for my family (and myself), the relative costs of this choice are greater for families initiating that choice now.
For recent holiday reading, I opened the 2024-25 Women’s Budget Statement. My anomalous existence was confirmed. By the measures of that document, women like me are to be pitied, scolded and reformed. If you want a summary of what our representative government thinks of men, women and families, that document is instructive. It summarises the idea of marriage and family that our young women and men are steered toward. This is what’s said about the Stay-at-Home Mother:
Staying out of paid work to raise children is a compound betrayal. This mother sacrifices the advancement she might have gained had she continued in her career. She sacrifices her financial independence, both present and future, diminishing her lifetime earning potential. She sacrifices the security that attends financial independence.
The mother at home betrays not only herself, but the cause of all women. She subjects herself to the inequality which others have fought hard to undo. She’s consenting to and propagating harmful gender stereotypes. She lives within the confines of outdated norms, validating what is despicable.
The mum at home betrays the national economic good, removing her contribution to the formal economy. She betrays her infants, who are disadvantaged, out of the reach of infant peers, early childhood experts and their stimulating, simulated environments. She is choosing to model the opposite of what we want our children to be: she is mediocre, unambitious, invisible, small. Hers is a shameful, weak choice, the path one might stumble into if not competent enough to do something better. A pitiful waste.
To stay home is a betrayal of family prosperity. It means limited real estate options, a cheaper home. And modest holidays, measured spending, learning skills instead of paying experts. Going without. Waiting longer. Having less of what we’re conditioned to want.
For those who are conformed to thinking like the 2024-25 Women’s Budget Statement, staying home is an unconscionable choice. When the Apostle Paul writes for older women to “teach what is good,and so train the young women to love their husbands and children,to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled,“ (Titus 2:3-5), he forces us to deal with some embarrassment about the Word of God. Surely, if Paul knew how far we’d come, he wouldn’t place this expensive, treacherous choice at the heart of discipleship for women! The contrast forces us to ask if we’re more at home with the Women’s Budget Statement or the Bible.
A mother’s choice to stay out of paid work is a choice to be slower and simpler, to resist the mechanization of persons. The choice to raise children at home requires a home to be more: more than storage and shelter; more interesting, more nourishing than a daycare centre. If a mother and her children are to survive a home-based existence, she must learn to bring vitality where others only see boredom, to replace consumption with cultivation. She forms a cultural centre, a locus of relationships and community. A vitalized home brings life that spills out beyond its own members. If we risk the cost, we might find that Paul, along with the rest of Scripture, has a richer view of “working at home” than the Women’s Budget Statement does.
In most cases, a woman can only be free to be busy at home, actively raising her children, if she is married to a man who believes in the unseen value of her unseen work. This choice is the fruit of a marriage that believes in oneness, in being yoked together–in every way, even financially–to get something done in the world that neither of them could do alone, something that transcends them both. Such a marriage is one of mutual sacrifice, of mutual trust, of mutual respect – a marriage where two people are spending themselves in a common direction, while contributing in different ways. A marriage where neither is keeping a tally of who does what and how much. A husband and wife will only choose to limit their income in order to raise their children if they both believe that the value of life and work might not translate into budget data.
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Allowed under the law is any therapy that is either “neutral” regarding “sexual orientation or gender identity” or helps “facilitates an individual’s coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, so long as such practice, treatment, or intervention does not seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” Critics say the order undermines the rights of parents and their freedom to pursue religious values within their homes.

Kentucky Democratic Governor Andy Beshear banned “conversion therapy” for “LGBTQ+ youth” on Wednesday in a sweeping executive order.
“Kentucky cannot possibly reach its full potential unless it is free from discrimination by or against any citizen – unless all our people feel welcome in our spaces, free from unjust barriers and supported to be themselves,” Beshear said in a statement. “Conversion therapy has no basis in medicine or science, and it can cause significant long-term harm to our kids, including increased rates of suicide and depression. This is about protecting our youth from an inhumane practice that hurts them.”
The order applies to therapy for minors under the age of 18, saying, “Discrimination against our LGBTQ+ brothers and sisters, including our LGBTQ+ youth, is unacceptable in this Commonwealth.”
The text of the order makes clear that banned types of therapy include “any practice, treatment, or intervention that seeks or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same gender.”
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Sexual sin is a serious problem in the modern church. It is worse when committed by those who are entrusted with the spiritual care of God’s flock (1 Tim. 5:17-20; Jam. 3:1). When church leaders or church congregations try to play it down, mitigate it, cover it up, and then as soon as possible move on as if nothing ever happened, a great disservice is done to the Lord and His precious Bride, the Church.

The internet is aflame with commentary on the recent revelation of the removal of Dr. Steve Lawson as pastor of Trinity Bible Church of Dallas due to an “inappropriate relationship.” The statement from the elders declares in part that they were “informed by Steve Lawson” of the issue. The details are sketchy, and I hope the elders will provide more clarity soon.
The elders’ statement includes the warning that we should all “be mindful of the words of 1 Corinthians 10:12, ‘Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.’” Indeed, a wise warning, particularly to those of us entrusted with the sacred duty of preaching God’s Word to His people.
Let me say in unambiguous terms that the revelation of this situation is heartbreaking. Dr. Lawson has a wide influence in the church at large and this has brought reproach on himself, his family, his church, and most importantly the cause of Christ. Forgiveness is available and can be received on the genuine repentance of the guilty individuals. Prayers for Dr. Lawson and his family are most appropriate. It should be our desire to see him fully restored in his relationship with Christ and with his wife and family. I pray this will be so and that the conviction of the Holy Spirit will be received and properly responded to. Restoration to the ministry is another matter.
Some seem to forget that sexual sin takes two. In the moral morass of the “MeToo” movement, the assumptions made often place the woman in an automatic “not guilty” position. This is unwise. The Lord was clear in his condemnation of sexual sin and left no doubt about the guilt of a woman when she is a willing participant (John 8:1-12). Our prayers should certainly extend to the woman, for her repentance and full restoration to fellowship with the Lord, her family, and her church.
The intent of this piece is not to throw stones but rather to act in the spirit of Galatians 6:1-3, as we must “consider ourselves lest we also be tempted.” It is more of an earnest plea to my fellow pastors and the church at large to guard yourselves against this subtle and dangerous temptation and to take the appropriate steps of church discipline when such events do arise.
The Ease of Repentance When You Are Caught
It seems to me that many of these circumstances, far too frequent in evangelicalism, bring out a crowd that is quick to call for the restoration of one so entangled and ensnared. There are some sins that disqualify one from pastoral ministry. An excellent article on the subject by Dr. John MacArthur speaks clearly to this issue:
Where did we get the idea that a year’s leave of absence and some counseling can restore integrity to someone who has squandered his reputation and destroyed people’s trust? Certainly not from the Bible. Trust forfeited is not so easily regained. Once purity is sacrificed, the ability to lead by example is lost forever. As my friend Chuck Swindoll once commented when referring to this issue—it takes only one pin to burst a balloon.
What about forgiveness? Shouldn’t we be eager to restore our fallen brethren? To fellowship, yes. But not to leadership. It is not an act of love to return a disqualified man to public ministry; it is an act of disobedience. [1]
Repentance is key a component of the doctrine of salvation and a necessary element of the forgiveness being sought in this situation. Repentance should be a continual, daily process for the child of God, in our efforts to keep short accounts with God. But it seems to me that many are quicker to repent when they are caught or about to be exposed. The genuineness of repentance can be more effectively identified when confession precedes exposure. Whether this is the case with Dr. Lawson or not is not the point. It seems to me that in most cases involving sexual sin among ministry leaders it catches up with them and the charade begins to unravel. Honestly, they are left with little option other than saying they are repentant.
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

When Jeremiah doubted, he did not try to solve his problems on his own. Instead, he committed his cause to the Lord. For him, this meant praying that his cause would be vindicated. Our case may be different, but the principle is the same: if we believe that God is with us and has the power to help us, then we should ask him for the help that only he can give.

Jeremiah 20 is the prayer of a suffering believer. Imagine the prophet in solitary confinement—weakened with physical pain, exhausted by emotional turmoil, fearful of what tomorrow might bring. Now hear the first words out of his mouth. They come in the form of an invocation to Almighty God. “O Lord,” the prophet cries. “O Lord!” (Jer. 20:7).
God always invites us to take our troubles straight to him. This is what godly people have done throughout history. It is what Job did on the ash heap, when he was grieving the death of his loved ones (Job 1:21). It is what David did in the cave, when he was hiding from King Saul (Ps. 57). It is what Jonah did in the belly of the great fish, when he ran away from God (Jonah 2). It is also what Jesus did on the cross, when he was suffering for our sins and felt separated from his loving Father. “My God!” he cried out. “My God, my God” (Matt. 27:46).
Even when we think that God is the problem and not the solution, as Jeremiah did—even when we think he is incriminated by what we are experiencing—we should talk things over with him. In every dark night of the soul, we should take our troubles to the secret place and meet with God in prayer. Where else can we open our hearts so freely? Who else could possibly address our concerns? There is never any need for us to hide our feelings. We can always take our struggles to the Lord in prayer.
Praying and Praising in Prison
Something amazing happened to Jeremiah as he prayed that night in prison: he began to take heart. Somehow, the Holy Spirit was ministering to his soul. Suddenly—and totally unexpectedly—
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Let’s be those who give the word, not some cheap alternative. People need real encouragement, they don’t need self help tips. We need to give that which is, “like fire, declares the LORD, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces” (Jer 23:29). God’s word is the encouragement that people need.

Have you ever wanted to encourage someone, but you just don’t know what to say? You want to have a good word for someone who is sad, or struggling, or having a hard time, but the words just won’t come. Well, sometimes you should be quiet and not say anything that isn’t “good for building up” (Eph 4:29). But if you are gonna share something, let me tell you the best encouragement you can give.
The best encouragement you can give is not dependent on you being the most clever or the most unique. The best encouragement you can give doesn’t need to be witty or inherently profound. The best encouragement you can give actually doesn’t rely a whole lot on you. What am I talking about? The best encouragement you can give is God’s word!
God’s word is living and active and sharper than a two-edged sword (Heb 4:12) and is wielded by the Spirit of truth (Eph 6:17).
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Jesus knows what he asks of us as his disciples. He knows what we’ll have to bear. He isn’t taken by surprise by any of it. And just as he died for all the sins he knew you would commit even before you did it, he chose you to be his before the foundation of the earth and committed you to faithful obedience – knowing precisely what that would entail – because he wants to spend eternity with you.

Two thoughts (both wrong) often crop up in the believer’s mind. The first is that this sin is really the one that will put us beyond reconciliation. We kind of accept Jesus died for our sin, but we wonder whether this particular one might just put us beyond his reach. He couldn’t possible forgive this one. If only he knew this was coming he would never have accepted me in the first place.
In truth, this sort of thinking is more like the accusations from Satan. The Devil loves to tempt us into sin and, when we fall into it, loves to get us thinking that Jesus will never have us now. But you won’t find anything in the mouth of Jesus or anywhere in the pages of scripture that come close to ever suggesting this is the case.
In fact, the truth is that Jesus knew you would do this particular sin before he died for it. As God, in eternity past with his Father, Jesus chose a people for himself and he took great joy in choosing them. He knew all about them, he knew how they would sin, he knew what they were like and he chose them nevertheless. He went to the cross not only knowing who he was dying for, but what he was dying for.
None of your sin takes Jesus by surprise. He knew you were going to do it even before you knew you were going to do it. He paid for it at the cross knowing you were going to do it long before you did it, before you knew you were going to do it, before you even existed to know anything at all! Jesus knows all about you and your sin. He knows exactly what he is getting into when he said, ‘I want them’. He knew the sins he was paying for and he paid for them. Not just some of them, or the worst of them, but all of them.
What that means is there is no sin you can commit that will remove you from the love of Christ if you truly belong to him. The sign that you truly belong to him is that you repent. But if you are a repentant believer, Jesus is sat with his Father reminding him as our advocate that this is just another of those sins that he has already paid for at the cross. It was a sin they both knew was going to be committed by you, which was paid for 2000 years ago and which didn’t put them off choosing you in the first place.
That is the essence of what Paul says in Romans 8:38-39.
Read More

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.