Doug Wilson Interviews Mark Driscoll

I came across a real interesting video where Pastor Douglas Wilson interviewed Pastor Mark Driscoll on several topics. This is gold.

Apologist Interview: Douglas Wilson - Apologetics 315

In this week's interview Brian Auten interviewed Douglas Wilson. I love to Pastor Wilson preach, teach, and debate. It was very interesting! Follow the link to Apologetics 315 to hear the interview. 

Apologist Interview: Douglas Wilson - Apologetics 315

The Advantage of Being Awestruck - by @Jason_Silva on Vimeo

Hubble Ultra Deep Field is an image of a small region of space in the constellation Fornax (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I found the following video very interesting.The argument is that because of humanity's ability to be inspired by our very existence and the universe around us, we are able to grow technologically and scientifically and driven to learn more as a species. By and large I agree, but I don't think that evolution can adequately explain this trait. I observe this quality more prominently in children and less in adults. Here is the video.
  The Biological Advantage of Being Awestruck - by @Jason_Silva from Jason Silva on Vimeo.

Here is the notes given with the video on Vimeo

This video was created by @Jason_Silva and shot and edited with my friends at Bravo Media, and is non-commercial and for educational and inspirational purposes only. Full credits and clip attributions can be found below. This video was inspired by three big ideas:

1) The ideas of psychologist Nicholas Humphrey who has written of "THE BIOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE OF BEING AWESTRUCK". Basically, our ability to awe was biologically selected for by evolution because it imbues our lives with sense of cosmic significance that has resulted in a species that works harder not just to survive but to flourish and thrive...

"Humphrey refers to consciousness as a magic show that you stage for yourself inside your head, which lights up the world and makes you feel special and transcendent... this magical theater provides a reason to live, a love of occupying the present moment, and a desire to sustain it into the future, that over time has proved stronger than anything else, and accounts for humanity’s swift and triumphant success--

Humphrey says “being enchanted by the magic of experience, rather than being just an aid to survival, provides an essential incentive to survive.”

"We relish just being here. We feel “the yen to confirm and renew, in small ways or large, our own occupancy of the present moment, to go deeper, to extend it, to revel in being there, and when we have the skill, to celebrate it in words..”

Our desire to understand brings exquisite pleasure... and feeds our exploratory voyage, our scientific inquiry, our technological development, and even our poetic self-regard..

More: online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703858404576214771893335998.html

I would argue that this what drives science. But how did it get there? And not everyone has these feelings and desires in equal measure. I think those who love arts, science, and engineering the most have the strongest case. It truly is another way humanity expresses itself. 

2) The Stanford study that found that AWE is clinically good for you, expanding perception of time, increasing compassion and empathy and promoting well being:

More: theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/study-awe-inspiring-experiences-change-our-perception-of-time/260138/

I think that it's this benefit is why we find the inquisitive nature and traits being discussed ingrained in Children. They are like sponges for information. We all should never forget what it's like to have your mind blown by learning something that impresses you. What I love is that you never have to give that up just because you grow up. What I love about musicians, artists, scientists, and engineers is that they never do.

3) Ross Andersen's rapturous meditation on the ontological awakening of our psyches provided by the Hubble Space Telescope: "At first glancing the Deep FIELD “one might mistake it for gemstones scattered across black velvet, but a closer look reveals that each smudge of light, 2,600 in all, is a galaxy dense with billions of star-fired worlds, pinwheeling in deep time. … To that point, astronomy had imaged objects only four billion light years away, and poorly at that. Here a telescope reached 11 and a half billion light years into space and delivered an image legible to the layman: an unprecedented expansion of human vision."

I agree.

More: lareviewofbooks.org/article.php?id=331

**Music by John Murphy - "Kaneda's Death Pt 2" from Sunshine Soundtrack
itunes.apple.com/us/album/sunshine-music-from-motion/id297702863

**Featuring Stock Footage from Shutterstock
Still images courtesy of THE IMAGINARY FOUNDATION - imaginaryfoundation.com/
And clips from Knate Myers' "ISS at Night" featuring NASA images: vimeo.com/45878034

Camera: Liam O' Sullivan
Edited by Jess Betz and Jason Silva
Shot and edited at BRAVO MEDIA - bravomediainc.com/

I think a far more interesting question is where does this trait go in so many adults? I think society bludgeons  most of it out of us when we are told to stop asking questions and to stop dreaming - in other words: school. One thing I've noticed is that many anti-theists will agree that the ability to be awed is an integral part of being human that we can recognize beauty. They say that we have no need of God in order to enjoy beauty or to be blown away by the universe. Yet they also argue that no one's life has transcendent value. How can you be amazed and awed by your existence and yet deny that there is anything of purpose or transcendent value (i.e. created). For example, here is Christopher Hitchens making the same argument against Douglas Wilson as the above video.

Awe is important for what it means to be a human being - all seem to agree but the question of how it got into us seems to be ignored. Does anyone think that an eagle or a vulture has an emotional response as it flies over the Grand Canyon?  Or is a bird impressed by it's own ability to fly? But can a person be impressed or emotionally touched by his/her own athletic ability, or by his/her poetry or any talent for that matter? Have you ever said or done something so brilliant that it shocked you that it came out of you or through you? That is why people create art and study science and make machines to solve problems.



The Biological Advantage of Being Awestruck - by @Jason_Silva on Vimeo

Related articles

• The Biological Advantage of Being Awestruck [Video]
• How amazing are ideas? Watch Idea DJ Jason Silva's 2-minute inspiration.
• A movie trailer for awe
• Cultivating Radical Openness - The Universe of possibility & the contagiousness of ideas @Jason_Silva [Georgina Lester]

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Thank You, Douglas Wilson

Ken has posted an awesome summary post on a couple of lectures Pastor Douglas Wilson gave on human sexuality and it's place as God has designed reality. It give links to all of the videos, Dr James White's comments on his Podcasts, and links to Wilson's debate against James White and Wilson's debates against Christopher Hitchens. A virtual treasure trove in a single blog post!

The comments Ken makes on the material, as well as Dr White's comments on his web cast or well worth considering! Get the material at the following link

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Thank You, Douglas Wilson

Christopher Hitchens: 13 April 1949 – 15 Dec 2011 - Apologetics 315

It doesn't seem like the surprises in 2011 are anywhere near over yet. I realize that some people might say that Christopher Hitchens death should come as a surprise to anyone. It was very public how sick he was. Given that everyone is going to die doesn't make the death of anyone easy. I was hoping that maybe God would spare his life and heal him but even better if God turned Christopher Hitchens into an evangelist for God instead of against God. None of us knows what Hitchens spiritual state was when he died and trying to guess what it is pointless. Instead I'd rather just think about the fact that his wit and intelligence and eloquence will be missed despite the fact that I didn't agree with everything he said or wrote. One non debatable fact is that he knows for sure whether he was right or wrong. Is there and afterlife or is there not? I think finding out for sure after you die is the wrong way to find out. Instead, it's better to know by knowing God for yourself. There are several great websites that are covering this. Here are a few links that I think you should see if you don't see any of the others.

Christopher Hitchens: 13 April 1949 – 15 Dec 2011 - Apologetics 315

Douglas Wilson wrote an article reflecting on Christopher Hitchens (link). I think that this particular article is priceless because although the two debated a few times and did not agree on a few fundamental things about life they had a mutual respect and admiration for each other.

A few weeks before Christopher Hitchens was supposed to debate Dr. James White, the debate was cancels because of Hitchens diagnosis and his need to start treatment immediately. The debate never happened. But on his blog posted a video and his web cast from 12/16/2011 in which he discusses Hitchen's death and a wide variety of subjects. Get the link here.




So how should Christians respond to the death of Christopher Hitchens? I think a good example is the one set by his brother Peter. Peter Hitchens is a Christian and he wrote an article about seeing his brother for the last time and how much he meant to him and who Christopher was as a person. It's beautifully written and I can't recommend it enough. Read it here.

Related articles

• Christopher Hitchens, 1949 - 2011 (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
• Christopher Hitchens (geoffarnold.com)
• Goodbye Christopher Hitchens .... Welcome to Hell. (mackquigley.wordpress.com)
• A reflection on Christopher Hitchens' death (wordsofgrace.wordpress.com)
• Famous atheist Christopher Hitchens dead at 62 (religionnewswilmington.wordpress.com)

Dwindling In Unbelief: Collision: Are Douglas Wilson's beliefs good for the world? Part 4

Image by JL Outdoor Photography via Flickr

I came across a blog article attempting to systemize the "cultic" beliefs of Doug Wilson. I like Doug Wilson and I have been blessed to hear some of his lectures and debates and I am quite impressed. The writer of this particular article is not impressed or happy in the slightest regrading what Dr. Wilson stands for. I'd like to respond to this writer because I want to affirm that about a great many things Wilson is correct. This fourth post deals with Doug Wilson's stance on: church and state, non-Christians, Environmentalists, and pluralism. My comments will be in read, the writer of the original article's words will be black.

On Church and State
If the judge can't figure out what the proper biblical punishment should be for a crime, then the judge must take the case to the church (Doug Wilson's church). The church (Doug Wilson) will then decide what the Bible says the punishment must be and the judge "wields the sword." The ultimate authority for every matter is the church (you know who's church). Everyone must be a member of and submit to Doug Wilson's church.

God has established the magistrate for the purpose of executing His wrath, but He has not made the civil ruler the exclusive authority on the question of when wrath is appropriate. If a matter is too hard for the judges to determine with the knowledge at hand, then they are commanded to take the question to the church for clarification. The church decides, based on God's Word, what judgment should be carried out, and the judges are obliged to pronounce sentence accordingly.
The state wields the sword, and must wield it in submission to God's law. But if the law is not clear on a particular point, and the state has a question about what God's law requires, it is powerless to interpret Scripture on its own authority. Instead, the state must take the question to the church, which has been charged with protecting, interpreting, and teaching the law of God. The leaders of the church are instructed to make a judgment as to what the law requires, but the church does not thereby take up the sword. Rather, the judgment is passed back to the state, and the magistrates then wield the sword in a manner consistent with the judgment of the church.
[I]t is not enough that the civil government give Christianity a place at the table, even if it is the most honored place. … Nor is it sufficient that the magistrate render "personal submission to the spiritual government" of the church. While our rulers should be members of Christ’s covenant household … a Christian who is also an executive, legislator, or judge owes a duty of submission different than that of the ordinary layman.

I do find my self disagreeing with Wilson on this point because i can find nothing in scripture that says civil authorities should take anything to the church. In fact I find the opposite.

 ¹If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? ²Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? ³Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! ⁴Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church!^{[a] 5}I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? ⁶But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!
 ⁷The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? ⁸Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
 ⁹Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders ¹⁰nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. - 1 Corinthians 6:1-11

In addition, I doubt Wilson mean his own personal local church, but the Christian, Jesus-following, church.

On Non-Christians All citizens would be required to to take oaths of allegiance to the Lord as a prerequisite of citizenship. "Reforming the State ... is about forcing people to outwardly conform to a Christian standard and about protecting the Christian religion." We should have the courage to punish heretics, apostates, blasphemers, swearers, sabbath-breakers properly. (They should all be killed.)

[T]he political leader is the head of the civil covenant. If that head acknowledges that his authority comes from God (as he should), is it enough that he honors God personally? … Or can he also require, for example, oaths of allegiance to the Lord as a prerequisite of citizenship? (Before you balk, keep in mind that we don't have any problem saying pledges of allegiance to mere flags or the nations for which they stand.) Again, we have no problem making school children dutifully recite the pledge of allegiance, or requiring new citizens to swear oaths of loyalty to the U.S. government. Why can't they also be required to acknowledge the sovereignty of the one true God, and to "zealously renounce all heathen practices?" … Someone who is required to renounce Buddhism as a condition of citizenship is no longer trapped by a spiritual snare, and can't be a snare to anyone else. That is a blessing. Reforming the State is not about forcing people to be Christians. But it is about forcing people to outwardly conform to a Christian standard and about protecting the Christian religion. Historically, the civil magistrate has enforced laws against blasphemy, apostasy, heresy, swearing, and working on the Sabbath. The difficulty is not in defining or punishing these crimes; the difficulty is finding the strength and wisdom to do so.

No where in the quote does Wilson talk about killing anyone. And this is the way it was done in theocratic Israel. I don't even think that Wilson is trying to say we should do this, but it would be nice if we could. If we did it God's way would have less problems!

On Environmentalists All environmentalists are anti-Christian and all true Christians are anti-environment.

An environmentalist who seeks to "manage" the environment by letting it run wild is disobeying God's command to fill, subdue, and exercise dominion over the earth. The consequences of environmentalist philosophy are disobedience to God in the short run…. Droughts and famines do not come upon a people who are obedient, but they are promised to those who disobey. An earth left to itself will only yield thorns, thistles, disease, and decay. If Christians are to be obedient to God's dominion mandate, they must oppose the rebellion inherent in environmentalist government policy. (11)

Wilson is not talking about all envrionmentalists. Be honest!!! He referred to managing "the environment by letting it run wild". He points out that is untenable, not that we should not take care of the planet.

On Pluralism There wouldn't be any. Everyone would be forced to belong to the One True Church (Doug Wilson's Church).

[T]he Christian magistrate acknowledges there is such a thing as a true church, and that he has a responsibility to nurture that church so that it thrives and to protect it against those things that threaten to do it harm. Obviously, this excludes the idea of pluralism. (12)

A "true church" does not just refer to his church....but to all who are willing to follow the bible and obey, And by that criteria there is only one  church across several localities and denominations. Puralisim is the thought that all religous beliefs and thoughts are all equally true. Wilson is right.

The writer of the article I am responding to definitely has an ax to grind and misrepresents Wilson and the Bible. It's sad really.

Dwindling In Unbelief: Collision: Are Douglas Wilson's beliefs good for the world?

Iron Sharpens Iron: Doug Wilson: Is Christianity Good For the World?: Reflections on the Doug Wilson-Christopher Hitchens Debate

Doug Wilson was a guest on Iron Sharpens Iron yesterday. He talked about the interactions he had with Christopher Hitchens and the movie documentary he participated in. It was a great interview. I love hearing Doug Wilson and I think that his an able scholar and apologist. I tend  to find very little I disagree with him about however both Chris Arnzen and Dr James White disagree with Wilson on certain things. I heard Arnzen says that there were disagreement. However I'd like to see the movie and I've seen a previous debate of Wilson vs Hitchens and enjoyed it. In this interview Wilson does a great job in explaining what presuppositional apologetics is and what it isn't and how it differs from evidential apologetics.. 

Iron Sharpens Iron: Doug Wilson: Is Christianity Good For the World?: Reflections on the Doug Wilson-Christopher Hitchens Debate

Dwindling In Unbelief: Collision: Are Douglas Wilson's beliefs good for the world? Part 3

Image via Wikipedia

I came across a blog article attempting to systemize the "cultic" beliefs of Doug Wilson. I like Doug Wilson and I have been blessed to hear some of his lectures and debates and I am quite impressed. The writer of this particular article is not impressed or happy in the slightest regrading what Dr. Wilson stands for. I'd like to respond to this writer because I want to affirm that about a great many things Wilson is correct. This third post deals with Doug Wilson's stance on: a few different topics. My comments will be in read, the writer of the original article's words will be black.

On Crime and Punishment
The magistrate is God's minister of wrath against those who do evil. There would be only three punishments: death, lashing, and restitution. There would be no jails, prisons, or hospitals for the mentally ill.

Responsibility for the civil order is placed in the hands of magistrates, who act as God's ministers of wrath against those who do evil (Rom. 13:1-7). God's law sets forth three basic punishments for crime: death, lashing (essentially, a government-sponsored spanking), and restitution. There is a conspicuous absence of county jails, state penitentiaries, reform schools, and hospitals for the criminally insane. The goal of the sentence is to execute God's wrath. . . .

The article's writer is making it sound like Wilson and the Bible are calling for the death penalty of mentally ill people who don't know what they are doing. Wilson said "criminally insane". Then it just becomes an equal justice for everyone. If you disaobey the laws...this is penalty. What is wrong with that? Notto mentuion the amount of money it woiuld save the government not supporting criminals in prison who commit capital offense - if they are truly guilty.

On Elected Officials
We are all currently ruled by God-hating tyrants. Only male Christians (belonging to Doug Wilson's church) should be allowed to hold public office.

If we have God-hating tyrants ruling over us (and we do), then we must recognize that they rule by our invitation. First, our rulers are to be able men. ... The responsibility of civil, ecclesiastical and family leadership is given to men. … [I]t is an embarrassment and a reproach to the men to have women ruling a nation (Is. 3:12).
The men we choose are to fear God. The unregenerate do not fear God by definition (Rom. 3:18).
We are to choose men of truth. … A man who honestly believes erroneous doctrine may be sincere, but he is also deceived.
From this list of qualifications, it is apparent that, biblically, it is only professing Christians who are qualified to hold public office. (5)

Wilson is correct. That is what the bible is saying. IO don't think he is saying that only members of his own local church should lead the county, but Christians who are going to follow god no matter what should lead and I agree. The fear I sense here is that women will not have positions of leadership at all. This isn't true. We have proof that there were woman leaders in the first century churches.

On Disobedient Children You can't just kill your son for being disobedient. You have to bring a son that is "worthy of death" before the elders of the church (Doug Wilson's church) and have them kill him for for you.

[A] father may (and must) discipline his son, but he may not exercise capital punishment against him on his own authority. Instead, he must bring a son worthy of death to the elders of the city, who are charged with applying the civil penalty (Prov. 13:24; Deut. 21:18-21). (6)

Is this writer actually suggesting  that Wilson thinks that his church should execute children? Let's be honest. Wilson is only saying the Bible is correct. And let us also face facts if parents discipilined their children few if any would get to that point to need to be executed - meaning that they have become a danger to society.

Wilson is right

Dwindling In Unbelief: Collision: Are Douglas Wilson's beliefs good for the world?

Dwindling In Unbelief: Collision: Are Douglas Wilson's beliefs good for the world? Part 2

I came across a blog article attempting to systemize the "cultic" beliefs of Doug Wilson. I like Doug Wilson and I have been blessed to hear some of his lectures and debates and I am quite impressed. The writer of this particular article is not impressed or happy in the slightest regrading what Dr. Wilson stands for. I'd like to respond to this writer because I want to affirm that about a great many things Wilson is correct. This second post deals with Doug Wilson's stance on: On the Law, Homosexuality, and the Sin of Pity". My comments will be in read, the writer of the original article's words will be black.

On the Law, Homosexuality, and the Sin of Pity

The entire legal system would depend on one book: the Bible.

Let's pretend, just for a moment, that we could have it our way. The great revival we have been praying for has occurred, and every executive, legislator, and bureaucrat in the capital has just been saved. Knowing they ought to begin applying Scripture in their jobs, but not knowing how to go about it, they come to you and your church for advice. What will you tell them? How should they apply God's law?

Looking at the Bible with an eye toward applying it in the civil realm, several things become apparent. First, it is pretty small. … [O]n the average, a little over 1,000 pages. Think of the money governments will save on printing and shelf space!

If biblical law is to be biblically applied, then the biblical punishment must be used.
. . .

Of course, there would be laws enforced against certain crimes which are currently ignored, such as homosexuality.

The list of crimes punishable by death would be a long one, and would include witchcraft, adultery, homosexuality, and cursing one's parents. Most people today would consider this cruel, but that's because they are guilty of the sin of pity. We should kill our family and friends, without pity, by stoning them to death if they believe in the wrong God. And we should cut off a woman's hand if she touches a man's private parts while defending her husband in a fight. And our eye must not pity her.

The civil magistrate is the minister of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer (Rom. 13:4). God has not left his civil minister without guidance on how to exercise his office. The Scriptures set forth clear standards of judgment for many offenses. Capital crimes, for example, include premeditated killing (murder), kidnapping, sorcery, bestiality, adultery, homosexuality, and cursing one's parents (Ex. 21:14; 21:16; 22:18; 22:19; Lev. 20:10; 20:13; Ex. 21:17).

In contemporary American jurisprudence, none of these offenses is punishable by death, with the occasional exception of murder. The magistrates have dispensed with God's standards of justice. Some Christians believe this is an improvement. They would be horrified to think that the "harsh" penalties of the law should still be applied. Sometimes this is the result of the mistaken belief that the Old Testament has no further application after the advent of Christ. This is an exegetical problem. Too often, it is the result of a sinful view of the criminal. This sin is called pity. … Why is pity a sin?

First, pity is not always a sin. But neither is it always good. … God included in the law specific prohibitions against the exercise of pity in meting out punishment.

If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods,". . . you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; but you shall surely kill him . . . (Deut. 13:6-9).

If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out the hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her. (Deut. 25:11, 12).

God commands the judge to evaluate the crime rather than the criminal. If the crime is one for which God requires death, then death must be the punishment. Your eye shall not pity. … Thus, the Bible teaches that pity is not an option where God has decided the matter. The magistrate, God's minister, is to faithfully execute justice according to God's standard, not man's

I agree with Wilson. The only way you  can't is if you disagree with God. Theses crimes are so horrific to God that it demands final and complete punishment because if it was allowed then it would spread like a cancer to all the society. I mean people who disagree with this today are in fact saying that witchcraft, adultery, homosexuality, and cursing one's parents isn't really that bad - certainly not deserving of a death penalty.If you notice that these crimes addressed so harshly condemned for Ancient Theocratic Israel are no longer thought today to be wrong and has been allowed and encouraged in our society today. These same things have become pervasive in our culture along with all the negative consequences that go with them. Those laws were designed to spare God's people of those consequences.  We've got abortion, juvenile delinquency, broken families, generations of children sans mother and/or father, and the occult masquerading as a legitimate faith. Of course our world is broken. We broke it because we disobey God. We deserve what we have. Which why pity was and will be withheld.

As for trying to apply theses standards today....I see no reason to assume that the standard is no longer valid because it shows God's character and that does not change. However we are not told to implement the punishments that were in place in theocratic Israel and I see nothing in Doug Wilson's theology that says we should only that if we re-instituted God's standards we would all be better off.  Wilson is right!

Dwindling In Unbelief: Collision: Are Douglas Wilson's beliefs good for the world?

Dwindling In Unbelief: Collision: Are Douglas Wilson's beliefs good for the world? Part 1

I came across a blog article attempting to systemize the "cultic" beliefs pf Doug Wilson. I like Doug Wilson and I have been blessed to hear some of his lectures and debates and I am quite impressed. The writer of this particular article is not impressed or happy in the slightest regrading what Dr. Wilson stands for. I'd like to respond to this writer because I want to affirm that about a great many things Wilson is correct. This first post will address the firestorm that has followed Wilson concerning his public words concerning slavery. However I think I need to start with a general observation. The reason I like him so much is the reason why his critics hate him: He's sold out on the Bible. He says it is true and right even if he doesn't like what it says. The article provides a link to a transcript of a booklet that Wilson co-wrote about slavery called Southern Slavery, As It Was. Most of my remarks for this post will come from this link.

Many attack Christianity and the Bible that point out that the Bible condones slavery whenever they find a Christian standing against abortion or the homosexual agenda. This is a smoke screen. In this booklet, Wilson co-wrote:

This points to the need for Christians to learn the biblical way of avoiding “problem texts.” This is the way of a priori submission. Christians must recognize that they are under the authority of God, and they may not develop their ideas of what is “right” and “fair” apart from the Word of God. And when the Bible is our only standard of right and wrong, problem texts disappear. This entire issue of slavery is a wonderful issue upon which to practice. Our humanistic and democratic culture regards slavery in itself as a monstrous evil, and it acts as though this were self-evidently true. The Bible permits Christians to own slaves, provided they are treated well. You are a Christian. Whom do you believe?

I believe the Bible. And as much as it pains me, I have to concede the possibility that a man in the mid 19th century could have been a Godly, born-again, Bible-believing Christian, just as much as I am, and yet held slaves. Wilson is right. For me to admit that is difficult because it was my ancestors who were slaves not his. I have a very much personal stake in the question. I like this article because it points out that the kind of slavery practiced in America cannot be equated with the slavery in the Greco-Roman world or of Ancient Israel. I totally agree with this.

I must however disagree with the attempt in Southern Slavery, As It Was to basically say that Southern Slavery was not as bad as the secularized modern media has portrayed it. I'm not naive nor biased. I do not think that every white male who owned slaves in the south beat, mutilated, raped, and mistreated their slaves. However, though publication does not try to pretend that none of my forebearers suffered, it does suggest that most of the horrors were exceptions and not the rule. Evidence provided for their view was that there was few revolts and uprisings, and the Slave Narratives recorded during the depression contains relatively few horrors of being a slave. Wilson takes these as reasons to think that things weren't really that bad. I have a few very good reasons to disagree.

At least for the people I am directly descended from I can say because of the oral history that has been passed down to me, that their lives were not comfortable nor very happy. For the women who had children by their masters, I can't say whether or not they were raped...at best it was "sexual harassment" by today's standards. Sexual Relationships where one person has that much power over another, where one could not possibly had felt safe enough to say "no", could ever be ethical. One of my great-great-great grandmothers was kept chained because she would not submit to being mistreated. She wasn't the only one.

Also further consider that some of those former slaves who recounted their lives as slaves could surely have been afraid to to tell everything that happened to them because they didn't know if some people (remember the Klu Klux Klan) would take offense and kill them or loved ones. They knew the government would do nothing to protect them. I mean it hadn't, why would it start? In addition that was a generation that didn't always talk about the past. It was almost as if (at least in my family) they didn't talk about the unpleasantness of their lives they could move past it.

The contention, that the black family was stronger during slavery than today might be a valid point. But it was strong despite slavery not because of it. People then were way more willing to live up to their responsibilities even when they didn't always feel like it. I think it was because they were really trying to follow God with all they knew how and believed that God would save them from slavery just like my father's great grandmother, Mary Lucas. I have not really tried to find out how many families were broken because people were sold away from each other. It happened to my great-great-grandparent. Mary thanked God that was able to get her husband back. Me too. MY great grandmother was born soon after that. So, yes, I have a personal stake in that.

American Slavery was based on skin-color racism. The slavery of Ancient Israel was not. Under the Biblical rules for slavery there were commandments for treating slaves as people and joint-heirs in the gifts of God! I'm willing to bet that Mary did not get that kind of treatment.

One last point. Wilson contended that the majority of slaves were content being slaves and that was why there were few uprising. I disagree. He mentions slave mentality but does not really explore what that does when applied to a single segment to a society for generations. My ancestors were stripped of the languages, culture, denied the right to an education, emasculating and humiliating men and women, and told that they were inferior. In effect they were told that God loved them less. Not all people fell for it but is has had devastating results, reverberating to this day. The Bible never said it was right to treat slaves in this way. If you want a good idea from a contemporary source on how they kept slaves in check read the Autobiography of Frederick Douglas and Willie Lynch's Speech On His Methods For Controlling Slaves which says:

Gentlemen:

I greet you here on the bank of the James River in the year of Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and twelve. First, I shall thank you The Gentlemen of the Colony of Virginia for bringing me here. I am here to help you solve some of your problems with slaves. Your invitation reached me on my modest plantation in the West Indies where I have experimented with some of the newest and still oldest methods for control of slaves. Ancient Rome would envy us if my program is implemented. As our boat sailed south on the James River, named for our illustrious King, whose version of the Bible we cherish, I saw enough to know that your problem is not unique. While Rome used cords of wood as crosses for standing human bodies along its old highways in great numbers, you are here using the tree and the rope on occasion.

I caught the whiff of a dead slave hanging from a tree a couple miles back. You are not only losing valuable stock by hanging, you are having uprisings, slaves are running away, your crops are sometimes left in the field too long for maximum profit, you suffer occasional fires, your animals are killed, gentlemen, you know what your problems are; I do not need to elaborate. I am not here to enumerate your problems, I am here to introduce you to a method of solving them.

In my bag here, I have a fool proof method for controlling Black Slaves. I guarantee everyone of you that if installed correctly, it will control the slaves for at least 300 years. My method is simple and members of your family and any Overseer can use it.

I have outlined a number of difference(s) among the slaves; and I take these differences and make them bigger. I use fear, distrust, and envy for control purposes. These methods have worked on my modest plantation in the West Indies and [they] will work throughout the South. Take this simple little list of differences, think about them. On top of my list is "Age" but it is there only because it begins with an "A." The second is "Color" or "Shade," there is intelligence, size, sex, size of plantation, status of plantation, attitude of owner, whether the slaves live in the valley , on a hill, East, West, North, or South, have a fine or coarse hair, or is tall or short. Now that you have a list of differences, I shall give you an outline of action but before that, I shall assure you that distrust is stronger than trust and envy is stronger than adulation, respect and admiration.

The Black Slave, after receiving this indoctrination, shall carry on and will become self-refueling and self-generation for hundreds of years, maybe thousands.

Don't forget you must pitch the old black versus the young black and the young black male against the old black male. You must use the dark skin slave vs. The light skin slave and the light skin slaves vs. The dark skin slaves. You must also have your white servants and overseers distrust all blacks, but it is necessary that your slaves trust and depend on us. They must love, respect and trust only us.

Gentlemen, these Kits are keys to control, use them. Have your wives and children use them, never miss an opportunity. My plan is guaranteed and the good thing about this plan is that if used intensely for one year the slaves themselves will remain perpetually distrustful.

Thank you gentlemen.

In conclusion, I agree that a person can be a Christian and a slave holder. However Christian lives his life with the intention of pleasing God. And I just don't see how the American system of slavery pleased God. He used it alright for his ultimate purposes that are still unfolding for us today, but I doubt He had joy over the sorrows and plights of so many. I agree with my Great-Great-Grandmother, Mary, who saw the Civil War as God sovereignly and decisively freeing our people from servitude and judging America - North and South for sins. I know she saw it that way (though she didn't quite say it that way) based on what knowleged of he has been passed through my family.

Dwindling In Unbelief: Collision: Are Douglas Wilson's beliefs good for the world?

Atheism is Dead: Collision - Christopher Hitchens and Doug Wilson at the Movies

Mariano has posted an article about a movie that drops October 27, starring Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson. It is a documentary chronicling the two of them debating each other over the question of whether or not Christianity is evil. I've listened to these two debate twice and Wilson did extremely well. I will see this one at some point.  You should do yourself a favor and read Mariano's article on his Atheism is Dead blog and the trailer below.








Atheism is Dead: Collision - Christopher Hitchens and Doug Wilson at the Movies

James White Comments on the D'Souza vs Barker Debate

On the 04-16-09 webcast of the Dividing Line, Dr. James White commented on the debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Dan Barker. I've posted on it before but I feel the need to talk about it again because seeing it through Dr. White's viewpoint I got to think about it differently. I still don't think that D'Souza did badly in the debate, but White's criticisms are also valid. At first I thought D'Souza's plan of attack - to argue against Barker without defending the Bible but to win on Barker's terms using only philosophy, science, and history. I see now how he failed to be most effective because Barker attacked the Bible. Dr. White is preparing for his upcoming debate against Dan Barker so of course he is thinking about the larger issue: How do you defend the faith against people who don't believe. A lot of Christians take the viewpoint that you can't use the Bible to witness or as an affective defense of the Bible if the people you are dialouging with refuse to acknowlege the Bibe as the Word of God. Dr. White takes a different view: defend the Bible, explain the Bible, stand on the Bible. I would further argue that this is the methods the Apostles used themselves. I have two examples: in Acts 2:14-41 - Peter's first sermon - all Peter used to prove his point was the Old Testament scriptures and he appealed to their own experiences. Remember Jesus had been crucified some 40 days prior and many, if not all, of his hearers had eyewitness knowledge of everything Peter was preaching. My other example is Acts 17 when Paul was in Athens on Mars Hill. What did Paul use? He used some philosophy and with the bulk of arguments based on scripture. The audience was different - people who likely had no idea what the Old Testament said. This shows me that we have tailor or preaching and teaching to our audiences. Dr. James White's comments are well-worth review. Here is the web cast: Dividing line 04-16-09.

Here is the full debate between D'Souza and Barker.
What had happen' was.....: D'Souza vs Barker: Christianity Vs Atheism

Does the God of Christianity Exist and Does it Matter? MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315

Ever wonder what would happen if Christopher Hitchens, Doug Wilson, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel and James Denison ever appeared together on the same stage? Well, we can see what would happen because they recently debated at the Christian Book Expo 2009. The topic was Does the God of Christianity Exist and Does it Matter? I found the link on the Apologetics 315 blog.

Does the God of Christianity Exist and Does it Matter? MP3 Audio - Apologetics 315


There is even a video linked to the Apologetics 315 blog.



This is an amazing discussion. It shows one atheist, Hitchens, versus three apologists whom I admire. This discussion really underscores the difference between Atheism and Christianity. You should watch hear this. I think that Douglas Wilson was great in the way he went toe-to-toe with Hitchens. We can see that Hitchens does not know who God is or anything about his character. God does not create us sick and then expect us to do better. We don't earn salvation. Jesus heals us. We need him.

I loved how when William Lane Craig summarized the discussion pointing out that the Christians on the panel had given 10 really good reasons for believing that the God of Christianity and that he matters. He also pointed out Christopher Hitchens had not answered any of these points. This really seemed to upset Hitchens...then Craig called him out! He told him that he hopes that Hitchens would be prepared to discuss those points in their debate April 4, 2009. I was on the floor laughing.

Douglas Wilson vs Dan Barker Debate

This one is a keeper! Atheist Daniel Barker (right) debated Christian Douglas Wilson (left) August 8, 1997. It's really, really good! I really enjoyed it. The question under debate was "Does the Triune God Exists?" I thought the most interesting thing about the debate was seeing atheism being argued against from a reformed position. While neither the doctrines of grace, predestination, nor Calvinism was mentioned but you can still see the reformed position very ably defended. For example when Barker asked about the origin of evil, Wilson admitted that God allows the presence of evil. I wish I could see a video of this, because I would have loved to have seen Barker's face. I'm reminded of how Walter Martin once dealt with this question. He pointed out that if God did not allow the existence of evil for a time, none of us would be here because he would have to destroy all of us. How many of you are glad that God chose to do things his way instead of our way? I am!

I heard about this debate on Jame White's webcast when he started going over the debate and making great comments. Here is the original debate.

Dan Barker vs Doug Wilson debate "Does the Triune God Exist?" Part 1

barkerwilson1.mp3

Dan Barker vs Doug Wilson debate "Does the Triune God Exist?" Part 2

barkerwilson2.mp3

The recordings do not include audience questions but I found it really interesting to hear Barker's surprise in Wilson's admitting that God allows evil. I wish Wilson had been able to talk more about the existence of evil and how if God unilaterally destroyed all evil He would by definition obliterate every human being who exists, has ever existed, and will exist. I do prefer that God chooses to show his mercy towards all of us, but that also means that also see his wrath.

Dan Barker vs Doug Wilson debate "Does the Triune God Exist?" Part 3

barkerwilson3.mp3

The third part is Doug Wilson's thoughts about the debate and some of the decisions why he did things the way he did them.It was really interesting. James White's insightful commentary can be found on the following links at his website

Dividing Line 3/3/09
Dividing Ling 3/5/09
Dividing Line 3/11/09

Doug Wilson vs Christopher Hitchens

I read about a great debate on the Alpha Omega Ministries blog. It's between Doug Wilson and Christopher Hitchens on October 30, 2008. The audio is below. I thought that Hitchens did not say anything new from what I have heard him say before. It's hard to talk to someone like Hitchens because he is the living embodiment of what the Bible says. He said that he rejects God because if there was a God that deity would be unassailable and unaccountable. He understands what is at stake. If there was a God he said that he sees no reason or right to question God's actions or purposes. I agree. Hitchens cannot accept being out of control and a supreme being being in control of him. He can't trust that being to do what is best for him and the universe because he does not like what he sees in the world. All else he argues is a rationalization to get around his own accountability to God. I disagree with Hitchens about what the Bible says. He said that he does not like to be told that he does not have divine information because it was not revealed to him. I think Dr. Wilson did a great job interacting with him.

Get this widget | Track details | eSnips Social DNA