Letters Answered from Pittsburgh

If the responses seem a little brief today, it is because I am on the road.


Girard’s insightful study on Job ( Job: The Victim of His People) is not what I hear taught or preached in Evangelical circles. A real pity.


Jerry, yes. Great book. I think he mishandles some things here and there, but the centerpiece of that book is just pure gold.

On Not Taking the Bait

“On the contrary, they obviously want to drive this whole thing to death-match-cage levels. So far, they are making good progress.”

I 1000% agree, and I hear your wise and timely exhortation in the background saying, “Don’t take the bait.”

However, at some point it’s no longer going to be bait, a ruse with no teeth merely designed to get us to misstep so they can say “Gotcha!” At some point, it’s going to be for real.

Do you think that will occur, and if so, when do you think that will happen, and if it does happen, what then?


grh, the key is that we must not respond when and how they want us to, and we must respond at the very moment they don’t want us to. That decisive moment is coming, and I pray God that we will see it. Only God can enable us to see it. As the sage once said, the only difference between salad and garbage is timing.,

Sure, Why Not

I’m serving in the SBC right now, finishing up a Bible College degree, and looking toward a masters degree. Given the state of the SBC, would you be wary about an SBC seminary?

In other words, do you hold his degree from SBTS against Jared?


Anon Ymous

AY, yes, I would be wary. There are some good things there. Just be careful, and watch your step. Jared did great with woke potholes, but then there are the covenant potholes.


Re: The Trump Indictment There’s 4 positions that I can see on this.

1. Hillary and Biden shouldn’t be held accountable, but Trump should.

2. Hillary and Biden should be held accountable, but Trump shouldn’t.

3. All three of them should.

4. All three of them shouldn’t.

(And there’s probably a few wildcards here and there that say Hillary should and Biden shouldn’t etc.)

Clearly there’s at least consistency on the last two, but they’re still very different outcomes. Maybe somebody could do one of those D&D Alignment squares that goes from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil.

Anyways, what I see happening with people on options 1 or 2 is (for the lack of a better term) something I call the Immaterial Difference Fallacy. Like you said, Trump kept papers by his throne while Biden laid them by his gas-guzzler. Apples and oranges, they would say. Totally different situations. Not even the same ballpark.

People will latch on to an immaterial difference in the situations in a foolish attempt to deflect the double-standard. Then, if we’re lucky, they won’t throw the passive-aggressive whataboutism charge at us.

Which at this point the only thing to do is politely but firmly respond, “But what about YOUR whataboutism?”


James, yes, exactly. Whataboutism as an endless hall of mirriors.

A plantain republic? Our founders gave us the impeachment clause for good reason. They understood how important character was for the leader of this nation. The impeachment clause could not even be used against someone enacting destructive policies, only for questionable character and their actions as a result. They characterized this process using the term “virtue” and “virtuous” in speaking about what it takes to be worthy of high office. On these grounds, can we endorse a person such as Trump? This says nothing of his small-mindedness, which seems to have had a “lowering” effect on our collective virtue. With regard to Biden, he is way below the threshold for being a virtuous man, as was Obama or either one of the Clintons, just to name a few. I think we are shortsighted in believing a virtue-less man could somehow save the union just because he promised to do our bidding.

Where does that leave us in our desire to save our country? Do we vote for the lesser of two evils, hoping we can somehow stave off the downward spiral of our precious democracy? I have to wonder if God is testing us to see who will trust Him and not succumb to the pressure of grasping for a political savior. If saving our democracy involves lowering our standards of virtue because we can do no better, then that begs the question . . . to what end? Should saving our union be our highest goal?


Rob, yes. Our dilemma lies precisely here. We have multiple leaders who deserve to be impeached, and no one who is qualified to do the impeaching.

Heart for Adoption

Church community question. We recently have several young families in our church who have a heart for adoption. This is a wonderful thing. These are kids with fetal fetal alcohol syndrome, or might have been abused at some point. They were dealt a bad hand to start life with and loving families took them in. This does change church community dynamics. These kids have more behavioral issues. It creates some chaos during church and church events. There are more outbursts and general disruptions. Parents have to decide, ‘if I let my little Johnny run off with little Jason, he tends to get in trouble. But I don’t want my children treating the adopted ones different than the other kids.’

To make the statement more broad. There are many types of church outreach efforts that are good things, but have potential to affect how the community operates. Whether it’s adoption or inviting people from the neighborhood with different cultural backgrounds. I would never want to turn anyone away from the good news or show partiality. And I don’t want my current church culture to be an idol that can’t flex a bit to accommodate in appropriate ways. Are there any good principles to think through in situations like this?


Evan, yes. Your first duty in this is to protect your kids from moral harm. But part of this is that such a situation provides them with opportunities to exercise moral leadership, which kids need. So the question has to do with thresholds. If the presence of such kids makes things a little raggedy, that’s fine. If they bring about moral chaos, that is not fine. If it is not fine, then the elders should have a word with the parents. This kind of thing is a great ministry for those who have the gifts. But if the kids bring about moral chaos, then their folks don’t have what it takes to do what they are doing, and shouldn’t take in another one,

What About the Phones?

I appreciate your writings on the current cultural mess we are in. Your exhortation for families in the current climate seems to be as follows: Find a biblical church community. Sing the psalms. Pull your kids out of the public school system. That sum it up?

One thing I would add to this list is ‘Remove Godless forms of entertainment from your house.’ Throw out your TV, unsubscribe to Netflix and Disney, and go scorched earth on internet/smartphone use in your home. This doesn’t seem to be as much of a focus in your writings. Is it because you are so are disconnected from modern entertainment, that you don’t personally sense it’s threat? My general observation is that Christian families, even the ones doing all the things mentioned above, still enjoy the world’s entertainment, and it’s corrupting their kids. I’m surprised how little that is included in the prescriptions for what ails us, even in modern, conservative Christian writing.


Jason, it is true that I am pretty disconnected from the world of entertainment, which might account for some of it. But I do believe there are great moral hazards there. At the same time, I have seen families use smart phone technology in ways that maintain a tight weave in the family fabric. I am wary of scorched earth policies as a way of keeping the world out. Except for young teens. There scorched earth is fine.

A Thoughtful What If

About “Our” Rainbow Rebellion? A thought experiment question, if you will indulge me, please. Hypothetically, “if” our fathers in the faith were correct in believing that the wearing of a scarf or hat by women in worship, acknowledged God’s transcendence, our created sexuality, and covered all of mankind’s glory that only Christ be glorified in worship (Christ’s bride wears a veil prior to the wedding), if they were correct, would we be the woke one’s? If correct, would God, seeing our gathering into His presence in front of the angels, without expressly obeying this command (“disgraceful worship” & “we have no other tradition, nor do the churches of God”) give our society over to the way we worship? Meaning; we don’t want to acknowledge our created sexuality before Him, God says ok, don’t obey, and I’ll give you over to the way you worship. What would be more absurd and prideful, sodomites mocking God, or those called as His bride, to revel in their own glory and deny their created sexuality in worship? Would we create the culture if we are incorrect? Thank you, Pastor Wilson.


Steve, well, yes. I do believe that if we were wrong about this, we would be wrong. I also grant that this error would be a big deal.

Eschatologically Speaking

I just finished Heaven Misplaced. I feel that it was written more to a Pre-Mil audience rather than an A-Mil, which is understandable considering the populatity of the Pre-Mil position. However, I was already convinced by your strongest argument that Christ is reigning now, yet differ on the implication of it. One roadblock for me, in coming to a Post-Mil view is being relegated to Preterism/partial Preterism. I do agree that many of the prophecies of the New Testament were fulfilled in part by the fall of Jerusalem. But do we have to fall exclusively into one of the categories? Can prophesies have duel fulfillment? If so, couldn’t we be both Preterist and futurist/idealist regarding the fall of Jerusalem prophecies?


Stephen, actually, yes. I think that is possible. And there are dual fulfillments in Scripture. But what I don’t want to do is expand the “dual fulfillment” of Matthew 24, for example, to such an extent that it squeezes out a single fulfillment of all the glorious postmill promises.

Firstly I want to say how incredibly blessed myself and my family have been by you. My thinking has been completely transformed by men like yourself, James White, Joel Webbon, and many others over the last 3 years. On that note, I wanted to ask a question regarding Postmillenialism. You could say I am 95% of the way there to calling myself Postmill. It seems very consistent scripturally, is honoring to Christ’s actual claim of authority on Earth, and is just plain “fun” as you say. One of the few things holding me back is in the area of Postmillenialism that claims that the majority or vast majority of humanity will be saved.

The Revelation 7:9 verse portrays a massive number, but I keep having Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:13 pop up in the back of my mind. He seems to pretty definitively say that “many” go by the way of destruction and “few” find the way of life. Furthermore, in Luke 13:23 a disciple specifically asks Jesus if few are saved, and Jesus’ reply underscores again that the way is narrow and many will seek to enter and not be able. I’d love to know what the Postmil response/understanding is of these passage. Thank you and may God continue to bless all your endeavors!


Colton, here is the short answer. Jesus tells us of the narrow gate (Luke 13:24). The people shut out from that gate complain about it in this way: but “you taught in our streets” (Luke 13:26). These are first century Jews. They are thrust out of the kingdom (Luke 13:28). And then what? A multitude of Gentiles arrives, from east, west, north and south (Luke 13:29).


You have read a lot and have mentioned many authors in your writing, interviews, etc . . . But I don’t recall you mentioning Flannery O’Connor, although you may have and it has simply escaped me. I enjoy her very much. Do you? Why or why not?


Andrew, I have read and enjoyed her writing a great deal. At the same time, I cannot say that her style of writing is my cup of tea. Although her short story Revelation is about close to perfect.

Sabbath Moms

My wife and I are both Presbyterians who came at it from wildly non-Presbyterian backgrounds, so neither of us saw the Lord’s Day worked out in our own childhood. Her background is Christian of the dispensational sort, and mine was not Christian at all. We have a passel of boys, all under four. My wife commented that the Lord’s Day therefore looks exactly like the other six days, except she has to prepare more meals, and do it in a dress, and sitting on an uncomfortable pew while pregnant. How would you encourage her to find rest in the day of rest? She’s loved the content your wife and daughters have written, so if you could coax one of them to talk about this, it would be well appreciated.


Ole, good question. This is one of the reasons why we have a sabbath meals on Saturday evening. Prepare the meal on Saturday, and sit down together when its hot. Sunday after church can be more of a hang out time, and if the boys are hungry, there are leftovers. Your wife can say to the hungry one, “Is your foot tied to the piano?”

Porn and Infidelity

I’m sure you’ve gotten this question before but I haven’t seen it come up since I’ve been following you (unless I’ve just missed it). Is porn use in a marriage the same as adultery? Let’s hypothetically assume that a husband has a chronic porn problem that just keeps getting worse and worse. He repents, seeks help, and then goes right back into it. Would this be grounds for divorce? I know where I’m leaning, but I’m curious to hear your thoughts.


MN, I do believe that at some point such porn use is grounds for divorce. It is adulterous in principle, but I believe the threshold is different. If a man has a one-night-stand with another woman, just one episode, that is grounds for divorce. I would be really hesitant to say the same thing about a porn episode. Jesus says that to lust after another woman is adultery, but I believe He is saying it is tantamount to adultery in the sight of God. I don’t it is actionable in the same way for us.

I’ll cut to the point—I’m recently married (11/13/22) and my husband has been asked to be a groomsman in 2 of his friends’ weddings. I have a problem with this due to the *potential immodesty of the bridesmaids dress he’d be paired with. My thought is—“you won’t let me out of the house in something like that so why is it ok for you to link arms and parade this half naked woman before a crowd?”

I think my question is—Should a married man agree to be a groomsman in a wedding where he’ll most likely be paired off with a single, immodestly dressed woman?

What counsel would you give to wife or husband in this situation?

We didn’t have a wedding party, we had a 2 month engagement, and we decided keeping it simple was best to honor the Lord. I had a simple modest dress.


Christy, I think the problem here is the hypothetical nature of it. If you know that things are going to be really skanky, then the question has to do with whether you should even attend. But if the immodesty is simply what the wise would call “unfortunate,” then I think you could go, and your husband could be a groomsman. No one in the world thinks that a couple in the bridal party must be somehow an item.

Circumcision Question

Question: Should Christians be circumcising their sons?

My wife is pregnant with our first son, praise the Lord. She is inclined to have him circumcised—I had never given it much thought. I was raised in a faithful Christian family but am myself uncircumcised. I have never asked my parents about this, and I probably should (Can’t wait for that mildly awkward subject!)

After delving into Scripture, I don’t think there is any Godly imperative for us to circumcise our sons in general. It seems that this sign of the old covenant was abolished as a necessary practice. I read an older article of yours discussing why Paul had Timothy circumcised, and that made sense—it was to aid his ministry to his Jewish brethren. I could see why Messianic Jews, for example, might still practice circumcision for that reason—but I see no similar reason for my gentile son.

Furthermore, I actually feel some antipathy to the idea—I will most certainly circumcise if God wants it of us, but I otherwise would prefer not to circumcise him.

Am I wrong in my thinking?



AD, when it comes to spiritual, covenantal reasons, you must not circumcise your son. As you say, he is a Gentile. But circumcision is a lawful custom among many Western Gentiles, and it is fully appropriate to practice that custom as a custom.

Relatively New Father

I was listening to the “Community–Why It Matters” episode of The Case for the Christian Family on Canon+ and you talk about singing to, and blessing your children at bedtime when they were growing up.

I am a relatively new father, I have a 15-month-old son named Deacon. I am trying to make it a priority to go above and beyond to lead him well to love what God loves and hate what God hates. My question is how? How do I do what you’re is talking about? The easy answer is obviously you just do it, but I don’t really know where to start.


Luke, sorry to respond with a list of book recommendations of my own books, but I wrote them for just this reason. I would start with Future Men, then move on to Standing on the Promises, and then on to Father Hunger.

First Table Violations

Thank you for your service, including helping me to think Biblically about things, I hear little teaching on from others (non-postmils).

I have a question about the state enforcing the first table of the Law. I have heard that some think the state shall only punish violations of second table commandments and Rom 13:8-10 got me further thinking in that direction—why does Paul quote commandments here and why only from the second table?

Are states to become theocracies much like Old Testament Israel (without the Ceremonial Law)?

A state being under the Lordship of Christ would not necessarily have to mean that it has to enforce both tables of the Law, if its authority is limited to the punishment of second table commandment violations only.

(Does the “enforcement” of the first table of the Law maybe belong to the sphere of the Church? What does it mean that the state does not “have the keys” of the kingdom?)

I hope you can help me with this.

God bless your ministry,

Many Greetings from Germany,


Jonas, I spend a good deal of time on this in Mere Christendom. I do believe that First Table violations need to be dealt with, but we always have to remember that states have historically been the principal offender of the First Table. And the power to punish blasphemy is also a power to blaspheme with impunity. We must never forget that the Lord Jesus was executed on a First Table charge.

Trans at the Next Level

How should we treat trans humans, when these unfortunate folks are eventually engineered? Will they still be made in the image of God? Should we engage in evangelism and mercy ministries? Or would that be like adopting a T-Rex and expecting it not to eat the family dog?


Jennifer, I expect it will be more like the latter. I also expect a monster controversy in the church over it. An NFL linebacker, who is 25% silverback gorilla, requests baptism. Is it true spiritual interest, or the nose of a gorilla under the tent? I also suspect that the controversy will flush out many Pelagian assumptions in the church. Right now my thought is that if I wouldn’t baptize one of the Nephilim, then I shouldn’t baptize one of these guys.

Nephilim, Eh?

In “Our Rainbow Rebellion: The Next Level,” your reading of Jude seems to contain some major errors. Jude doesn’t mention the Flood. In the verses immediately preceding the reference to Sodom and Gomorrha, he refers to the rebellion of the angels (v. 6) and, before that, God’s smiting of some of the unfaithful Israelites after the Exodus (v. 5). I don’t see any mention of Noah or the Great Flood. Also, your interpretation of “in like manner” seems to be different from that of the KJV. You cite the KJV, but in your quotation, there’s an added comma that isn’t there in any published version of the KJV that I can find. In the ones I consulted, v. 7 reads, “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication . . .” The “in like manner” seems here to mean the other cities of the plain in like manner to those two.

Of course, I do understand that commas are rendered by translators in order to, to the best of their ability, make the text read in English as faithfully as possible to their understanding of the original text. But, if you’re going to quote the KJV and at the same time render it differently than the translators did, I think it would be good for you to point out that that’s what you’re doing.

But all of that is sort of a minor quibble. My primary purpose in writing this was the first point—that Jude simply does not mention or refer to the Great Flood at all.


Ken, first the comma. When I quote Scripture like that, I use the copy clipboard of my Logos software. So I didn’t change anything. Second, although the Flood is not mentioned by name, in the Greek the phrase in like manner links the episodes as both being instances of going after strange flesh.

Good Questions All

If genitals do not determine sex Why do they have to be removed to change it?

Of the ~8.9 billion people alive on earth today 8.9 billion were born of a woman who was born that way.

Yet team empirical evidence has no interest in this.

Demonstrating yet again that these words of VanTil are spot on:

“The intellect is ethical.”

Butchers—we live in a form of 1930’s Germany


Murk, amen.

Two Forms of Common Law

Re: your commentary on Christian nationalism with Joel Webbon redux . . . I think we pro-Christian nationalists may be missing the core of our misgivings about American government. I suspect we are beginning to see the fruit, albeit rotten and malodorous, of the discontinuity of the common law once predicated on natural law equally predicated on Holy Writ (e.g, your King Alfred’s work, or Blackstone) and upon which we once casually rested, and the visible outworkings of a common law predicated upon the sociological law and utilitarianism of Bentham and Oliver Wendell Holmes. Although I am no legal scholar, I believe the Obergefell (sp?) decision was rendered in the milieu of law separated from its proper roots. We feel this when we see secular government make decisions that seem to render the “rule of law” to a trite and useless phrase. We don’t realize the other side uses this same phrase, but bases it upon the current earthly power structure making and/or breaking the rules. The law rules, but without those absolute principles indispensable to giving the law in question its objective validity. We chafe and we don’t quite know why, but it does drive those of us who make Christ our king to our knees and rightly asking for His rule and Maranatha. I just think this contrast needs to be further elucidated. Apparently, Bentham is given credit for allegedly “shredding” Blackstone, and the legal world has bent the knee to whatever’s left of Bentham’s dessicated corpse ever since. This could well be the insidious worm undercutting our Constitutional norms.


Chris, yes. I prefer to think of the other as a corruption of common law, but there are in fact two radically different approaches to common law now.,

Celebrate Dobbs

Hi there! I saw a video of you addressing the church at your Ascension Day party for overturning Roe last year. Thank you for being a brave and courageous soul and sharing!! The world is catching on, and this year we are all overjoyed to join the Celebration! In honor of the upcoming anniversary of the overturning of Roe, June is now LIFE MONTH!! If you are hosting a celebration, please let us know and we will feature it on our website with other events so that people can attend!! Check out the 90-second promo: https://youtu.be/ChDl2Fz5Qss

And the website: https://celebratelifemonth.com/


Gabrielle, thanks much.

Was That a Sin?

I have a situation where I’m trying to understand if I sinned against a friend. We both attend different churches but have known each other for a decade. He is a youth pastor and I’m a lay member respectively. Back in high school we both confessed to each other a battle with sexual sin and were losing that battle most of the time we knew each other (occasional stints of success but overall failing). I had a major blow up of my sin and deception with my church and through repentance and the grace of God have been walking free from porn and sexual sin for going on two years now. My friend still regularly has 2-3 months of success and then falls again. We had met several times and he was confessing sin to me and another brother in my church. Both of us had exhorted him to confess to people in his church, namely his pastor and to consider stepping down as a youth pastor (he is not an elder in their church despite the title pastor). After a couple meetings he was still not ready to open up to his pastor (not obstinate simply not convinced it was necessary). I told him after a couple meetings that if he wasn’t willing then at some point I’d feel obligated to tell his pastor myself. My reasons where for the sake of his soul and family, his local church and the youth that he was shepherding. He believes I had right desires and was seeking his best interest, but he disagrees with my method of blackmail. I wouldn’t have described it as blackmail but in some ways it was (I told him that I would tell others his secrets if he didn’t tell them himself). He argued that this was a slippery slope and outside of the Christian’s freedom and duty to exhort another Christian to repentance.

I’m curious your thoughts on this situation and if I was in sin or not. Furthermore if I was justified in warning him and in potentially following through in telling his elders his sin how do I demonstrate that from the Scriptures? (he has confessed to his elder and is seeking biblical accountability FYI)

Some Guy

Some Guy, I believe your action was responsible, biblical, and kind. And the burden of proof from Scripture is actually the other way. Where does it say in Scripture that a man has a right to privacy when it comes to hiding his sexual sin?

The post Letters Answered from Pittsburgh appeared first on Blog & Mablog.






Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: