#is it blasphemy to say i might prefer 14 to 10?

[cactiaintracist]

the difference 2000 years (and 3 face changes) makes

14 being readily susceptible to peer pressure:

wild blue yonder (60th anniversary)

meanwhile 10:

tooth and claw (series 2)

the Shakespeare code (series 3)

#is it 3 face changes or 4? #i forgot how to count #doctor who #60th anniversary #dw spoilers #the growth from 10 to 14 #took that man 2000 years to mature #donna peer pressuring him once again #they share one braincell your honour they must be excused #tooth and claw #10th doctor #the shakespeare code #rose tyler #wild blue yonder #martha jones #donna noble #14th doctor #14 is so pookie #is it blasphemy to say i might prefer 14 to 10? #parallels

[conscience-killer]

I was tagged by @prince-luffy who is a very good egg. Also I'm in a waffling mood so there may be waffling. I might also be drunk.

1. How many works do you have on AO3?

25. Eight years of writing. Twenty-fucking-five. That's pretty pathetic lol.

2. What’s your total word count?

112,442. Almost a novel. Probably. It's a lot of cocks either way.

3. What fandoms do you write for?

Always Sunny currently, Preacher and Gotham in the past.

4. Top 5 fics by kudos:

1 - The Bird and the Worm

2 - Checkmate

3 - From Despair to Where

4 - Nice Guys Finish Last

5 - Lost Souls Forever

All Gotham, although Figure It Out is almost catching up with LSF which makes me happy. There's quite a bit of of novice cringe in that list, so click at your own peril. I guess we all had to learn somewhere.

6. What’s the fic you wrote with the angstiest ending?

Where Did You Sleep Last Night? for sure. Honourable mentions to Comeback Kid and Time to Pretend, though.

7. What’s the fic you wrote with the happiest ending?

All His Suits Are Torn. :)

8. Do you get hate on fics?

Nah. Never written for a popular enough fandom.

9. Do you write smut?

Does the Pope shit in the woods?

10. Do you write crossovers?

Never fancied it. I've always preferred to stick as close to canon as I can. Alternate scenarios to episodes and scenes have always been my jam.

11. Have you ever had a fic stolen?

Not that I'm aware of. More gifs than I can count though, sigh.

12. Have you ever had a fic translated?

Again, not that I'm aware of. Years ago someone asked to translate Checkmate (I think?) to another language but I never saw anything of it. Maybe I didn't look hard enough.

13. Have you ever co-written a fic before?

I don't think I ever would have considered co-writing if I'd never met @constant-sinner. Our styles and kinks and preferences just gel so well.

Please check out our most recent collab: My God Is the Sun. We hadn't worked together since Evol in 2019 and it still just flowed so nicely. I do love me some shameless plugs.

14. What’s your all time favorite ship?

You can pry Cricksden from my cold, dead hands. A third of their fics on ao3 are mine and that pleases me greatly.

15. What’s a WIP you want to finish but doubt you will?

Father of All Motherfuckers was my only wip but it got shitcanned because I just didn't have the time (or the ideas, lol). Not If You Were the Last Junkie on Earth rose from its ashes and honestly I'm happy about that. I really enjoyed writing it. I have toyed with the idea of a set of confessional fics using some of its remnants too, but ehhh. Maybe.

16. What are your writing strengths?

As Raymond says, whimsical blasphemy.

17. What are your writing weaknesses?

I've never been a fan of dialogue. Some of my stories have masses of it which leads me to believe I was possessed by some sort of loquacious demonic entity at the time. Junkie had zero dialogue and that wasn't even a conscious decision, but goddamn it felt nice.

18. Thoughts on writing dialogue in another language?

If I could speak more than a few words of another language, sure.

19. First fandom you wrote for?

Gotham.

20. Favorite fic you’ve ever written?

Blasphemy (The Victimless Crime). It probably always will be. That fic helped me a lot and led to more fun than I could have ever envisioned. I owe it a motherfucking shitload.

tagging: @jessicorvus @bensonstablers and any other fic-writing mutual whose name may or may not have disappeared into my glass of Baileys. Salut.

#this was a lot of fun thanks for the tag! <3 #personal #ao3 #fort problematic #the bird and the worm #checkmate #from despair to where #nice guys finish last #lost souls forever #figure it out #where did you sleep last night #comeback kid #time to pretend #all his suits are torn #my god is the sun #evol #not if you were the last junkie on earth #blasphemy #*deep breath* #aaaaand we're done

[ragazza-paradiso]

my eurovision 2021 ranking (before rehearsals)

hey!! 🤍 i’ll try to keep this short & sweet (and bear in mind some of these are subject to change & depend on my mood) but this is my rough ranking of this year’s entries based solely on the studio cuts <3

dislike:

39. 🇩🇪 jendrik - i don’t feel hate: i knew this would be my last place since i first heard it. he seems like a nice guy but this type of music is just. not for me? in fact i don’t think i’ve ever even managed to make it all the way through since my first listen :/

38. 🇱🇻 samanta tina - the moon is rising: i love love LOVE samanta & think she is an absolute gem but this song & me simply do not go together. that being said i appreciate both her voice & the message

37. 🇵🇱 rafał - the ride: while this is slightly catchy & seems to be an ear worm for me, i cannot take this song seriously. rafał looks ridiculous in those sunglasses in the music video. the lyrics are awful too

neither like nor dislike:

36. 🇦🇱 anxhela peristeri - karma: this is very strange because usually i am the no. 1 fan of ethnic influenced ballads at eurovision, but i just do not get this one. i can definitely see the appeal but it’s not for me

35. 🇲🇰 vasil - here i stand: i think his voice is great however the song doesn’t do much for me. i find it quite forgettable & think he was definitely capable of giving us something better which is a shame

34. 🇫🇮 blind channel - dark side: i enjoyed this quite a bit when it first came out but it’s quickly slid down my ratings. the lyrics are too edgy for me & it’s a throwback to a genre of music that i don’t really enjoy anyway. but i can appreciate that it sticks out & does something different

33. 🇨🇿 benny cristo - omaga: i was a massive fan of kemama last year & while i liked this upon first listen, i have to say its far too generic to really stick out after a while. plus some of the lyrics are a bit creepy lol. having said that i think seeing him perform it live could definitely change my opinion

32. 🇸🇪 tusse - voices: another year, another generic well produced pop song from sweden. should we be surprised anymore? it’s okay, i don’t hate it, but i’m struggling to find anything i like about it. plus the lyrics are the most “eurovision cliche lyrics” i’ve ever heard

31. 🇬🇧 james newman - embers: okay while this is ranked relatively low, i have to say this is better than anything we’ve sent since 2017. it’s a nice song, i enjoy it when it’s on, but i don’t have an urge to play it, if that makes sense?

30. 🇲🇹 destiny - je me casse: i know this is probably blasphemy but i just do not understand the hype around this song. destiny has a great voice but i don’t see how this song sticks out in anyway that it’s the favourite to win? it’s another one that i won’t skip but i won’t seek out to listen to

29. 🇦🇹 vincent bueno - amen: i do enjoy this, but i wish it just had a bit more oomph. the lyrics for the verses are good but the chorus is just lacking something. i do think this could be a dark horse to qualify though

28. 🇸🇮 ana soklič - amen: i just realised the two amens are right next to each other on my ranking lol. anyway, this is only so high because of her amazing voice. the song doesn’t really do anything for me, but you have to appreciate that level of talent

27. 🇺🇦 go_a - shum: this is one i know i’ll appreciate more live, but i just can’t get into the studio version. plus i really liked solovey last year so this one seems worse in comparison

26. 🇲🇩 natalia gordienko - sugar: this is good but i think all “dream team” songs are a little bit dated nowadays. however saying that i love the music video & moldova always improve live

25. 🇵🇹 the black mamba - love is on my side: this has been a big grower. it’s not a favourite, but i think it definitely has its niche, and i can appreciate that

24. 🇳🇱 jeangu macrooy - birth of a new age: grow was in my top 5 last year, so it was always gonna be hard for jeangu to deliver something as good. this has grown on me, but i’m still not 100% on board

like:

23. 🇳🇴 tix - fallen angel: i didn’t like this at first because i was so heartbroken that keiino didn’t win the national selection, but i’ve gotten over it now lol. it’s cheesy but in a good way, i think this act doesn’t take itself too seriously either which makes it more enjoyable

22. 🇸🇲 senhit ft flo rida - adrenalina: it’s fun, catchy, even has a surprise verse from flo rida! probably san marino’s 3rd best entry ever (justice for complice & crisalide 💔)

21. 🇨🇾 elena tsagrinou - el diablo: it’s just a very good pop song. i’m not in love with it but it’s of a very good quality (well. apart from the lyrics). i’m sure the staging will improve it even more

20. 🇬🇷 stefania - super girl: greece is one of my biggest growers from last year, i think this is a MUCH better song than supergirl was. i’m really rooting for stefania

19. 🇪🇪 uku suviste - the lucky one: this has been such a big grower, it’s insane. i can recognise it’s not the best song but i just really like it for some reason.

18. 🇪🇸 blas cantó - voy a quedarme: i’m a sucker for native language ballads, and this is a pretty standard one, but it’s good to me. blas seems like a real sweetheart too, which helps :)

17. 🇨🇭 gjon’s tears - tout l’univers: this is another one of those songs that i really should love, and while i like it, i can’t really connect with it. gjon’s entry last year was my second favourite, and unfortunately this doesn’t scratch the same itch that did, it’s still a very good song & i completely understand why it’s one of the favourites to win

16. 🇧🇪 hooverphonic - the wrong place: i really don’t like hooverphonic as a band (actually it’s mostly alex callier that i dislike) but this is just a good song. i am still upset that luka didn’t get to go to eurovision though :/

15. 🇮🇪 lesley roy - maps: another massive grower! i much prefer this to her song last year. i really hope ireland can get their shit together & give this song the staging it deserves

14. 🇦🇿 efendi - mata hari: this is basically a carbon copy of cleopatra, and i guess i liked that so i like this. however i will say it has dropped in my ranking a bit. i’m ranking this solely on the song, efendi herself is a different matter & i’m not really educated enough on what’s happening in azerbaijan/armenia to comment but from what i’ve seen it’s not the best, let’s say

13. 🇱🇹 the roop - discoteque: i prefer on fire from last year, but this is definitely not a bad effort. i can’t see it as a contender for the win though. another one i will probably enjoy much more live

12. 🇷🇴 roxen - amnesia: i really like the message of this song. i just wish she would work on her english pronunciation, but that’s a minor complaint. but i really like roxen as an artist

love:

11. 🇷🇸 hurricane - loco loco: i love girl groups, and this is no exception. vocally they’re really good, i love that it’s in serbian, & i also just really love sanja vučić lol

10. 🇭🇷 albina - tick tock: i wish this was fully in croatian, but i think it’s a great song regardless. i loved her performance at dora so hopefully they’ll do something similar/even better at esc

9. 🇧🇬 victoria - growing up is getting old: i preferred tears getting sober from last year but this is still really good. the lyrics are some of my favourite of this year, they really resonate with me. victoria is a really interesting artist & i’m really glad she got introduced to me through esc

8. 🇮🇱 eden alene - set me free: the revamp has made this move like 20 places up in my ranking lol. she is so talented & i just hope they have a good staging concept!

7. 🇮🇸 daði og gagnamagnið - 10 years: think about things was good but i think this is even better! i love the retro influences & the lyrics are so sweet

6. 🇬🇪 tornike kipiani - you: i might be one of the only people who adores this song. the lyrics paint such a clear picture of a simple, strong love. and i think it’s quiet but powerful at the right moments. i know i will be heartbroken when this doesn’t qualify :(

5. 🇫🇷 barbara pravi - voilà: i played this too much & ruined it for myself, but i love it again now. very authentically french but without overdoing it (cough 2017 staging cough), just a beautiful song

4. 🇮🇹 måneskin - zitti e buoni: i’m not a massive rock fan, but a song like this i just vibe with. it’s just so good. italy is always either my no. 1 or in my top 5 since they returned (apart from 2012 & 2014) and they’ve done it again. this is definitely a contender to win

3. 🇦🇺 montaigne - technicolour: this song is eclectic but i love it. i didn’t like don’t break me, but this is so much better, and so much more authentic to montaigne as an artist. i know it’s divisive, but i’m on the side that loves it

2. 🇩🇰 fyr og flamme - øve os på hinanden: this is just so fun. i love the 80s vibe, the performance at the national selection was simple but still very engaging. this is one i will play for many years after the contest

1. 🇷🇺 manizha - russian woman: where do i even start. native language, ethnic influenced sound, important message, charismatic performer. this song is amazing. and i’m so glad i’ve found manizha to listen to!

so that’s it!! if anyone wants to chat about their thoughts please message me!! 🤍

#esc 2021

[therarefereldancatlord]

OC Interview Meme

Many thanks to @schoute for tagging me in this. I loved answering these questions as Eden. (And I'm going to try to do bold text and stuff with this post. I'm bad at the tumblr sometimes.)

1) What's your name?

Eden Mezzanine.

2) Do you know why you're named that?

*grin* Yeah, cause I picked it.

3) Are you single or taken?

Single. Very single.

4) Have any abilities or powers?

Well, I'm a witch, so... yeah. My primary gift lies with spirits--speaking to them, seeing them, calming them, anything to do with them. Any kind of spirit, too--of the dead, of the elements, any of it. You'd be surprised at what can lead to spirits.

5) Stop being a Mary Sue.

I'd hardly call myself a 'Mary Sue'. Fuck you, man. Rude.

6) What's your eye color?

Pale grey. I like to think they match an overcast sky.

7) How about your hair color?

Naturally, it's ash-blonde, and very curly. But I dye it fairly regularly. Most recently was strawberry-blonde. I might do something wild next, when it's all washed out.

8) Have any family members?

Like, blood family? Yeah, probably. Chosen family? ...not really. Though there's this one Mormon family that's kinda adopted me. I help them out with their resident poltergeist when he gets out-of-hand, and they always insist that I can come around whenever, but I don't like to bother them. Their kids are great, though.

9) Oh? What about any pets?

Sort of? I have some resident spirits in my house who like my plants and keep the peace there. Do they count?

10) That's cool, I guess. Now tell me something you don't like.

People who knowingly hurt or take advantage of others. You should know better. And be ashamed of yourself.

11) Do you have any activities/hobbies that you like to do?

Well, my job takes up most of my life. But I love going to the Market at Pike every morning to buy produce and supplies, and see the shineys and neat things the fae and other booth owners have to sell.

12) Have you hurt anyone in any way before?

We all have, at some point.

13) Ever...killed anyone before?

Not unless they were already dead. Or... well. I mean. My job takes me interesting places. And sometimes it toes the line of legality.

14) What kind of animal are you?

Hmm. That's an interesting one. Do you mean, like, a totem? Cause that's disrespectful to Native Americans. ...I guess, if I had to pick one... one of the North American wildcats. More aloof than their domestic cousins, alluring even if they don't want to be, and dangerous. Maybe a lynx or a bobcat.

15) Name your worst habits?

I stay up way too late and wake up too early. How I function on as little sleep as I get is a mystery. And I tend to keep people at a distance. There are people I trust, but I don't really let anyone in.

16) Do you look up to anyone at all?

Myself. I've been through Some Shit, lemme tell ya, and I've come out of it stronger and better than when I went in. And the Spook Squad--Seattle PD's Supernatural Provision. Whole bunch of mundies, the lot of them, but they're determined to do the right thing for the paranormal community within the confines of the law. That's hard to do.

17) Are you gay, straight, or bisexual?

I guess straight? I've only ever been attracted to male-identified/aligned individuals. I mean, I meet a lot of fae and elves, and some of them are pretty fluid, so if there were feelings, I wouldn't say 'no', it just... hasn't happened yet, you know?

18) Do you go to school?

Pffft. No.

19) Ever want to marry and have kids one day?

Heh. Yeah, no, not really. I'd have to let someone in enough to even *date*, first, which isn't bloody likely, so...

20) Do you have any fangirls/fanboys?

My repeat clients are pretty fond of me. And even my non-repeats. I got a good reputation around here, all from talk.

21) What are you most afraid of?

*cold stare* That. Is not. For you to know.

22) What do you usually wear?

Jeans, a shirt appropriate to the weather, maybe a jacket, and boots or Chucks. And my satchel, or course.

23) What one food tempts you?

Ohhhh, the cakes and ale at Tornincasa's, easily. Every time. Oh! And a good Caprese salad. So light and fresh. Mmmm.

24) Am I annoying you?

Not really, I mean, this *is* an interview, and I agreed to it, so... whatever.

25) Well, it's still not over!

Okay, then. What else you got?

26) What class are you (low, middle, high)?

Financially? Middle-ish, I guess. Middle-high?

27) How many friends do you have?

I don't really have "friends". More like "trusted associates".

28) What are your thoughts on pie?

It's a very versatile kind of dish. I love a good shepherd's pie, or hand pies, so I can eat on the go. Sweet pies are alright, in moderation. I usually do one slice to be polite if it's being offered, but they're not my go-to. It's hard to eat a whole one when you live alone.

29) Favorite drink?

The "ale" at Tornincasa's--it's actually a warmed, lightly sweetened milk. Also my teas and tinctures, and water. I'll occasionally do coffee. This *is* Seattle, after all--to not drink coffee is basically blasphemy.

30) What's your favorite place?

My home, and my psychic temple, which is where I go when I meditate.

31) Are you interested in anyone?

Not in any serious way. But... well... *leans forward and smirks conspiratorially* Have you ever seen Detective Stone, in the Spook Squad? He's pretty cute. I never mind talking with him. Even when he thinks I'm a suspect.

32) That was a stupid question...

Well, more of a teenage one, but hey, we were all stupid when we were teens.

33) Would you rather swim in a lake or the ocean?

The ocean, generally. Puget Sound is especially... well, it's something. I'm not sure I could explain. But it's magical, and soothing. Salt water is powerful stuff.

34) What's your type?

The law-and-order types, I guess. *laughs* Ironic.

35) Any fetishes?

I dunno, what counts as a fetish? Never mind, don't answer that.

36) Camping indoors or outdoors?

I've done both, and they both have their merits and downfalls. I'll do either, if I have to, but I prefer my own home and bed, hands-down.

...wait, no more? *That's* what you're gonna end this interview on? *Camping*? What kind of weird-ass interview was this?

[roman-catholic-mass-readings]

28th January >> Mass Readings (USA)

Monday, Second Week in Ordinary Time

    or

Saint Thomas Aquinas, Priest, Doctor.

Monday, Second Week in Ordinary Time

(Liturgical Colour: White)

First Reading

Hebrews 9:15, 24-28

Christ who offered once to take away the sins of many, will appear a second time to those who eagerly await him.

Christ is mediator of a new covenant: since a death has taken place for deliverance from transgressions under the first covenant, those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance.

For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by hands, a copy of the true one, but heaven itself, that he might now appear before God on our behalf. Not that he might offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters each year into the sanctuary with blood that is not his own; if that were so, he would have had to suffer repeatedly from the foundation of the world. But now once for all he has appeared at the end of the ages to take away sin by his sacrifice. Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment, so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him.

The Gospel of the Lord

R/ Thanks be to God.

Responsorial Psalm

Psalm 98:1, 2-3ab, 3cd-4, 5-6

R/ Sing to the Lord a new song, for he has done marvelous deeds.

Sing to the Lord a new song,

for he has done wondrous deeds;

His right hand has won victory for him,

his holy arm.

R/ Sing to the Lord a new song, for he has done marvelous deeds.

The Lord has made his salvation known:

in the sight of the nations he has revealed his justice.

He has remembered his kindness and his faithfulness

toward the house of Israel.

R/ Sing to the Lord a new song, for he has done marvelous deeds.

All the ends of the earth have seen

the salvation by our God.

Sing joyfully to the Lord, all you lands;

break into song; sing praise.

R/ Sing to the Lord a new song, for he has done marvelous deeds.

Sing praise to the Lord with the harp,

with the harp and melodious song.

With trumpets and the sound of the horn

sing joyfully before the King, the Lord.

R/ Sing to the Lord a new song, for he has done marvelous deeds.

Gospel Acclamation

cf.  2 Timothy 1:10

Alleluia, alleluia.

Our Savior Jesus Christ has destroyed death

and brought life to light through the Gospel.

Alleluia, alleluia.

Gospel

Mark 3:22-30

It is the end of Satan.

The scribes who had come from Jerusalem said of Jesus, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “By the prince of demons he drives out demons.”

Summoning them, he began to speak to them in parables, “How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand; that is the end of him. But no one can enter a strong man’s house to plunder his property unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can plunder his house. Amen, I say to you, all sins and all blasphemies that people utter will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin.” For they had said, “He has an unclean spirit.”

The Gospel of the Lord

R/ Praise to you Lord Jesus Christ.

———————-

Saint Thomas Aquinas, Priest, Doctor

(Liturgical Colour: White)

First Reading

Wisdom 7:7-10, 15-16

Beyond health and comeliness I loved her.

I prayed, and prudence was given me;

I pleaded, and the spirit of Wisdom came to me.

I preferred her to scepter and throne,

And deemed riches nothing in comparison with her,

nor did I liken any priceless gem to her;

Because all gold, in view of her, is a little sand,

and before her, silver is to be accounted mire.

Beyond health and comeliness I loved her,

And I chose to have her rather than the light,

because the splendor of her never yields to sleep.

Now God grant I speak suitably

and value these endowments at their worth:

For he is the guide of Wisdom

and the director of the wise.

For both we and our words are in his hand,

as well as all prudence and knowledge of crafts.

The Word of the Lord

R/ Thanks be to God.

Responsorial Psalm

Psalm 119:9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

R/ Lord, teach me your statutes.

How shall a young man be faultless in his way?

By keeping to your words.

R/ Lord, teach me your statutes.

With all my heart I seek you;

let me not stray from your commands.

R/ Lord, teach me your statutes.

Within my heart I treasure your promise,

that I may not sin against you.

R/ Lord, teach me your statutes.

Blessed are you, O Lord;

teach me your statutes.

R/ Lord, teach me your statutes.

With my lips I declare

all the ordinances of your mouth.

R/ Lord, teach me your statutes.

In the way of your decrees I rejoice,

as much as in all riches.

R/ Lord, teach me your statutes.

Gospel Acclamation

Matthew 23:9b, 10b

Alleluia, alleluia.

You have but one Father in heaven;

you have but one master, the Christ.

Alleluia, alleluia.

Gospel

Matthew 23:8-12

Do not be called (Rabbi,” you have but one teacher who is Christ.

Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples: “Do not be called ‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers. Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven. Do not be called ‘Master’; you have but one master, the Christ. The greatest among you must be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”

The Gospel of the Lord

R/ Praise to you Lord Jesus Christ.

[hamiltonstagedoor]

Hello! I was wondering what the difference between the "Philip Cast" and the "Angelica Cast"? I am seeing Hamilton in Denver (AHHH cannot wait!!!). Thank you!

This is also for the anon who messaged me about pretty much the same thing. (Sorry for taking so long to get back to both of you. I’m only just now seeing your ask!) 

Basics: They are two completely different casts currently touring the U.S. They go to different cities, so if you want to see a particular cast, be sure to check which cast is going to which locations before you buy your tickets. The Angelica Tour is the first national tour and the Philip Tour is the second. My Angelica Tour cast list has (finally) been updated, and maybe at some point I’ll get around to writing up the Philip Tour cast list, but those things take forever. (I have since completed it.) Whichever cast pops up when you click a certain location on the Hamilton website is the cast that will be performing there. 

Why are they named what they are? It’s common practice to name tours after characters or recognizable aspects in the show to easily differentiate them as separate casts. (Ex: Wicked’s Emerald City and Munchkinland Tours, Rent’s Angel and Benny Tours)

Is anything else different about them? Ensemble tracks might differ based on how that company was cast. This can be to accommodate the abilities of certain dancers or for a bunch of other reasons. (Ex: I know the Angelica Tour M3 and M4 tracks are swapped so M4 is George Eacker instead of M3 like the Broadway version. In Chicago, W3/thebullet does not do the Sally Hemings part as in New York)

Which is better? A common saying amongst some theatre fans is “The show is the show is the show.” Basically, if the show is amazing (which Hamilton is, obviously) then it will stand alone as an amazing show and story with strong characters regardless of who is playing them or what city you are seeing it in. While I ascribe to this, I also think it’s a bit naive to think every single actor portrays a character exactly the same. Furthermore, everyone has preferences when it comes to how a character is played. I personally don’t like overly comedic Burrs, but some think the opposite. I personally think the Chicago cast is collectively my favorite, but others think that’s absolute blasphemy and the Broadway cast will always be the best. (I want to make it clear that I said collectively. There are individual people I adore in every cast, but as a whole, Chicago takes the cake.) Therefore, this is such a subjective question that it’s literally impossible to answer. There are actors I love in all casts and actors I didn’t like so much, but that’s just me. My suggestion, see both and answer that question for yourself ;) (Or just go to the one closest to you and I’m sure you’ll have a great time regardless.) I know this was such a roundabout way to answer/not answer this, but I genuinely think it’s the only fair way do so. 

tl;dr: There are good and bad things about all casts. Go watch them to find out, but come on it’s Hamilton. You’ll love it either way.

What about the And Peggy Tour? Is it even a tour? I, along with the help of one of you lovely readers, answered this question in-depth HERE. If you’re looking for the cast list, you can find it HERE. Basically, yes it’s still considered a tour because that’s just how west coast productions are classified. As of right now, the And Peggy Tour will be in Puerto Rico until the end of January when it will head to San Francisco for a long sit-down. Right now, tickets are on sale through September 2019.

Below are the locations for each cast in chronological order of when performances begin:

Angelica Tour

Denver, CO - Playing through Apr 1, 2018

St. Louis, MO - April 3, 2018

Houston, TX - April 24, 2018

Atlanta, GA - May 22, 2018

Washington, DC - June 12, 2018

Boston, MA - September 18, 2018

Buffalo, NY - November 20, 2018

Hartford, CT - December 11, 2018

Pittsburgh, PA - January 1, 2019

Columbus, OH - January 29, 2019

Cincinnati, OH - February 19, 2019

Detroit, MI - March 12, 2019

Rochester, NY - April 23, 2019

East Lansing, MI - May 14, 2019

Louisville, KY - June 4, 2019

Baltimore, MD - June 25, 2019

Providence, RI - July 23, 2019

Schenectady, NY - August 13, 2019

Philadelphia, PA - August 27, 2019

Ft Meyers, FL - 2019-2020 Season

Jacksonville, FL - 2019-2020 Season

Miami, FL - 2019-2020 Season

Naples, FL - 2019-2020 Season

Norfolk, VA - 2019-2020 Season

Richmond, VA - 2019-2020 Season

St Louis, MO - 2019-2020 Season

West Palm Beach, FL - 2019-2020 Season

Philip Tour

Seattle, WA - Playing through March 18, 2018

Portland, OR - March 20, 2018

Salt Lake City, UT - April 11, 2018

Costa Mesa, CA - May 8, 2018

Las Vegas, NV - May 29, 2018

Des Moines, IA - June 27, 2018

Cleveland, OH - July 17, 2018

Minneapolis, MN - August 29, 2018

Charlotte, NC - October 10, 2018

Durham, NC - November 6, 2018

Greensville, SC - December 4, 2018

Fort Lauderdale, FL - December 18, 2018

Orlando, FL - January 22, 2019

Tampa, FL - February 12, 2019

New Orleans, LA - March 12, 2019

Dallas, TX - April 2, 2019

San Antonio, TX - May 7, 2019

Austin, TX - May 28, 2019

Kansas City, MO - June 18, 2019

Memphis, TN - July 9, 2019

Oklahoma City, OK - July 30, 2019

Tulsa, OK - August 20, 2019

Omaha, NE - September 10, 2019

Appleton, WI - 2019-2020 Season

Grand Rapids, MI - 2019-2020 Season

Indianapolis, IN - 2019-2020 Season

Madison, WI - 2019-2020 Season

Milwaukee, WI - 2019-2020 Season

Ottawa, Canada - 2019-2020 Season

Toronto, Canada - 2019-2020 Season

#finallyclean1315 #anon #askies #hamilton #alexander hamilton #hamilton an american musical #hamiltour #angelica tour #angelica tour cast #philip tour cast #cast

[vincentcheungteam]

APOLOGETICS IN CONVERSATION

INTRODUCTION

Our subject is apologetics. Specifically, I have in mind the intellectual vindication of the biblical worldview and the destruction of all non-biblical worldviews in the context of informal debates, such as in personal conversations.

Formal debates are regulated by elaborate rules, time limitations, and participants are often called upon to defend or refute previously announced propositions. These factors combine to construct a rather artificial environment for intellectual confrontations. In order to gain the advantage in such a situation, one must not only understand the intellectual merits of his position and the fallacies in his opponent's position, but he must know how to convincingly present his arguments within the restrictions imposed by the rules of formal debate. He must think and operate strategically.

Most people rarely if ever participate in formal debates. They are more likely to debate the intellectual merits of their beliefs in informal settings – at home, at work, with strangers on the plane, or with professors in the classroom. Of course, even in these situations, one must think and operate strategically – some moves are still better than others.

One difference is that the flow of the intellectual confrontation is no longer molded by the rules of formal debate. But it is also true that even informal debates are often restricted by time limitations, the willingness of the participants, and so forth. Some situations permit the conversation to last for only several minutes, in which case the believer must perform an immediate "take down" of the unbeliever's position, sum up the biblical worldview the best he can, and in general try to say enough for his hearer to ponder later.

Thus perhaps the informal debate in which every issue is thoroughly discussed remains a rarity or even an ideal. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for a private discussion on religion to last several hours, and sometimes to be carried on for even weeks or months. This allows the Christian to completely present and defend the biblical worldview, and to thoroughly examine and destroy the non-Christian's entire belief system.

Although the biblical approach to apologetics can easily function and triumph in both formal and informal debates, an informal setting presents the Christian with a delicious opportunity. A champion boxer might be able to knock down his opponent whether in a boxing ring or on the street. The difference is that nobody is "saved by the bell" in a street fight, thus giving our champion the opportunity to thoroughly bludgeon his opponent.

Likewise, although the biblical approach to apologetics can devastate the non-Christians in any setting, the restrictions of formal debates provide them with some measure of protection from our relentless attacks. Of course, in informal debates, our opponents can still abort the confrontation by fleeing our presence, but their pride often holds them captive, and this gives us the opportunity to make our victory obvious and complete.

In what follows, I will present a number of principles in biblical apologetics[1] that enhance our performance and effectiveness when defending the faith in informal settings. These often neglected principles sound simple, but they are the divine weapons that God has given to us to ensure our victory in spiritual and intellectual confrontations against unbelievers and blasphemers.

Since the proper understanding and application of these principles are possible only when one has as his intellectual foundation a biblical system of theology, a biblical perspective on philosophy, and a biblical approach to apologetics, I will be mainly addressing those who are already familiar with some of my previous works, especially my Systematic Theology, Ultimate Questions, and Presuppositional Confrontations,[2] and who are in essential agreement with what I have written.

This is of paramount importance because, when given time to operate, a biblical approach to apologetics will obliterate any unbiblical idea, theory, argument, or worldview. Thus, for example, if the Christian himself holds to an unbiblical view of epistemology, he will discover that the biblical arguments that he uses against the unbeliever's epistemology will also destroy his own unbiblical epistemology. This is just to say that an effective strategy against non-Christian beliefs will also destroy our own remaining non-Christian beliefs.

Paul sometimes employs warfare metaphors when he talks about our conflict with demonic forces and anti-biblical ideas, and so some parts of our discussion on apologetics will arise from them and refer to them. Because many people have become especially sensitive to warfare language in the context of religion, let me state at the outset that when I employ such language, I am speaking metaphorically. I refer to spiritual warfare – intellectual conflicts that are resolved by rational arguments and not by physical violence. Some people's preference might be for us to avoid warfare metaphors altogether, but since Scripture itself uses these metaphors, such a preference is itself a "pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:5), and therefore it is a preference that I refuse to accommodate.

There are those who assert that if a person is zealously committed to his religion, then he is by definition a dangerous fanatic, even like a terrorist. They say this without regard for what the religion actually teaches, and whether what it teaches is true. Some of them assume that all religions are false and dangerous in the first place, so that religious zeal is never productive, let alone rationally justified. This is an ignorant and irrational position, and again, it is one of those ideas that we can refute by biblical apologetics, and that we must demand non-Christians to defend.

As for me, I am not ashamed of Paul's warfare metaphors. I will make my meaning clear to prevent misunderstandings, but I will not apologize for giving Scripture's warfare language full expression, recognition, adaptation, and application in my writings. No, I am not ashamed of Paul, but I am ashamed of those professing Christians who shrink back from patterning their speech after God's word. Some people will still distort and criticize, but I refuse to be bullied into submission, and bullied into abandoning biblical expressions and thinking patterns.

Finally, the following principles are not to be taken as steps to be used in any rigid manner; rather, they represent attitudes and strategies that the Christian must keep in mind during debate, flexibly and fluidly blending them together in natural conversation as he confronts unbelievers and heretics with the wisdom and power of Christ.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 1 Since I believe that my approach to apologetics has been faithfully derived from the Bible, I will refer to "my approach" and the "biblical approach" interchangeably, just as I would call Christianity "my faith," "my religion," or "my worldview," and Christian theology "my theology." I would deny that my approach to apologetics is the result of my own philosophical speculation or reflection; instead, I assert that it is the same approach as the one taught in and implied by Scripture. 2 Also see Captive to Reason, Invincible Faith, Blasphemy and Mystery, The Light of Our Minds, and On Good and Evil.

1.  AFFIRM THE INEVITABLE

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things – and the things that are not – to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.

It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God – that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord." (1 Corinthians 1:18-31)

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2:14-16)

The Bible teaches that, in accordance with his own wisdom, God has determined that human wisdom would never discover the true nature of reality, the foundation of which is God himself. He has also determined to place the wisdom that leads to salvation beyond the reach of human speculation. By this, he intends to frustrate human wisdom, to destroy human pride, and to crush every human aspiration that exalts itself against the wisdom of God. All non-Christian systems of thought begin, proceed, and end in intellectual and practical failure. Thus God has made all non-Christian religions and philosophies foolish and futile.

Non-Christian worldviews are foolish because they are irrational. A rational way of thinking and knowing arrives at conclusions validly and necessarily deduced from true premises. But non-Christians have no way of knowing true premises, and neither do they reason by valid deductions; instead, they make themselves the ultimate reference point for knowledge, falsely supposing that they could discover the nature of reality through intuition, sensation, and induction. The alleged revelations in non-Christian religions are no different, since they are in fact human inventions.

Non-Christian worldviews are futile because, being foolish, they cannot discover the highest good; moreover, they fail to attain even their own designated ends. Those that promise social utopias end in poverty and oppression, those that preach nirvana result in failure and disappointment, if not insanity, and those that profess to seek God apart from the biblical revelation achieve nothing but ensure their followers a place in hell. Apart from biblical revelation, all human thinking and all human striving result in utter futility – in defeat, despair, and death.

If anyone were to discover truth and attain salvation, it must be by God's sovereign grace and effectual calling. In accordance with his own will, God often calls and saves those who are considered inferior by human standards, and he has chosen them in order to embarrass and frustrate those who rely on and judge by these human standards. He uses the "lowly things" and "despised things" to bring to nothing those who consider themselves something. Of course, even now we speak relatively, for God is the one who creates and orders all things. Whether we refer to the lowly things that he uses or the might things that he frustrates, God is the one who makes them and arranges them in their places, so that he might accomplish his plan and demonstrate his power, wisdom, justice, and grace.

All this is God's will and God's design. He does it so that no one may boast about himself, and that if anyone were to boast, he may boast only about what God has done in Christ. God's will is not only that man cannot attain salvation by his own sinful reasoning, but that he cannot attain even rationality and knowledge by his own power. The Bible does not contrast between the native human abilities of the Christians and the non-Christians; rather, it makes a contrast between man's abilities and God's abilities – between human power and divine power, the wisdom of man and the wisdom of God. When these are pitted again each other, there is no contest, "For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength."

If even "the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom," then if a person can obtain even a small portion of divine wisdom, he will be able to easily and utterly crush any debate opponent who operates on human wisdom. This is the basis for victory in biblical apologetics. God has revealed a portion of his divine wisdom in Scripture, and those whom he has summoned to himself by the gospel are granted to learn and affirm its teachings. Thus they share God's perspective; they share a portion of God's knowledge; they know something about God's way of thinking, and they begin to pattern their thoughts after him. In short, they have "the mind of Christ."

It follows that as long as we depend on God's wisdom, as long as we adhere to the biblical worldview as revealed in Scripture – that is, as long as we follow the mind of Christ and not revert to our former way of thinking – we will be able to easily and utterly crush any non-Christian in debate. Just as no non-Christian can defeat the mind of Christ, no non-Christian can defeat anyone who follows the mind of Christ in all that he thinks and believes.

The only reason a Christian would appear to lose when debating a non-Christian is that the Christian has failed to stay close to God's way of thinking, but he has in some way reverted to the non-Christian way, so that he attempts to use non-Christian wisdom to defend the Christian worldview. Because non-Christian thinking is so irrational and conflicting, amidst the confusion the Christian might often appear to succeed even if he fails to use biblical arguments, but this is not how a Christian should win any debate. In any case, clear and decisive victory is ours when we arrange the debate to pit human wisdom against divine wisdom.

I say all of this to get across one of the most important principles in biblical apologetics – namely, if you learn and apply the biblical approach to apologetics, you will be able to decisively crush any non-Christian in debate. You will be able to completely bewilder and embarrass any unbeliever.

Of course, there are basic and advanced principles when it comes to biblical apologetics, but as long as one possesses the minimal mental capacity to learn several simple maneuvers that serve to apply biblical knowledge and sound reasoning to an intellectual discussion, even a toddler who has learned biblical apologetics can demolish a professor of science or philosophy in a matter of seconds.

The gaps in education and experience would make only a superficial difference. What matters would be the toddler's ability to clearly confront the professor's human wisdom with the Bible's divine wisdom. As David said to Goliath, "You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the LORD Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied" (1 Samuel 17:45). Goliath's human strength was irrelevant, because David was going up against him with divine power. Likewise, an old educated moron is still a moron, and all he has more of is pride, not wisdom. In contrast, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding" (Psalm 111:10).

Some of you might not understand why I say that this is one of the most important principles in biblical apologetics. Since it is a biblical teaching, you might agree that it is true, and perhaps think that it is good to know, but you cannot imagine how it would help you become a more effective apologist. Nevertheless, not only is this one of the most important principles in biblical apologetics, but for some people, and especially those who have already learned the basics of biblical apologetics, it is the missing factor in their quest to becoming invincible defenders of the faith.

For many Christians, the number one hindrance in apologetics is their respect for or even fear of non-Christian minds and ideas. These Christians have been told, often by the non- Christians themselves, that the non-Christians are the intellectual elite of this world. Even Christian ministers often tell their congregations that non-Christians are highly intelligent, and that many of their ideas are deep and brilliant. So when the typical Christian comes up against a non-Christian in debate, he often assumes that although the non-Christian is ultimately wrong, this opponent will still present numerous intelligent questions and difficult objections against the Christian faith, and that even if he manages to overcome the non-Christian's intellectual assault, there will be a hard struggle, and the result will not be clear and decisive.

This false belief about the non-Christian's intelligence produces a strong mental block in many aspiring apologists. Christians often ask me how to answer certain questions and objections from unbelievers. Sometimes I can understand why they do not know how to answer, as when these have to do with Christian doctrines that not all believers have studied.[3] However, more often than not it would seem that the Christians should be able to easily answer them without asking me, especially those who have already learned the basics of biblical apologetics. Many are hindered because they falsely assume that the questions and objections from the non-Christians must be more intelligent than they seem, and thus must be more difficult to answer than they appear.

I despise all non-Christian worldviews, philosophies, and religions. All non-Christian ideas are detestable to me. Certainly, this is but an elementary identification with the mind of Christ and the wrath of God against all non-Christian thought; nevertheless, its power is such that my mind is liberated to perceive the utter stupidity and futility of the non-Christians, and the fallacies and vulnerabilities in their thinking. However, most Christians do not possess this low estimation of non-Christian intelligence. For this reason, they remain blind to the true strength of the biblical worldview, and blind to the roll-on-the- floor, sidesplittingly laughable lunacy of all non-Christian thinking. In fact, even to Christian apologists, this is perhaps one of the most repulsive aspects of my teachings on apologetics, but this is why they will never unleash the full power of biblical apologetics to destroy our opponents, and this is why their answers to non-Christians are feeble, indecisive, and compromising.

In 2 Kings 6, we read that the king of Aram had sent his army to capture Elisha. When the horses and chariots surrounded the prophet and his servant, the servant panicked and asked, "Oh, my lord, what shall we do?" Elisha told him, "Those who are with us are more than those who are with them," and then he prayed, "O LORD, open his eyes so he may see." "Then the LORD opened the servant's eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha" (see v. 11-17). Likewise, divine wisdom and power are on our side, but we need to pray for spiritual sight, so that we may perceive the wisdom of God as well as the folly of the heathens.

Again, even Christian ministers who are otherwise sound in doctrine extol the wisdom of unbelieving men, but this is unbiblical, unproductive, and unnecessary. Rather, the Bible teaches that all non-Christians are foolish and futile, stupid and sinful. At best, their ideas are wise only according to human standards; that is, they appear to be wise only when they approve themselves, and when they judge themselves by their own stupid and sinful standards. But from God's perspective – that is, from the objective, realistic, and biblical perspective – all unbelieving thoughts are irrational and rebellious. Let Christian ministers, then, speak in agreement with Scripture, instead of sending mixed messages to our people that undermine their confidence and obscure their spiritual vision.

Of course, I am not suggesting that we should underestimate our opponents, but we must not avoid underestimating them by overestimating them. We must not affirm false assumptions about them, but we ought to evaluate our opponents in the light of biblical wisdom: "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:22). In other words, they think they are smart, but they are stupid. Non-Christians are extremely stupid people. Every professing Christian who refuses to accept and apply this truth should tear out this page from his Bible, or better yet, abandon apologetics altogether. Leave it to those of us who really mean it to contend for the faith.

We avoid becoming careless in debate by meticulously listening to the arguments from our opponents, scrutinizing every word, every proposition, the relationship between every word and every proposition, every inference and every implication. We avoid underestimating our opponents by committing ourselves to use overwhelming intellectual force in dismantling every aspect of their worldviews, philosophies, and religions. We are satisfied with nothing less than the total intellectual annihilation of all aspects of their systems of thought. And we can do this because even the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and by God's word and God's Spirit, we indeed have the very mind of Christ. On the other hand, some believers expect such high competence from their opponents that they blind themselves to the glaring errors that pervade all anti-biblical arguments.

On the basis that God has rendered all non-Christians stupid and feeble, that divine wisdom is infinitely greater than human wisdom, and that I have received the mind of Christ through God's Spirit and God's Scripture, I engage every question, objection, or argument with the certain knowledge that there is no non-Christian in all the world who can defeat me or even give me a little trouble in debate. It does not matter whether he is an atheist or a Buddhist, a Muslim or a Mormon, a scientist or a philosopher. As long as his worldview is not identical to that of the Bible, there is no chance that he can defeat me. In fact, if all the non- Christians in the entire history of humankind were to band together against me, it would not make one bit of difference. If they cannot defeat God, they cannot defeat me. On the other hand, given the needed conditions – for example, that there is a sufficient amount of time and that both sides are willing and able to complete the debate – I will seize total and decisive victory every time.

We can also consider this principle from the perspective of faith or unbelief. If you are a Christian, then you ought to believe the Bible. If you believe the Bible, then you ought to believe that divine wisdom is greater than human wisdom, and that God has granted you some of his wisdom, that he has allowed you to see things from his perspective, and that he has revealed to you some of his thoughts, so that you have the mind of Christ. If you have the mind of Christ, if you think in line with divine wisdom, then provided that you do not deviate from this way of thinking, no non-Christian can defeat you in debate; instead, you will be able to see through and refute any non-Christian argument and position.

You can either allow unbelief to hinder you, or unleash divine wisdom to devastate your opponents by faith. You can say with the unbelieving Israelites, "We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them" (Numbers 13:33). Or, on the basis that God has made all non-Christians stupid and feeble, you can say with Joshua and Caleb, "Only do not rebel against the LORD. And do not be afraid of the people of the land, because we will swallow them up. Their protection is gone, but the LORD is with us. Do not be afraid of them" (14:9).

I know that I will win every time because my approach to apologetics depends wholly on biblical revelation. This confidence is not based on any unique intellectual endowment that I think I possess, but it is based on the superiority of God's wisdom as revealed in Scripture, which is available to, and in principle affirmed by, every Christian. Therefore, if you learn to depend wholly on biblical wisdom as you defend the faith, you will also win every time. If you have been paying attention, and if you are receptive to the words of Scripture that I have communicated to you, then you are likely sensing a new confidence arising in your heart. This is not a confidence in yourself, but it is a legitimate and rational confidence in the greatness and superiority of God's wisdom.

We do not claim to be intellectually superior to the non-Christians in ourselves; rather, we freely admit that, by human standards, many of us were intellectually inferior to the unbelievers before our conversion, and when judged by God's standards, we were fools just like all the non-Christians. However, since then, God has sovereignly regenerated and enlightened us, and by imparting to us the very mind of Christ, he has made us intellectually superior to all non-Christians. Therefore, "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 3 This is why although what we are now discussing is just one of the most important principles in biblical apologetics, the single most important thing that you can do to become a better apologist is to study systematic theology.

2. ATTACK THE ENEMY

For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)

Some of our opponents are outwardly hostile. They mock us, insult us, and call us names.[4] They regard us as fools, fanatics, and the scum of the earth, and they are not afraid to tell us this. Others appear more normal, and they will talk to you about religion seemingly with the same attention and respect that they will show when speaking about serious matters with non-Christians. Then, some appear so polite that they sound patronizing and obnoxious.

As long as they are all non-Christians, these are all superficial differences. Many Christians wish to consider their religious discussions with non-Christians as friendly dialogues between fellow human beings who are both interested in discovering truth through rational investigation. This is unbiblical and unrealistic. Indeed, many unbelievers put on a sincere and courteous front, but God looks at the thoughts and intentions of men, and not just their appearance and demeanor.

You might protest that, unlike God, we cannot directly perceive people's hearts; however, it does not follow that we must therefore judge people according to their appearance. In another context, Jesus said, "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment" (John 7:24). It is true that we cannot directly perceive people's hearts, but we do not need to, because the Bible tells us what is in their hearts. It tells us what God perceives when he looks pass their appearance. When God looks at them, he does not see a group of civilized and educated gentlemen, but he sees a generation of vipers, lewd beasts, stubborn mules, and vicious dogs. He sees a group of God-haters, idolaters, and morons.

All men and women are born sinful and rebellious, and because all non-Christians have never been converted by God, they remain sinful and rebellious, no matter how sincere and courteous they try to appear. As Christians, we are indeed intellectually and morally superior, but we are superior only because God has changed us and made us superior by his sovereign grace, and not by our own will or work. We admit that we were just as stupid and evil as our non-Christian opponents, but this does not change the fact that they are indeed stupid and evil, that their friendly appearance is superficial and hypocritical, and that their gentle speech is insincere and dishonest.

When a non-Christian claims to seek understanding about our faith, or even when he claims to seek salvation through Christ, and even if God would eventually regenerate and convert him, as long as he is still an unbeliever and unregenerate at that moment, then at that moment he is still inwardly insincere and spiritually hostile. As John Gerstner writes in his Theology in Dialogue:

C: No. God makes no promises to his unregenerate enemies.

I: You are a hard master.

C: I admit that these things are very stern, but I do remind you that a sinner is an enemy of God. He has declared war on God. You are such a sinner and you are at war with God.

I: Even though I am seeking God?

C: Yes, I cannot remind you too often that you are not truly seeking Him…. This is where Paul's use of that language in Romans 3 comes in. He says there that none seeks after God. What he means is that no one in his natural fallen state sincerely seeks after God. There are some in the fallen state who, shall I say, insincerely seek after God, as you are doing now….[5]

I: What makes you say that the Bible says I do not mean what I say? Where does the Bible say that I do not want to come to Christ?

C: Christ says Himself, in John 3:19, "This is the condemnation, that light has come into the world and men love the darkness rather than the light." In other words, Christ says that unconverted persons do not come to Him who is the light of the world. They do not want to come to Him because they love the darkness and He is the light. According to your own confession, you are still an unconverted person. That means you are a lover of darkness, not of light. Consequently, you cannot sincerely want to come to Christ.[6]

In other words, because an unbeliever is still inwardly rebellious toward God, even when he appears to sincerely inquire about your faith, there is always an evil ulterior motive. Of course, if God has chosen him for salvation, then it may be that God has ordained the occasion to convert him. His conversion would then still be a result of God's sovereign grace, on the occasion of his inquiry, and in spite of his evil motive. The non-Christian himself might be deceived, and thinks that he is asking honest questions out of a sincere motive to understand; however, as long as he remains unconverted, he is inquiring out of pride, rebellion, and selfishness, and he remains an enemy and a hater of God.

This does not mean you should become outwardly hostile to non-Christians, but you ought to consider our intellectual engagement with them as a spiritual war. If you pay attention to only the superficial signs, and if you are looking for only physical indications of antagonism, then indeed our debates and discussions with non-Christians often do not appear overly hostile. However, the absence of physical violence does not indicate the absence of hostility because we are talking about a spiritual war, and the spiritual hostility between Christians and non-Christians. When we notice the differences in thoughts and motives, ideas and beliefs, then we perceive that our intellectual engagement with unbelievers is a war between good and evil, between wisdom and folly, and between God and Satan.

Christians too often address non-Christians on the basis of their common humanity, and it seems to them that the engagement is just a friendly dialogue between peers about the important issues of life. In fact, many of their evangelistic and apologetic efforts are so man-centered that it is as if they are standing with the unbelievers on one side, while God is on the other side. However, as Christians, we must address non-Christians on the basis of what we have in common with God and with other Christians, and on the basis of our differences and disagreements with non-Christians. Jesus said that whoever is not with him is against him; therefore, if you are on the side of Christ, all non-Christians are on the other side in opposition against you and your Lord. As Paul writes:

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you." (2 Corinthians 6:14-17)

Although we can have friendly relationships with non-Christians on the superficial level, Scripture insists that we are at war with them on the spiritual level. Thus when you speak to an unbeliever about your faith, do not regard it as an instance of two human beings joining together to seek truth. You already have the truth – you are explaining and defending it, while the non-Christian is resisting it, challenging it, and blaspheming it.

Whether he uses a friendly or hostile demeanor is of only superficial importance. As long as he is a non-Christian, he is defying your God, and it is not up to you to be indifferent or dispassionate about it; rather, you must place your jealousy for God's honor far above your concern and sympathy for the unbeliever. Man-centered empathy is to be discarded altogether. God sees the situation as war; therefore, you must also see it as war. Failing to see our situation as God sees it is to defy God, and to stifle apologetics.

In connection with this, it is unbiblical for Christians to sharply distinguish people with their beliefs and actions. It is indeed convenient to say, "I am not against you, I am against only your beliefs and actions," but this is an excuse that pays lip service to biblical teachings about the comprehensive conflict between Christians and non-Christians, and at the same time operate as if there is no conflict, so as to avoid offense and confrontation. Blasphemies and heresies do not invade people's mind by themselves – people embrace and spread them. Likewise, sins do not happen by themselves – people sin, and they sin because they are evil. Accordingly, the enemies of God are not just the unbiblical beliefs and actions, but the people who embrace these beliefs and perform these actions, and God is going to send both the unbelieving beliefs and the unbelieving people to hell.

Scripture indeed teaches that we do not war after "flesh and blood," and some take this to mean that the war has nothing to do with people altogether, but that it has to do with only their beliefs and actions, and perhaps also with demonic powers. However, this is contrary to biblical teaching, because even at the very beginning, God said that the conflict would be against the serpent's "offspring" (Genesis 3:15) – that is, not just the devil, but also the followers of the devil.

That we do not war after "flesh and blood" means only that our conflict is not physical, so that we do not employ physical strategies and weapons, and we do not seek to inflict physical injuries to our opponents. Rather, since the war is spiritual, our weapons are also spiritual, and instead of using guns and bombs, we pray, we preach, and we argue. In any case, Scripture recognizes that our opponents include people, and not just beliefs and actions, or even evil spirits, only that our conflict with these people cannot and should not be settled by physical violence, but instead by spiritual power and rational persuasion.

Since we are warring against non-Christians, and not just dialoguing with them, then just as fighting any war consists of both defense and offense, we must learn to perform both intellectual defense and offense in apologetics. Some Christians act as if apologetics is mainly or even solely about defense, about answering questions and neutralizing objections. Of course we must skillfully respond to questions and objections, but in a war, defense is only part of the fight.

As mentioned, as long as the non-Christian remains unconverted, he is not a sincere seeker. He never asks humble and honest questions; he does not want to understand and believe. Instead, with his whole heart he wants to defy God and justify himself. He speaks to you out of a strong but unjustified intellectual pride. He thinks that he is smart and rational, and that you are stupid and irrational. Since this is what he thinks, he will not approach you sincerely thinking that if you can answer several questions that still perplex him, then he will surely believe. He does not sincerely think that you could be right, and that Christianity could be true to the exclusion of all other worldviews, philosophies, and religions.

Therefore, he will not accept defeat just because you are able to answer several of his questions and objections. In his thinking, you cannot possibly be right, and so he will keep on asking one question after another, and raising one objection after another. It does not mean that any of these questions and objections are rational or forceful, but this is irrelevant – he will continue to inquire and to challenge, even if each question or objection differs only on minor details. And the non-Christian will often continue to pose questions and objections that have already been addressed by more general statements that logically cover them all. But unbelievers are unintelligent and dishonest, and so they will keep on asking in the attempt to postpone admission of defeat.

Of course, this is not to say that the non-Christian cannot be defeated – any unbeliever can be easily, totally, and decisively defeated. But I am pointing out that, without the sovereign work of God in his heart, no unconverted person is sincerely prepared to accept the Christian faith. All of his questions and objections are insincere – they are just means of attack, not sincere questions and objections that pose as true hindrances to faith. Is the non- Christian really so concerned about the problem of evil so that he would come to faith if you give him a rational answer? Would the unbeliever really believe in Christ just because you argue for biblical infallibility in a way that he cannot rationally object? No, his questions and objections are just smoke screens. He will not accept your faith even if you answer all of his initial questions and objections – he will invent more. The unbeliever rejects the gospel because he is stupid and sinful, but at the same time insists that he is smart and moral.

Biblical apologetics indeed entails answering questions and objections to show that the Christian faith can provide a true and coherent response to any rational challenge; however, you must not just sit there and wait for the next question or objection. The unbeliever's stupidity and sinfulness cause him to think certain ways and to believe certain things, and as long as he finds safe harbor in his own way of thinking, he will continue to stubbornly invent silly questions and objections against the Christian faith. Therefore, in addition to defending your own biblical beliefs, you must launch a comprehensive, meticulous, and devastating attack against your opponent. You must initiate and maintain an offensive that destroys the non-Christian's very way of thinking, and either explicitly or implicitly destroy all of his unbiblical ideas.

For example, your opponent may boast that he believes in science, and claim that science contradicts Christianity, and therefore Christianity must be false. He might offer you an example of how the study of biology seems to contradict certain biblical teachings. Some Christians, if they know something about science, will either challenge the scientific assertion, or explain how it can be reconciled with biblical teachings. In addition to the fact that this might not be true (the current scientific conclusion might in fact contradict Scripture), the non-Christian will move on to another objection from biology, or to an objection from physics, and then chemistry, and then psychology, and so on. Again, it is not that there is any force to these questions or objections, but the person who does not wish to admit defeat can always invent something to ask, no matter how stupid or dishonest.

Instead of enduring the non-Christian's endless questions and objections, you must attack his way of thinking, and the foundation of all his questions and objections. Since his intellectual pride lacks rational justification in the first place, unless God converts him, this pride will remain no matter what you do; however, you can expose the fact that his sense of intellectual superiority is irrational and unjustified. Indeed, you may respond to each of his scientific objections, but with each response, you must also follow an overall offensive strategy that undermines his claim to rationality. You must attack the rationality and the formulation of each of his scientific objections. You must challenge his reliance on science and the rationality of science itself – as we have shown in many places, science itself is irrational and can never discover anything about anything.[7] You must question his very intelligence, and demonstrate that, like all non-Christians, he is a stupid person who cannot even handle the simplest ideas.

This is the biblical way. You must actively and endlessly attack everything about your opponent's thinking. You must demolish every argument and capture every thought. You must attack his beliefs more strongly and skillfully than he attacks yours. You must humiliate him, and expose the illusion that his pride is justified. Because this is what biblical apologetics demands, it follows that you must develop and perfect your "take down" technique in debate.

To begin, we should recall our discussion from the previous chapter, that because God has rendered all non-Christians foolish and futile, we can always defeat them in argumentation when we affirm a biblical system of theology and apply the principles of biblical apologetics. A specific application of this means that we can always defeat any question or objection raised against the Christian faith, and more than that, we can destroy every idea within our opponent's system of thought. Indeed, our task is to demolish every argument and capture every thought that defies what God has revealed in Scripture.

On this biblical basis, our broad offensive strategy is to attack everything in our opponent's worldview, everything he says, and everything he implies. We should turn every question into an opportunity to undermine his intellectual pride, and use every objection as a springboard to destroy his sense of intellectual superiority.

Those who attempt to learn my method of apologetics often fail to grasp or apply this principle. Perhaps they consider it an exaggeration, or perhaps they do not realize what "everything" entails, so I want to make this clear. When I say to attack everything, I mean everything, and everything about everything that has to do with anything in the opponent's system of thought. When I say "everything," I am referring to every word, every definition of every word, every implication of every word, every proposition, every connection between every proposition, every assumption, every speculation, every inference, every question, every objection, every contradiction – everything.

This is not a strategy to avoid answering our opponents, nor is it an attempt to impede the progress of debate. We do answer our opponents, and we do facilitate progress in debate, but this principle of attack necessarily arises from our own worldview. That is, it is an inherent part of the Christian worldview to believe that all non-Christians begin from false first principles, and then by defective processes of reasoning, they have constructed their irrational worldviews. This irrationality pervades even the smallest and most insignificant aspects of their belief systems, so that we indeed believe that every detail in their worldviews is subject to challenge and refutation.

Since non-Christians appear unaware of this and would refuse to admit it, and since they believe that they are in fact the ones who are rationally and intellectually superior, it follows that in the process of destroying their pride and delusion, we should expose their pervasive irrationality, and demonstrate that they are intellectually inferior. In addition, since the non- Christians often accuse us of being irrational, surely they are not permitted to resist when we hold them to a standard of strict rationality and sound logic.

Rather than impeding progress, this approach uncovers problems as they occur, and thus it prevents false progress that might collapse later on in the conversation. Any irrationality – any false definition, unstated premise, unjustified assumption, invalid inference – left unnoticed or unchallenged in the course of debate might arise later to cause problems and confusions, and all the while the non-Christian unjustifiably retains his intellectual pride and sense of superiority. Most non-Christians have never been challenged – really challenged – about their most basic beliefs and assumptions, and they walk away from each debate thinking that, even if they have failed to refute the Christian faith, at least their own beliefs are intact.[8]

The basic skill required to apply the above principle is the ability to reconstruct and examine arguments. In other words, you must mentally rearrange everything that your opponent says into a syllogism and then examine it. Since people seldom speak in complete syllogisms, there will often be missing premises in the reconstructed syllogism. This in itself does not indicate a logical fallacy, but you ought to discover these missing premises, and then examine them.

You examine a syllogism by asking relevant questions about it: What does each word in this syllogism mean? Is each word used consistently throughout, or does it commit the fallacy of equivocation? Are there any missing premises? What are they? Where do they come from? Are these missing premises true and defensible? How does my opponent know that these premises are true? How does he infer from these premises to the conclusion? Is the inference logically valid and necessary? Does this argument commit any informal fallacies?

You might think that such a tedious procedure applies only to the major points that the opponent makes, to be performed only several times in each debate. But I insist that you must seize every opportunity – strive to take advantage of as many as humanly possible – to expose the non-Christian's foolishness, showing that he is completely unintelligent, irrational, and incompetent. Most beginning apologists know about syllogisms and fallacies, but even seasoned apologists do not subject everything that non-Christians say to such a meticulous logical analysis. When you do this, you will notice that everything that the unbeliever says is indeed mindless rubbish.

Our contention is not only that the unbelievers affirm irrational conclusions, but that he is pervasively irrational. He is irrational at every point in his thinking, not only at the major points, and you must bring this out to demonstrate his pervasive irrationality. Besides, it is often the seemingly minor points that lead to the major ones, and if you will challenge him on the minor points, he will never get the chance to build up to the major ones in the first place, that is, unless you allow him to continue for the sake of argument.

The more skilled that you become in reconstructing and examining arguments, the more natural, accurate, and thorough you will become in performing the analysis. At first, your mind might not be quick enough to capture all of your opponent's statements and arguments, but when this way of thinking becomes an intellectual reflex or habit, you will be able to reconstruct and examine everything uttered during the course of a debate or discussion as it happens.

This is how we should always operate when discussing and defending the Christian faith. Every statement is immediately and instinctively rearranged into syllogistic form, and all the words, definitions, premises, assumptions, and inferences are examined. And this also applies to how we speak and write, so that we are always aware of our premises, inferences, and conclusions. Of course, it is impossible to always state all our premises or make all our inferences explicit, but we must be aware of them, and we ought to know how to defend them if called upon to do so.

Logical thinking – and in this context, we are especially referring to constant and proficient syllogistic thinking – is invaluable to both defense and offense in apologetics. Although we may not have achieved perfect rationality, to the extent that we have patterned our thinking after God's perfect rationality, our thinking is precise and correct, and even our imperfect reflection of God's perfect rationality makes us invincible in debate, because even the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man. The Bible itself uses syllogistic thinking in many places. This is because the syllogism is God's idea. Whether we are doing it explicitly or implicitly, when we think syllogistically using premises supplied by biblical propositions, we have the mind of Christ.

When you learn to think this way – syllogistically and rationally – you will notice that the non-Christians are extremely incompetent in formulating their questions and objections, and that in every instance, they do not really know what they are asking at all. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that none of their statements can be logically understood.

Let me give you an example. One of the most popular objections against the Christian faith is the so-called "problem of evil." The non-Christian might say, "If God is all-powerful and all-loving, then why is there so much evil in this world?" Most Christians assume that the objection is intelligible, that they know what the unbeliever means by this, and that the unbeliever means by it what they think he means by it, and then they proceed to answer the objection. But do we really know what the non-Christian means? Does he know what he means?

As it stands, this is not even an objection, but a question. Yes, the objection is implied, but what is it? For something to be an objection against the Christian faith, it must be an argument reducible to a syllogism with a conclusion that contradicts the Christian faith. That is, it must contain true premises and necessarily lead to a conclusion like, "Therefore, the Christian religion is false," or "Therefore, the Christian God does not exist." In this case, what exactly is the objection? What are these true premises? What is the precise process of reasoning that necessarily leads to the conclusion that the Christian faith is false or that God does not exist?

You should not assume the answers to these questions as if the non-Christian has stated them. Instead of guessing what he means, and instead of doing the work for him, make him do his own work. Demand that he makes his argument explicit and complete, asking him the relevant questions every step of the way. As with every objection that non-Christians make, when you perform this analysis and challenge, you will find that the problem of evil cannot be logically formulated. And if it cannot be logically formulated, then there is no objection for you to answer.

We are not avoiding the objection, because the non-Christian cannot rationally insist that there is an objection in the first place, when he himself does not know what he is asking, and when we have no rational way of understanding the challenge. The non-Christian boasts so much about his rationality, so he has no right to whine when rational analysis crushes his objection.

Still, the Bible does explain the existence of evil, and if we will pretend that the question can be formulated, it indeed explains how the existence of God is consistent with the existence of evil. So I have conclusively answered the objection in a number of places.[9] Here the point is that we must never uncritically accept the non-Christian's challenge as intelligible or meaningful when it is complete gibberish. He thinks that his objection makes sense, that it is logically formulated and rationally forceful, and this reinforces his pride in his intellectual capabilities. As mentioned, in apologetics we must not only defend ourselves against the challenges that arise from this intellectual pride, but we must attack the pride itself. We must not only defend and present the wisdom of God, but we must also expose and destroy the pride of man, showing that the non-Christian is in fact an extremely stupid person.

Another way the non-Christian raises the objection is to mention specific events that he considers problematic for or irreconcilable with biblical teachings. For example, there is the question, "Where was God on September 11th?"[10] Many Christians assume that this question makes sense, that they know what the unbeliever means, and then they proceed to answer it. Now, although I understand that we often use "shorthand" in our everyday speech, I also understand what the Bible teaches about the non-Christian's stupid and futile mind, and therefore I know that he has no idea what he is asking.

In the first place, what does he mean by "where"? God is not local or physical, so it makes no sense to say that he is at one place instead of another. So if the non-Christian is referring to a local or physical God, then his question has nothing to do with us. How do we know that this is not what he means? We must ask him what he means. By "where," he is probably thinking about the relationship between God and the event, and specifically, whether God causes or allows evil and tragic events, and if so, how this is consistent with what Scripture teaches about God. This might be what he means, but you should not guide him like this outright. The non-Christian thinks that he is intelligent and rational, so you should take every opportunity to show him that he is not – that he cannot properly formulate a question is one indication that he is in fact stupid and irrational.

But then, if he proceeds to ask how the Bible's teaching on God is consistent with the existence of evil, the question is still incomplete, because there is still no clear indication of any contradiction to be resolved. He has to include a premise asserting that the existence of God contradicts the existence of evil, and then he must say that since there is evil, the conclusion is that there is no God. But where does this premise come from? How does he know it? How does he know that it is true? Also, what does he mean by evil? Where does his definition come from? If his definition of God comes from inside the Bible, but his definition of evil comes from outside the Bible, then what does the objection have to do with us? If his definitions of both God and evil come from the Bible, then do God and evil as defined by the Bible contradict each other? The non-Christian must show it.

You must force the non-Christian to take responsibility for his objection. If he makes the objection, then he must stand behind it. Make him state all the premises in his objection explicitly; make him show that the premises are true, and that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. If he cannot do this, then this shows that either he did not consider these issues before he used the objection against you, or he knew that he could not resolve them and used it against you anyway. This means that he is a fraud, an intellectual charlatan, because his objection is a trick and carries no substance. It makes him a hypocrite, because he accuses you of being irrational, but he cannot even properly state a simple objection. The non-Christian takes pride in his intelligence; therefore, you must attack his intelligence, and demonstrate that he is very stupid, and that he can do nothing right in debate.

Another example comes from the debate about homosexual marriage. Those who support homosexual marriage often say, "How does homosexual marriage hurt your marriage? How does it affect you?" The assumption is that homosexual marriage is wrong only if it hurts someone else. But where does this assumption come from? It requires a previous argument to establish; that is, there must be an argument with true premises that necessarily lead to the conclusion, "Therefore, homosexual marriage is wrong only if it hurts someone else." But as it stands, the question has no more logical force than, "What does homosexual marriage have to do with a ham sandwich?" Well, maybe nothing, but so what?

[11]Many Christians tend to answer incomplete and irrational objections too soon (and objections against the Christian faith are always incomplete and irrational). In this case, they would immediately try to show that homosexual marriage indeed damages others, or they might affirm that homosexual marriage is wrong on another basis than that it hurts others. Either way, this allows the non-Christian to escape harsh scolding and humiliation regarding this careless and irrational objection, and he sees no reason to discontinue his madness. Instead of permitting this, we must intellectually seize him by the throat and choke all the life out of his belief system.

Sometimes a non-Christian might say something like, "Evolution has refuted Christianity," and then he would just stand there, smiling stupidly but triumphantly, waiting for your response. It is true that on the surface some unbelievers state their view with more precision, but the substance of what they say is never any better. As it stands, the statement is an unjustified assertion, not an argument. This does not mean that a deficient statement is always false, but it means that it would be unwise to answer it immediately, since then we would miss an opportunity to challenge the non-Christian's intelligence and his very way of thinking. For this to become a rational objection against the Christian faith, the unbeliever must show his reasoning, and establish his beliefs and assumptions. What is science? Can science know or prove anything at all?[12] Has science established evolution? Is evolution really true? And how exactly does evolution refute the Christian faith? The non-Christian must address every point before his statement carries any force.

How about the objection that Christianity is too "close-minded"? Again, many believers immediately scramble to explain how Christianity is in fact not close-minded. But this reaction assumes that the non-Christian's way of thinking is basically correct, and that he has only misunderstood some aspects of the Christian faith. That is, this approach allows the non-Christian to believe that his standard of judgment is indeed correct, that what is close-minded (or what seems close-minded to him) is also false and immoral, and thus to defend the Christian faith, we should show that it is not close-minded.

The proposition, "Christianity is too close-minded," indeed implies an objection. But what is the objection? And what is the reasoning behind it? The non-Christian must do several things before this become an actual objection. First, he needs to establish by argument that what is close-minded is also false or immoral, or somehow unacceptable. Second, he needs to establish that the Christian faith is close-minded. Then, he needs to demonstrate that these two premises logically and inevitably lead to the conclusion that the Christian faith is false or immoral, or somehow unacceptable. In addition, as he does all this he must clearly define all the words and expressions, and he must establish all his premises with sound arguments.

If we were to examine everything in these examples, as we should when debating unbelievers and heretics, there are many other points that we could raise about them. To illustrate, with homosexual marriage, we may ask what the non-Christian means by "marriage," and ask him why we must accept his definition. Moreover, when he claims that homosexual marriage does not hurt or affect other people, we may ask what he means by "hurting" or "affecting" someone. If homosexual marriage annoys me or angers me, or if it is so disgusts me that the mere idea of it ruins my appetite, does this not show that it hurts me or affects me? Does this count against homosexual marriage? Why not? Or does he have some other kind of damage in mind? How can he claim that homosexual marriage does not hurt me, and then exercise an exclusive right to choose what counts as damage? He must define and defend his standard, and of course, we will also criticize his definition and defense until he has no place to stand.

Unless he is able to establish that he has the exclusive right to define what it means to hurt or affect someone, and that he has the exclusive right to impose this definition upon the rest of humanity – that is, he needs to prove that he is God over all of creation – then this argument for homosexual marriage implies that anyone can use the same kind of reasoning to justify violence against homosexuals as long as he defines damage in a way that excludes the injuries or deaths that he intends to inflict, and he gets to impose this definition of damage on the homosexuals. As Christians, we are against the use of violence by the church in spreading and enforcing our beliefs,[13] but we can forbid it only if we reject the homosexual's argument, since his own reasoning offers unrestricted permission for anyone to "hurt" and "affect" them in any way he pleases as long as he provides his own definitions of these terms to accommodate his purpose.

We should not become stuck in looking at examples. You must learn the way of thinking that we have been discussing, and not just how to answer particular questions and objections[14] – besides, I have answered many of them in my other writings, and you can look to them for additional examples.

The following is a fictitious dialogue between Vincent, Nathan, and Sam. It is only a teaching tool – it does not represent exactly what a non-Christian might say under a similar context, neither does it demonstrate all that the Christian should say. The dialogue is not intended to resolve the topics brought up – this is done in various places in my writings. Right now the purpose is to illustrate a certain way of thinking, a biblical mindset that can adapt to any debate situation, and that is not reduced to rehearsed answers and arguments.

Nathan: Vincent! Do you remember me? We met at Tommy's wedding last year. How are you doing?

Vincent: I am well, thank you. Yes, of course I remember you.

N: This is Sam, my brother. V: Hi, Sam.

Sam: Hello.

N: What are you reading?

V: I am reading William Shedd's Dogmatic Theology.

N: Is that a Christian book?

V: Yes, it's a book on Christian doctrines. N: I can never be a Christian.

V: Oh, you think so? Why is that?

N: Well, I don't want to offend you, but I think that Christianity is too irrational, and I just can't accept it.

V: If you have some time to talk, in a moment we can find out just what you know about the Christian faith. But for now, what do you believe? How do you decide what is true and what is false? How do you view reality? If you refuse to accept what you consider as irrational, have you found something rational that you can believe?

N: Yes, I believe that science is a rational and reliable way to discover true information about reality, and therefore I believe in science.

V: Let me see if I understand. You said that you are willing to believe only that which is rational, and science is rational, while the Christian faith is not; therefore, you believe in science.

N: Yes, that is what I mean.

V: But what is rationality? And what is science?

N: What do you mean?

V: You said that you will only believe in what is rational, and science is rational. If I am going to interact with your view, I must understand what you mean by rationality, what you mean by science, and why you think that science is rational.

N: I haven't thought much about this before, but your question is not difficult to answer. A rational belief is a belief that is based on sound evidence and reality, on facts and a verification of facts. Science is a way of interacting with the world that takes these things into account. For example, science employs experimentation to test its hypotheses.

V: Your response shows that you are more careful than most non- Christians, but it is not nearly enough.

N: How so?

V: There are still too many unanswered questions. What is evidence? What is reality? What is a fact? How did you arrive at your definitions for these terms, and why must I accept them? Even if you can define a fact and impose that definition on me, how do you come to know a fact? If you perceive a fact by your sensations, then how do you prove that your sensations are reliable? You tell me that science involves experimentation, but why is experimentation a rational way of discovering true information about reality? What is the precise line of reasoning in experimentation, and how do you answer the charge that it depends on induction, which never arrives at logically necessary conclusions, and that it commits the fallacy of asserting the consequent? Then, when you say that you believe in science and in experimentation, do you mean that you use the scientific method yourself to discover all that you think you know about reality – every little detail that you claim to be scientifically established? Or, do you believe what scientists tell you that they have discovered by the scientific method? In that case, are you really believing in science, or in the testimony of people who claim to be scientists? On what basis do you believe in their testimony?

N: So many questions!

V: I am already keeping this brief. As a non-Christian, your thinking is so deficient and defective that I can spend many hours challenging you on every phrase that you utter, and you will never be able to successfully answer even one of the thousands of attacks that I throw at you. Nevertheless, I am not asking these questions just for the sake of asking them, nor am I trying to distract you with irrelevant questions; rather, you claimed to be rational, and now you must back up your claim with a rational defense. But I am not done. I suppose you would agree that rationality has to do with logic and valid reasoning, and by saying that Christianity is irrational, you also mean that Christianity is illogical and that it involves invalid reasoning. Is that an accurate way of putting it?

N: Yes, I suppose, but what you are getting at?

V: If you claim to be rational, then I ask that you really be rational. That is, I demand that you reason in a valid manner, following the strict laws of logic.

N: I have no problem with that. I think that this is what science does.

V: You still have not answered my previous questions, so you already have a problem. You have not provided a rational defense of science. But since you think that science is so rational, then tell me one rational conclusion that science has produced. You can choose from anything in all the history of science. Before you reply, note that a rational conclusion about reality would be a proposition about reality that has been necessarily deduced from true premises. This is simple logic. What are these true premises in your example? How did you find out about them? How do you know that they are true? Does the procedure involve deriving knowledge from sensation? If so, explain how knowledge can rationally come from sensation. A belief can be written out as a proposition, so write out the entire process of how a sensation rationally becomes a proposition in the mind. If science is rational, and if your belief in science is so rational, then surely you can answer me. Then, continue to show me how you derived the true premises that necessarily lead to the conclusion in your scientific belief. I promise you that whatever scientific theory, belief, or conclusion that you present to me, I will be able to refute it in a matter of seconds, in many cases under ten seconds, or even five.

N: Hold on. Are you telling me that you doubt the rationality of science?

V: I not only doubt it, but when I am done with you I will have demonstrated that science is the most irrational and superstitious thing that the world has ever known.

(Later in the conversation…)

N: Now that we have moved on to talk about the nature of God, I have an objection that no Christian I have talked to seems to have a rational answer for. Sometimes they throw in a bunch of theological words, and then finally say that it's all a mystery. Instead of vindicating Christianity, what they say only reinforces my belief that this religion is irrational. Maybe you can answer it?

V: It sounds like a difficult question, but try me.

N: All right. If God is absolutely sovereign as the Christian faith teaches, then that would make him the author of sin.

V: So what?

N: So what?! You don't see the problem? Whenever I said this to a Christian, he would scramble to deny it, and then he would give me some contorted explanation that contradicted what he just told me about the nature of God.

V: Well, I would be happy to respond if you can tell me what the problem is.

N: I am surprised that you don't see it. If God is sovereign, then that would make him the author of sin, but if God is the author of sin, then that would contradict what the Bible teaches about him.

V: Really? How? Let me remind you that I have not said whether or not God is the author of sin. At this point, you haven't even stated the problem. How do you establish the premise, "God cannot be the author of sin"? And what exactly in the Bible would this contradict? Point to the exact passage and prove to me that your interpretation of it is correct.

N: Well, I think there is something in the Letter of James…

V: Is there? Is there? Do you even know what you are talking about? So you would make an allegation about my religion without having a solid intellectual basis for it. And you call Christians irrational? But in a moment I will take you to that passage in James and let's see how you do.

N: But in any case, if God is the author of sin, that would make him unrighteous!

V: How? Tell me! What is righteousness and unrighteousness? By the way, what is the meaning of "author"? And what is the meaning of "sin" in your challenge? If the definitions for these terms do not come from the Bible, then your objection has nothing to do with me, since you are claiming there is an internal problem with the Christian faith. But if the definitions come from the Bible, then you must demonstrate that assuming the Bible's definitions of "God," "author," "sin," "unrighteous," and such terms, then if "God" were to "author" "sin," he would be "unrighteous."

N: I have not considered these details before.

V: You claim to be rational, so why do I have to explain your own objection to you? But you need to address these details. Let me tell you what you must do to make this an actual and intelligible objection. You must establish coherent and relevant definitions for all the words and expressions involved, such as "God," "sovereign," "author," and "sin." By relevant, I mean that if you are alleging an internal contradiction, then you must use definitions that are internal to the worldview. You must establish the premise that for God to be sovereign would make him the author of sin. Then, you must establish the premise that there is something wrong with God being the author of sin, for example, that it would contradict a certain biblical doctrine, and you must show that you have correctly inferred and understood this doctrine. You must provide a valid argument for each of your definitions, assumptions, and premises in order to establish them. If you fail to do any of this, then there is logically no objection for me to answer. I warn you that I will fight you every step of the way as you try. But since you have never considered these necessary questions before you made the objection, this means that you are not nearly as rational as you thought, and when you said that the Christian faith is irrational, you exposed yourself as a hypocrite.[15]

(Later in the conversation…)

Sam: You see, Nathan, this is what I have been telling you all along. It is futile to argue with him and let logic decide the issue.

V: So you don't believe in logic?

S: No, I don't believe in logic.

V: Great, so that means you do believe in logic.

S: What are you saying? I just told you that I don't.

V: What? Your mother is a cow? What makes you say a thing like that?

S: I did not say that, my mother is not a cow.

V: What? Your father is a criminal and your sister is a whore? Hey, I don't need to know all that.

S: Stop insulting my family!

V: I am not insulting your family, you are.

S: You are not making any sense!

V: Am I supposed to make sense? Logic affirms that A cannot be non-A at the same time and in the same sense. Since you don't believe in logic, then "I don't believe in logic" can just as easily mean "I do believe in logic, " "My mother is a cow," "My father is a criminal," or "My sister is a whore." So do you believe in logic or not? If you do believe in logic, then you must succeed where Nathan failed; if you don't believe in logic, then you do believe in logic – and your mother is a cow.

The non-Christian's objection cannot be logically understood and then answered unless we first know its meaning and reasoning, but when we press for definitions and clarifications, the objection itself is destroyed. This happens with every non-Christian objection, so that logically speaking, the non-Christian really cannot ask us anything, or challenge us about anything. He thinks he is smarter, but he cannot even formulate an intelligible question or objection. He is the fool, the idiot, and this is what biblical apologetics shows – that the non-Christian is a complete buffoon.

Of course, this does not mean that we should never defend our own beliefs. In fact, as we will discuss in the next chapter, we should present and defend Christian beliefs as thoroughly as we destroy non-Christian beliefs. So it is not that we adopt a strategy of evasion – we march fiercely toward the non-Christians in our intellectual battles; rather, the problem is that none of their questions and objections makes any sense. They do not rationally understand and present their questions and objections; instead, they blindly point and shoot, and if they miss, they shoot again, and again, and again. They can often take this approach because the Christians never make them defend their own beliefs and the rational basis for their questions and objections.

Therefore, besides defending the truth of the Christian faith, we must also expose the fact that all non-Christian thinking is careless, foolish, irrational, and unjustified. For example, when it comes to the problem of evil, of course we should tell our opponents what the Bible teaches about God's relationship with evil, but we do this not because the logic of their objection demands it (since the objection makes no sense), but because God has called us to preach the gospel and teach all nations.

The non-Christian does not know or admit that everything he says is foolish and irrational; instead, he believes that he is thoroughly intelligent and rational. You must destroy this self-deception by attacking everything that he says and believes. To do this, you must learn to listen carefully and then to think logically, even syllogistically, keeping track of as many problems as you are mentally capable. Then, launch an all-out assault. Ask "Why?" Ask "So what?" Ask "How do you know?" Challenge every definition. Require every assumed premise to be explicitly stated and defended. Question every inference concerning its logical validity and necessity. Expose every irrational move, every leap in logic.

If the non-Christian's worldview is truly rational, then he should be able to answer us and to defend himself; in fact, he should have already performed the same rational analysis when he adopted his current beliefs. Since God has rendered all non-Christian thinking foolish and futile, every non-Christian will fall under rational pressure, for the Reason of God is against him, and he has no defense against our attacks.

The Christian has divine weapons from God to defeat any non-Christian in debate, but to effectively wield them and to accomplish his mission, he must be willing, decisive, precise, and thorough. Instead of regarding apologetics as only defense, as only answering questions and making clarifications, he must endlessly attack all non-Christian thinking with the overwhelming force of Christ the Logic (logos, John 1:1).

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 4 Here I am referring only to instances when our opponents call us derogatory names without rational justification. Contrary to what many people think, "name-calling" is not always an informal fallacy. If the derogatory name or label appears in the context of a valid argument, or is the result of this argument, then the name or label is in fact a proper description or a logical conclusion, not a fallacy. For example, I have a rational right to call the atheist a "moron" if I have rational justification for applying this word to the atheist, or if it comes at the end of a sound argument. Just because some people do not like this logical conclusion does not make it a fallacy; rather, to protest against it without logical justification is itself a fallacy. For someone to commit a name-calling fallacy, he must commit some logical error in his application of the name or label. This is true for both Christians and non-Christians. If the person who applies the name or label can demonstrate that it fits his opponent, then it cannot be a fallacy, no matter how insulting it sounds. Also, if the application of the name or label is in fact part of the person's worldview, then he must be permitted to express it just as he is permitted to express any part of his worldview during the course of debate, so that his beliefs can be discussed and examined, and so that he can tell his opponent precisely what he affirms and wishes to defend. 5 John H. Gerstner, Theology in Dialogue (Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1996), p. 406-407. 6 Ibid., p. 426-427. 7 See Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions, Presuppositional Confrontations, and Captive to Reason, among others. 8 The non-Christian might object to our approach of challenging everything about his beliefs and his statements, but this very objection is one of the things that we should challenge. Not every objection is intelligent or rational, and our position is that a non-Christian objection is always unintelligent and irrational; therefore, we challenge the unbeliever to defend all his beliefs, questions, and objections. 9 For a detailed answer to the problem of evil, see Vincent Cheung, "The Problem of Evil." 10 I am referring to the terrorist attacks against the United States that happened on September 11, 2001. We can illustrate the same point with a question like, "Where was God when that woman was raped?" 11 See Vincent Cheung, "Homosexuality and the Wrath of God." 12 See Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions, Presuppositional Confrontations, and Captive to Reason. 13 The state ought to use violence, including the death penalty, to enforce God's judgment against criminals, such as murderers. 14 See Vincent Cheung, "Students in the Real World." 15 For additional remarks on the "author of sin" issue, see Vincent Cheung, The Author of Sin andCommentary on Ephesians.

3. ARRANGE THE CLASH

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone – an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."16 (Acts 17:22-31)

The Bible says that God has made human wisdom foolish and futile; it is "in the wisdom of God" that "the world through its wisdom did not know him" (1 Corinthians 1:21). In other words, it is by God's deliberate design and decree that human wisdom will never attain knowledge of the most basic truth about reality (God) and that it will never attain salvation on its own. Since all of reality is inseparably connected to and sustained by God, and since every man who is without Jesus Christ will suffer endless torment in hell, this means that every non-Christian worldview, philosophy, or religion can never attain any knowledge about reality, and it can never produce any meaning, purpose, or result in life.

Thus we say that God has made human wisdom both foolish and futile. And since every non-Christian, by the very fact that he is a non-Christian, embraces and trusts in human wisdom, this means that every non-Christian is foolish and futile. Unless God sovereignly converts them, all non-Christians are stupid and useless. As the Bible declares, "All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one" (Romans 3:12).

In principle, all Christians agree with me on this – that is, they agree with the Bible – but when I actually say it, many of them disown me. This is because they are embarrassed about God, and about what he explicitly teaches in Scripture. They either do not want me to repeat what the Bible teaches, or they want me to dilute it so much that nobody knows what I mean. But I am not ashamed of what God teaches me, and I refuse to accommodate spineless wimps who claim to be Christians.

Therefore, I will repeat: All non-Christians are stupid, sinful, and worthless, as the Bible teaches. Even as Christians, all our wisdom, holiness, and worth come from God, and not from ourselves, so that without him, we are nothing and can do nothing (John 15:5). I stress this not just for the sake of insulting non-Christians, and not just because it makes me happy to say it; rather, I am telling you about the reality of the situation, a reality that carries important implications for apologetics. We have discussed one of these implications earlier, namely, because human wisdom is foolish and futile, as long as we depend on divine wisdom in our apologetics, we will always overcome the non-Christian in debate.

Another important implication is that, since human wisdom is foolish and futile, since it is absurd and barren, we must not begin with human wisdom and then build upon it in the attempt to produce knowledge about reality or intellectual fruit. Therefore, unlike those who embrace defective methods of apologetics, the biblical apologist does not try to redirect human wisdom to a conclusion that concurs with divine wisdom; instead, he arranges an all-out clash between human wisdom and divine wisdom. And as a result, he vindicates divine wisdom and crushes human wisdom with it.

This is the essence of my method: I cut down human pride and lift up divine wisdom, and I crush human speculation by divine revelation. And unlike what some apologists suggest, I am not saying that I would set the two opposing viewpoints next to each other and let people choose which one is more "attractive." I am not advocating comparative apologetics, but confrontational apologetics.

Although comparative apologetics has its purpose and can assume its place as a minor tactic within a broader strategy, only confrontational apologetics can truly vindicate the faith and crush the opponent in debate. Showing that two worldviews are different does not demonstrate that one is true and the other false. Perhaps both are rubbish. In any case, the reprobates will always be more attracted to the non-biblical worldview (1 Corinthians 1:18, 22-23), or that which is intellectually and ethically inferior, because they are stupid and sinful. If a worldview is characterized by undeniable truth and logical necessity, then in a debate about truth it is irrelevant if someone finds it unattractive. And if a worldview is demonstrably false, then to find it attractive is just a sign of inferior intelligence and character. There is very little force in comparative apologetics.

Instead of merely comparing worldviews, I am saying that the biblical worldview consists of a set of revealed doctrines that provide, first, a comprehensive philosophy that is true and coherent, so that it is logically defensible, and second, a way of thinking that intellectually obliterates the opponent, or anyone who is not in complete agreement with it. The way to victory is to skillfully apply the biblical worldview to the intellectual challenges and opportunities that arise during the debate.

The method is to confront human wisdom with divine wisdom, and since even the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man, I will never suffer defeat in debate, but I will always seize a complete and decisive victory. You will also possess this assurance if you will learn how to arrange, maintain, and pursue a clash between human wisdom and divine wisdom. In this chapter, we will discuss some principles and guidelines on how to make such a clash happen.

The biblical approach to apologetics is to confront human wisdom with divine wisdom, to crush human wisdom and vindicate divine wisdom. You do this by arranging a clash between the biblical worldview and the non-biblical worldview. This in turn means that during your debate with the non-Christian, you must present at least the major elements of the biblical worldview, and you must interact with the major elements of your opponent's non-biblical worldview.

If you are successful, several things will happen. It will become evident that the two worldviews contradict each other at every major point. If the first principles of two worldviews oppose each other, then everything that is deduced from these opposing principles will necessarily oppose each other also. Since you know that the first principles of your worldview oppose the first principles of your opponent's worldview,[17] this means that you will also logically disagree with your opponent on even every minor issue. Even when you appear to agree with your opponent on something, it will be a superficial agreement, and an agreement that would immediately break down when each side clarifies what he truly means and present the reasons for his position.

Since the two worldviews oppose each other at every point, it follows that each worldview must stand on its own intellectual merits and resources. In other words, each one may contain only propositions that are validly deduced from self-authenticating first principles; it may not borrow propositions available in another worldview that is not deducible from its own first principles.

To illustrate, if a non-biblical principle cannot rationally stand on its own, and then by valid deduction produce an ethical principle against murder, then an adherent of this worldview cannot rationally affirm an ethical principle against murder. Better yet, if a non-biblical principle cannot rationally stand on its own, and then by valid deduction produce a theory of knowledge, then an adherent of this worldview cannot rationally claim to know anything at all. And if an adherent of this non-biblical worldview cannot rationally claim to know anything at all, then it follows that he has no intellectual basis or resource by which to question or attack Christianity.

Of course, the implication is that to be able to rationally question or attack anything, one must already have a true and coherent worldview. If the person cannot defend his own worldview at the same time that he is attacking another, then all his questions and objections are just the meaningless rants of a lunatic. Your non-Christian opponent is precisely this – a ranting lunatic – and you must expose this fact in your intellectual confrontation with him.

On the other hand, this also means that when you construct your own worldview and formulate your own arguments, you must not borrow non-biblical principles. There is no need to do this anyway, since biblical principles are sufficient to sustain a true, comprehensive, and coherent worldview. In fact, since the biblical worldview is the only true view of reality, to mix non-biblical principles into it would only generate confusion and weaken your arguments.

For example, you will only introduce inconsistencies into your worldview if you hold to empiricism – the reliability of sensations or that knowledge can come from sensations – in any sense or to any degree. Likewise, because such inventions as free will, compatibilism, passive decree, secondary causes, and Arminianism are unbiblical, to affirm any of these would generate irresolvable difficulties in your worldview that your opponent might discover and attack. Someone who does not know the true biblical doctrines would then reassure himself that there are indeed inconsistencies in the Christian faith, when all he has found in you is a heretic, so that you deserve to be refuted and humiliated.

In any case, by showing that the two worldviews contradict each other at every point, you also show that they cannot coexist. Since the biblical worldview and the non-biblical worldview contradict each other, it also means that they cannot both be true, but if one is true, then the other must be false. This in turn means that when you are defending the Christian worldview, you are at the same time also attacking the non-Christian worldview, and when you are attacking the non-Christian worldview, you are also defending the Christian worldview.[18]

This insight is important not only in winning the debate, but also in starting and sustaining the debate, that is, in stirring up intellectual conflict (remember, we want the worldviews to clash). As a simple example, someone might say to you, "I believe that all religions are good, and that all of them are true, only that they describe things from different perspectives." On the surface, this statement seems to affirm that Christianity is also good and true; however, since Christianity affirms that it is the only good and true worldview, this person's statement contradicts Christianity and is therefore actually an attack against Christianity. On the other hand, as you then present and defend the exclusivity of Christianity, you are logically also attacking this person's statement, which is a part of his worldview.

This must be our reaction when the non-Christian, without abandoning his beliefs, says or implies, "You are also right." The Christian can never be satisfied with anything less than the admission, "I am wrong, you are right – Christianity is true, and all non-Christian worldviews, philosophies, and religions are false." To say that Christianity is also right is the logical equivalent of saying that Christianity is wrong, since Christianity itself claims to be exclusively true. Therefore, even from what seems to be innocent and complimentary (although it does not seem this way to me), the biblical apologist can ignite the clash between the Christian worldview and the opponent's non-Christian worldview.

By presenting the entire biblical worldview during the course of debate, and by interacting with the opponent's entire non-biblical worldview, you force each worldview to stand on its own, exposing all of its strengths, weaknesses, dependencies, and internal and external relationships. You will then not only show that the non-Christian is wrong on a specific claim about a narrow issue (so that the rest of his worldview remains intact), but you will show that he is fundamentally and comprehensively wrong on everything, and that insofar as your beliefs have been derived from biblical teachings, you are fundamentally and comprehensively right on everything.

You will vindicate the Christian faith as a worldview, as a complete belief system, only if you present and defend it as a worldview, and you will demolish your opponent's worldview only if you attack it as a worldview. The more comprehensive the clash, the more decisive your victory, and the more complete his destruction.

In formal debate, a significant part of the clash would be meticulously planned. Although there would be some unscripted interactions and occasional surprises, it remains that the format permits and demands much prior preparation, and that certain portions of the presentation from each side are quite fixed. Each person is allotted a set amount of time to present his arguments and refutations without interruption. This alone makes formal debate very different from informal debate.

To illustrate, in a formal debate, it is not possible to immediately challenge a false premise that the opponent uses in his argument, but you must wait your turn. Meanwhile, he is allowed to weave this false premise into his overall presentation, and if it sounds convincing to the audience, then he has gained a psychological advantage with the people. After this, even a pointed refutation of that false premise might not fully overcome the audience's favorable disposition toward your opponent, because he has been permitted to state a conclusion, however irrational, that is attractive to the people. Of course, this acknowledges the fact that members in an audience are often easily swayed by non- Christian sophistry.

As an attempt to counteract this effect, the Christian should directly describe the errors in the opponent's argument, and to explicitly state the implications for being moved by it, namely, that to favor the opponent would betray a lack of intelligence and character. In other words, depending on the context and the purpose of the formal debate, it might be appropriate to rebuke and insult the audience for being persuaded by the non-Christian view. Insult the people for being so stupid and gullible. Rebuke them for their lack of integrity. This might not win points with them or with the judges, but we should not be there to win a contest for ourselves, but to win an intellectual confrontation for the honor of Jesus Christ.

In any case, since formal debates are prearranged, each side knows who their opponent would be as well as the precise propositions to be debated. And this means that not only does each side possess ample time to prepare his own case in advance, but he can also research his opponent's beliefs and arguments, and prepare his refutation in advance.

On the other hand, informal debate – debate that has no rules of conduct, no time limitation, no judge or moderator, etc., as in two or more people disputing about religion over dinner – is more fluid, less structured, and thus often a little chaotic. Although some aspects of it can be planned and anticipated, many aspects of an informal debate are less predictable. For example, although you may prepare a short presentation of your worldview to be used whenever an informal debate occurs, or to be used for a specific informal debate that you expect to occur, there is no guarantee that you will be permitted to give your entire presentation without interruption from your opponent, or even from the bystanders.

In fact, in an informal setting, interested bystanders might become active participants, in which case you might have to engage multiple opponents at the same time. Of course, some bystanders might wish to take your side, but when that happens they are more likely to become a distraction and hindrance. Even a beginning biblical apologist should easily defeat multiple non-Christians at the same time, in fact, even all the non-Christians in the history of humankind combined. Thus if he cannot partner with other biblical apologists, it is better for him to work alone. And even if he has an opportunity to partner with others, it might still be simpler to work alone. If he has been trained in the basics, he should not need any assistance at all. In any case, such an issue is less likely to arise in formal debate.

Using an earlier example, we note another difference when the opponent utters a false premise in the process of stating his case. Since personal conversations often consist of short turns by each side instead of extended discourses, it is possible to immediately challenge the opponent when he attempts to use a false or unjustified premise. Thus upon hearing a questionable premise, it is possible to respond, "I would like to hear your entire argument, but before you continue, how do you know what you just said is true? It seems to be a crucial premise to your argument, but I disagree with it, and if it is false, then your conclusion cannot be true, so please provide me with some rational justification for this premise."

In fact, logically speaking, in an informal debate you can prevent your opponent from making any progress at all unless he rationally establishes the premises necessary for his argument. Now he brings out additional premises and arguments as he attempts to justify the premises to his initial argument – just so he can earn the right to state the argument. But recall that the non-Christian is wrong about everything, so that anything he says can be refuted. And so the Christian proceeds to attack these new but logically prior premises and arguments, and in this manner forces the non-Christian to regress into his first principles and then into intellectual oblivion.

As an alternative, you can register your disagreement with the opponent's false premise and still allow him to finish his presentation. Socially speaking, this may be a matter of courtesy, but since he has not earned the rational right to proceed, this is optional and unimportant. Strategically speaking, this will produce a larger target for you to attack – the more he talks, the more evidence you can gather to document his ridiculous beliefs and irrational thinking. You can kill the argument at the start, or you can either compel regress or allow progress in order to let him exhibit more of his foolishness so that you can blow up the whole thing. If you can logically stop him anywhere, it means that you have a choice of whether to stop him at any particular point, for any social or strategic reason.

Of course, your opponent might also challenge your premises while you present your worldview. This might temporarily redirect the conversation, since then it might be appropriate to first defend the premise before you finish the argument. But remember that since every statement from a non-Christian is foolish and irrational, you should also take every question or objection as a springboard for a renewed attack against his intelligence and his beliefs. Make every challenge from him backfire against him. Again and again, make even the smallest objection from him result in the total destruction of his worldview and his confidence.

In addition, in an informal debate, although it is often possible to prepare a general refutation of your opponent's beliefs, a precise refutation is often impossible. Each unbeliever's exact beliefs are unique. The fact that all non-Christians are foolish and irrational makes their beliefs that much more arbitrary, and that many of them are without a public and formal creed makes their beliefs that much more diverse. Even those with such creeds do not necessarily adhere to them. This problem is more pronounced if the opponent is a stranger who affirms specific and peculiar beliefs, or if he himself is not clear on what he believes, as is often the case. In a formal debate, it is often possible to prepare a relatively precise refutation beforehand, especially if you have access to the opponent's published writings, or if he has endorsed what others have published.

Thus some of the principles and practices valuable to performing well in one kind of debate cannot be applied to the other kind, since the two formats are so different. So a person who knows how to arrange the clash in a formal debate might not know how to do it in an informal debate, and vice versa. In any case, biblical apologetics is easily adapted to both formal and informal debate; that is, the biblical approach enables the Christian to resolve the difficulties that each format presents, and to exploit the opportunities that each format offers. Although there is much more to say about formal debate, since most people will never engage in it, and since it is not our stated subject, we will now further discuss the informal debate.

Whether in formal or informal debate, you must arrange for the clash of entire worldviews, and not only several specific and narrow ideas within the worldviews. In formal debate, time is allotted for you to use as you please, so that even if there is insufficient time to exhaustively deal with each worldview, it is possible to briefly mention the major ideas. In contrast, an informal debate is not completely controlled by either party, and you are not given uninterrupted time to use as you please; therefore, you have to find some other way to ensure a comprehensive clash of the worldviews. This does not mean that formal debates are more suitable for dealing with entire worldviews, since many informal debates are better in that they often last longer than formal debates. Two people could debate religious matters over coffee, lunch, and dinner for many hours over a matter of weeks.

To make entire worldviews clash, you must understand and exploit the nature of worldviews. A worldview is a system of thought consisting of all the propositions that it includes, and that its adherents explicitly and implicitly affirm. Each proposition, no matter how specific or trivial, is logically preceded by the foundational propositions of the system. And since these foundational propositions logically imply all the subsidiary propositions within the system, this means that every proposition is logically related to every other proposition in the system.

As an analogy, although I did not give birth to my brother and my brother did not give birth to me, we are nevertheless related because we share the same parents. Every child has parents, and since the child's parents are also the parents of all those to whom they give birth, each child is related to all the other children of his parents. He is related to his siblings through his parents. In a similar way, every proposition within a worldview is logically related to the foundational propositions of the worldview, and to all other propositions within the worldview, through the foundational propositions of the worldview.

Now, if a subsidiary proposition logically requires a certain foundational proposition, but this foundational proposition is inconsistent with another subsidiary proposition within a person's belief system, then you have just discovered a bastard proposition, or an inconsistency in his worldview. You then have legitimate reason to challenge his rationality, or to set off a logical chain reaction that would destroy the rational justification for every proposition in his worldview.

But we are getting slightly ahead of ourselves. For now, the emphasis is that every proposition is logically related to all other propositions in a worldview. This has tremendous ramifications for informal debate. It means that no matter from which proposition within a worldview a debate begins, it is always logically possible to end up covering all the other areas within this worldview. And since every worldview must address the major issues by logical necessity, it matters little whether the debate begins from a proposition in your worldview or in your opponent's worldview. If the debate starts at all, then both parties have logically committed their entire worldviews into the conflict, and not just the proposition that started it.

Although it is most convenient to start from the foundational propositions within a worldview, most informal debates will begin from a disagreement over a subsidiary proposition. For example, a debate might begin because of disagreement about the death penalty. Debate over this issue entails discussion about evil, justice, and mercy. This in turn entails a broader discussion on ethics, which in turn necessitates discussions about epistemology and metaphysics. Once the debate has arrived at this foundational level,[19] it is easy and natural to drive the discussion over to areas like history, science, religion, education, and all other areas in a worldview.

However, to do all of this, the biblical apologist must perceive the logical connection between propositions, and then to logically, naturally, and fairly direct the debate so that it covers every major aspect of each worldview. This agenda is not something that we need to hide from our opponents, since it is not a trick. The truth and coherence of a worldview become all the more obvious when the worldview is comprehensively presented. Confident of his own intelligence and rationality, the non-Christian should have no problem with a comprehensive worldview analysis. By the same token, a false and irrational worldview will appear that much more absurd and impossible the more thoroughly it is examined. Moreover, we do not avoid the issue that started the debate, but unless the debate begins from the foundational propositions themselves, whatever started it must be discussed in the light of prior presuppositions and reasoning processes.

In other words, you are to show the opponent the blueprint of your worldview, your noetic structure, and challenge him to destroy this intellectual edifice; and you are to obtain the blueprint of his worldview, so that you may demolish all the contents and patterns of his thinking, even the foundational principles of his beliefs. This does not mean that you have to complete one phase of this project before you begin the other. In an informal debate, you will probably be performing both tasks at the same time.

Because an essential part of this procedure involves presenting your own worldview and accepting an attack on it, it is imperative that you possess an accurate, precise, and comprehensive knowledge of the biblical worldview. You must understand what Scripture teaches concerning every major theological and philosophical topic.[20] You must perceive all the logical relations between these biblical doctrines. You must know how to present these teachings, and how to defend them. You must understand why the biblical worldview can withstand the same questions and challenges that would destroy any non-biblical worldview.

Since this method is the biblical method, I boldly declare that it is invincible, but I do not say that you can be slothful and complacent. The approach consists of a body of knowledge and a way of thinking, and you must absorb this body of knowledge and adopt this way of thinking. Therefore, the most important thing that you can do to become a better apologist is to master systematic theology, for by it you perceive and understand the whole of Scripture as a coherent system of thought.

Again, we do not separate informal debate into a defense phase and an attack phase. This is not only because informal debates are not as rigidly organized as formal debates, but as mentioned earlier, as you continue to show how the biblical worldview contradicts the non-biblical worldview on everything, it becomes obvious that if you are right, then your opponent is wrong. Therefore, every defense of your worldview becomes an attack on your opponent's worldview, and every attack on your opponent's worldview becomes a defense of your worldview. In addition, we have said that everything that the non-Christian says is nonsense, and this means that every statement that he utters to attack your worldview is itself subject to your attack.

Sometimes people ask me what they should do if the opponent tries to use the same method against us. The question implies a misunderstanding of biblical apologetics. It is not the method of engagement but the content of our worldview that ensures victory in debate. Winning by method alone would be intellectual sophistry. Our method is just a way to arrange the clash, to expose the differences, and to make obvious the reality of the situation, that the biblical worldview is true, and that the non-biblical worldview is false. Therefore, we have nothing to fear from the non-Christians. In fact, we want them to imitate our method of strict rational argumentation and syllogistic analysis. This will facilitate the presentation of each worldview, and thus the vindication of the biblical worldview, and the destruction of the non-biblical worldview.

Besides knowing your own biblical worldview, you must know your opponent's worldview, and this also requires some skill and effort. It is not as simple as saying, "Please summarize all the major areas of your worldview, and the logical relations between them." You should be able to respond to this inquiry, but most non-Christians cannot, since they have never carefully considered and formulated their beliefs. Therefore, you must usually do much of the work in understanding your opponent's worldview. You will have to ask questions, make inferences, take notes, draw graphs, listen, rephrase, clarify, and confirm.

You might assume that if the non-Christian affirms a popular worldview or one that is associated with a creed, then all you need is previous knowledge of this worldview or creed. For example, if the opponent is a Muslim, then it seems that you only need to know how to refute the Koran, and perhaps other official texts and traditions associated with this religion. Sometimes this is true, but it is often not that simple. This is because a person who claims to be a Muslim does not always believe the Koran, or he may believe only parts of it. We may wonder whether he can properly claim to be a Muslim, but since the sum of his beliefs indeed constitutes a worldview, even if he illegitimately calls it the Muslim religion, it remains that we must still discover and address his beliefs as an individual.

You do this by starting from the topic or proposition that sparked the debate, and then from there reconstruct the opponent's worldview by asking questions, considering prior premises and assumptions, and the relationships between the various propositions. You must logically crawl through his entire belief system using the logical associations and relationships between his various beliefs, assertions, and arguments. You must eventually cover all the questions that every worldview must answer, especially in the areas of metaphysics and epistemology.

Whether you are confronting an opponent who affirms a worldview that is already familiar to you or one who affirms a worldview that you have never studied or encountered before, the basic procedure of mapping out his belief system is the same. Your ability to think syllogistically – to reconstruct every argument into a syllogism, and to place every seemingly isolated proposition within the context of a syllogism – will be as valuable here when you seek to understand your opponent, as when you wish to attack him.

Since every statement that the non-Christian says is nonsense, at any point during the conversation, you have the option and the ability to destroy human pride and exalt divine wisdom, to demolish human speculation with divine revelation. In general, you should be doing this at every point of the debate, but sometimes you may wish to wait several turns in order to get a greater understanding of what the opponent is saying, before you trample his argument into the ground. This is a matter of strategy, and your exact approach depends on the situation as well as your ability.

You should use the "take down" technique whenever there is the need, or whenever you consider it prudent to do so. Remember that the "take down" is useful not only when you wish to attack your opponent, but it can also attack the opponent's attack against you, and thus stopping his attack. In fact, it enables you to strategically freeze the debate at any point or on any issue for as long as you please or consider prudent. If your "take down" challenge is logically sound and coherently formulated, then of course it is a legitimate move in argumentation. Besides mastering systematic theology, the beginning apologist must master his "take down" skill.

It would be best if you have at least several hours to engage the opponent, but if not, you can still do much within half an hour. However, sometimes you have only several minutes to talk to someone about the Christian faith, as when you are speaking to a stranger at the airport during transit. In a case like this, you should take the time that you have to perform the "take down" several times. This challenges his thinking, shakes his intellectual pride and security, and puts him in a position where he must find actual justification for his non- biblical beliefs (which we know is impossible), or embrace another non-biblical worldview (in which case he would still lack rational justification for his beliefs), or abandon non- biblical worldviews altogether to embrace the Christian faith.

Then, you must summarize for him the biblical worldview, covering all the major aspects of systematic theology, such as Scripture, God, Christ, man, salvation, judgment, and so on. This supplies him with the intellectual materials that he must embrace if God chooses to convert him. After the conversation has ended, you should pray that the God's will be done in his life, so that if the person is indeed one of God's chosen ones, the Spirit of God would work in his thoughts and render effective what you have said. Of course, even if he is one of God's chosen ones, God may not choose to convert him at this time; rather, God might make your words effective in his heart at a later time, or use additional instruments to work in his mind before finally converting him.

In any case, you have done your duty if you have challenged the human pride of your opponent and presented the divine wisdom of Scripture. If you have done these two things, then you have preached the gospel to this person, and the gospel would be either the fragrance of life or the smell of death to him (2 Corinthians 2:16), depending on whether God has chosen him for salvation.

Christians are often interested in learning rigid techniques and memorizing prepared responses. So they try to summarize my method into a list of steps, and they would ask, "What do I say if the non-Christian says this? And what do I say if he says that? But then, what if he says this?" They wish to cover every scenario by memorizing someone else's answers. Although techniques and formulas have some limited use and effect, they offer the believer a false sense of security. Then, because he lacks understanding, he chokes and crumbles before an opponent who asks a question or who makes an assertion that he has never considered, or who presents an objection that he has indeed encountered before, but this time stated in different words.[21]

In contrast, the biblical apologist finds security in the superiority of divine wisdom, not in rigid techniques and memorized formulas. He understands biblical teaching and sound reasoning, and therefore he can adapt to any opponent and any situation. His confidence is not based on second-hand answers, but on the Rock, the divine logos, the Wisdom and Reason of God. He is invincible in debate, because he has the mind of Christ.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 16 For an exposition of this passage and how it relates to biblical apologetics, see Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations. 17 If the first principles of your worldview and your opponent's worldview in fact agree, then this means that either you are really a non-Christian like your opponent, or your opponent is really a Christian like you, and that the whole debate is a big misunderstanding. 18 We can view the situation this way because we already know that the biblical worldview is true, and this fact is fixed in our minds when we discuss apologetics. Otherwise, two worldviews that contradict each other can both be false, as when two non-biblical worldviews clash, and when examined by our rational method, they would both be destroyed. 19 Although I describe several steps before arriving at the foundational propositions, subsidiary propositions within a worldview are in fact such that you can always immediately drive the conversation to the foundational level. 20 See Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology, Ultimate Questions, and Presuppositional Confrontations. 21 See Appendix: An Attack Formula.

4. ANNOUNCE THE OUTCOME

"Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." (John 8:43-47)

Christians who affirm the biblical worldview and apply the principles of biblical apologetics will always defeat the non-Christians. Although it seems that this ought to be the end of the matter, so that there is little else to discuss, another problem often arises, namely, the non-Christians often do not know or admit that they have lost the debate.

This often stumps budding apologists, including those who have gained some proficiency in defeating the unbelievers in argumentation. After roundly defeating an opponent, it seems evident that the debate has reached a definite conclusion in favor of the Christian faith, and that the unbeliever can produce no additional arguments or objections, but still he refuses to admit defeat.

Sometimes the non-Christian's failure to grasp what has happened does not result in an explicit refusal to admit defeat, but it may be expressed in other ways. For example, he might suggest that we "start over" with the debate, or he might backtrack and morph his worldview into another form that now appears more defensible to him, and if you then defeat this new variety, he will morph it again.

Another non-Christian might suggest that we "agree to disagree," and still another one might try to comfort himself and obscure his defeat by saying that the two of you in fact agree in your beliefs, and that the dispute occurred over a misunderstanding. Then, sometimes a non-Christian will explicitly deny that he lost, or contrary to all indications, he might even claim that he won the debate. The kind of worldview he affirms is likely to influence the tactic he uses. It is improbable that an atheist will assert that the debate was over a mere misunderstanding, but a Catholic or some other heretic might suggest this when he loses the debate.

We can list several reasons to explain why a non-Christian might react this way to crushing defeat and humiliation.

First, the non-Christian really never expected you to win, so that no matter how obviously and thoroughly you have defeated him, he will not interpret it as defeat. It simply does not occur to him that he has lost, since to him it is impossible for you to win. His delusion and arrogance has so affected his mind that he is unable to process the idea that a lowly follower of Christ can so easily expose him as such a stupid and useless person.

Second, even when a non-Christian admits that a Christian could win the debate, he entertains this possibility with the assumption that it could be done only by using his own non-biblical principles, since he has not considered the possibility that those could be wrong, and that it is precisely those principles that the biblical apologist wishes to challenge. In his thinking, it is possible to vindicate the Christian faith only if the believer could reason more correctly with the unbeliever's basic assumptions. He considers them to be universal and does not expect you to confront those very assumptions and obliterate them by logical analysis; therefore, he is bewildered and even angry when you do, and often he will fail to realize what has occurred, or become even more delusional and sink into denial. We must keep in mind that the non-Christian is never in good psychological health.

The third reason is a broad explanation that could include the first two; that is, consistent with what we have said about the non-Christian's intellect, he is so foolish and irrational that he could not follow the progress of a simple debate. The non-Christian is a stupid beast, so that he will often fail to perceive the rational force of your arguments and the logical rigor of your refutations. What irritates the biblical apologist is when the non-Christian seems oblivious to the fact that he has been exposed as a total imbecile by what has transpired in the conversation.

Is this the best that a Christian can do? Is this the limit of biblical apologetics? At this point, many people think that they cannot go any further. The non-Christian has been defeated, but he does not know it and refuses to admit it. However, it would be premature to stop here – there is something more that you can do, or to be more premise, you can still do more of the same thing.

Although the non-Christian does not know what happened during the debate and what resulted from it, we assume that you do know what happened. That is, whereas he has failed to follow the logical progression of the arguments, refutations, and conclusions of the debate, you have been fully conscious of these things, so that you can retrace and summarize them. Since you are aware of what happened even when the non-Christian is oblivious, you can simply state that which is so obvious to you. In other words, tell him what happened.

A previous chapter mentioned that a Christian who learns biblical apologetics would often perform quite well until the opponent brings up a question or an objection that, for some reason, causes the believer to stop applying the principles that have been serving him so well up to that point. That is, he suddenly thinks that the method does not apply to this question or objection, when what he should do is to apply the method again. He would be attacking the non-Christian over and over, until the unbeliever mentions something that he suddenly thinks cannot be attacked, when what he should do is to attack again.

You must fiercely and relentlessly apply the biblical method to let it bring about what it is intended to accomplish. There is nothing wrong with the method, which is really just an application of biblical theology and sound reasoning. However, you must not go "blank" at any point, but you must maintain the pressure on the non-Christian by continuing to apply biblical theology and sound reasoning to your debate.

The fact that the non-Christian is oblivious to his defeat does not have to be your problem. It is his problem, so let him know about it. Make this another point of disagreement between you and the unbeliever. Maintain the pressure. Continue the attack. If you have defeated him in debate by biblical wisdom, then his very ignorance or denial of defeat is another "pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:5). You can attack it just as you have attacked any other part of his belief system.

Assuming that you have decisively crushed your opponent, in general you can deal with his refusal to admit defeat just like any other question or objection that he presents, but there are several specific things that you can do to handle this part of the conflict.

First, you should declare victory. Whatever escape tactic he uses, you should oppose and contradict it. This maintains the clash, and makes it necessary for the opponent to defend the conclusion that he has reached about the debate. If he says, "Let's just agree to disagree," instead of accepting this, say, "No, I do not agree to disagree. In fact, we will never agree until you change your beliefs and agree with me. For me to agree with you, or to agree to disagree, would be to compromise the worldview that I have been asserting and defending."

Second, you should summarize for the non-Christian what has transpired over the course of the debate. Remind him of how the debate started, of how you successfully defended your worldview against his attacks, of how he failed to defend his worldview against your refutations, and of how the two of you finally arrived at the present point in the dialogue. Explain to him the rational basis of why you have won the debate, and remind him that the verdict is decided on such a basis of rationality, not on his feelings or expectations.

If the non-Christian boasted about his rationality and intellectual superiority, remind him of that, and show him that according to a logical analysis and summary of the debate, you have decisively defeated him. If he still denies defeat or even claims victory, then demand him to offer an analysis of the debate, to summarize every stage and every argument of the dialogue with strict deductive logic. In other words, just as you have defeated him by enforcing logic throughout the debate, now you can compel him to admit defeat by enforcing logic again.

If the non-Christian wants to "start over," claiming that you have somehow confused him, then you can point out that if he is as rational and intelligent as he claimed, then this could not have happened. Why does he need to start over if he is so intellectually superior? If he wishes to morph his worldview, you should often let him do it, just so you can defeat him again, and so that you can embarrass him by loudly drawing attention to the fact that he is backtracking and changing his views.

This becomes evidence against the claim that he is rational and intellectually superior. He is stupid, and that is why he does not know what he should believe. You should let him morph if time allows, because unless he morphs into the biblical worldview itself (in which case you no longer need to debate him), you will be able to defeat whatever he morphs into, and all his changes will become additional evidence that demonstrates his intellectual incompetence. Keep track of his changes, and then loudly point them out to him and to all bystanders.[22]

Third, although you might encounter the same opponent again in a future conversation, unless what happens at this point drags both of you right back into the center of the debate, you have indeed reached the conclusion of this debate session. This is the time to make the Christian faith personal, even if you have already done so during the debate, and especially if you have not done it.

Tell him the implication of his defeat. He entered the debate thinking that he was more rational and that he was intellectually superior. However, over the course of the conversation all his non-biblical beliefs have been destroyed and shown to be absurd and irrational. Instead, the Christian faith has been vindicated, and it has been shown that all valid reasoning is patterned after the Logic and Reason of God (John 1:1). Jesus Christ is the only one who can save this man's soul and his intellect, but if he does not convert, he will remain a moron throughout the remaining portion of his worthless life, which will then end in ultimate futility and horror as God throws him into hell and tortures him there forever.

You must never give the impression that by defeating him in debate, you have destroyed a system of thought that is outside of him and apart from him. You must not allow him to think that he remains unscathed when his worldview has been utterly crushed and humiliated. Christians have done everyone a great disservice by separating the sins from the sinners and the heresies from the heretics. No, they are sinners because they sin, and they are heretics because they believe and teach heresies.

Accordingly, you must never utter some nonsense like, "You know, Pete, I don't think that you are a stupid person. In fact, I think that you are very intelligent, but you just happen to believe some stupid things." This is rubbish! No, non-Christians believe in stupid things because they are stupid, and that is why they need to change. They commit sinful acts because they are sinful, and that is why they need to repent. This is how you apply the gospel as something that they need: You tell them that, apart from Christ, they are stupid, sinful, and worthless, but those whom God saves by Christ is given wisdom, righteousness, holiness, and redemption (1 Corinthians 1:29).

I am not suggesting that if you will clearly state the basis for your claim to victory, then the opponent will surely break down and admit defeat. His heart is probably so hardened against truth and reason that he will defy any conclusion that does not favor his beliefs; nevertheless, it is still important to declare and explain your victory in order to make your presentation complete. This is especially important if there are other people listening to the debate. Again, many people cannot follow a rational discourse, and they might also need your help to realize that you have won. Of course, this is not to manipulate their thinking by merely asserting your victory, since you are to summarize the debate and explain to them why you have won, retracing the steps by which the debate has reached its conclusion in your favor.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 22 If a non-Christian is especially prone to backtracking and morphing, then it might be advisable to write down some of his major premises and arguments during the debate, and on crucial points, rephrase his assertions and arguments to him and make him confirm them and commit to them. After this, his backtracking and morphing will become more obvious, and it will be easier to point them out and make them count against him.

CONCLUSION

This concludes our short course on apologetics in conversation. I have shared with you some of my principles for winning. Some of you will perceive their power and proceed to apply them for the glory of God, while others will be horrified by what appears to them as a harsh and ruthless approach.

Although I wish everyone would affirm that which is biblical, your approval means nothing to me. Unless there is a biblical basis for your objection to my approach, it is in itself a "pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God." Insofar as what I have written is biblical, your disagreement means defiance against God. You might find my approach offensive, but I find it much more offensive that you oppose the Bible's assessment of the non-Christian's condition and its instruction on how we ought to approach him – that he is foolish and futile, and that we should tell him about it.

Many years ago, J. Gresham Machen wrote:

Modern preachers are trying to bring men into the Church without requiring them to relinquish their pride; they are trying to help men avoid the conviction of sin. The preacher gets up into the pulpit, opens the Bible, and addresses the congregation somewhat as follows: "You people are very good," he says; "you respond to every appeal that looks toward the welfare of the community. Now we have in the Bible – especially in the life of Jesus – something so good that we believe it is good enough even for you good people." Such is modern preaching. It is heard every Sunday in thousands of pulpits.[23]

Likewise, the modern apologist says, "You people are very rational; you respond to sound arguments and follow the evidence wherever it leads. Your achievements in science, literature, and all kinds of intellectual disciplines are brilliant and astounding. Now we have in the Bible something so rational that we believe it is rational enough even for you rational people." Such is modern apologetics. But as Machen continues to write in the context of preaching, "It is entirely futile."[24]

One form of apologetics assures non-Christians that they function with admirable rationality in many areas of life, only that they require biblical presuppositions to "account for" what they do. Even more treasonous than this, the followers of this school of thought then surrender to the non-Christians and declare that the biblical presuppositions themselves can be known only by non-biblical principles. And these biblical presuppositions are then used to endorse those things that are inherently irrational, such as empiricism, induction, and science. So as they sing praises to science they would insist that science itself is meaningful only given biblical presuppositions. At the same time, they would religiously defend the assertion that the biblical presuppositions themselves are only known by an empirical epistemology, as in the epistemology of science.

Therefore, it seems their idea of biblical preaching would be to say that only Jesus Christ can "account for" offering praises and sacrifices to Satan, but somehow only Satan can bring you to Jesus Christ. Thus without destroying Satan, they introduce the necessity of Christ, and then they bow down to worship the devil along with the non-Christians. It is a rather obvious form of syncretism, but this is how they "defend" the faith. With much sound and fury, they claim to make the biblical worldview the foundation, but in reality they betray it to be swallowed up by the non-Christian worldview, and make Christ himself kneel to the devil. At this time this is overwhelmingly the more popular form of presuppositional apologetics. No wonder non-Christians continue in their delusion of intellectual superiority.

Just as the preachers Machen described were not gospel preachers, the apologists I described are not biblical apologists. Rather, true biblical preaching and apologetics say, whether or not in these words, "You non-Christians are stupid, sinful, hopeless, and worthless. You are unproductive, unprofitable, and ungrateful. You must repent and believe in Jesus Christ, and depend on him to save you. If you do not embrace the Christian faith, God will throw you into the fires of hell, where he will torture you with extreme and endless suffering."

There are several reasons why many people are offended and repulsed by such a message.

First, sometimes it is based on a misunderstanding. I never said that you must always be harsh and contentious when preaching the gospel or defending the faith. I never said that we should constantly repeat to the non-Christian, "You are stupid, you are sinful, you are worthless." Such words are indeed appropriate and should often be used, but whether or not we use these exact words, the thought must be clearly conveyed, or we would not be communicating to the non-Christian all that the Bible says about him. In any case, my main emphasis is on spiritual and intellectual hostility, and this kind of hostility does not imply a constant outward social hostility. Still, contrary to many people, I would insist that there is a place for this latter kind of hostility, as demonstrated and commanded by Christ, the prophets, and the apostles, and for those who respect them, also by the Reformers.

Second, many of those who claim to be Christians are offended and repulsed because they are in fact non-Christians. They have never been converted, and have never committed themselves to the teachings of the Christian faith, so of course a true expression of the gospel produces this reaction in them. As Peter writes, "Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, 'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone,' and, 'A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.' They stumble because they disobey the message – which is also what they were destined for" (1 Peter 2:7-8).

Third, even some genuine Christians are offended and repulsed by this message, especially when it is clearly formulated and expressed, because they have been indoctrinated by the non-Christians. They are so accustomed and agreeable to the non-Christian standard of social discourse, which promotes compromise, subtlety, and secrecy, that when biblical teachings are boldly announced in plain words, they are offended and repulsed. As long as you speak so ambiguously that most people cannot understand you and become offended, they do not mind that you tell the truth. But this way of thinking is precisely one of those things that sets itself up against the knowledge of Christ, and thus it is one of those things that we must criticize and demolish for his glory.

There is much more that I can say about apologetics, but to enable you to vindicate the Christian faith and to defeat every non-Christian in argumentation, there is nothing more that I must say, "For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength" (1 Corinthians 1:25). In our intellectual conflict with the non-Christians, it is easy to become invincible – the question is whether we will be faithful to put on the mind of Christ and proclaim the wisdom of God.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 23 J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1923; reprint 2001), p. 68. 24 Ibid.

APPENDIX: AN ATTACK FORMULA[25]

A discussion on the deficiencies of a mechanical understanding and practice of apologetics, including the use of formula in debate, is immensely helpful to the budding biblical apologist.

Some people have asked me to summarize all that they need to know about biblical apologetics in two or three paragraphs, or to reduce the entire method into a short list of bullet points. Indeed, it can be described in a few paragraphs, but these individuals often do not want a summary because they wish to reduce what they have already learned into a convenient form, but they wish to study a summary in order to obtain an initial understanding of it. However, a short summary leaves out so many details that it will offer limited help to someone who does not already understand this approach to apologetics. It cannot enable a person who is confused about it to understand it and implement it.

Let us take an example from another system of apologetics. Consider the cosmological argument. Even with something like this, it will not do just to memorize the steps. A person must understand the principles behind that argument and how he should defend the premises. Each opponent is different, and might have different objections to each step of the argument, or might present these objections in different ways. A person who merely memorizes the steps and the words can easily become lost in a debate.

Then, some people have submitted their own summaries and paraphrases for my approval. Although these efforts are often commendable, they suffer from significant inaccuracies, and they are usually too mechanical. Most of the time, their attempts betray a failure to grasp the essence of this approach. As I have always insisted, it does not consist of a formula or a series of steps, but a combination of a body of knowledge and a way of thinking – that is, biblical knowledge and rational thinking.

This body of knowledge is that which we defend, and with which we attack. This way of thinking is what governs our application of this body of knowledge in our interaction with unbiblical ideas. Since what is biblical is also rational, we can simply say that the essence of biblical apologetics is the biblical way of thinking. What appear to be recognizable "steps" in my presentation of this approach are its manifestations and not its essence. How it is presented can vary due to the context, such as the kinds of ideas we are seeking to counteract.

This is why biblical rationalism[26] carries unlimited power and flexibility in debate when it is correctly understood and practiced. It does not matter whether it is a written dialogue or an oral debate. It does not matter how the conversation starts or where it strays. It does not matter if the opponent is a child or an adult, a novice or an expert in a field. It does not matter even if the opponent's belief system is foreign, unknown, or randomly invented – the biblical apologist adapts as the debate proceeds. He can use whatever he has available to him for various purposes. He can bring into the conversation what he understands from other fields to construct secondary or ad hominem arguments, or he can know nothing but Christ crucified. In every case, he is assured of victory.

Sometimes a person would study our materials and begin to practice biblical apologetics with great success, but then stumble over a particular argument or objection from an unbeliever. He suddenly does not know how to proceed, as if biblical apologetics does not apply to this challenge. In every case, the trouble is that the person has stopped applying the biblical way of thinking.

Here is an illustration from a non-Christian's perspective. Consider the morality of a relativist, who says that there is no absolute standard of good and evil, but that everything is "relative." A typical challenge might be, "Then, murder might also be good, and rape might not be evil." In itself this response presents no logical refutation of relativism, but only one of its implications. The relativist only has to say, "That's right," and move on. Yet, some relativists are stumped – not because relativism has been refuted, but because he has stopped thinking like a relativist.[27] Of course, relativism is false and can be refuted, but the point is that the relativist does not have to lose the debate at this point, that is, if he will just continue to think like a relativist.

Apply this to biblical apologetics. Some objections cause biblical apologists to stumble, not because they refute the biblical worldview, but because they temporarily derail these Christians from thinking consistently with it.[28] The difference is that, whereas relativism is false and will therefore crumble under rational analysis, the biblical worldview is perfect, and exhibits greater and greater brilliance the more it is scrutinized. However, this is demonstrated only if the apologist persists in a biblical way of thinking no matter what questions and objections are brought up.

Perhaps some of those who are too rigid with biblical apologetics make the mistake of thinking that the arguments themselves are a body of knowledge. They should be asking, "What should inform my thinking? And what should direct my thinking?" – it is revelation that informs (or provides correct content for thinking), and reason that directs (or ensures validity in thinking). But instead, they tend to ask, "What should I say to answer this question, that objection?"

They tend to memorize answers when they should learn the body of knowledge and way of thinking from which all answers arise. And this is why they would ask what to say to a particular challenge, but when they encounter a slight variation of the same thing, they must return to inquire again. Maybe memorized responses and convenient formulas provide a sense of security, but this is deceptive, because if they depend on these things, they in fact become more prone to failure in debate.

After the above warning and explanation, it might appear ironic that I will now present a formula for limited use in apologetics. But the preceding comments are necessary precisely because I am about to present this formula, since many people are already too prone to become mechanical in debate.

Although formulas should never be necessary, there are at least two acceptable uses for them.

First, formulas can help the beginner and the less accomplished apologist. The formula that I am about to offer will help you to begin and sustain a logical analysis of the opponent. It will give you something reliable to fall back on, and thus boost your confidence. But dependence on any formula will hinder a person's development in the long run, and so it is best to be weaned from its use.

Second, the deliberate use of a formula in debate can serve to humiliate an opponent. One way to demonstrate the foolishness of a non-biblical worldview and the ease with which it can be refuted is to defeat the non-Christian by the obvious and repeated use of a simple formula. It serves to show that the unbeliever cannot withstand any rational analysis, and that he cannot answer the most basic questions, things that even a toddler knows to ask. This also makes it easy for observers to perceive the inferiority of the unbeliever's position.

Then, another reason why I wish to present a formula is to show you what a good one should look like. Given that it is often a mistake to use formulas in debate, the problem is further aggravated when these formulas are lengthy, complicated, and inflexible. There are formulas that require a perfect setup – an attentive opponent who does not interrupt, an appropriate starting point for the conversation, and then a step-by-step procession from one item to another in the prescribed order. If one of these arguments carry any punch at all, it is neutralized when the opponent objects to a premise in the middle of the presentation, so that the debate becomes sidetracked.

In contrast, my formula is simple, flexible, and robust. It can function in total chaos. And except for the formula itself, there is no information to memorize. That said, it has limitations. This is the formula: "So? Why? Really?"[29] This is it. This is the entire formula. It is simple but powerful. Although there are only three words in it, using nothing but these three words, any Christian of any aptitude can crush any student, any professor, and any variety or combination of non-Christians.

The word "So?" refers to relevance. Many of the objections against the Christian faith are outright irrelevant to the debate. Even when the topic could be relevant, the unbelievers often fail to show this relevance. The same problem of irrelevance occurs when they present the case for their own positions. Therefore, one way to neutralize their arguments and objections is to question the relevance of what is said, and to demand the opponent to show this relevance.

The word "Why?" refers to justification. Statements presented as arguments are often only assertions. You must ask the non-Christian why his assertions are true. It is likely that he will give you another set of unjustified assertions, and so you will need to ask "why" again. The other two words are also available to you. You can ask "So?" – that is, you can question the relevance between the two assertions or sets of assertions, and demand your opponent to show this relevance. With only these two words, you can expose the fact that the opponent's position lacks justification, and that not only are his objections irrelevant, but even the propositions within his own worldview are irrelevant to one another.

The word "Really?" refers to validity. In this context, validity does not refer to the truth of a position, but to the correct form of an argument. A "valid" argument is one in which the conclusion follows from the premises by necessary inference – that is, the premises must logically produce that conclusion, and it is the only possible conclusion given the premises. "Really?" is therefore posed against the relationship between premises and conclusions. So when you demand a non-Christian to provide justification for an assertion, and he gives you an argument to support this assertion, besides questioning the relevance of the argument, you should also question whether it is logically valid. Reasoning from intuition, sensation, induction, and the scientific method are all invalid, because they all proceed in logical leaps, and none of their conclusions are reached by logical necessity.

These three words apply to all non-Christians arguments, whether those that attack the Christian faith or those that defend non-Christian positions. As such, the formula can serve both offensive and defensive purposes. Since the arguments and objections from non- Christians are never consistently relevant, justified, and valid, anything that they say will quickly crumble under these three words. In fact, even one of these three words can destroy all non-Christian systems. No non-Christian worldview, philosophy, or religion can withstand a persistent pressure to show relevance, justification, or validity.

Given what I said against formulas, if this one can defeat all non-Christians, then is it not a good formula? Should we not make it a regular part of our apologetics? The answer is that almost anything can defeat the non-Christians, and the fact that something works does not make it a good or complete solution. Instead of aiming for the minimum, we must strive to be thorough in our refutation of non-Christian systems, to destroy all that they believe in, and then we must faithfully declare the entire biblical worldview.

The three words in the formula remind us of the questions that we should ask. When Christians come across anti-biblical arguments, sometimes they tend to react according to whether these arguments "feel" right to them. If they can sense nothing wrong, then they do not know how to respond. This happens frequently with those whose minds have not been renewed by sound doctrines. The formula reminds them to be deliberate in examining the arguments for relevance, justification, and validity.

On the other hand, the skilled apologist possesses superior intellectual reflex. Since he has been trained to follow deeply ingrained biblical and rational paths, his perception is quicker and clearer, and he naturally comes up with stronger arguments and countermoves. He does as if by instinct that which the beginner must deliberate upon. For this reason, rather than become satisfied with a decent formula, the biblical apologist must strive to turn his craft into a natural reflex.

Moreover, the formula does not include any actual information, such as the biblical view of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, soteriology, or any other doctrine. It is possible to devise a more complex formula that includes some of this information, but it is certain that the full scope and depth of biblical rationalism can never be reduced to a manageable one. Our simple formula is nothing more than a convenient way to remember one aspect of biblical apologetics.

Of course, even when the Christian uses a formula, he should usually vary his expressions. He could keep on saying, "So? So? So?" But unless he is trying to humiliate his opponent by the obvious use of a rigid line of questioning, he should demand proof of relevance in other ways. He could say, "How is this relevant to the debate?" Or, "Even if this point is correct, how does it refute Christianity?" When it comes to validity, he can say, "I asked you to justify your assertion and you gave me this argument, but the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Just because A and B are true does not mean that C must be true. So there is still no justification for your assertion."

The Christian must be weaned from rigid tactics and formulas. The power and beauty of the biblical method are unleashed when he moves from bullet points and memorized answers to where he can maintain natural interaction with a non-Christian using a biblical way of thinking. The biblical apologist is one who thinks like Christ, and not just one who has memorized a set of answers. And if he has the mind of Christ, then an intellectual confrontation will have less to do with methods and techniques, but for the non-Christian it will be like an actual conversation with the Risen Lord.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 25 Adapted from Vincent Cheung, "Students in the Real World." 26 See Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions, Presuppositional Confrontations, and Captive to Reason. 27 This is probably because the relativist, inconsistent with his own principle of relativism, wishes to disapprove murder and rape. 28 This is probably because the Christian, not completely renewed in his thinking, remains sympathetic to certain non-Christian beliefs and assumptions. 29 We can call it the SWR formula.

━━━━━━━━━//━━━━━━━━

Vincent Cheung. Apologetics in Conversation (2011).

Copyright © 2011 by Vincent Cheung http://www.vincentcheung.com

Previous edition published in 2004. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted without the prior permission of the author or publisher.

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.

[roses-and-grimoires]

Character Study

(Cut for length.)

1. What’s the maximum amount of time your character can sit still with nothing to do?

Idristan likes to think that he wants to settle down somewhere, maybe focus on writing down everything he’s learned about voidsent and voidtouched, and start a very nice garden. But in truth, I don’t think he’s ever really gonna do that. He gets really restless when he has nothing to do. Plus, it doesn’t do his self-destructive habits any good...

2. How easy is it for your character to laugh?

Depends on how you’re going about it. He can appreciate wit and laughing at others. More traditional jokes might not fly as well.

3. How do they put themselves to bed at night (reading, singing, thinking?)

These days? He’s been mainly using a combination of alcohol and potions to more or less pass out. Usually he would read or think for a bit.

4. How easy is it to earn their trust?

Idristan believes in varying degrees of trust. Getting him to trust you completely is hard. He’s been living with some secrets that could get him killed for years, and it’s really hard to get him to open up entirely with anyone because of that--at least, if he gets a choice in the matter.

5. How easy is it to earn their mistrust?

Fairly easily. Again, varying degrees.

6. Do they consider laws flexible, or immovable?

Very flexible. Idristan believes in doing what is right--specifically, what he believes is right. If that means doing things that are illegal in the pursuit of that, then so be it.

7. What triggers nostalgia for them, most often? Do they enjoy that feeling?

Spending time in the Brume. The smell of beef stew. Snow on Starlight. And it’s mixed for him. He enjoyed his childhood, as much as could be expected, but there’s a lot of guilt and regret there now too. He is sorry he couldn’t be there for his sister for all those years or speak to his mother again before she died.

8. What were they told to stop/start doing most often as a child?

To stop getting into fights.

9. Do they swear? Do they remember their first swear word?

Oh, yeah. He mainly sticks to blasphemy, but slips in a bloody, shite, or fuck now and then. All that Limsan influence lately. And yes. If only because his mother came down hard on him for it.

10. What lie do they most frequently remember telling? Does it haunt them?

Honestly, it’s hard for him to keep track. Once you’re gone through a couple of different identities and general lying about your past, it can be hard to keep straight. Perhaps saying he’s fine when he’s really not--and that one has gotten him into trouble before.

11. How do they cope with confusion (seek clarification, pretend they understand, etc)?

He’ll ask for clarification. Often not very nicely, but he’ll ask.

12. How do they deal with an itch found in a place they can’t quite reach?

Grumble and try to ignore it.

13. What color do they think they look best in? Do they actually look best in that color?

Black, of course. And it’s not bad on him, though he can pull off white fairly well too.

14. What animal do they fear most?

Dragons. Certain voidsent.

15. How do they speak? Is what they say usually thought of on the spot, or do they rehearse it in their mind first?

Carefully. He tends to hold back a lot (see lack of trust). Certain topics you practically see his mind working as he judges answers.

16. What makes their stomach turn?

Working with cultists.

17. Are they easily embarrassed?

Yes. He is rather prideful.

18. What embarrasses them?

Weakness. Admitting he made a mistake.

19. What is their favorite number?

13

20. If they were asked to explain the difference between romantic and platonic or familial love, how would they do so?

“One is about the person you want to spend the rest of your life with and would do anything for.... the other is about your sister.”

21. Why do they get up in the morning?

Because lying around doing nothing is far worse.

22. How does jealousy manifest itself in them (they become possessive, they become aloof, etc)?

He tends to become possessive, and a bit sulky as well.

23. How does envy manifest itself in them (they take what they want, they become resentful, etc)?

Sooo much resentment. So much. He’s far better about it now that’s he’s older, but it flares up every now and then.

24. Is sex something that they’re comfortable speaking about? To whom?

To his partner he’s fine with it. To everyone else, not really. He thinks it’s something that should be kept private. Basically he’s still a bit of a prude--though he’s getting better about it.

25.  What are their thoughts on marriage?

He likes the idea. He’s very much a monogamist and a traditional romantic. While he could live happily with a partner without ever making it official, there’s part of him that wants to do the whole ceremony and everything.

26. What is their preferred mode of transportation?

Anything but airships. Seriously. Anything.

27. What causes them to feel dread?

The thought that his secrets might come out. The idea that he might lose himself or hurt someone because of one of them. Inquisitors. Airship travel.

28.  Would they prefer a lie over an unpleasant truth?

No.

29. Do they usually live up to their own ideals?

Yes, but he usually doesn’t see it that way himself. His standards for himself are far higher than those he keeps for other people.

30. Who do they most regret meeting?

Uathach, Draidetch, Richaud.

31. Who are they the most glad to have met?

@solennelagarde​, of course. And @ser-gemini​. And @synn-heolstor​ and Michaux... not he would ever admit that to either of their faces. And ARK as a whole is slowly getting there.

32. Do they have a go-to story in conversation? Or a joke?

No, he tends to wing it. And since most of his jokes are either at someone’s expense or rather grim and fatalistic, it’s perhaps for the best he doesn’t always start with them.

33. Could they be considered lazy?

Kind of. He gets bored easily, and that tends to result in him slacking off--or trying to pin whatever it is on someone else. If it’s something he actually cares about though? Hello obsession, my name is Idristan.

34. How hard is it for them to shake a sense of guilt?

That’s actually possible? Someone should really tell him; the guy hangs onto things and just beats himself up, sometimes for years. It’s not pretty.

35. How do they treat the things their friends come to them excited about? Are they supportive?

If it’s something that interests him, he’ll share in the excitement, at least to a degree. If not, you’re more likely to get a “yeah, that’s nice” and perhaps an attempt to change the topic.

36. Do they actively seek romance, or do they wait for it to fall into their lap?

He tends to wait for it.

37. Do they have a system for remembering names, long lists of numbers, things that need to go in a certain order (like anagrams, putting things to melodies, etc)?

For names he tries to memorize them along with the face. Or... sometimes tries, if he thinks it’ll actually be worth it. Long lists and numbers I can see him trying to turn into songs, or at least something he can hum.

38. What memory do they revisit the most often?

The happy ones are mainly of his family and the time he spent with Solenne and all of his friends in the last free company he was apart of. He doesn’t really try to dwell on them, especially now.

The unhappy ones... well, those tend to come up in nightmares and certain places. There are reasons he avoids certain places in the Shroud now.

39. How easy is it for them to ignore flaws in other people?

Very, very difficult.

40. How sensitive are they to their own flaws?

Oh, he’s aware of them. He just chooses to ignore them.

41. How do they feel about children?

He likes them. He wants some of his own one day.

42. How badly do they want to reach their end goal?

Extremely. It’s honestly a bit unhealthy.

43. If someone asked them to explain their sexuality, how would they do so?

“I mainly like women. Not that it’s likely any of your concern, because flings don’t really tend to interest me.”

QUESTIONS FOR CREATORS A) Why are you excited about this character?

He’s fun. He’s prickly enough to create conflict, but also has that hidden sense of empathy and concern for others--one that he will vehemently deny if you push him on it. He also has some fairly lofty goals that give him a direction to move in--even if it’s unlikely that he’ll ever achieve a few of them, watching him struggle is entertaining. Plus, he’s got a lot of stuff that he struggles with, so that can come into play--and a few secrets that can be danced around. Basically it’s just easy to throw him into things and see what happens. That and he’s gone through some really interesting growth already, and I’m interested in seeing which direction he moves in now.

B) What inspired you to create them?

Honestly? Two things. Thanks to the MSQ and some Ishgard rp I really started to like the setting and wanted an Ishgardian to play around on. Second, I fell in love with the characters from a podcast--or at least, the idea for one. Basically there was one guy who started out as a psychologist then got dragged into the occult and became a paranormal investigator. So I took the basic idea, twisted it a bit (voidsent hunter instead of investigator), and found a way to make it work with an Ishgardian backstory. He actually ended up pretty different than said character as a result, especially motivation-wise. C) Did you have trouble figuring out where they fit in their own story?

Sometimes. I feel like I’m really not that great at coming up with long-term plots, plus it hasn’t always been easy to find people that he bounces off of well. D) Have they always had the same physical appearance, or have you had to edit how they look?

Pretty much the same. I settled on what he would look like really on once I had an idea what I was working on.

E) Are they someone you would get along with? Would they get along with you?

No, probably not. I mean... the guy’s kind of a jerk. And he’s pretty particular about the people he likes. F) What do you feel when you think of your OC (pride, excitement, frustration, etc)?

Sometimes I just want to facepalm cause he’s a stubborn idiot who doesn’t always think about peoples’ feelings. But I’m proud of all the ways he’s changed too. G) What trait of theirs bothers you the most?

He is really self-destructive. He’s got some bad habits that he is actively not working on, has a bad tendency of pushing people away, and just.... being too prideful and stubborn to admit that he needs help. H) What trait do you admire most?

His stubbornness, ironically. He’s gone through a lot, yet he’s still around and he’s still empathetic to other people. He wants to do some good in the world. He hasn’t let it turn him completely resentful and bitter. I) Do you prefer to keep them in their canon universe?

I usually come up with new characters for new settings. An AU could be interesting though. J) Did you have to manipulate or exclude canon factors to allow them to create their character?

I had to dive really into Ishgard lore to make sure that I was getting everything right (hell, I had to check something fairly recently). So I feel fairly confident his backstory makes sense and fits with what we know. There’s been some other stuff that’s happened to him that’s a bit lore-bendy, and while I feel like I can justify it really well, I acknowledge what it is.

Tagged by: @ser-gemini​ Tagging: Anyone who wants to. It’s a bit long, so if you feel like it consider yourself tagged!

#ffxiv #balmung #idristan agache #thanks for tagging me

[kingdomofthelogos]

Defenders of Light & Truth

Read Nehemiah 10

Imagine the world you desire for your family, friends, neighbors, and even enemies. Do we desire for them a world where good and evil are fashioned and formed by the personalities and trends of our age? Do we desire a world where our courage is outsourced to fiends who would prefer approval by the God-haters over doing the good work of freeing the lost with the true Gospel of Christ? We are not graced with an excess of leaders who will be like Nehemiah and stand firm on the wall with a trowel and a sword. Instead, we are afflicted with too many leaders who gladly descend from the wall, ceasing the good work, to converse with the darkness as if it is an alternative light which needs compromise. A world of such descension is a world without truth, goodness, or anything noble or beautiful. For such is a world where one can neither love their enemy nor their neighbor, for here none can even tell which is which. This is not a mere question of something so ordinary as the American dream, but the fundamental question of whether we desire to live in a world where good is truly understood to be good, where God is God. The only antidote to such a calamitous world is the Gospel of Christ Jesus, and revival through the Covenant of Christ begins between each of our hearts and God. Restoration is only possible through this Covenant.

Anything set up as moral authority outside of God is an idol. Without a healthy fear of God and His eternal sovereignty we will find that a society cannot maintain an appreciation for truth. Moreover, there cannot even be appreciation for the common good in a society of idolatry. For such a nation will not even be able to agree on what is true or good. America is discovering that we had lived in a luxurious delusion where we believed that people were naturally good and reasonable, that all would pursue truth and liberty given the opportunity. However, this is not so. For all sons of Adam and daughters of Eve are born with the curse of sin in their hearts. Whether we fall for the idols of our own making or we bow in exhaustion before the idols forced on us by the world, idolatry always leads to chaos. America is discovering that without belief in the absolute sovereignty of God, one cannot even believe in basic math.

The antidote to such calamity is revival, and only through the Gospel of Christ Jesus can we find such a greatly needed restoration. The formula for restoration is as singular as it has ever been across the annals of history. Going to 1 Samuel 7:3 we find this truth illustrated. Samuel declared to the assembly of Israel, “If you are returning to the Lord with all your heart, then put away the foreign gods and the Astartes from among you. Direct your heart to the Lord, and serve him only, and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines.” Samuel’s message was of God, and it is as true today as it was then. If you want restoration then you must turn away from service to all idols and alternate moral authorities and return to the liberating service of God. 

Yet, despite this unfailing communication to prosperity and joy, the people could not peel their hearts away from the love of idolatry. Whether it was to the strange idols stumbled upon while in unfamiliar lands, or to the idols fashioned by the hunger of their hearts, the Israelites could not resist. The idolatry ravaged Israel, doing what it always does: making crude beasts and fools out of both the learned and laborers alike. Idolatry always makes people behave ignorantly and crudely, like primitive pagans who will kill their own children.

When we turn to 1 Samuel 8:4-7, we can see just how idolatry reshaped Israelite society. 4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, 5 and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” 6 But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. 

What the people desired in a king was to be ruled by their own desires, and to forsake their liberating status as direct subjects of God. How sad it is when people neglect the precious gifts of God in favor of something miserable. People always think idolatry will be better, but it is always more miserable. Even more sad is the truth that many will love their misery. They will let their nails grow long so that they might dig into the pits of despair, for there are many who make a home in the pit of despair and desire not to leave.

Hebrews 2:3 reminds us of the perils of willful idolatry in asking, “how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?” As with much of the wisdom of God, this is both a teaching and a logical observation. If one chooses to walk in the darkness, then they live with the consequences of the darkness. If one chooses to be indistinct from the world, so shall they live indistinctly, devoid of the fruits of God’s Kingdom and lacking in hope and liberty. The hope and liberty of God cannot be counterfeited or manufactured, for it is only found through the Covenant.

Inasmuch as there arose over Egypt a Pharaoh who knew not Joseph, a generation has arisen in America that knows not liberty. As Pharaoh hated Joseph’s house in ignorance of the good deeds done for Egypt by the Hebrew, we have many who hate liberty and her family of virtues out of ignorance of their beauty. Rather than desiring the providential liberty loved by our forebearers, many have desired to be ruled by their hearts' own desires, just as the ancient Israelites did when they wanted a king.

This story always ends in the same tragedy, for outside of God all is of the world is chaos.  Outside of God is the void, the land of entropy, where everything spirals towards Gehenna, the meaningless hell of eternal torment. Whether by crawl or by sprint, everything outside of God will decay. 1 John 2:16-17 remind us that 16 for all that is in the world—the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, the pride in riches—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 And the world and its desire are passing away, but those who do the will of God live forever.

Today we are surrounded by wholehearted evil, evil that consummates its wretched ways by ignoring all that is true and good. Its tactic of deception is to ignore what is good and true rather than bother to defy it. Such evil knows it can only maintain its terrible deception through instilled ignorance of all that is true, noble, just, pure, beautiful, good and virtuous. This breed of wickedness knows that truth and light are so powerful, that if we were to even acknowledge truth on the debate floor then it would be exposed for the fraud that it is. It cannot afford for our world to even suspect the existence of truth. Therefore, it must ignore the truth to the point of annihilation in order to maintain its terrible siege. 

Insomuch as there is great assurance in the perfect order of God’s creation, we also have assurance that God’s perfect judgment will ring into fruition. Just as the laws of mathematics and physical bind together our terrestrial domain, so will the judgement of God restore creation to her noble beauty. Despite the frustrations of our world that wicked deeds go unpunished and deceitful hearts stir without accountability, we know there will be an hour when Christ judges the living and the dead. Do we love our neighbors and enemies enough to wish for them to be graced with life on the day of judgement rather than be ended in final calamity? If so, then we must witness to them of the love of Christ, even as they are increasingly given over to idolatry and paganism.  

In the church we are commanded to work so that as many names as possible will be recorded in the Lamb's book of life when the angel descends from midheaven announcing the hour of judgement. The mortal folly of beast worship looms near, and perhaps it is always near, for there is no arresting its blasphemy. There comes a time when even Christ, whose love and dedication is infinitely greater than our own, says it is time to shake the dust from one’s sandals. It is disturbing to know that such a time exists; therefore, let us appreciate the time we have and do the good work while we can. If we desire to bring people into the faith, then we must draw the line and defend it, standing against evil as a testimony of all that is good and true. It is only through maintaining the holiness of the church that we can offer people a real alternative to the wiles of the world. If we love people, we must show them the true Gospel. 

The idols of today demand we see the world through the lenses of power and oppression, but the God of all creation will look into your soul and ask if you loved Him. Matthew 25:14-30 gives us insight into God’s judgment. Scripture does not indicate that God will judge us based on our circumstances, on how we were treated fairly or not, but on how we loved Him and followed His commandments. The parable of the talents is not a parable of how each slave was treated, but of how each slave treated the gift their master gave them.

It is here that we read Nehemiah 10. Nehemiah draws the line for His people, and they submit to the Covenant of God. This is necessary for the revival and restoration they have experienced to endure. If they desire to have meaning in life, then they must walk in God’s Law. The Law is not a restraint against joy, but a restraint against sin and chaos. It is armor against all that rots a society and foments decay. It is a structure for meaning in life, a framework for liberty that holds life together in the way that studs, beams, and rafters hold together a building. Nehemiah has fought a good fight, defending against enemies without and enemies within. He has stepped up to the plate to be a man in a world filled with complacent servants who would rather live in shame and despair than rise to excellence. Now, he sets up his people to endure in their achievement by holding them accountable to God’s Covenant. 

Nehemiah 10 is more a solidification of everything thus far in the memoir than it is anything new. Revival and restoration must come through the covenant if it is to be achieved and maintained. If one wants to be a part of this unique society which is set apart for God's purpose, then they must enter into it through the front doors of the Covenant. If one wants to live in liberty without shame, then they must bind their name with the unchanging Covenant of God. It is not through debate, compromise, or negotiation with the disloyal skeptics that hate God and His virtues, but only through the firm foundation of the Covenant.

Restoration of a nation and liberty from idolatry can only be found through the Covenant. We are graced to live under the New Covenant of Christ, and it is a lion that can slay the vilest darkness and a lamb that can bring peace to all. We are graced by the New Covenant, which is bound by the blood of Jesus. This did not abolish the old, but fulfilled it. Revival begins between your heart and God, and we must be so moved by the Gospel of our Lord to rise up as righteous men and women who defend all that is good, true, and beautiful. We must love our neighbors and enemies enough to tell them truths they do not want to hear. There is no lasting meaning in idolatry and paganism, and so many have been consumed by such a hollow existence.

Our nation has been demoralized, but the Gospel can restore it. Do not be deceived by the popular thinking of today. Revival does not begin with top down policies, but with men and women who rise up in honor of their God. Living in contrast to the world means the devil does not sit on the throne of heaven, and service to our enemies and neighbors does not mean we are motivated by their approval. People are not brought into the Kingdom by compromising with them, but by showing them the aspirational beauty of the Gospel. We must unleash the full power of the Gospel which radiates with freedom. In this Kingdom we can aspire towards common good because we put our faith in the One who is eternally sovereign, the One who is the Truth and the Life. If we want to show people an alternative, then we must hold the line on what makes it an alternative. A pathway for all has been made to God’s Kingdom, but they must come in through the Covenant and be born again through Christ. Are we prepared to love people, even our enemies, enough to draw the line against evil and witness to the world as defenders of light and truth?

#Nehemiah #Church of the Nazarene #Sermon #Pastor #Church #holiness #bible study #Theology #Prayer #Faith #Scripture #Revival #Gospel

[ministrynuggets-blog]

Know Your Invisible Enemies

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Ephesians 6:12

Enemies come in two forms:  visible and invisible.  Christians must know the invisible enemy they are dealing with.  To wage a war without knowing or understanding your invisible enemy is perhaps the greatest mistake you can ever make.  Who are the enemies we are supposed to know.  You must know all about the visible and invisible enemies of your life.  Let us start with the invisible enemies.  Your invisible enemies occupy the dark and unseen world.  

The invisible enemies of your life are categorised in different ways to help you know and understand them.  Knowing about them is very important to help you to fight them.   Below is a list of invisible enemies that we have to deal with.  These invisible enemies are spirits that exist in a realm that you cannot see.  You must know about them and fight them if you are going to be successful in your war.   

Spies, double agents, traitors, liars are all invisible enemies you must fight with.  They will never come out openly and declare war on you.  In fact, they will declare friendship with you but fight you secretly.  Invisible enemies do not want you to expose their cover.  They want to stay out of sight so they can be more effective.  Evil spirits prefer you to believe that they do not exist.  They are overjoyed when you say they are not there. Europeans claim there is no God and there is no devil and this has given Satan a free hand in Europe.   

When it comes to dealing with invisible enemies, the more you say about them and the more you expose their existence, the weaker they become.  No spy would like you to even mention the subject of spies and spying.  No spy would feel comfortable if an announcement is made that there is a spy amongst us.  His mouth would become dry and he would immediately become nervous because people would start looking around and start wondering which one is the spy.    

In the list below, you will find different types of evil spirits who do not want you to know they exist.  Every single one of these spirits is real.  They do not like the fact that I have listed them in this book.  In another book, I shall be sharing even more details of their activities, manoeuvres, operations and how you can deal with them.   

Invisible Enemies

1. Fly and insect spirits:  

But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by BEELZEBUB THE PRINCE OF THE DEVILS.  

And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:  

And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?  

And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.  

Matthew 12:24-27

2. Unclean and hateful bird spirits:

And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the HABITATION OF DEVILS, and the hold of every foul spirit, and A CAGE OF EVERY UNCLEAN AND HATEFUL BIRD.  

Revelation 18:1-2

3. Unclean animal spirits:  

And I saw THREE UNCLEAN SPIRITS LIKE FROGS come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.  

For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

Revelation 16:13-14

And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of FOURFOOTED BEASTS of the earth, and WILD BEASTS, AND CREEPING THINGS, AND FOWLS OF THE AIR. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I HAVE NEVER EATEN ANY THING THAT IS COMMON OR UNCLEAN.  

Acts 10:10-14

4. Sea and marine spirits:

And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw A BEAST RISE UP OUT OF THE SEA, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.  

Revelation 13:1

Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?

Job 41:1

There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.

Psalms 104:26

5. Principalities  

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against PRINCIPALITIES, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Ephesians 6:12

6. Powers

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against POWERS, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Ephesians 6:12

7. Rulers of the dark world  

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the RULERS OF THE DARKNESS of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Ephesians 6:12

8. Wicked spirits in high places  

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against SPIRITUAL WICKEDNESS in high places.

Ephesians 6:12

9. Thrones

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be THRONES, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Colossians 1:16

10. Dominions

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or DOMINIONS, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Colossians 1:16

11. Lucifer  

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Isaiah 14:12-15

12. Fallen angels  

And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,  

And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: HE WAS CAST OUT INTO THE EARTH, AND HIS ANGELS WERE CAST OUT WITH HIM.  

Revelation 12:7-9

13. Fallen angel-human hybrids:  The “Nephilim” - giants, bullies and tyrants

There were GIANTS (NEPHILIM) in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Genesis 6:4  

14. Fallen angel-human hybrids:  The “Gibborim” - strong, brave might men

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became MIGHTY MEN (GIBBORIM) which were of old, men of renown.

Genesis 6:4  

15.Fallen angel-human hybrids:  The “Sem” - famous men  

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, MEN OF RENOWN (SEM).

Genesis 6:4  

16. Fallen angel-animal hybrids

But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.

For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit. And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.

And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country. Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.

And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.

Mark 5:6-13

[showmethesneer]

The Beatles asks

I did this for my all-time faves Arctic Monkeys a while ago but given my recent attack of Beatlemania, i decided to try it out on the original incarnation

General

1. What was the first Beatles song you heard?

Unlike Arctic Monkeys, The Beatles were already deeply ingrained in the culture before I was born so I couldn’t pinpoint this. I think It might have been “She Loves You” 

2. What was the first Beatles album you bought?

I have never purchased a Beatles album but my sister did own that 1 compilation album, which i listened to a lot in high school

3. What was the last Beatles song you listened to?

“The Night Before”

4. Have you ever seen The Beatles live?

Seeing as I was born after 1980, this would be impossible.

5. Have you ever met any of the members?

not even close

6. What do you think their next album will sound like? Which of their covers is your favourite?

Their “Twist and Shout” is iconic. I also really enjoy “Besame Mucho” or some reason and their “You Really Got A Hold On Me” jam in Let It Be. but i’m a George girl, so “Roll Over Beethoven” might be my favourite. 

Songs and Albums 7. Favourite Beatles song?

it’s been “Come Together” since i was in high school and even though i’ve recently made a point to listen to all of their albums, i still can’t say that i have a different answer

8. Favourite Beatles album?

Rubber Soul is the real answer BUT Abbey Road is a much better cohesive album and i can’t think of a single song on that album that i don’t like... so it’s difficult.

9. Favourite album era?

i love me some Hard Day’s Night era rowdy boys but also Magical Mystery Tour era is very good and like prime Beatles. Let It Be era is the most heartbreaking.

10. Least favourite Beatles song?

i think because i have ears, i do truly dislike “Revolution 9″ but also I guess a few from Sgt Pepper’s like “Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite” “Good Morning Good Morning” and “She’s Leaving Home”. also “Within You, Without You” and I know it’s blasphemy but I kinda don’t care for “Penny Lane” so much even though I love the character in Almost Famous

11. Least Favourite Beatles album?

Beatles For Sale is so uninspired and blah

12. Least Favourite album era?

probably Let It Be because of how depressing it is 13. Favourite song off Let It Be?

Every single Paul song on that album is pretty much the most important thing to ever happen. “The Long And Winding Road” might be the realest one.

14. Least favourite song off Let It Be?

“One After 909” probably

15. Favourite song off Abbey Road?

“Come Together” is my favourite song anyway so by default it should be that. the George songs on that album are in top form, super strong. “Octopus’ Garden” is great. I also shamelessly love “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer” so there’s that. “Carry That Weight” and “The End” and “Her Majesty” are also so great like I honestly love this album and I don’t know how to choose a favourite.

16. Least favourite song off Abbey Road?

”Sun King” but only by default I’m sure.

17. Favourite song off Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band?

“A Day In The Life” is iconic. and the title song.

18. Least favourite song off Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band?

“She’s Leaving Home” I think

19. Favourite song off Rubber Soul?

can’t decide between “In My Life,” “Michelle,” “The Word,” and “Norwegian Wood”

20. Least favourite song off Rubber Soul?

maybe “Think For Yourself”

21. Favourite song off Help!?

”Help!” and “Ticket To Ride” and of course the lesbian anthem “You’re Gonna Lose That Girl”

22. Least favourite song off Help!?

“You’ve Got To Hide Your Love Away” maybe 23. Favourite album/ single artwork?

i mean Let It Be has the best cover. I kind of hate the Yellow Submarine art style, but then that’s not even any of them who drew like that.

 24. Favourite b-side?

“Lady Madonna” is technically a b-side I think? and therefore that is my answer

25. Least favourite b-side?

I don’t really know what Beatles b-sides are tbh so.. I think “Hello Goodbye” is one? if so, that’s my answer

26. Favourite music video?

I really like the “Lady Madonna” video

27. Favourite lyric?

“and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make” –“The End” from Abbey Road

28. Song that always gets stuck in your head?

so many. they were earworm masters. probably “Can’t Buy Me Love”

Members 29. Favourite band member?

George Harrison always has been and probably always will be my favourite, but the more I learn about The Beatles history, the more defensive and protective I grow of Paul.

30. Favourite Paul hair style?

he looked DELICIOUS with that beard. I know it was a depression beard and that makes me sad, but he looked A+ with that long hair he continuously tussled and god knows I love a beard. very good.

31. Favourite John hair style?

i prefer it long I guess. Let It Be was the best looks era for all of them.

32. Favourite George hair style?

I really liked his Ed Sullivan era look. but also Magical Mystery Tour thru Let It Be was a devastating hottie.

33. Favourite Ringo hair style?

i love his Rory and The Hurricanes hair actually

34. Favourite Paul fashion/ outfit?

actually in some of the Get Back/Let It be sessions, he was wearing this simple black vest that John made fun of saying he looked like “a Victorian miner” but I literally loved it. I also love pretty much eveyr ugly sweater or sweater vest I’ve seen him wear

35. Favourite John fashion/ outfit?

i am a fan of the white suit on the Abbey Road cover

36. Favourite George fashion/ outfit? 

actually the denim ensemble from the Abbey Road cover is probably also my favourite look for him? I also love the school boy uniform from the “Crackerbox Palace” video

37. Favourite Ringo fashion/ outfit?

I don’t really know. the lion costume for their Midsummer Night’s Dream skit

Misc. 38. Funniest Beatles moment?

literally any?

39. Favourite live performance?

I particularly love the “Don’t Let Me Down” performance on the rooftop gig—the one where Paul does his little shimmy. I don’t know why I just feel like they were all exactly in tune with each other and having the time of their lives and everything in their careers together was leading up to this one moment and I am emotional now.

40. Favourite interview?

so many. probably the one where Ringo says he doesn’t even smoke.. as he takes a puff from his cigarette. it’s the same one where John is asked what kind of girl he likes and he says his wife, then George is asked and he says “John’s wife.” that is probably altogether my favourite interview.

41. Are you a fan of The Rolling Stones?

not nearly as religiously but “Start Me Up” is my fucking anthem and I support them

42. Do you ship McLennon?

look.. i try not to ship real people. but Yoko kinda confirmed that John was bisexual and John and Paul fucking loved each other and it is hard for me to believe that during a time with such mainstream homophobic beliefs that these men did not have repressed feelings for each other that they didn’t want to admit to. so yeah, I kinda ship it.

43. Do you have any other Beatles ships?

i really don’t ship real people

44. Do you know how to play any Beatles songs on any instruments?

i do not

45. Would you like the Beatles to collab with anyone? who? What’s your favourite Beatles cover?

either “Helter Skelter” by Dana Fuchs or “We Can Work It Out” by Stevie Wonder… or “The Long and Winding Road” by Ray Charles or “Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight” by Jennifer Hudson… or “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” by Girl In A Coma 46. What other bands do you listen to?

Arctic Monkeys, The Last Shadow Puppets, The Clash, Fleetwood Mac, Led Zeppelin, Green Day, Girl in a Coma, The Seshen, Coheed and Cambria, Queen, Imagine Dragons, No Doubt, Dragonette

47. Favourite non-Beatles band?

Arctic Monkeys

48. Favourite non-Beatles band member?

Billie Joe Armstrong

49. Favourite non-Beatles song?

TAINTED LOVE BY SOFT CELL

 50. Favourite post-Beatles song?

“Jet” by Wings or “Got My Mind Set On You” or “Wah Wah” by George Harrison

#the beatles #long post #music

[dailyaudiobible]

03/10/2019 DAB Transcript

Numbers 14:1-15:16, Mark 14:53-72, Psalms 53:1-6, Proverbs 11:4

Today is March 10th. Welcome to the Daily Audio Bible. I am Brian and it is a pleasure to be here with you as we turn the knob and step into a brand-new week together, one that is bright and shiny, it's all out in front of us. Nothing's gone right or wrong and we get to choose how we’re gonna live into it, and one of the ways we’re choosing is to take the next steps forward through this week as we continue on the journey that will take us through the entire Bible this year. Since we have a brand-new week we've got a new translation. We’ll read from the English Standard Version this week and we’ll pick up where we left off yesterday, Numbers chapter 14 verse 1 through 15 verse 16 today.

Commentary:

Okay. So, in the book of Numbers, spies have been sent out from the wilderness of Zinn to spy out the land and it's go time. Like, literally this is where we find ourselves. It's go time. They are to move into the promised land and their families, these little children who have come out of Egypt, these little children who have been born in the wilderness, they’re gonna grow up free, first generation of free people in the land of promise that took centuries to bring about. And the spies go into the land out of the wilderness of Zinn and its…well the irony is that we were just standing looking out over the wilderness of Zinn's just a couple of weeks ago. So, this all becomes immediate and alive. And the spies go in, this is a famous story, and they come back and they say there are giants in the land, right? We’re grasshoppers next to them. There's no way we can do this, all except for the two spies Joshua and Caleb. And then though the news spreads throughout the camp like a wildfire. And, so, the entire culture that has come out of slavery, has met with God at Mount Sinai, has received the customs and rituals for their governance, and are standing at the precipice, at the literal threshold of going into the promised land decide once again that what would be best for them is to go back and ask if they can be slaves again. The parallels for our own lives are so stark in front of us right now. This may be what we are doing right now. We may have gone through the wilderness, we may have held onto God for dear life and allowed him to shift and shape whatever needed to be shaped in us and we have walked right through the threshold of what we believe we are being invited or swept or called into only to say, “this cannot be done, this cannot be done, there are giants in the land. I cannot do this.” What has happened here in our reading from today is that these little children who are coming up in the wilderness who were supposed to grow up free in the promised land were doomed. I mean we can say that an entire generation of slaves, former slaves, disqualified themselves from the promised land. And, so, they were sent back out into the wilderness to wander around for 40 years so that everyone could die off, but who does this really effect? A whole generation. The first generation intended to grow up free in the promised land didn't. They grew up nomadic in the wilderness with all kinds of problems and all kinds of struggles as we will soon see as we continue to read the story. They were supposed grow up free and instead they had to go into the promised land and do what their parents would not. Again, we got some stark realities here to look at. So, these 10 spies, they spread a bad report and it spreads like wildfire and a herd mentality begins to form and they decide the best thing that they should do is stone Moses and Aaron who are falling to their faces on the ground before the Lord saying, “God don't destroy these people, forgive them”.

And we turn the page and we go into the book of Mark and we see the same thing starting to form before our eyes. The religious leaders have decided that this Jesus cannot be the son of God and He is too disruptive. He’s going to upset the apple cart of power that they've got. And, so, they've got to kill Him. And what are they going to do? They’re going to stir up a herd mentality that is then going to kill the son of God. So, when we here language in the Psalms about sheep without a shepherd or we read in the Scriptures “all we like sheep have gone astray”, we see just how this happens and how little we know and how God can be standing right in front of our faces and we can still miss it. And how is it that that could have happened and can still and does still happen? What is it that is set against us that can make us lose the plot of the story at just about any moment? Deception. It can come in many flavors and stripes and forms and we can call it a lot of things but if we’re gonna boil things down to essential core elements here, the thing set against you and I to destroy us is deception. It was deception that ruined the whole thing for us to begin with in the garden of Eden.

So, in the book of Numbers the promise was available. Like, they were literally supposed to pack up when the spies got back and make a plan and go into the promised land and live in the promised land, the land of milk and honey. This bad report opened the door for a deception that spread like wildfire among the camp and created a herd mentality.

In the book of Mark, God incarnate, the Creator of all things is standing before these people who are standing in judgment of God. And what does God got to say in His own defense? Nothing, except “I am”. And when God identifies Himself they all tear their clothes and cry blasphemy and turn Him over to be killed. What is deception causing you to do that isn't you at all and never was? What is deception telling you about who you are that was never true but you’ve lived as if it were true and so it doesn't matter that it's a lie? Deception can make people do things that they wouldn't do and become things that they never were and behave in ways that, upon reflection wouldn't make any sense and we’re seeing this play out in the Bible because this plays out in our lives.

Prayer:

And, so, Holy Spirit, we invite You to reveal to us the places of deception in our lives, not only the places that we’re deceiving others but the places that we have been deceived and are walking on a path that isn't going anywhere. And if it is going anywhere it's just circling us back into the wilderness when it was time to move forward into the promised land. Come, Holy Spirit and show us these areas of deception in our lives we ask in Jesus’ name. Amen.

Announcements:

dailyaudiobible.com is the website, its home base, its where you find out what’s going on around here. So, be sure to stay tuned and stay connected.

The next thing up on the itinerary or the calendar is the More Gathering for women that will be taking place beginning a month from tomorrow on April 11th. So, if you have a registered yet, now is the time and you can get all the details at moregathering.com or in the Initiatives section at dailyaudiobible.com and we’re very much looking forward to it and I hope you can be there. So, check it out.

If you want to partner with the Daily Audio Bible, you can do that at dailyaudiobible.com. There is a link on the homepage. I humbly, truly humbly, thank you for your partnership. If you’re using the Daily Audio Bible app, you can press the Give button in the upper right-hand corner or, if you prefer, the mailing address is PO Box 1996 Spring Hill Tennessee 37174.

And as always, if you have a prayer request or comment 877-942-4253 is the number to dial.

And that's it for today. I'm Brian I love you and I'll be waiting for you here tomorrow.

Community Prayer and Praise:

Hey family this is Melissa from Albertville Alabama. I need the community, the whole family to pray for South Alabama __ Alabama to be specific. I know you’ve seen how the tornadoes devastated those little towns in Lake County. So, we need you all to pray for these families, pray for the ones who lost loved ones and lift them because some of them lost everything and they don’t have any insurance. So, I’m sure our church will do __ but you all please, please, please keep Alabama in your prayers. And also, they found a little 11-year-old girl dead, somebody murdered her in the county that’s right next door to __ county where I live. And her name was Amberlynne. I can’t recall the last name. But please lift up __. It’s just so sad, it’s so much evil but I know God is still good. We love y’all. Y’all have a great day. Bye-bye.

Hi Daily Audio Bible friends, family this is Teresa from Indianapolis - was from Indianapolis now from Savannah Georgia. I am calling in today…first I’d like to greet everybody…just say hello. I love you guys. I’ve been listening for such a long time and I’m just very blessed to have this program in my life. I heard a call today from Angela from California and I was just prompted to call right away before the broadcast even ended. Angela, I just want to commend you for calling in. I thank God for you. I thank God for your life. I thank God that you picked up the phone. I thank God for your grandbaby that’s about to be born and she deserves to know you. You are more blessed than you know. Emotions are just…time…a time period. It might be a long time that you’ve felt sad or that you felt the way you felt, and I do understand that because I’ve been there. I’ve felt nothingness in my life, but God said in my Spirit, I just knew He was saying, “this is not to the death.” I didn’t have any desire to eat anything, to do anything, to…nothing. But I was just here. So, I’m encouraging you today to just stay here, to be encouraged. I’m lifting you up in the name of Jesus. Lord you touch Angela’s mind in Jesus’ name. Give her peace right now in the name of Jesus that passes all understanding, not peace of the world __ but peace only you can give God. Touch her, love on her Father God. Build her up in Jesus name. If you want to call me, you can reach out to me at [email protected]. My name is Teresa at [email protected].

Hi this is Greg from central Illinois and I just want to call in and say how refreshing it was to hear the 18-year-old girl call in the other day. She is the future and she sounds very bright and it’s just refreshing to hear a young voice on here calling in and just reaching out the community for prayer. I just want to lift up all these nations that are going through turmoil right now. If you look around there’s just…you could basically take any country and there’s some type of crisis going on. I think of Venezuela and all the food and medical treatment that they need over there. I just lift them up and just pray that God will guide many to see Him and find Him and know that they all…they all need Him and to lean on Him. And I just pray that the leaders over there will except the relief that’s coming over. I think of Cameroon, who is in a civil war and there’s bloodshed every day and just pray for peace over there, that you will protect the people that just need peace and comfort and strength to move on each and every day. I think of the crisis going on in Conga with the rape. I just pray God that you will comfort those girls and women. Let them lean on you each and every day and know that you are there to protect them. And we’ve got it easy here in United States. I mean most of us would be considered rich compared to the rest of world. We’ve got so much to give to those other countries. I just pray that we’ll all look around us and see that they need help and just pray to God for comfort and peace and understanding for them. Thank you for what you’re doing Brian and thank you for the community for all the prayers. God bless you all.

Hello family, my name is Natalie. I’m from Houston and I’ve called in just a very few times before. And my heart in the last years as a listener has been on this family and the platform that I hold very dear my heart. I just want for prayers for my son Bill. I thank everyone who pray for him and continues to pray for him. He’s my prodigal son. Today is his birthday and he is 30 years old. I have three grandbabies. The short story is he’s eliminated our relationship for the past three years. The good news is our heavenly Father has given me strength and hope and has affluently placed a peace about it although I do have tears and long for that relationship be rekindled. And as I listen to all the prayers on the Daily Audio Bible and my family I know there are many of us out there who are struggling with prodigal sons and daughters and other hardships as well. So, I wanted to state that I do pray as I listen to your requested prayers and praises, there’s a lot of them as well. And I just thank you again for being with me in prayer for my son Bill and that God touches his heart and directs him back to Him and helps him realize the importance of family and forgiveness and that he has a change of heart and that it aligns with God. Thank you.

[nvmlindseyallan]

@Kirsten_MT lectures @stephen_agsunta @mikel_agsunta @jai_agsunta @josh_agsunta.

Join us on August 4- https://www.facebook.com/events/2175384086029575/

Please kindly power donate (money bomb) to sustain the work of your Commondominion. Thank you very much:

RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION (RCBC) Account Name: Joriz M Montes Account Number: 9024097847

or via PayPal at [email protected]

Donate to our yokebearers: http://amywinehousefoundation.org/, https://www.facebook.com/donate/1960407710850840/1696027257171317/ ,  https://www.facebook.com/Thehumanityparty/, https://www.facebook.com/cameranritzler and  https://www.facebook.com/songandstoryproductions/

Support our sponsors: https://www.facebook.com/giulia.kascina

Join us on October 10,31- https://www.facebook.com/events/1681106778634973/ and https://www.facebook.com/events/196185617635704/

Join our cause: https://www.petition2congress.com/ctas/make-trump-wall-national-living-memorial-border-wall  

Join us with all your family and friends: https://www.facebook.com/nvmlindseyallan/posts/1726251834148859  

THE DIVINE WORD OF GODHEAD THAT CAME THROUGH LADY #KirstenMooreTowers ON THE SERMON SHE DELIVERED ON JULY 1, 2018 AFTER BEING COMMISSIONED BY KA ANGEL AND KA ELLIX.

Why we call Hart in the Commondominion of Christ the week of July 1-9 as 'Memorial Week' for the United Saints of Israel of the Godhead is a powerful reprove to the Empire that they indeed as the Double Connotations of the word 'memorial' in the Bible imply, shall be burnt up (Joshua 7, 1 Samuel 15, 2 Peter 3) not as a pleasing sacrifice but as abominable strange fire (Leviticus 10) as per their on-off claims of being peculiar (1 Peter 2) due to their interest power-play (Matthew 23). Meanwhile us Hart are committed and determined to offer ourselves up (Isaiah 43) as a (Psalm 86) broken and contrite heart to Godhead (Azariah 1). In Tagalog the word for 'burnt' is 'susunog', the same as 'susunod' or obedience, the word Empire is fucking against us every hour. Their act of sacrilege against our submission to our leaders Hart is only a blatant proof of they indeed having the curse of Cain, which they until now, do indeed blame unto us with. We must therefore implore Godhead that with all Empire's doing to pollute and corrupt the spiritual and moral fiber of the United Saints, as well as other countries, every national holiday that comes must be the final national holidays that we should undergo to, as much as we need to press on (2 Peter 3) to for the Millennium to immediately begin and therefore do all that we were longing to do to implement Godhead's Mandates. Empire might always build on the notion that they 'Christianize' these countries or 'evangelize from' that countries, but the point is whether they have evangelized themselves (James 4-5). When they say 'new evangelization' or 'neocathacumen', they only introduce to us the warned-about 'another Gospel'. They cannot even say that they already self-examine spiritually, for when Christ Said that we must 'go and make disciples of all creation', He means that we must be 'Preaching' to Heaven Itself (Colossians 1, Ephesians 3) where Godhead is (Acts 7, Isaiah 66). Surely this is another Shattering to the Empire that always claim to implement Godhead policies to men, as much as this Empire is the prophetic polluted heaven (Leviticus 26, Isaiah 14, Revelation 6,8,15-16). Proof of that is the Empire's women itself, who advocates for the genocide of the male Stockman. These women pollute themselves and then say that men polluted them purportedly (Isaiah 66). These women are supposed to be not idle (1 Timothy 5, Titus), lest they be idols (Isaiah 44, Isaiah 11, Jeremiah 23, Ezekiel 34), as these women generate spiritual complacency and moral negligence (Isaiah 32, Amos 3-4). If we're complacent and negligent we would always backslide (Hebrews 10), therefore we must meet these godless and ungodly women's blatant blasphemy to our leaders, as well as to all our Commondominion sisters, thru 'plowing' (Luke 9) their backs as per their claims towards us (Psalm 129, Isaiah 49,51,54) so as for them (Ezekiel 15,19) to eventually yield (Philippians 1, John 15, 1 Corinthians 1, Matthew 21, 2 Chronicles 29-30) to us (Hosea 10, Revelation 2-3,12,22), as much as 'land' is also prophetically implied to women (Isaiah 66,45,63-64). If we're made 'idle' and therefore 'idol' by Empire just like #idinamenzel, therefore we allow this Empire to make us their puppets, or 'home gods' like their propaganda using#themuppets. This Empire also indicts, and now even over-mis-dis-abuses, our leaders, just like Jose Laurel, of being 'puppets', therefore over 72 years (2 Chronicles 36, Luke 10, Daniel 9, Matthew 18) after Laurel was made president on the year that our True Mother Han Jak Moon, and fellow Messenger Sir Martin Evangelista, were born (I was on our #CheongIlGukmonths ago when my visit there shock my Empire-held namesake Taiwan), Godhead called another Joseph, our Prime Minister and Dance Captain, to organize the Commondominion of Christ and proclaim rest and restoration for all yokebearers. It is true that 'foxes have holes and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to rest onto His Head.' The 'foxes' referred to Hart is no other but all yokebearers, as per #sytycd. They can indeed do anything they want, and that as Empire enables them unto, but the true man who has dynamic and genuine concern for all yokebearers, our endtime Joseph, cannot be even given preference and even a chance by these yokebearers to present his#AudreyCase indeed before them. The endtime Joseph is the Head of the Household of Godhead as appointed by Christ (Revelation 2, Acts 20, Hebrews), the faithful and discreet slave for all yokebearers, and the servant to the Goodman of #ArtemisHouse, who is Sir Arsenio T. Ferriol. Empire cannot claim the Headship of Christ to His Church, and even the eternal rest (Isaiah 48,57,30) for it is #clearishere from this passage that Christ has nowhere to rest His Head unto. Brother Joseph Stirling Steinfeld Sykes is the young and true version of King Edward X- when we say#praisetotheman, we allude to our Saint Pontius Pilate's Acclamation of Christ refulfilled to the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. (Psalm 26) The endtime Joseph always cry out for justice (Revelation 6-7) over Empire's #john1828campaign. #foreverourmother's cries of 'crucify Him' every their Kill Jesus Week is indeed insult (Psalm 137, Zephaniah 1), therefore they cannot claim being blessed amidst criticisms in Matthew 5. Empire's recrucifixion of Christ disqualifies them from the celestial priesthoods, for they exalt themselves being 'other Christs' in the process, meanwhile our disbelief of and disobedience to the endtime Joseph would eventually lead to him, as with the priesthood, being taken away from us. He is indeed, as per Empire's claims on the 14th Sunday of Ordinary Time, the 'prophet in our midst' (1 Thessalonians 5 God's Word Translation) working within the Empire to give us copious accounts of the Scriptures that our heads would deny from us (John 8,12). He is continually (Hebrews 4, john 16) advocating the verses deleted by Empire such as #NoMiddleGround, and also declares (Psalm 19, John 6) Shattering of any Empire claims to such (May 13,20-21, 2017) through 1 Timothy 2. The endtime Joseph is the true and only genuine Refugee and Immigrant that we must receive more than anyone- we have heard from Empire (Matthew 5 [June 27-28, 2018]) that 'we're not obligated to give alms to the poor, but we're obligated to give voluntary monetary contributions (2 Corinthians 8 [13th Sunday in Ordinary Time]-9 [December 15, 2016]).' In light of such I now most verily tell you- you're not obligated to receive the so-called 'refugees' and 'immigrants' that Empire is hoarding against you, for if they're really poor, they will never be pabebe (Galatians 4). Meanwhile Brother Joseph, the Poor, Young, Little, and Wise Preacher, does not stoop down to Empire's level to appeal pabebe to us, instead he honors yokebearers with absolute biblical truth (Isaiah 42). All of these behooves us to now more than ever rally behind his words, more rather than what Empire would on their 'dramatic speeches' either on their rallies or their movies. (Ephesians 3) Our most beloved brother is under everyday attack by his own family and even by other people, for his being indeed, out of this Commondominion faith (1 Peter 2-4), peculiar than their actions (Job 9,19). Joseph's family is keeping him away from us so that he cannot serve us with the Gospel Lowe. We must take up where the endtime Joseph cannot personally attend to us. Let's honor his concern for us that nobody else can give as he. The need for us all yokebearers to cherish and contend for the labors and sacrifices of the endtime Joseph is that we must unite in loyal obedience unto all his words (Philippians 1-2) is much more pressing now more than ever indeed, as our fellows Hart would sing, given that we too ourselves are limited in our own to face the Empire's ever-growing attacks against us in the context of our limited and unpredictable lives, as well as the fast-approaching end of the world (Hebrews 9, 2 Peter 3). Empire runs the uncertainty today in the world, people get to ask themselves whether they'll be the next causalities of the next Empire's sensationalized and propagandized false flag. Godhead rather is Offering us indeed a way out of those deceptions (Zephaniah 1, Psalm 18)- the Commondominion preaches us to get out and away of all Empire false flags, declaring forth that not all 'tragedies' are 'martyrdoms'. In fact Empire has even more attacks against us, escalating than before, in matter of hours, and basically these are all due to signals of Baal-raising in Empire stations. (Ezekiel 18,1-3,33) One of the hysterias that Empire generated against us this past year is being against guns. In the Bible swords are the equivalent of guns. If the Bible prohibits us from holding guns it would appear that Godhead's servants of old were not justified from using it. Therefore we are asked to have the 'full battle gear' of Godhead, and yea, that includes a sword, or a gun (Ephesians 6, Hebrews 4, Psalm 35,143). Years ago as usual Empire thru their theatre workforce has issued a propaganda movie claiming our martyrs and they have a scene there where they were asking for firearms and yet they are denied. They said in turn, 'shall I fight them thru my bare hands?' Guys, notice that the Empire Theatre Workforce is against guns, yet they admit that guns are indispensably needed for protection of life and property. We can only say that Empire's selfish of that right and that they don't want us to enjoy such wright thru gun ownership. As with spiritual, moral and religious matters (Matthew 26, Romans 8, 2 Corinthians 13, 1 Corinthians 11), Empire really does not do good (James 2, 1 Corinthians 4, Romans 14) on claims even such as a political matter like gun ownership (Romans 10, Mark 7). Even in yokebearing, Empire would stop us yokebearers from getting spiritual graces from the Commondominion such as divine commissioning and what I do now, preaching. Concerning the Empire's claims of spiritual, religious and moral matters, we see that they are laboring in vain just to deny the Central Archives from us- the Constantinian 'Special Task Force' was created for just one shithole purpose- to gather hours and hours of mundane testimonials and work for days sophisticated graphics and art designs in order to whitewash the sermons delivered by King Edward X. They are laboring in vain (Psalm 127, Romans 10, Isaiah 41-44), for they themselves are basking in what we're supposed to share with us instead, knowing that the Word of Godhead is our only purpose for life (Matthew 4, John 4,6-7, Psalm 40). This Empire is evidently faking how it is like to 'work the word'- they only work hard to replace Godhead's Word for man's. (Luke 11, Psalm 50) For example, Empire has evidently bypassed Deuterocanonical Apocrypha texts on their actual broadcasts last Saturday, when in fact they have advertised for that online, not to mention that they could not come up for any hymns for 2 Corinthians 8. Empire's quote of Wisdom of Solomon 1-2 on their readings text says that 'there's nothing inherently wrong that Godhead has created…it was the Devil who introduced death.' This might be true, but remember that Empire might overturn that through saying that 'there's no such thing as good and evil.' Further, Godhead Itself takes upon Themselves the power and wright (Jeremiah 23) to create 'light and darkness' (Genesis 1, Psalm 139, Isaiah 45,50)- of course everything is malicious for the Empire (Titus 1, Malachi 3). We say these because Empire of course, as gluttonous as they can be indeed, claims verses. If there's nothing indeed inherently wrong with everything that Godhead did, then why (Psalm 22) do the supposed family members of our fellow yokebearer and most beloved brother, the endtime Joseph, would always make him appear as bad and would even find and sensationalize fault with the slightest things that he does or have, just to always give him a bad day? Should we be surprised that the endtime Joseph, due to all of these, do turn to us, his fellow yokebearers, as his true family instead? Shall we deny him the love he deserves for his work, the love denied to him by his so-called mundane 'family'? In fact, we must not recur in our very own and respective households the sins that the family of the endtime Joseph is committing against our most beloved brother, if we want our families to be intact now and always. We must not be included in the hateful curse that Joseph's relatives has incurred on themselves for opposing this endtime work entrusted to the endtime Joseph (1 Samuel 2-3, Hosea 9). For example, we understand that as per this Commondominion of Christ being updated and multi-branched, not all of our fellows hart are really up for gun ownership. Many of us rather disdains gun ownership. Well, we know that as per our being multi-branched therefore harboring a plurality of Gospel discourses (Documentary History of the Church 5:392-393,501-507), Empire, in their very own words (Exodus 11), cannot stand a chance with any of their hijacked discourses as much as we can meet each of them with an appropriate response from every angle indeed (Ephesians 2). The Commondominion is made the Mediator of ideas and the measure of judgement over the universe (1 Timothy 2, Acts 17, 1 Corinthians 12, Amos, Hosea, Nahum, Obadiah). For example, Empire cannot claim exclusively the term 'far east' just because they arose from the Philippines because many of our churches Hart came from other Far Eastern countries such as China, Japan and South Korea (Matthew 2), and they cannot even claim exclusively#inc50west because many of our churches and messengers Hart came from United Saints and that, backed up by prophecy too. Speaking of 1 Timothy 2, a rendering that Edward X has most recently used reads, 'the Man that we know and recognize as Jesus Christ.' We know that this implies Christ to have a previous identity or personality, or rather, someone now goes by the Name of Christ but is another person instead, yet is indeed somebody as good as Christ, like 'we have never thought this man to be Christ, for we know him by some other name.' This is true indeed of our most beloved man Hart, who is persecuted by Empire, Sir Sterling Allan, the 'Heavenly Father in the Flesh' and 'Rock of Delusion'. We mention him now because of Lady Lindsey Stirling, the Commondominion's Female Executive Minister, and our Heavenly Mother in the Flesh. Just like what Empire says that Mary suffered 'spiritual martyrdom' with the Death of Christ, Mother Lindsey also suffered such on December 6-7, 2015 when Empire exposed her to public humiliation for the ends of Empire propaganda. Mother Lindsey cannot be claimed therefore by this Empire, for she has something that Empire cannot have-the Commondominion, for we cannot have Mother Lindsey (John 14,12,16), therefore we instead are in Mother Lindsey's possession, and this is only proper and just, so as for us to avoid committing what Empire did with their contempt of Mother Lindsey. We form therefore a type of the Hailleey Family Hart- Sterling and Lindsey are Parents, and it would appear of course, that their spiritual son is the endtime Joseph. Now where do I fit in Hart? Aside from me of course shocking up Taiwan last February, I have noticed that another fellow yokebearer of mine in Canada has the same name as me, Lady #KirstenWicklund-Steele. She's on the west coast of Canada, while I'm on the east coast. That spells 2 Witnesses already. We mention her because she was the very first Canadian to receive Brother Joseph on his first social media account, just like Ladies Arielle Petruzzella for the Americans, and Chelsie Hightower for the Brighamites (Hebrews 10, Acts 11,14). Not to mention that when I got onto Cheong Il Guk shortly after I have shocked Taiwan, therefore making me a refulfillment of the Strong-Mighty-Great-Honorable One just like how Edward X became so on nearby China on October 15,21-22, 2017, an office which he shares with the endtime Joseph as much as they're refulfillment of the 2 Witnesses since April 30, 2017, we there have True Mother Han Jak Moon. Guys, we shall be answerable to Mother Lindsey if we choose to sustain Empire's contempt of us just like what they did with Mother Lindsey herself, as well as to Ladies Kirsten, Chelsie and Arielle. We cannot even say that we have toiled much as yokebearers ourselves, for we of ourselves alone are of naught indeed (Matthew 7), therefore we need to unite with the Commondominion's leaders (1 John 1-2), some of them I have already named, such as True Mother, Father Allan, and Brother Joseph (Proverbs 1-2,8-9, John 15, Revelation 14). It is an understatement to say that all our skills and talents as yokebearers- all that makes us yokebearers- comes from Godhead thru the Commondominion Central Administration (Colossians 1, Ephesians 1), therefore it's only natural for them to be disappointed whenever we choose to spend time with Empire rather than our Commondominion leaders (Hosea 1-6). In fact we are charged to 'not let our yokebearing be entangled' indeed with Empire (Galatians 5, 2 Corinthians 6). Even though Empire churches such as #elcayg2018, #cofealexa, #gc79, and #justworldforall try to lure and woo us weekly thru playing 'sacred music' that can be danced to yet in account of their propagandas, we must remember that it was Luther himself who said in his #95Theses that we must 'away and ahead' out and from all of these Empire churches. Luther would not call such '95 Theses' if he did not foresaw the endtime Joseph being born in 1995. Even though we have to work under Empire, we must prove to them that they cannot fool us anymore, and that we know better than them, determined to not do as they do. We must mean being Commondominion folks in the midst and the front of this Empire, even as a backstab onto them (1 Peter 2-4, Philippians 2, Romans 12). This Empire does not deserve our apology for they themselves has made all these things that they do to befall against us. Empire might claim that we purportedly are afeared of ourselves when we refuse to say sorry, but that is only applicable when we recognize our need for the Commondominion, and that in turn we approach them to make up for all those times that we have chose to heed Empire more than people of our very own kind, that is the endtime Joseph. Godhead Tells us to 'fear not' and never give in to this Empire in compromise #whateverittakes. (Isaiah 41,43) And as per Empire's claims of being purportedly the stone kingdom of Daniel 2 (Genesis 31), I most humbly implore our most loving Godhead to please remember us as Empire raises their rabbles against us- may Godhead remember that it can only be us Alline (Matthew 21) who is Their true and only Kingdom (Psalm 139,72-73), and therefore fight and avenge for us against these contemptuous Empire people. May Godhead remember us indeed even as They come into Their Kingdom, and may They Visit us with Their Salvation. 

Get to know our member churches as of late: http://robertlawrencefulg.wixsite.com/commondominion/where-we-are, http://robertlawrencefulg.wixsite.com/commondominion/we-re-also-here-and-will-be-back-to Get to hear our member preachers as of late: youtube.com/channel/UCNgq_i3ZlMTxcczzEYQj6LQ/channels Our blogs: nvmlindseyallan.wordpress.com, nvmlindseyallan.blogspot.com, nvmlindseyallan.tumblr.com Get all day, everyday word from me: facebook.com/nvmlindseyallan Follow our flash reports: https://twitter.com/commondominion Get in touch with me directly: facebook.com/jonas.stirling Like our pages: https://www.facebook.com/jonas.stirling/likes Follow our team: https://www.facebook.com/jonas.stirling/following Meet our team: http://robertlawrencefulg.wixsite.com/commondominion/what-we-give

Our Gathering Places of Safety: https://www.facebook.com/nvmlindseyallan/posts/1726251834148859

#NVMLindseyAllan #EVMStirlingTada

[fevie168]

Saturday (June 2): "Who gave you this authority?"

Scripture: Mark 11:27-33

27 And they came again to Jerusalem. And as he was walking in the temple, the chief priests and the scribes and the elders came to him, 28 and they said to him, "By what authority are you doing these things, or who gave you this authority to do them?" 29 Jesus said to them, "I will ask you a question; answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. 30 Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men? Answer me." 31 And they argued with one another, "If we say, `From heaven,' he will say, `Why then did you not believe him?' 32 But shall we say, `From men'?" -- they were afraid of the people, for all held that John was a real prophet. 33 So they answered Jesus, "We do not know." And Jesus said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things."

Meditation: Do you accept the authority of God's word and submit to it with trust and obedience? Many religious leaders took offense at Jesus because they could not accept his authority as coming from God. After Jesus had dramatically cleansed the temple of the traders and money-changers, the Jewish leaders question Jesus to trap him. If he says his authority is divine they will charge him with blasphemy. If he has done this on his own authority they might well arrest him as a mad zealot before he could do more damage.

Jesus' authority to speak and act in his Father's name Jesus, seeing through their trap, poses a question to them and makes their answer a condition for his answer. Did they accept the work of John the Baptist as divine or human? If they accepted John's work as divine, they would be compelled to accept Jesus as the Messiah. John, a true prophet of God, had in fact attested to Jesus as the Son of God and Messiah who would redeem his people from their sins. The Jewish authorities dodged the question because they were unwilling to face the truth. They did not accept the Baptist and they would not accept Jesus as their Messiah. Jesus told his followers, "if you continue in my word... you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free" (John 8:31-32).

The truth will make you free The Lord Jesus poses the same question to us today. Do you accept the claim of Jesus - that the Father in heaven sent his only begotten Son into the world to set us free from slavery to sin and to give us eternal life (John 3:16-18). Many want to mold Jesus to their own way of thinking and preferences and to reject or ignore whatever is disagreeable to them. Jesus came to give us the greatest freedom possible - freedom from ignorance, deception, and sin, and the freedom to live as sons and daughters of God in the power of the Holy Spirit. Do you know the joy and freedom of living according to God's word of truth, joy, and eternal life?

"Lord Jesus, your word is life and truth. Instruct my heart that I may grow in the knowledge of your truth and live according to your word."

Psalm 19:8-11

8  the precepts of the Lord are right,  rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; 9  the fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever; the ordinances of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether. 10 More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb. 11 Moreover by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward.

Daily Quote from the early church fathers: Fearing the truth, by Augustine of Hippo, 354-430 A.D.

"Fearing a stoning, but fearing more an admission of the truth, they answered the truth with a lie, reminiscent of the Scripture: 'injustice has lied within herself' (Psalm 27:12). For they said, 'We know not.' And because they had shut themselves up against him, by asserting that they did not know what they knew, the Lord did not open up to them because they did not knock. For it has been said, 'Knock and it will be opened to you' (Matthew 7:7; Luke 11:9). But they not only had not knocked that it might be opened, but by their denial they barricaded the door itself against themselves. And the Lord said to them, 'Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things' (Matthew 21:27; Mark 11:33; Luke 20:7). (excerpt from TRACTATE ON JOHN 2.9.4)

Friday (June 1): "Have faith in God"

Scripture: Mark 11:11-26  

   11 And he entered Jerusalem, and went into the temple; and when he had looked round at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve. 12 On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. 13 And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14 And he said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard it.    15 And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he  overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons; 16 and he would not allow any one to carry anything through the temple. 17 And he taught, and said to them, "Is it not written, `My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a  den of robbers."  18 And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and sought a way to destroy him; for they feared him, because all the multitude was  astonished at his teaching.    19 And when evening came they went out of the city. 20 As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. 21 And Peter remembered and said to him, "Master, look! The fig tree which you cursed has withered." 22 And Jesus answered them, "Have faith in God. 23 Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him. 24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 25 And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against any one; so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your trespasses"

Meditation: Why did Jesus curse a fig tree? Fig trees were a common and important source of food for the Jews. Bad figs or a decaying fig tree was linked with evil deeds and spiritual decay. The unfruitful fig tree symbolized the outcome of Israel's unresponsiveness to the word of God. The prophets depicted the languishing fig tree as signifying the desolation and calamity of Israel due to her unfaithfulness to God (see Joel 1:7,12; Habakuk 3:17; and Jeremiah 8:13).

Faith must be nourished by the word of God The history of Israel is one long preparation for the coming of the Promised One - the Messiah. But the promise is unfulfilled in those who reject Jesus through their unbelief. (See also Jesus' parable of the barren fig tree in Luke 13:6-9). Jesus' cursing of a fig tree is a prophetic action against the faithlessness of those who rejected his message. For faith to be fruitful and productive, it must be nourished with the word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; Colossians 3:16) and be rooted in love and obedience to the truth (Galatians 5:6,7)..

Jesus purifies his people to make them holy Jesus' cleansing of the temple was another prophetic action. In this incident we see Jesus' startling and swift action in cleansing the temple of those who were using it to exploit the worshipers of God. The money changers took advantage of the poor and forced them to pay many times more than was right - in the house of God no less! Their robbery of the poor was not only dishonoring to God but unjust toward their neighbor. In justification for his audacious action Jesus quotes from the prophets Isaiah (56:7) and Jeremiah (7:11). His act of judgment aims to purify the worship of God's people and to discipline their erring ways.

Pray with expectant faith in God's power and mercy After this incident Jesus exhorts his disciples to "have faith in God." They are to pray with expectant faith for God's will to be accomplished - no matter how difficult or challenging the situation may appear. The phrase "to remove mountains" was a common Jewish expression for removing difficulties. A wise teacher who could solve difficulties was called a "mountain remover."  If we pray with expectant faith God will give us the means to overcome difficulties and obstacles that stand in the way of accomplishing his will for our lives. If we want God to hear our prayers we must forgive those who wrong us as God has forgiven us. Do you pray with expectant faith?

"Lord Jesus, increase my faith and make my fruitful and effective in serving you and bringing you honor and glory in all that I do. Help me to be merciful and forgiving towards others just as you have been merciful and forgiving towards me."

Psalm 96:10-13

10 Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved;  he will judge the peoples with equity." 11 Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice; let the sea roar, and all that fills it; 12 let the field exult, and everything in it! Then shall all the trees of the wood sing for joy 13 before the LORD, for he comes, for he comes to judge the earth.  He will judge the world with righteousness, and the peoples with his truth.

Daily Quote from the early church fathers: Attaining the fruit of mercy and goodness in the school of Christ, by Augustine of Hippo, 354-430 A.D.

"Some who witnessed Christ's miracles did not understand what they meant, and how they spoke to those who knew they had special meaning. They wondered only at the miracles themselves. Others both marveled at the miracles, and attained some preliminary understanding of them. For this we must come to the school of Christ himself. Those fixed only upon the plain sense of Scripture tend to focus merely upon miracle for miracles' sake. Hence they may prematurely conclude that Jesus himself was ignorant of the time of the year, something any ordinary farmer could discern. For it was not yet the season for the tree to bear fruit. Nevertheless, since he was hungry, he looked for fruit on the tree (Mark 11:13). Does this imply that Christ knew less than what every peasant could easily discern? Surely not. Wouldn't you expect the maker of the fig tree to know what the ordinary orchard worker would know in a snap? So when he was hungry he looked for fruit on the tree, but he seemed to be looking for something more from this tree. He noted that the tree had no fruit, but was full of leaves. It was at that point that he cursed it, and it withered away. So what terrible thing had the poor tree done simply in not bearing fruit? Could the tree reasonably be faulted for its fruitlessness? No. But human beings who by their own free will decide not to bear fruit - that is a different matter. Those found wanting in accountability in this case are those who had the benefit of the law, which was meant to bear fruit, but they had no fruit to show for it. They had a full growth of leaves (the law), yet they bore no fruit (works of mercy)." (excerpt from SERMONS ON NEW TESTAMENT LESSONS 48.3.16)

[pamphletstoinspire]

THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL, THE APOSTLE, TO THE ROMANS

Chapter 15

PREFACE.

After the Gospels, which contain the history of Christ, and the Acts of the Apostles, which contain the history of the infant Church, we have the Epistles of the Apostles. Of these fourteen have been penned on particular occasions, and addressed to particular persons, by St. Paul; the others of St. James, St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude, are called Catholic Epistles, because they are addressed to all Christians in general, if we except the two latter short epistles of St. John. --- The epistles of St. Paul contain admirable advice, and explain fully several tenets of Christianity: but a humble and teachable mind and heart are essentially requisite to draw good from this inexhaustible source. If we prepare our minds by prayer, and go to these sacred oracles with proper dispositions, as to Jesus Christ himself, not preferring our own weak judgment to that of the Catholic Church divinely inspired, and which he has commanded us to hear, and which he has promised to lead in all truth unto the end of the world, we shall improve both our mind and heart by a frequent and pious perusal.

Chapter 15

He exhorts them to be all of one mind: and promises to come and see them.

1 Now we that are stronger, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.

2 Let every one of you please his neighbour unto good, to edification.

3 For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written: The reproaches of them that reproached thee, fell upon me.

4 For what things soever were written, were written for our instruction: that, through patience, and the comfort of the Scriptures, we might have hope.

5 Now the God of patience, and of comfort, grant you to be of one mind one towards another, according to Jesus Christ:

6 That with one mind, and with one mouth, you may glorify God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Notes & Commentary:

Ver. 1. &c. We that are stronger, &c. The apostle goes on with his exhortation not to scandalize, or offend such as are weak, and not well instructed in faith. He brings the example of Christ, who pleased not himself, who submitted himself to the law of circumcision, when he was above the law, who bore with the weakness and sins of others, their reproaches, their blasphemies, which he could not but hate, but this to gain their souls. (Witham)

7 Wherefore receive one another, as Christ also hath received you to the honour of God.

Ver. 7. Receive one another, in the spirit of charity, peace, patience, as Christ also hath received you, and bore with your infirmities. (Witham) --- Mutually support each other for the glory of God: learn to practise a grand lesson of Christian morality, to bear and to forbear. (Haydock)

8 For I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers.

Ver. 8. Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision, who came both for the salvation of the Jews, and of the Gentiles, who preached and would have his gospel first preached to the Jews, for the truth of God to confirm the promises made to the fathers, that he, the Messias, should be sent for their salvation; but at the same time also for the salvation and conversion of the Gentiles, which he confirms by divers evident testimonies of the holy Scriptures. (Witham) --- He calls our Saviour the minister of circumcision, that is, of the Jews, because he appeared amongst them, dwelt amongst them, and himself preached amongst them. This was a privilege which the Gentiles did no enjoy, having never seen, nor heard Jesus Christ, since he confined his preaching to the strayed sheep of the house of Israel; and this, to accomplish the promises made to their fathers. (Calmet)

9 But that the Gentiles are to glorify God for his mercy, as it is written: Therefore will I confess to thee, O Lord, among the Gentiles, and will sing to thy name.

Ver. 9. No explanation given.

10 And again he saith: Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.

Ver. 10. No explanation given.

11 And again: Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles: and magnify him, all ye people.

Ver. 11. No explanation given.

12 And again Isaias saith: There shall be a root of Jesse: and he that shall rise up to rule the Gentiles, in him the Gentiles shall hope.

Ver. 12. No explanation given.

13 Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing: that you may abound in hope, and in the power of the Holy Ghost.

Ver. 13. No explanation given.

14 And I myself also, my brethren, am assured of you, that you also are full of love, replenished with all knowledge, so that you are able to admonish one another.

Ver. 14. No explanation given.

15 But I have written to you, brethren, more boldly in some sort, as putting you in mind: because of the grace which is given me from God,

16 That I should be the minister of Christ Jesus among the Gentiles; sanctifying the gospel of God, that the oblation of the Gentiles may be made acceptable, and sanctified in the Holy Ghost.

17 I have, therefore, glory in Christ Jesus towards God.

18 For I dare not to speak of any of those things which Christ worketh not by me, for the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and by deed,

19 By the virtue of signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Ghost; so that from Jerusalem, round about as far as unto Illyricum, I have spread the gospel of Christ.

Ver. 15. &c. I have written to you, brethren, more boldly, &c. St. Chrysostom admires with what mildness he addresses himself to them, yet puts them in mind, that he is the minister, and the apostle of the Gentiles, in which he may have reason to glory, or boast. --- Sanctifying the gospel of God, preaching it in a holy manner, that the Gentiles may be sanctified by it. (Witham) --- To be the minister of Jesus Christ among the nations, exercising in their regard the rite of sacrifice, as we read in the Greek, ierourgounta. --- For I dare not, I shall forbear to speak of any thing but my labours: I need not mention the power of miracles and wonders, which the Holy Ghost hath done by me in many places, from Jerusalem to Illyricum, in places where Christ had not been preached by others. And now having no more place, nor occasion to preach in these countries, when I begin my journey to Spain, &c. by which, it appears, he designed at least to go into Spain. (Witham)

20 And I have so preached this gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation; but as it is written:.

Ver. 20. St. Paul does not mean to say, that he never preached where the gospel had before been announced; this would not have been true, for he preached at Damascus, where there were already Christians, whom he formerly wished to take in chains to Jerusalem; and again in this epistle he announces the truths of the gospel to the Romans already converted by the preaching of St. Peter. But he means to say, that on these occasions he acts not as an apostle, whose office it is to preach to infidels; but as one that waters, confirms, comforts, as he says in the beginning of this epistle: and this he did as occasion offered, as the subsequent verses shew, where he tells us his design in calling on the Romans, in his journey to Spain. (Estius)

21 They to whom he was not spoken of, shall see, and they that have not heard, shall understand.

Ver. 21. No explanation given.

22 For which cause also I was hindered very much from coming to you, and have been kept away till now.

Ver. 22. No explanation given.

23 But now having no more place in these countries, and having a great desire these many years past to come to you,

Ver. 23. No explanation given.

24 When I shall begin to take my journey into Spain, I hope that as I pass, I shall see you, and be brought on my way thither by you, if first, in part, I shall have enjoyed you.

Ver. 24. It is a matter of dispute, whether St. Paul ever executed this his design of visiting Spain. The proofs of the Spaniards, who consider it as certain, are by no means unanswerable. There remain no certain monuments of this journey of his. The proof taken from the words of St. Clement, who lived at Rome in the time of St. Paul, is not certain, since he only says, that St. Paul came to the very extremities of the west. It is a subject on which commentators appear pretty equally divided. (Calmet) --- There is an old tradition that St. Paul, in his journey to Spain, left three of his disciples in Gaul; Trophimus at Arles, Crescentius at Vienne, and Paul at Narbonne; but this very tradition is disputed. (Bible de Vence)

25 But now I shall go to Jerusalem, to minister to the saints.

26 For it hath pleased them of Macedonia, and Achaia, to make come contribution for the poor saints who are in Jerusalem.

27 For it hath pleased them: and they are their debtors. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they ought also in carnal things to minister to them.

28 When, therefore, I shall have accomplished this, and consigned to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain.

Ver. 25-28. But I shall go to Jerusalem, &c. By this St. Paul is thought to have written this epistle at Corinth, where he was about to set forward for Jerusalem, with the charities collected in Achaia and Macedonia, for the poor Christians in Judea. This he calls to minister to the poor saints, or to be serviceable to them. And to exhort others to the like charitable contributions, he says, (ver. 27.) they are their debtors; that the converted Gentiles are debtors to the converts, who had been Jews, as having been made partakers of the promises, particularly made to the people of the Jews, and sharers of those spiritual blessings, which Christ promised to the Jews, but were also conferred upon the Gentiles. He looks upon it, therefore, reasonable, that they relieve the Jews in their temporal wants. The apostle says, he goes to consign to them this fruit, to deliver to them their contributions. (Witham)

29 And I know, that when I come to you, I shall come in the abundance of the blessing of the gospel of Christ.

Ver. 29. I know, by the Spirit of God revealing it to me, that God will give a blessing to my labours, when I come to you. That I may be delivered from the unbelievers in Judea, from the unbelieving Jews, foreseeing the persecution he should there meet with. That I may be refreshed with you, have comfort by finding peace and union among you. (Witham)

30 I beseech you, therefore, brethren, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the charity of the Holy Ghost, that you assist me in your prayers for me to God.

Ver. 30. No explanation given.

31 That I may be delivered from the unbelievers that are in Judea, and that the oblation of my service may be acceptable in Jerusalem to the saints;

Ver. 31. No explanation given.

32 That I may come to you with joy, by the will of God, and may be refreshed with you.

Ver. 32. The word in the original signifies to combat with another, to teach us, that to beg the prayers of our friends will be of little assistance to us, if we do not join our prayer also, and labour, on our part, to the best of our power. (Calmet)

33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Ver. 33. No explanation given.

#epistle of st paul to the romans

[pamphletstoinspire]

THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL, THE APOSTLE, TO THE ROMANS

Chapter 9

PREFACE.

After the Gospels, which contain the history of Christ, and the Acts of the Apostles, which contain the history of the infant Church, we have the Epistles of the Apostles. Of these fourteen have been penned on particular occasions, and addressed to particular persons, by St. Paul; the others of St. James, St. Peter, St. John, and St. Jude, are called Catholic Epistles, because they are addressed to all Christians in general, if we except the two latter short epistles of St. John. --- The epistles of St. Paul contain admirable advice, and explain fully several tenets of Christianity: but a humble and teachable mind and heart are essentially requisite to draw good from this inexhaustible source. If we prepare our minds by prayer, and go to these sacred oracles with proper dispositions, as to Jesus Christ himself, not preferring our own weak judgment to that of the Catholic Church divinely inspired, and which he has commanded us to hear, and which he has promised to lead in all truth unto the end of the world, we shall improve both our mind and heart by a frequent and pious perusal.

Chapter 9

The apostle's concern for the Jews. God's election is free, and not confined to their nation.

1 I speak the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost:

Notes & Commentary:

Ver. 1. No explanation given.

2 That I have great sadness, and continual sorrow in my heart.

Ver. 2. No explanation given.

3 For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh,

Ver. 3. I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ.[1] The word anathema, according to its derivation, signifies a thing separated or laid apart for some particular use. Hence it was put to signify things given and consecrated to God, which therefore used to be presented and hung up in temples. 2. The word also was applied to signify things whose destruction was resolved upon, that is, men or things separated for destruction, as sometimes, men deputed to be sacrificed to the gods to appease their anger. This signification was according to the Hebrew word cherem, and the Syriac word horma, as Numbers xxi. 3. He called the name of that place Horma, that is, anathema; because it was to be entirely destroyed. See 1 Machabees v. Hence anathema was also used for a curse, and to anathematize, to curse. See Acts xxiii. 14. The sense of this place is differently expounded. Tolet, by the word I wished, or I did wish, thinks that St. Paul might speak of the time before his conversion, when out of a false zeal, he wished to be separated from Christ, and from all Christians: and that he brings this to shew his brethren how zealous he had been for their religion. But this wish of St. Paul is generally expounded as proceeding from the great love and charity he had, when he was an apostle, for the conversion and salvation of his brethren, the Jews, who mostly remained obstinate and incredulous: and some will have it to be no more than a hyperbolical expression of his great love and affection for them. Others, with St. Jerome, ep. ad Algasiam, tom. iv. p. 203. Ed. Ben. think that by this way of speaking, St. Paul signifies himself willing to be sacrificed, by undergoing any death for their conversion: but St. Chrysostom (hom. xvi.) thinks this far short of the sublime charity of St. Paul; for by such a death, says he, he would not be separated from Christ, but would be a great gainer by it; since by that means he would soon be free from all the troubles and sufferings of a miserable life, and blessed with the company and enjoyment of Christ in the kingdom of his glory. He, and many others, think that St. Paul was so troubled and grieved to the heart at the obstinacy of the unbelieving Jews, at their blasphemies against Christ, and their eternal perdition, that an extraordinary charity and zeal for God's honour, and their salvation, made him wish even to endure a separation from Christ, and from the glory prepared for him in heaven, though not from the love, or from the grace of Christ. If this, says St. Chrysostom, seems incredible to us, it is because we are far from such heroic dispositions of the love of God, and of our neighbours. (Witham) --- The apostle's concern and love for his countrymen, the Jews, was so great, that he was willing even to suffer an anathema, or curse, for their sake; or any evil that could come upon him, without his offending God. (Challoner)

Note 1:

Ver. 3. Anathema esse a Christo, anathema einai apo tou Christou. From anathesthai. See anathema, and anathema in Legh's critic. sac. See St. Chrysostom, hom. xiv. p. 136. Ed. Sav. where he says, that to expound St. Paul, as if he wished to die for Christ's sake, is a childish exposition, not worthy of the great charity of St. Paul, that is deserves no confutation: ouk esti tauta, ouk esti....oude gar antilegein pros taouta axion. He thinks that St. Paul was willing to be separated, not from the love of Christ, (God forbid) but from the glory of the kingdom of heaven; Pag. 135. allotriothenai ouchi tes agapes autou, me genoito, alla tes apolauseos ekeines kai tes doxes.

4 Who are Israelites, to whom belongeth the adoption of sons, and the glory, and the covenant, and the giving of the law, and the worship, and the promises:

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Ver. 4-5. To whom belongeth the adoption of children. Literally, whose is the adoption. He mentions the favours which God had done to his people, the Jews. As, 1. That God had adopted them for his elect people. 2. That he had glorified them with so many miracles. 3. That he had made a particular covenant and alliance with them. 4. Given them a written law. 5. Prescribed the manner they should worship him. 6. Promises of divers blessings. 7. Who are from the Fathers. Literally, whose are the Fathers; i.e. who descended from the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, &c. 8. Of whose race, i.e. of the family of David, Jesus Christ, as man, was born. --- Who is over all things God,[2] blessed for ever. Amen. Though the apostles did not often, in express words, call Jesus Christ the God, lest the heathens, when they were not sufficiently instructed, should imagine that there were many gods, (as divers of the fathers take notice) yet here, and in several places, they clearly delivered the divinity of our Saviour, Christ. The Socinians might here observe, that the apostle calls him the God blessed for ever, and with the Greek article. (Witham)

Note 2:

Ver. 5. Qui est super omnes Deus benedictus in sæcula. Amen. o on ep ponton theos eulogetos eis tous aionas, Amen.

6 Not as though the word of God hath failed. For all are not Israelites that are of Israel:

7 Neither are all they, who are the seed of Abraham, children: but in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

Ver. 6-7. Not as though the word of God hath failed in his promises made to Abraham, and the patriarchs. The Jews pretended that the promises were made to them only, and to those that were of their race, and that the Gentiles were not to partake of them. St. Paul shews them their mistake, by telling them who are to be esteemed the true children of Abraham, and of the patriarchs, according to the promises which God made, and who are not. (Witham) --- All are not Israelites, &c. Not all, who are the carnal seed of Israel, are true Israelites in God's account: who, as by his free grace he heretofore preferred Isaac before Ismael, and Jacob before Esau, so he could, and did by the like free grace, election, and mercy, raise up spiritual children by faith to Abraham and Israel, from among the Gentiles, and prefer them before the carnal Jews. (Challoner) --- Neither are all they, who are of the seed of Abraham, his true spiritual children, to whom these promises were made: nor are all they who are descended from Isaac the children of these promises nor are all they true Israelites, to whom these blessings were promised, although they are descended from Israel; but only they who are the children of the patriarchs by faith in Jesus, the Messias, in whom God promised that he would bless all nations. (Witham)

8 That is to say, not they who are the children of the flesh, are the children of God: but they that are the children of the promise, are counted for the seed.

Ver. 8. No explanation given.

9 For this is the word of promise: According to this time will I come: and Sara shall have a son.

Ver. 9. To prove that the children of Abraham are the children of the promise, he adduces the passage of Scripture: "I will come in a year's time, and Sara shall have a son." (Genesis xviii.) This promised child was Isaac, the true son of the promise of God, and of the faith of Abraham; and not the son of the flesh, for Ismael was this as well as Isaac; but he was granted to the prayers of Abraham, a child of the grace and mercy of God. All the faithful, therefore, of whatever race or nation they may be, are in this sense the children of Abraham, by being gratuitously chosen by God, and by the fidelity in which they are imitators of Abraham. (Calmet)

10 And not only she: but when Rebecca also had conceived at once, by Isaac, our father.

11 For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil, (that the purpose of God according to election might stand)

12 Not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her:

13 That the elder shall serve the younger, as it is written: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.

Ver. 10. &c. And not only she (Sara) brought forth Isaac, who was the only child of Abraham, to whom the promises descended, though he was the father of Ismael, by Agar, and of all the Ismaelites. And lest the Jews should say that the Ismaelites, though descending from Abraham, according to the flesh, were not to be reputed as his children for another reason, because they came of Agar, who was only the handmaid of Sara; he brings them another example to which they could make no such reply; to wit, that Rebecca also at once had two sons of Isaac, Esau and Jacob; where, though Esau was the first-born, these promises were not reputed as made to him, and his descendants, the Idumeans, who were equally the descendants of Isaac, yet not the favourite people, nor the children of God, as the Jews saw very well. (Witham) --- Not yet born. By this example of these twins, and the preference of the younger to the elder, the drift of the apostle is, to shew that God, in his election, mercy, and grace, is not tied to any particular nation, as the Jews imagined, nor to any prerogative of birth, or any foregoing merits. For as, antecedently, to his grace, he sees no merit in any, but finds all involved in sin, in the common mass of condemnation; and all children of wrath; there is no one whom he might not justly leave in that mass; so that whomsoever he delivers from it, he delivers in his mercy: and whomsoever he leaves in it, he leaves in his justice. As when, of two equally criminal, the king is pleased out of pure mercy to pardon one, whilst he suffers justice to take place in the execution of the other. (Challoner) --- Nor had done any good or evil. God was pleased to prefer, and promise his blessings to the younger of them, Jacob, declaring that the elder shall serve the younger; that is, that the seed of the elder should be subject to that of the younger, as it happened afterwards to the Idumeans. And the prophet, Malachias, said of them, I have loved Jacob, but hated Esau, and turned his mountains into a desert, &c. --- That the purpose of God, his will, and his decree, (see the foregoing chap. ver. 28.) might stand according to election, might be, not according to any works they had done, or that he foresaw they would do, but merely according to his mercy. And though the preference which God gave to Jacob was literally true, as to temporal benefits; yet St. Augustine observes in divers places, that Jacob was a figure of the elect or predestinate, and Esau of the reprobate; and that as Jacob and his posterity was more favoured, purely by the mercy of God, without any merits on their side; so are God's elect, whom he has called, and to whom, according to his eternal purpose, he decreed to give eternal glory, and special graces to bring them thither. (Witham)

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid.

Ver. 14. What shall we say, then? Is there injustice with God, when he bestows special favours and benefits on some, and not on others? He answers, by no means. And he justifies almighty God's conduct, ver. 22. In the mean time, it is certain that there is no injustice in not giving what another has no right to: and besides all men having sinned, deserved punishment. If then, he shews mercy to some, it is an effect of his goodness and liberality only which they do not deserve. If he leaves others in their sins, they are only punished according to their deserts. His mercy shines upon his elect; and his divine justice is displayed against the wicked and the reprobate, but only according to what they have deserved. (Witham)

15 For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy: and I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Ver. 15-16. I will have mercy, &c. Then it is not of him that willeth, &c. By these words he again teaches that God's call and predestination of those whom he has decreed to save, is not upon account of any works or merits in men, but only to be attributed to the mercy and goodness of God. See St. Thomas Aquinas on this chap. lect. iii. See St. Augustine, Encher. chap. xcviii. Epis. 194. in the new Ed. Ep. 105. ad Sixtum de lib. Arbit. chap. xxv. &c. (Witham)

17 For the Scripture saith to Pharao: To this purpose have I raised thee up, that I may shew my power in thee: and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

Ver. 17. For the Scripture saith to Pharao, &c. St. Paul had shewn that there was no injustice in God by his giving special graces to the elect; now he shews that God cannot be accounted unjust for leaving the reprobate in their sins, or for punishing them as they deserve; for this purpose he brings the example of Pharao, who remained hardened against all the admonitions and chastisements of him and his kingdom. --- Have I raised thee up, placed thee king over Egypt; I have done so many miracles before thee, I have spared thee when thou deservedst to be punished with death, and at last shall punish thee with thy army in the Red Sea, that my name may be known over all the earth. (Witham)

18 Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Ver. 18. And whom he will, he hardeneth.[3] That is, permits to be hardened by their own malice, as it is divers times said in Exodus, that Pharao hardened his heart. God, says St. Augustine, is said to harden men's hearts, not by causing their malice, but by not giving them the free gift of his grace, by which they become hardened by their own perverse will. (Witham) --- Not by being the cause, or author of his sin, but by withholding his grace, and so leaving him in his sin, in punishment of his past demerits. (Challoner)

Note 3:

Ver. 18. Et quem vult indurat. &c. St. Augustine, lib. de Gra. & Lib. Arb. chap. 23. Deus induravit cor Pharaonis, & ipse Pharao per Liberum Arbitrium. Quærimus meritum obdurationis & invenimus: merito namque peccati, universa massa damnata est: nec obdurat Deus impertiendo malitiam, sed non impertiendo misericordiam:....quærimus autem meritum misericordiæ, nec invenimus: quia nullum est, ne gratia evacuetur, si non gratis donetur, sed meritis redditur. Obduratio Dei est, nolle miserere, &c. Pharao, says St. Chrysostom, was a vessel of anger, but this was from himself; kai par eautou.

19 Thou wilt say, therefore, to me: Why doth he then find fault? For who resisteth his will?

20 O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it: Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Ver. 19. &c. Thou wilt say, therefore, to me, &c. The apostle makes objection, that if God call some, and harden, or even permit others to be hardened, and no one resisteth, or can hinder his absolute will, why should God complain that men are not converted? St. Paul first puts such rash and profane men in mind, that is unreasonable and impertinent for creatures to murmur and dispute against God their Creator, when they do not comprehend the ways of his providence. --- O man, [4] who art thou that repliest against God? This might stop the mouths, and quiet the minds of every man, when he cannot comprehend the mysteries of predestination, of God's foreknowledge, his decrees and graces, or the manner of reconciling them with human liberty. He may cry out with St. Paul again, (chap. xi. 33.) O the riches of the wisdom, and of the knowledge of God! how incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! --- Shall the thing formed, &c. Hath not the potter power, &c.[5] To teach men that they ought not to complain against God and his providence, when they cannot comprehend his works, he puts them in mind of their origin. Every one may say to God, with the prophet Isaias, (vi. 48.) Lord, thou art our Father, and we are but clay; thou art our Maker who framed us, and we are all of us the work of thy hands. Hath not the potter power as he pleaseth, out of the same lump of clay to make some vessels for honourable uses, and some for less honourable. St. Chrysostom observes very well, that this comparison must not be extended further than the apostle designed; which was to teach us, how submissive we ought to be to God, in what we do not understand; but we must not pretend from hence, nor from any expression in this chapter, as divers heretics have done, that as vessels of clay are destitute of free will and liberty, so are men. This is against the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and against the Scriptures, in many places. (Witham) --- The potter. This similitude is used, only to shew that we are not to dispute with our Maker: nor to reason with him why he does not give as much grace to one as to another: for since the whole lump of our clay is vitiated by sin, it is owing to his goodness and mercy that he makes out of it so many vessels of honour; and it is no more than just that others, in punishment of their unrepented sins, should be given up to be vessels of dishonour. (Challoner)

Note 4:

Ver. 20. O homo, tu quis es? &c. The apostle, says St. Chrysostom, (p. 141.) does not say, that this cannot be answered, but that such questions are impertinent, because we cannot understand what God does, &c. ou legei oti adunaton toiauta luein, &c.

Note 5:

Ver. 21. Annon potestatem habet figulus, &c.? St. Chrysostom (p. 142.) expressly takes notice, that we must not by this comparison pretend that man has not free-will, &c. entautha ou to autexousion anairon. &c.

22 And if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction,

23 That he might shew the riches of his glory upon the vessels of mercy, which he hath prepared unto glory.

Ver. 22-23. And if God, &c. He now gives the reason why God might, without any injustice, have mercy on some, and not on others; grant particular graces and favours to his elect, and not equally to all; because all mankind was become liable to damnation by original sin: the clay that all are made of, is a sinful clay; and as St. Augustine says, was become a lump and mass of damnation. Every one had sinned in Adam. Now, if out of this sinful lump and multitude God, to shew the richness of his glory, and superabundant mercy, hath chosen some as vessels of election, whom he hath decreed to save, and by special graces and favours to make partakers of his heavenly kingdom; and to shew his justice and hatred of sin, hath left others as vessels of his wrath and justice, to be lost in their sins, which for a time he bears patiently with, when they deserved present punishment, who can say that he hath done unjustly? (Witham)

24 Even us, whom also he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles,

25 As he saith in Osee: I will call the my people, that were not my people: and her beloved, that was not beloved: and her, that had not obtained mercy, one that hath obtained mercy.

26 And it shall be, in the place where it was said to them: you are not my people: there they shall be called the children of the living God.

27 And Isaias crieth out concerning Israel: If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved.

28 For he shall finish his word, and cut it short in justice: because a short word shall the Lord make upon the earth.

29 And as Isaias foretold: unless the Lord of sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been made as Sodom, and we had been like unto Gomorrha.

Ver. 24. &c. Whom also he hath called, &c. That is, he hath called some of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles, to be vessels of election, as he foretold by his prophet Osee, (ii. 24.) I will call them my people, that were not my people,...and I will make them the children of the living God. And as it was also foretold by the prophet Isaias, of all the numerous nation of the Jews, only a remnant shall be saved, by their obstinacy in not receiving, and refusing to believe in, their Messias. For finishing his word, and reducing it by his justice to a little, because the Lord will bring to pass his word reducing it to a small compass upon the earth. The sense and construction of this verse is equally obscure in the Greek and in the Latin text: the true sense seems to be, that finishing his word, or fulfilling his promises to Israel, those that are to be saved, will be reduced by his justice for their sins, to a few; because, though he bring to pass his word, and his promises, the saved among the Israelites will be reduced to a small compass, in comparison of the great number of the Gentiles. This exposition agrees with the rest of the text, and with what follows, and was foretold by Isaias, (chap. i. 9.) that unless the God of Sabaoth (of hosts) had, through his mercy, left them a seed, a small number, they would all in a manner have deserved to be utterly destroyed, like Sodom and Gomorrha. (Witham) --- What I say, shall come to pass, that in those places, viz. Greece, Italy, &c. where those who are strangers to the worship of the true God dwell, and have been called, on account of their profane worship, not my people. In those very places, they shall receive the true worship of God, and by this means shall become and be called the children of the living God. He is so particular as to place, lest the Jews should imagine that the Gentiles would be converted like their former proselytes, and either dwell in Judea, or repair to it at certain stated times. Thus the apostle repeats what Jesus Christ had before said to the Samaritan woman. The hour will come when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you adore the Father. (Estius) (John iv.) --- A remnant. That is, a small number only of the children of Israel shall be converted and saved. How perversely is this text quoted for the salvation of men of all religions, when it speaks only of the converts of the children of Israel. (Challoner) --- St. Paul is here speaking of the reprobation of the Jews, and of the vocation of the Gentiles, and foretells that a remnant, or small number of the children of Israel shall be converted, and saved. In the sense of St. Paul, we sincerely hope, and confidently trust, that a remnant of all will be saved through a timely conversion. But we no where read, in the Old, or New Scriptures, that a remnant of all will be saved, as if it were a matter of indifference to what society or connexion a Christian was joined. (Haydock)

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who followed not after justice, have attained to justice: even the justice that is of faith.

31 But Israel, by following after the law of justice, is not come to the law of justice.

32 Why so? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were of works: for they stumbled at the stumbling-stone;

Ver. 30-32. What then shall we say? Or what shall we conclude from these testimonies of the Scripture, but this paradox, as St. Chrysostom calls it, that they who sought for justice, or sanctification, found it not, and they who did not seek it, found it; that is, the Jews, who sought for this justice by the works of their law, which they magnified so much, have not attained to that law that could make them just; whereas the Gentiles, who had no such written law to confide in, have only sought to be justified by the faith and law of Christ, by which they have met with justice, and sanctification? (Witham) --- Behold what was wanting to the justice of the Jews! Scrupulous observers of the ceremonial law: esteeming too much their power, and pretended justice, they regarded the gospel and faith in Christ as of no advantage. Running in the path of the commandments with zeal, but without circumspection, they struck against Jesus Christ, who became to them a stumbling-block. They rejected him: they refused to believe. Thus did their works become dead works, without any fruit for eternity. (Calmet)

33 As it is written: Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone, and a rock of scandal: and whosoever believeth in him, shall not be confounded.

Ver. 33. Why then have not the Jews been justified? because they stumbled at the stumbling-stone: that is, the doctrine of Christ crucified has been a scandal to the Jews, at which being offended, they would not own him for their Messias. Yet whosoever believeth in him, and follows his law and doctrine, shall not be confounded, but obtain justification and salvation. (Witham)

#epistle of st paul to romans