Monday, January 21, 2008


I remember Dr. James White always saying something very wise. He always used to say that, when engaging in polemic theology, there is always the danger of becoming exactly like the groups to whom we are responding.

Now, I have documented on this very blog the ungodly behavior of Debbie Maken, Captian Sensible, and Gortexgirl, and have totally distanced myself from this kind of behavior. However, I must distance myself from these things again, only this time from people who agree with me.

I came across this blog the other day. Go ahead, click on it. It is nothing more than the Gift of Singleness Blog all over again, but only from my position. Why is it that people can't take on these issues using the word of God and sound reason? Why must there always be insults hurled both ways? As many of you know, I refuse to get into the insult-fest. I believe the Bible is squarely against what Albert Mohler, Debbie Maken, and Candace Watters are teaching on this issue. That is why I go to the scriptures, and show that there is no Biblical leg to stand on, and people have to resort to arguments from silence to try to refute me. There is no need for these kinds of insults when you can deal with these issues on an exegetical basis.

Not only that, but I am also concerned about the liberal tone that the rejection of this movement is taking. I am an Orthodox Presbyterian, and we are very conservative. However, notice all of the liberal insults against conservativism being hurled on the afore mentioned blog, and also, notice the usage of profanity. Also, even Anakin Niceguy has come out with an article wherein he distinguishes between two types of conservativism, and then critiques my kind. For instance, he says that:

How does this differentiation play out in politics? Reactionary Conservatives will talk about limited government up until the point the concept threatens their sense of identity or desired state of affairs. They'll go after the "welfare queens", but won't touch the entitlements that go to married suburbanites. They'll oppose "nation building" unless their favored politician changes his mind. They believe government shouldn't be involved in raising our kids unless they want to censor what our kids might see on the Internet.

I really don't know if Anakin has thought through some of this stuff. I am not saying I agree with everything here. I am theonomic in my perspective. However, it does give someone cause to wonder. For instance, one could equally argue that the left wants to have an unlimited government, unless that govenment would threaten what they call "rights" like the "right" to an abortion, or the "right" to the sell of pornography. Look at how worried these people were about Roe v. Wade during the supreme court hearings for John Roberts. If the government were to make abortion illegal, define marriage as between one man and one woman, make pornography illegal, and reinstate blue laws, you will have the left going up in smoke about their "individual rights" and how "the government is overstepping its bounds." Yet they were the ones who wanted an unlimited government in the first place.

However, the point of this post is not to discuss politics. Why is it that Anakin has gone after these folks? My pastor would agree with me that this movement is wrong, Dr. Averbeck and Dr. Hoffmeier believe it is wrong, and there are many other so called "reactionary conservatives" who believe this movement is just as wrong as he does. There are many people who would give high respect to folks like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, B.B. Warfield, and other people who will reject Mandatory Marriage position. Does the Mandatory Marriage Movement come mostly from conservatives? Yes. However, this is not the issue. There are conservatives and liberals on both sides of this debate. We need to keep our eye on the ball, and make sure that we are actually dealing with the issues.

The fact of the matter is that the Mandatory Marriage Movement falling upon hard times rationally. I recently had a dialogue with some folks from this movement online. Their argumentation is getting really bad. For instance, I had one person argue that, because Paul was not single, and taking long vacations to many places, that therefore, we cannot be doing the same thing. In other words, if I cite Paul as an example, I must do everything exactly as Paul does it. As a defense of this argumentation, they cited Paul's usage of the phrase "as I am" in 1 Corinthians 7:8. However, the context of 1 Corinthians 7:8 is self-control [7:9]. Thus, those who have the gift of singleness are ones who can self-control their desires. Outside of that, no one is commanded to get married. It is a personal decision.

Also, consider this reductio of the argument. Not only do we not have singles in the Bible making a fortune, and taking long vacations, we also do not have singles going to Cambodia to do missions. Does that therefore mean that singles cannot go to Cambodia? We also do not have singles driving their cars on missions trips. Does that mean we cannot drive cars during our missions trips? Such is absolutely absurd. This kind of logical fallacy is what is known as an argument from silence. If you cannot find a single doing it in the Bible, then it must be wrong to do it.

As for the idea that all singles were ministers of God in the Bible, although it is irrelevant to what the Bible teaches, it is simply false. Consider the story of Lazarus, and his sisters Mary and Martha [John 11:1-2]. Hence, all singles in the Bible are not engaging in "gospel service."

Not only that, I actually heard that the one who is the "firstborn among many brethren" is actually those who are foreknown, predestined, justified, sanctified, and glorified in Romans 8:29-30. There is simply no doubt that the one who is the firstborn among many brethren is Christ! There is a key switch from the plural to the singular there leaving no doubt. Again, these arguments are not even beginning to deal exegetically with the text [If you notice, I got no refutation of my exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7:2].

In fact, here is a story that will tell you how bad it is getting for these folks. I got back to Trinity for my second semester, and I saw Dr. Hoffmeier, and said hello to him. He said, "Hey Adam, I heard you were giving some girls a hard time on the internet." Now, I had no idea what he meant. I had not told him about this movement, given that he was my exegesis teacher, and I knew of no other women with whom I converse on the internet since I am engaged. I told him that the only thing I could think of was the Mandatory Marriage Movement, and then I proceeded to tell him about it. However, he stopped me in mid sentence, and told me he already knew about it. Apparently, someone in the discussion had sent an e-mail to all of the professors here in the Hebrew department asking them to "do something about me." Dr. Hoffmeier said that the thing that suprised this girl the most was when he wrote back to her telling her that he agreed with me!!!!! Keep in mind, I had not discussed this with Dr. Hoffmeier at all prior to this. He said that her arguments [as most of the Mandatory Marriage Movement's arguments do] basically boiled down to "I don't like the way what he is saying makes me feel."

I mean, what kind of desperation is this? As many of you know, there is a man by the name of Darren Allen who sometimes posts nastygrams in "response" to some of the things I say on other blogs. I have documented this man's nastiness, and unwillingness to deal with the issues many times before. Now, he happened to tell me once that he went to college at Wheaton. However, it never crossed my mind to write e-mails to his professors at Wheaton, and ask them to "do something about Darren Allen." The fact that this girl did this is simply laughable, and shows the desperation on the part of these folks to find some Biblical foundation for their position.

Hence, we do not need these kinds of attacks that are coming from the "ManyLuxuryVacations" blog, or the liberals. Indeed, we need to be careful when we engage in polemics that we do not become exactly as Maken and all of the folks that desire to shame single men. We must persevere in examining the scriptures alone, and not lowering ourselves to their level. If what I have seen from these folks recently has anything to do with where this movement is headed, we just need to keep on doing what we are doing, and the movement will be very small in a few years.


Ted Slater said...

Adam, you have jumped the shark.

I'm not going to dwell on your continued refusal to spell "Candice" correctly, despite my having already corrected you on that. Instead, I'm going to comment on the paragraph that begins, "The fact of the matter is that the Mandatory Marriage Movement falling upon hard times rationally."

I brought up Paul's singleness in the blog discussion that you reference, holding it up as a model of what rightly-lived Christian singleness should look like. Surely you agree with me that Paul's example is a good one. The thing is, Paul was not merely situationally single -- he had specifically determined to remain single for the sake of the gospel.

And what did this special singleness look like? It didn't include dating. It didn't include flirting with the opposite sex. It didn't include sexual impurity. It didn't include pining for having children of his own some day. It didn't include playing the X-Box in his parents' basement for hours each day. It didn't include going on regular elaborate vacations for the sake of merely vacationing. It didn't include unintentionality in vocation.

Rather, he took advantage of his non-married state to do things that married couples just aren't free to do. He is a model of sacred singleness.

I was coming down, in that blog discussion, against singles who claimed to be like Paul the single man, and yet who dated, who flirted with the opposite sex, who were living unintentional lives, who were merely selfish with their vacation and financial choices, and so on.

Do you really not see a difference between a man (Paul) who makes the most of his single state for God's glory and those singles who make the most of their single state for their own pleasure?

Your following paragraph decends into outright silliness. You imply that is against singles being involved in intercultural missions project. You imply that we're against single adults driving their cars on missions trips. As you rightly say, "Such is absolutely absurd." The thing is, not only am I supportive of singles doing missions work, I've done it myself: I spent about a year serving in central Mexico and a couple of months in Colombia. Perhaps your conception of us is wrong, Adam.

Your term "Mandatory Marriage Movement" is a Straw Man when you use it against Boundless. We are not mandating marriage for anybody. Rather, we recognize that most people will get married (congrats on your forthcoming marriage, by the way -- you demonstrate our point), and therefore are wanting to equip them to make the most of that exciting season of their lives. A season of life that the creator conceived of for our blessing and His glory.

We have opinions about what promotes the best kind of marital communication, how couples might best work through disagreements, what age and maturity-level make for the best starting places for marriage to take place and for children to happen, the best principles for dating couples, and so on. And so we publish our findings with the intention of helping our readers make the most of their forthcoming married years.

We require nobody to marry. Your insistence that we do is, again, a Straw Man argument. Of course it is "a personal decision," as you say.

Your continued insistence not to hear us -- as demonstrated in your continued intentional misspelling of Candice Watters's name and your continued intentional misrepresentation of Boundless as being "Marriage Mandaters" -- tells me that you've jumped the shark, and in your passion for truth have lost your focus. You can't see the forest for the trees. You can't see our counsel as anything but faulty because your eyes are fixated on deconstructing every jot and tiddle.

It's my prayer that your marriage temper your antagonistic spirit, Adam. It's my prayer that as you continue your education, you learn to use your exegetical skills to build up in love, rather than to deconstruct and destroy and dismiss. You have a lot of potential to do a lot of good, Adam, to be a great blessing.

Anonymous said...

Ted, quite simply, you rock. Well said!

PuritanCalvinist said...


Several things. First of all, on your own website you say:

While we encourage you not to make others' misspellings and grammatical mistakes an issue of debate, please do your best to double-check your spelling, use correct capitalization, and use proper grammar. [].

I find it very ironic that you cannot even hold to your own standards. I will bet you, if I searched your blog articles, I could find reoccuring typos. They, of course, have nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of your argumentation, as they do not have anything to do with the validity of my argumentation.

Secondly, I agree that singleness must have a purpose, as must marriage. That is not in dispute. The issue is "what is purposeful singleness," and whether or not the nature singles in the Bible must parallel in every way every example of singleness. Such is simply impossible, as there are many things that singles in the Bible did that we do not do today [such as go to different contries for missions, and drive cars there], and thus, they cannot be an exact parallel of every single instance of purposeful singleness. That was my point about bringing up the missions in other countries. Given the same argumentation that you use to say that a single cannot desire to marry in his thirties, and that he cannot be rich, and travel the world, you would also have to rule out singles going to any country other than what the singles in the Bible did, and you would also have to rule out singles using any transportation other than what the singles of the Bible did. I realize that you don't forbid missions trips like this, and the very fact that you do not is essential to my argument.

The point is that, if you take your logic about singles, and apply it to where singles can do missions work, it results in a refutation of your own position.

I also have no problems with correcting people who date and flirt with the opposite sex with no intention of marriage. I *do* have a problem with those who would try to put in along side of that wanting to get married when they are in their thirties, having a job, getting rich, and traveling the world, and other colorful things such as this. Notice, on the blog, I never objected to the flurtation or the dating. I objected to the other things that you tried to put in without any Biblical warrant, and then tried to defend them using an argument from silence.

Ted, the final portion of your post is just simply dishonest. Let me quote from the articles on your own website and see if you do not mandate marriage for anyone:

It's not about identity. It's about obedience. When it comes to marriage, we don't need a burning bush to know if it's God's will. He's already told us it is. If we're not specially gifted to be celibate, we're called to marriage. There's no third option; no lifestyle choice to remain single because it's more fun or more fulfilling or more spiritual than being married. Yes, if you're gifted with a calling to celibacy, a la Paul, then that is your duty. But if you're not -- and Scripture is clear that most of us aren't -- then our calling is marriage [].

What does it mean that it is "God's will," and what does it mean that our "calling" to marriage? And also, why is it being paralleled in the context of a "duty" of singleness?

On the whole of history, past generations of Christians saw singles under a divine obligation — one might say a duty — to marry. The marriage mandate was considered universal in its application, and the purposes of marriage were uniformly understood to be three-fold: []

What then is the difference between a duty and something that is mandated?

Because past Christian thinkers rightly understood that biblically excused singleness was a rare exception, they also correctly believed that the rest of us were under the creation mandate to marry in a timely manner. This duty is hard to appreciate in a generation where the very permanency of marriage is in doubt. If marriage can be unilaterally modified by the reneging spouse, and the costs of stakeholders in the union (such as children) be overlooked, then is there any room for discussion of whether one fails to marry in the first place? []

Again, why does one of the articles on your website call marriage a "creation mandate?" How can it be that you are not "mandating marriage for anyone" as you say, when these things are on your own website?

She [Maken] urges readers to consider the qualifications Jesus gave believers in Matthew 19 to know if they should stay single. To everyone not given these traits, their duty is to marry []

Why is it that I find this favorable review of Debbie Maken with these words? I don't think anyone will doubt that Debbie Maken believes that marriage is mandated.

Ted, I could go on quoting your website all day. It is just simply false to say you do not mandate marriage for anyone. Do I understand your concern for marriage, and how less people are getting married and having children? Yes I do. However, the solution to the problem is not to add to scripture the idea that marriage is a duty. The solution is to get back to teaching the truth about marriage.

Marriage and children are things that are naturally desirable. The problem is that, in today's culture, we redefine marriage any way we want. In fact, our society tries to equate two people living together as if it were equal to marriage. We also have the homosexual assult on marriage. This is the problem. The assult on marriage means that marriage is getting redefined, and thus, loosing its natural desirability. The solution to your problem is to start teaching what the Bible says about marriage, and marriage will become something naturally desirable.

In fact, I would say this why I would say that I oppose so strongly what Albert Mohler, Debbie Maken, and Candice Watters are saying. I know men who refuse to marry any woman who agrees with these three. The reason is exactly the same. Marriage needs to have all of the excess cut around the edge so that it becomes the "very good" thing God created it to be. Then, it will be naturally desirable, and marriage as well as birth rates will go up.

So, no Ted, I have not lost my passion for truth. It is still with me, and is one of the reasons why I address this topic. It is also one of the reasons I am going to college at the university level, so that I can learn how to better handle God's truth. However, as I have said before, this is one of the areas that I have criticised you guys before, and I believe it is a valid criticism. While Candice is not clergy, she is, as a matter of fact, in the same situation. By writing this book, she is being put as a teacher over God's people. Thus, as I have said before, she should have the ability to read and interpret the Greek and Hebrew texts. If you do not have it, then you cannot have the level of discernment required for someone who is sitting in a position of leadership over God's people.

In fact, much of Candice's articles can be shown to parallel Albert Mohler and Debbie Maken. Ted, this is simply unacceptable for a Christian leader. Yes, indeed, we all have scholars to whom we look up. I think of men such as Dr. Bruce Waltke, and men such as my professors, Dr. Richard Averbeck, Dr. James Hoffmeier, and Dr. Lawson Younger. I quote from all of these men, and hold many of the same views that they do on several texts.

However, I do not agree with them on everything. You will find instances where I disagree with them on several issues [expecially on Theonomy]. The reason is that I have been trained to exercise discernment. I have had Greek and Hebrew as well as Greek and Hebrew Exegesis, and I can use my education to evaluate the views that I am hearing.

However, you and Candice do not have that. When it comes to having a passion for truth, part of it is being willing to do the work necessary to accurately handle the word of God when you present it to God's people. You guys function as clergy in the sense that you are in a teaching position over God's people. Therefore, I would conclude that you too should be trained to exercise the same discernment. However, what am I to conclude when I bring up Debbie Maken and Candice's interpretation of several OT passages to my Hebrew professors, and they, not only reject their interpretation, but laugh at it? What am I to conclude when I consult multiple critical commentaries and they either make no reference to these interpretations of scripture, or reject the interpretations given when they do mention them? What it tells me is that the good hard work of discernment has not been done from the beginning. It tells me that theories are being accepted just simply because they came from popular authors without any thought use discernment concerning what they have said.

I probably will never have the position of influence that you guys have over at Boundless, Ted. I do hope that, however far I get in the field of Hebrew and Near Eastern Studies, that I always am careful with what I promote and what I endorse. That is why, on this very blog post, I had to lovingly correct people who agree with me. The reason is that I want to be able to consistently tell Captain Sensible that she is wrong for the nastiness and sarchasm on her blog. I cannot do it if I will not criticise people who agree with me when they do the same thing. I am always desiring to remain consistent in what I present as truth, and to exercise discernment in deciding what that truth is. That is all that I ask of anyone who takes a position of Christian leadership.

God Bless,

Ted Slater said...

Adam -- your refusal to apologize for, let alone merely acknowlege, your misspelling of Candice's name is telling. It was an easy opportunity to respond in humility. I have not sensed even the least amount of humility in your tone, Adam, ever. That's a terrifying place to be, to merely be characterized by pride. The one thing Jesus seemed to come down hardest against. May your relationship with your soon-to-be-wife facilitate growth in this area.

You wrote, "I *do* have a problem with those who would try to put in along side of that wanting to get married when they are in their thirties, having a job, getting rich, and traveling the world, and other colorful things such as this."

I married when I was 36 years old. In a global sense, my wife and I are "rich," owning a home and two cars and a home music studio and so on. I've traveled the world, throughout Europe, Mexico, Colombia, Singapore, all around the States and into Canada.

Does this not cause you any cognitive dissonance, Adam? That you think we're condemning these things, and yet I've done all of them?

PuritanCalvinist said...


I have to wonder who is the one who is not showing humility here. I have tried [as have others] to point out simple errors that you guys have made. I have even quoted from your own blog.

You know something interesting. My views on this issue have changed quite a bit since I have addressed it. I have seen the key texts from different angles, and I have grown in my understanding of the logic used in these arguments. I would not say the same things as what I said, for instance, about Genesis 1:28, 1 Corinthians 7 or even about the arguments that I have heard. I have grown in this issue in dialoguing with people like you, Debbie Maken, et al.

Let me ask you. Where has your view changed? Since you have heard Albert Mohler's sermon at the New Attitude Conference, has your view evolved at all? Or are you still promoting the same thing that Albert Mohler was then?

You see, Ted, one of the biggest examples of arrogance is the refusal to see a text from several different angles. Until you understand the beauty of the Old Testament, and recognize how much you have to learn about even the simplest of texts, you will never be able to realize why it is that I have criticized you so much. We need to approach the text with an attitude of humility, not with one of simply taking someone elses ideas, and just trusting them that it is there. On that very blog, people have accused me of my exegesis making me look arrogant. No, it is just the opposite. The only way to do exegesis is to approach the text as a student, wanting to learn what it has to say. If you do not exercise humility in engaging the text, and think that you already know what it says because Debbie Maken and Albert Mohler told you so, then you are the one who is engaging in arrogance.

And Ted, with regards to you and your wife's travels, I was referring to a comment that you made on the blog:

They use their time to enjoy travel to other countries, to focus on their careers, and so on. But that's not at all what Paul modeled with his singleness. Those actions are not at all compatible with the noble state of singleness that Paul described with his life.

So, Ted, why is it that you ignored the fact that I was referring to this statement? To just rip a statement out of context like that shows that you must not care whatsoever about interpreting me accurately. Why it is that you are so committed to defending this system that it would allow you to do that is simply beyond me.

Also, you have never answered my reductio of this argument. Do you believe that just because Paul did not "model" these things that they are therefore wrong? Again, I keep having to point out that Paul did not model a lot of things. He didn't model doing missions work in Cambodia, nor did he model driving a car. Does that mean that they are exempt from singleness?

Again, Ted, your refusal to honestly deal with the argumentation without engaging in ad hominem is what is telling. You guys have no answer for the criticisms that Anakin, Andreas Kostenburger, myself et al. have given against your position, and this just keeps on demonstrating that very thing. The humble thing to do is to go back to the text and become a student of the text, and not just take what is popular. As long as you persist in your endorsement of people like Debbie Maken, and refuse to even consider the possibility that what you have been told is wrong, your blog, while doing much good, cannot be recommended as having a high level of discernment.

Ted Slater said...

Adam -- you asked, "Let me ask you. Where has your view changed? Since you have heard Albert Mohler's sermon at the New Attitude Conference, has your view evolved at all? Or are you still promoting the same thing that Albert Mohler was then?"

Yes. In this comment ( ) I shift my thoughts to agree with yours: "One who has the gift of 1 Corinthians 7:9 is not free of sexual desire, but has the ability to control sexual desire."

There are indeed other examples, but I'm a bit pressed for time to identify them.

I've started writing a book. I'm not sure how far it'll go, but I've started. It'll be the second one I'll have written, if you consider my 140-page master's thesis to be a "book." I told my wife that once I'm making headway, I'd want to run it by you for your critique, since I know that you have peculiarly keen exegetical skills. You'd be able to identify where I may have misinterpreted something, or not thought deeply enough about something.

The book has nothing to do with singleness, by the way, but congregational singing.

Regarding international travel, I think you're not seeing the point I'm trying to make. There's nothing innately wrong with international travel. In fact, it can be a very good thing. But if you are intentionally putting off marrying your girlfriend or boyfriend because doing so would interfere with your fun globetrotting lifestyle, then your motives for traveling may be wrong.

When I speak of Paul's modeling the ideal of Christian celibacy, I'm speaking of his heart (which we can get a sense of by looking at what he did). The thing about his singleness that differentiated it from most contemporary single lifestyle is that instead of dating, flirting, playing X-box, and so on, he boldly preached the gospel in dangerous places. He made the most of his unmarried state to serve others, rather than himself. It's that self-sacrificial attitude that I'm referencing, something that worked its way out in his behavior. We're wanting to encourage singles to consider whether or not their activities betray a heart that's exceedingly selfish.

Something you seem to do is throw out the baby with the bathwater. When we identify principles of what we call "biblical dating" (AKA "courtship"), for example, instead of agreeing that dating should be intentional, pure, open to inspection by others (parents, pastors, mentors, etc.), complimentarian and Godward, you seem to dismiss everything because we may have misinterpreted one jot.

Your comments would be much better received, as I've written before, if you "sandwiched" your critique between affirming words. BTW, that little nugget has been helpful in my communication with my wife: always wrap a critique with compliments.

David Barshinger is a regular Boundless author. I admire him greatly. He's studying historical theology there at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. If you think there'd be any benefit in including him as a mediator to our ongoing conflict, I'd welcome that.

PuritanCalvinist said...


I remember that, and I said that I believe that is encouraging to me, because you are moving closer to my position. However, I would be interested in the following questions:

What happens when a person can control their desires, and then, at the age of thirty-five, cannot control their desires?

Is a person, then, with the gift of continence capible of getting married? Could a person have the ability to control their sexual desires, but still get married?

Calvin's answer to the first question is that the person can remain single as long as he has self-control, but then, once he no longer has it [say, at the age of thirty-five], then he must get married.

In answer to the second question, Calvin clearly believed that a person could get married if they so desired, as forbidding marriage is viewed as sinful by the apostle Paul.

Hence, at this point, the position takes on a far different character than that promoted by Candice Watters and Debbie Maken. The question is, how are we to know whether or not a person is not controlling themselves because they cannot control themselves, or will not control yourselves? That is why Calvin said that the individual must decide for himself which it is, because we cannot know.

So, Ted, I was definitely encouraged by what you said, but when I brought up everything else it seemed like the conversation stopped.

What I am presenting here is the classic reformed view of the "gift of continence," which is held by most Presbyterians. I think you may be interested in a paper that I did that for a book that I was writing:

This explains the differences between Maken's position and the position held by John Calvin, and by reformed folks such as myself today.

BTW, Ted, I don't want you to come away with the impression that, somehow, because I criticize you guys for supporting Maken and Mohler on this that you guys do no good. I believe that you do. I am just concerned that, because some of the folks on your staff
do not have the training necessary to accurately handle the word of truth, that mistakes are being made that would not otherwise be made.

However, I believe you guys do a lot of good on many issues such as homosexuality, abortion, feminism, purposeful dating, and many times just presenting fun stuff for twenty-somethings. I do enjoy reading your blog, and I want you guys to know that.

PuritanCalvinist said...

BTW, I meant accurately handle the word of truth when it comes to teaching God's people. Should have made that clearer.

God Bless,

Jessica said...

thank you for speaking out. Your words have encouraged me to continue to delve deeply into study of the Bible, not with my own preconceived notions, but with humility.

Paul said...


Recently, I posted a link to the following article by Bob Enyart on the Boundless blog: God and the Death Penalty. It was in response to a post by Tom Neven about capital punishment [of which I am a big fan].

I know you strongly disagree with Enyart's views on Open Theism, but I thought you might appreciate his strong support for the death penalty, since you're a theonomist.

Take care.

RedKnight said...

What is described as being "Principled Conservative" is more accurately refered to as "paleo-libertarian." It is for this reason that I refer to myself as being a libertarian on my "Facebook" profile, as opposed to conservative, as I am not a social conservative. A "reactionary conservative", as Anakin Niceguy referred to them, is simply a conservative. That is the difference between a libertarian and a conservative.

Anakin Niceguy said...

Hi Adam,

I see that you are concerned about my comments about "conservatism". I hope you don't take my post as a personal attack, but truly I am frustrated with the inconsistencies and hypocrisy of religious leaders. That doesn't make me liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

PuritanCalvinist said...

Hey Anakin,

No, I agree. And I never meant to imply that you are a liberal. I am just concerned that liberalism seems to be creeping in because of the fact that religious leaders are inconsistent. We need to hold to the traditions that were given to us [2 Thessalonians 2:15] while rejecting new traditions such as Mandatory Marriage Movement, which do not comport with scripture.


Thank you for your comments. Continue to get into God's word, and work hard. The benefits of doing so are that God will "open [our] eyes that [we] may behold wonderful things from [his] law" [Psalm 119:18].

God Bless,