# Podcast Recommendations?



## J.L. Allen (Feb 23, 2019)

What podcasts do y'all recommend? I'm mostly looking for things in the realm of theology, cultural commentary, philosophy, apologetics, etc.

If you have one outside of this wheelhouse, I'm good to hear that, too.


----------



## Bill Duncan (Feb 23, 2019)

Reformed Forum has "Christ the Center", "Theology Simply Profound", and "Proclaiming Christ". These are OPC guys. Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary has "Confessing our Hope". Their Faith and Practice series are Dr. Joseph Pipa answering questions from people like me. These are my favorites.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 23, 2019)

@Bill Duncan 

Amen to those! I definitely enjoy those. Confessing our Hope has been very informative.


----------



## JP Wallace (Feb 23, 2019)

As above but also add in The Jerusalem Chamber and 3GT both RPCNA podcasts, the former going through the Westminster Confession, the latter broader matters of culture, books and Theology.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Feb 23, 2019)

JP Wallace said:


> 3GT


I listen to The Jerusalem Chamber which is excellent but what is 3GT?


----------



## JP Wallace (Feb 23, 2019)

https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/three-guys-theologizing-podcast-audio/id1418332176?mt=2

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Feb 23, 2019)

I recommend anything on the Fight, Laugh, Feast (formerly Cross Politic) Network. The cover everything you asked for in the OP, plus some.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 23, 2019)

JP Wallace said:


> As above but also add in The Jerusalem Chamber and 3GT both RPCNA podcasts, the former going through the Westminster Confession, the latter broader matters of culture, books and Theology.


By your recommendation, I’ve subscribed and will give a listen.


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 23, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I recommend anything on the Fight, Laugh, Feast (formerly Cross Politic) Network. The cover everything you asked for in the OP, plus some.


This might sound silly, but with those guys association with Doug Wilson, are they caught up in Federal Vision?


----------



## Taylor (Feb 23, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> This might sound silly, but with those guys association with Doug Wilson, are they caught up in Federal Vision?



Probably, but I've never heard anything alarming on their podcasts. I don't mean to sound snarky, but believe it or not, we can actually listen to people we think are in error with profit!

EDIT: I really am not trying to be snarky. I guess I've just gotten a tired of folks whispering, "Aren't they associated with X?" with certain folks, as if people who have a few wrong ideas have nothing else of value to say. I know that's not at all what you intended, friend, so I guess I am just venting.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## A.Joseph (Feb 23, 2019)

What exactly is FV?


Taylor Sexton said:


> Probably, but I've never heard anything alarming on their podcasts. I don't mean to sound snarky, but believe it or not, we can actually listen to people we think are in error with profit!
> 
> EDIT: I really am not trying to be snarky. I guess I've just gotten a tired of folks whispering, "Aren't they associated with X?" with certain folks, as if people who have a few wrong ideas have nothing else of value to say. I know that's not at all what you intended, friend, so I guess I am just venting.


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 23, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Probably, but I've never heard anything alarming on their podcasts. I don't mean to sound snarky, but believe it or not, we can actually listen to people we think are in error with profit!
> 
> EDIT: I really am not trying to be snarky. I guess I've just gotten a tired of folks whispering, "Aren't they associated with X?" with certain folks, as if people who have a few wrong ideas have nothing else of value to say. I know that's not at all what you intended, friend, so I guess I am just venting.


I understand what you are saying. I feel similarly. However, I’m very new to being Reformed and wish to be vigilant about formation.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 23, 2019)

A.Joseph said:


> What exactly is FV? I know they lean theonomist and I would love to hear how much progress they think they can make with political activism in today’s culture. But I don’t see any problem with them ....
> 
> They said they would have me on, the CP guys I mean


@Alan D. Strange authored this article about it. 

http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=478

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Feb 23, 2019)

These suggestions won't be podcasts but still worth your attention. With being new to the Reformed tradition, I recommend the following:

There are some classes uploaded from PRTS
https://www.youtube.com/user/PuritanSeminary/playlists

Reformed Theological Seminary Mobile (RTS Mobile) app
Dr. Douglass Kelly has a course or two on there. I would also commend to you Dr. J. Ligona Duncan's Covenant Theology course on there.

Derek Thomas' PRTS lectures on John Owen
https://tonyreinke.com/2007/06/29/john-owen-derek-thomas/

There are some great lectures by Sinclair Ferguson here:
https://students.wts.edu/resources/...hap=&ScrVerse=&ScrVerseEnd=&year=&srch=search

I can't implore you enough to spend much time listening to the sermons of Martyn LLoyd-Jones. This resource is a gold mine that will edify you day after day.
https://www.mljtrust.org/sermons/

I would offer podcasts but I typically only listen to sermons, lectures, and Christian audio books.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ZackF (Feb 23, 2019)

The ones mentioned about. 

RC Sproul's 'Renewing Your Mind', Mortification of Spin, White Horse Inn, Reformed Pubcast, James White's 'The Dividing Line' (Sermon Audio), MacArthur's 'Grace to You', and countless others. You'll find there are more than you can listen to.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## py3ak (Feb 23, 2019)

A quondam classmate (and Puritan Board member) has a sort of mini-podcast, in that episodes are kept to five minutes: https://fiveforfruit.com/

Wooden Pulpit Media puts out a couple of different podcast series as well: https://woodenpulpitmedia.com/posts/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 23, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> These suggestions won't be podcasts but still worth your attention. With being new to the Reformed tradition, I recommend the following:
> 
> There are some classes uploaded from PRTS
> https://www.youtube.com/user/PuritanSeminary/playlists
> ...



I've been more edified by listening to things of this nature than anything else. I should get back into the swing of it. Where do you go to listen to Christian audio books? 



py3ak said:


> A quondam classmate (and Puritan Board member) has a sort of mini-podcast, in that episodes are kept to five minutes: https://fiveforfruit.com/
> 
> Wooden Pulpit Media puts out a couple of different podcast series as well: https://woodenpulpitmedia.com/posts/



I'll give these a listen!


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Feb 23, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> I've been more edified by listening to things of this nature than anything else. I should get back into the swing of it. Where do you go to listen to Christian audio books?
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give these a listen!



I have a subscription to Christian Audio and Audible. There are a lot of Puritan, Reformed, Theological, and Church history audiobooks between the two.

Christian Audio gives away one free book a month. They are usually really good. I loaded up on Puritan audio books during Black Friday.

In Audible, I am currently listening to Justo Gonzalez's The Story of Christianity. I just finished up Bruce Shelley's Church History in Plain Language.


----------



## BottleOfTears (Feb 24, 2019)

Second on Mortification of Spin and Reformed Forum. 

If you want a decent podcast from another tradition, there's a Lutheran one called Thinking Fellows which is pretty interesting (And has Rod Rosenbladt from the WHI as well).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 24, 2019)

Johnathan,

I’m not really a podcast kind of guy. My below recommendation is based off your OP in this thread and considering your other thread detailing you and your wife walking through Covenant Theology vs. Dispensationalism. So I will try to kill 2 birds with one scone (https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/how-do-you-speak-about-animals.96871/)

Further, as one of many sources, I listened to the below as I walked through Covenant Theology (for the first time) and strove to help my wife see a biblical case for Paedobaptism.

Download Itunes U from the App Store and search for “Covenant Theology”. You should find a series with a depiction of Noah’s Ark. The audios are actually the course lectures for Ligon Duncan’s Covenant Theology course at RTS Jackson, MS. Ligon takes a good amount of time discussing dispensationalism. If I remember correctly, Ligon actually host a dispensationalist in one of the audios to allow the man a chance to explain his position. Hopefully this link will work:

Covenant Theology - Dr. J. Ligon Duncan by Reformed Theological Seminary
https://itunes.apple.com/us/course/covenant-theology-dr-j-ligon-duncan/id668706261

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Von (Feb 24, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> theology, cultural commentary, philosophy, apologetics


You'll get all of this from a daily podcast called The Briefing (Al Mohler):
_Dr. Mohler hosts two programs: “The Briefing,” a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview; and “Thinking in Public,” a series of conversations with the day’s leading thinkers._
(From the website)


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 24, 2019)

This opinion might be unpopular:

I generally try to avoid Christian podcasts unless they are from an older, experienced pastor, or somebody I truly trust.

Here are my reasons why:

(1) Older pastors have the most wisdom in many cases, but the younger ones are more tech-smart. Therefore, listening to the majority of reformed podcasts means that many young reformed believers are learning from the people who are the least equipped to teach.

Many of these young podcasters seem to be trying to make a name for themselves and engage in a fair amount of "branding" replete with logos and "merch" and t-shirts, etc. Others seem to specialize in calling out other podcasters, etc. Some try to be hip or funny and this almost always backfires.

For example, several podcasts for women or about marriage were started by young women or divorced people (or at least in one case I know, a mouthy divorced woman).

I suppose they could have really learned about marriage through having a bad one, I suppose, but I hardly think they'd qualify as experts to guide others...and yet, there they are...podcasting to thousands because they have the tech or the studio or the know-how technologically, even though an older woman or pastor has much more authority to teach others.

(2) Much like being caught up in the 24/7 news cycle, listening to Christian podcasts keeps us sucked into the hot-button issues of the day and takes us away from eternal truths sometimes.

We lose sight of the bigger picture because we are immersed in the here-and-now of today. For instance, during any given week on Facebook, at least half the people are chiming in pro or con regarding the "Rage Issue" of the week. Every week there is a new issue dividing people on Facebook.

For instance, this week it is about the silly actor that staged his own racial attack (using Nigerians...ha ha.....Nigerians being scammed by Americans...sort of ironic). If we are always attached to Facebook, then we can get enraged or stirred up about these fleeting news issues and lose the bigger picture and it eats away at our peace.

Podcasts can tend to do that as well. And many have an agenda, or are very polemical. I think generally we need a diet of less polemical material and more irenic presentations. We don't so much need to be prepared to debate people as we do need things that feed our souls or encourage right living, or encourages us.

For that reason, for example, I avoid James White's podcasts. Because he is a profesional debater, he addresses many things in a debate-mode, which is off-putting. Feeding on a daily diet of that material can make one's own attitude very polemical. He is technically good at what he does, and debate has its place, but the material is often against other Christians and often answers objections or criticisms and so there is a certain tone that gets communicated. If this is our daily diet then we begin to equate holiness with ability to argue (which it is not).

A sharp rhetorical pugilist is not necessarily the Christian role-models that we need to follow. Some of us are already too quick to fight or jab back. Of course, contending for the truth is needed. But....how do we contend without always being contentious all the time, that is the question. I don't mean to attack Dr White, he has a specific calling and a particular gifting. But that calling is only one aspect of the Christian life.



(3) Sound bite theology:

Sometimes issues have nuance. And podcasts and Facebook posts often go for the "rhetorical jugular" (the pithy one sentence put-down or response, often sarcastic) which often lacks nuance. This is essentially sound-bite theology, and is inferior to a fuller discussion which covers opposing views and the nuances of the issue.



My preferences:

Call me a heathen, but I don't like theological podcasts.

I prefer either well-produced theological works from yesterday, such as can be found at Audible.com (such as Augustine's conversion, the Bible read by a person with a good voice), or I prefer history podcasts, such as Dan Carlin's Hardcore History.

The problem is that many Christian books are narrated in audioform by a narrator who is dry and dull, or overly exuberant and sounds like a car salesman. Many Christian audiobooks suffer from poor production quality. I really think it would behoove us to hire professional narrators to put some of our best works and sermons into high-quality audio. Max MacLean reading Jonathan Edwards' sermon, Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God is a good example of a well-done work.

A favorite podcast for me and my son Noah has been the Trojan War podcast found here, which seems to be fairly faithful to the source-texts and traditions: https://trojanwarpodcast.com/


And for audio, I would recommend Eugene Sledge's WWII pacific war diary, "With the Old Breed" found here: https://www.audible.com/pd/With-the-Old-Breed-Audiobook/B00FOX9E2S

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Feb 24, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> I will try to kill 2 birds with one scone


We only feed birds on the PB, sir. We can't tolerate such Speciesism here. Animals are humans too.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Feb 24, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Covenant Theology - Dr. J. Ligon Duncan by Reformed Theological Seminary
> https://itunes.apple.com/us/course/covenant-theology-dr-j-ligon-duncan/id668706261



I suggested this earlier for the same reasons. Great minds.


----------



## Joseph Knowles (Feb 24, 2019)

A couple friends and I will be launching a church history podcast in April, if that sort of thing interests you. We intend to not delve into not just the history, but also the theology and (especially) what it means for us today.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Feb 24, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> so there is a certain tone that gets communicated


I think your general criticism is a little broad, but I concur on James White. His topics can be interesting but he always to me seems to be on the defensive or is worrying about losing religious freedom. It is almost stressful a steady diet of him (In my humble opinion).


py3ak said:


> A quondam classmate (and Puritan Board member) has a sort of mini-podcast, in that episodes are kept to five minutes: https://fiveforfruit.com/


Good choice. He is associated with a group of podcasts (https://reformedpodcasts.com). I cannot speak for all, but at least a couple I listen to (e.g. reformed brotherhood).

Sidenote: how many podcasts can we create that have the word 'reformed' in them!


----------



## TheOldCourse (Feb 24, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> I understand what you are saying. I feel similarly. However, I’m very new to being Reformed and wish to be vigilant about formation.



You should be. If they are FV you'd be better off listening to an Eastern Orthodox or Popish podcast. At least they would be forthright about where they are coming from. The 3GT and Jerusalem Chamber ones I would recommend highly. I don't listen to podcasts much anymore but I have those on occasion and found them excellent. The Westminster ones sometimes play like 6 degrees of Cornelius Van Til but despite their hobby horses they do cover a lot of interesting stuff and have some great interview. I don't think he's doing it anymore, but R. Scott Clark's Heidelcast has a lot of great back episodes to listen to. When I had long commutes a number of years ago those were on heavy rotation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Feb 24, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> I think your general criticism is a little broad, but I concur on James White. His topics can be interesting but he always to me seems to be on the defensive or is worrying about losing religious freedom. It is almost stressful a steady diet of him (In my humble opinion).
> 
> Good choice. He is associated with a group of podcasts (https://reformedpodcasts.com). I cannot speak for all, but at least a couple I listen to (e.g. reformed brotherhood).
> 
> Sidenote: how many podcasts can we create that have the word 'reformed' in them!



James White is at his best when engaged with Islam, Mormonism, RCC, and others. Also textual critical issues, but we won't get into that right now.

It's not that I disagree with him on all the social-cultural issues that have been stressing him so much lately--I'm with him all the way. In issues like that, though, I've got better sources of information than him, with all due respect.

Regarding the rest, I listen to a number of the podcasts above--or used to. But I am loving the *Jerusalem Chamber* and *Thinking Fellows *right now. They do podcasts right. Informative, interesting, and not particularly polemical.

Personally, and in that vein, I think podcasts are best for listening to and learning about perspectives you either don't actually hold yourself or lack the luxury of time to go investigating in-depth. That's why I even listen to the *Ezra Klein* podcast on occasion. When I can bear him.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 25, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> For that reason, for example, I avoid James White's podcasts. Because he is a profesional debater, he addresses many things in a debate-mode, which is off-putting. Feeding on a daily diet of that material can make one's own attitude very polemical. He is technically good at what he does, and debate has its place, but the material is often against other Christians and often answers objections or criticisms and so there is a certain tone that gets communicated. If this is our daily diet then we begin to equate holiness with ability to argue (which it is not).


I have also had growing discomfort with James White's podcasts (and I have listened to them for nearly 2 decades). I also find his debate mode off-putting. I would acknowledge he is very gifted in what he does but ongoing negative criticism of other Christians can have an affect on ones attitude.

I also second Pergamum's warning about less experienced pastors. I can say I find Al Mohler's programs (thinking in public and the briefing), and the Reformed Forum both very helpful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 25, 2019)

Nick Fuentes (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsJ86N5n7fcEC_Ds8dYJKzA) is excellent. He's Roman Catholic, but his commentary on society and culture is spot on.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 25, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I have also had growing discomfort with James White's podcasts (and I have listened to them for nearly 2 decades). I also find his debate mode off-putting. I would acknowledge he is very gifted in what he does but ongoing negative criticism of other Christians can have an affect on ones attitude.
> 
> I also second Pergamum's warning about less experienced pastors. I can say I find Al Mohler's programs (thinking in public and the briefing), and the Reformed Forum both very helpful.



Yes. I did not mean to single out James White. He does certain things very well, when he is not battling other Christians. There are many worse podcasts I have in mind. Some of the programs out there on marriage and the family are far worse and are often done by people who have not even been succesful in relationships themselves. And many women bloggers - even the "Reformed" women - are often tainted by Western culture and are often pushing feminist viewpoints (feminism-lite). And many youtube and Facebook and podcast celebrities get famous for preaching AGAINST stuff. They have their daily rants. And they attack a topic on every program. I think a steady diet of that "Against-Stuff-ism" is not good for the constitution of folks like me. It can encourage people to become more belligerent. Of course, if I had my own podcast I'd be very tempted to "go off" and rant against much of what I see today (just as I am doing here on the PB right now). But I'd prefer to be more irenic (but that takes work...it is hard to be gentle).

And many popular preachers won't preach on hell, but they'll try to push left-wing social issues and say such things like "Mary was an unwed mother" and "Jesus was a brown-skinned refugee" and "us Christians, if we wanted to be truly loving, must support immigration", etc. Those who have the money to push such dreck are often funded by Globalists. Even Al Mohler harbors the Cultural Marxist Russell Moore who has been part of open immigration forums funded by George Soros, and Mohler supports him and the ERLC on many questionable issues. I don't want mouthpieces of Soros or Social Leftists contaminating my airwaves. Even Al Mohler on marriage has said that a man must earn his way into the marriage bed of his wife.

So I am very selective on what I listen to. Generally I am a cynic and suspicious of people perhaps and quick to write them off. Of course, I generally like podcasts by people who agree with me fully on all of my own viewpoints and can thus become an echo-chamber for my own views, reinforcing the belief that I am always correct. 

There are several people here on the PB I would definitely listen to if they did podcasts (perhaps Q and A format).

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 25, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> Second on Mortification of Spin and Reformed Forum.
> 
> If you want a decent podcast from another tradition, there's a Lutheran one called Thinking Fellows which is pretty interesting (And has Rod Rosenbladt from the WHI as well).



Mortification of Spin was alright at first but has been seriously compromised by Aimee Byrd joining. She is a feminist who has an agenda which she couches in "conservative" buzz words and argumentation, but it's nothing but liberal feminist ideology.

I was going to use as just one example an article she posted on the Mortification of Spin blog last year on the Kavanaugh episode, in response to an analysis written by Anthony Esolen. Her response was snarky and emotional (from a woman, who'd have thunk it?). Looking back she has since written another article whining about yet another man who had the temerity to point out the blindingly obvious: our churches have become feminised to the extreme, dominated by women numerically which has led to a feminine culture, feminised male leadership (if not just allowing women to take over) which in turn only results in fewer and fewer men attending church. But Aimee can't have this! (Does the writer of the article offer a few cringey arguments? Yes. Does Aimee have the maturity of mind to ignore these and engage with the substantive point? Of course not.)

Yes, of course she was brought on the show as a diversity hire. But that's not good enough, especially in the area of theology. She has been given a platform by a respected organisation amongst (moderately) conservative groups to promote her unbiblical philosophy.

But apart from her, there are problems with Carl and Todd. Like many of these "reformed brother" podcasts they like to affect this edgy, controversial posture (in the sense that they're speaking Reformed truth to an evangelicalism that has become vague and worldly) but I've never heard them take one truly counter-cultural position: not on so-called Christmas, not on Halloween, not on worship. They are compromisers. Personally, I think you'd be better staying far away.

Reformed Forum is, overall, good (when they stay off the beer). They have some excellent episodes, and many very good ones.

Reactions: Like 4 | Funny 1


----------



## SolamVeritatem (Feb 25, 2019)

Brother Alexander,

I've had some disagreements with MoS myself over the years, but I believe that you have made quite the charge in your post, and I lovingly urge you to reconsider how close you are coming to violating the 9th commandment with regard to your statements (see WLC, Q 143-145). I can respect you as a brother in Christ if you see it differently, but I could not help but perceive negativity in your submission. I'm open to correction/dialogue if you are so inclined.

Moderators/Admins,

I would ask that you please monitor closely instances where public posts from brothers and sisters in the Lord on this board could possibly be mischaracterizing the views, beliefs, stances and motives of other brothers and sisters in the Lord. I am also open to correction/rebuke/clarity from you if it is necessary.

Every Blessing in Christ,

Craig

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 25, 2019)

There was meant to be negativity in my post. Mortification of Spin is giving a platform to unbliblical, feminist ideology. If you think I have misrepresented Aimee Byrd's positions please show me where.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## SolamVeritatem (Feb 25, 2019)

Brother Alexander,

Understood, and fair enough. I didn't engage you with the intention of defending Aimee, Todd or Carl, neither is it my intent to spark any sort of debate with you. I'll simply say this, all you've done in your post is accuse her of being a feminist, being snarky, being emotional and being whiny and immature in her writing. I'd say the burden of proof to provide more substantial evidence of that claim, other than merely your opinion, is upon you. 

As promised, I still respect you as my brother in Christ, even in disagreement of how you may have framed your post. Whether or not you decide to clarify/respond/elaborate is totally up to you, but either way you have the last word brother. 

Grace and Peace,

Craig

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill Duncan (Feb 25, 2019)

Here is one I listened to today. Don't shoot the messenger here, though personally I like Mike Horton, I know he's not for everyone . This podcast with Sen. Ben Sasse is great.
https://www.whitehorseinn.org/show/an-interview-with-senator-ben-sasse-whi-bonus/


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 25, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Her response was snarky and emotional (from a woman, who'd have thunk it?).


*Moderator Note*:

Let's not commit ninth commandment violations by sarcastically implying women are generally "snarky" and "emotional." Our duty is to extend the greatest amount of charity possible towards another, including supplying linked (quoted) context of content that is under discussion and dispute for examination by all. If we cannot, we must refrain from even speaking/commenting and examine ourselves for the reasons why we cannot muster what we are commanded to do.
*End Moderator Note*

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 25, 2019)

Craig, 

Without wishing to turn this into a debate I'll just say that I referenced two recent articles by her, the tone of which is self-evident.

Ask Mr. Religion- I don't believe I have violated the 9th Commandment in that remark. It's an obvious jocular generalisation based on reality. There are traits which characterise the sexes. Emotionalism and an inability to analyse in a detached fashion is characteristic of women. This characteristic has been observed by the religious and atheistical writers down through the generations and it is the refusal of the church, and the right, to acknowledge this which has contributed greatly to the problems we are facing today.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 25, 2019)

I'll wager a bet. This isn't 9th Commandmenty or anything...but you name a list of well-known woman bloggers and I'll guarantee at least a fair number have a post about why modesty is a man's problem and not their bikini in public. 

That is one reason why my wife listens to pastors and not women podcasters.

http://www.mortificationofspin.org/...ok-at-the-bikini-question?page=1#.XHQ0w-gzZPY

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Feb 25, 2019)

I tried to get into Reformed Forum, but I find it kinda dry. Although, this was an excellent episode....






Also, Pastor Tipton, a frequent guest, is my pastor, so I’m blessed to sit under his preaching and commentary live in the flesh.

MoS is a bit wishy washy, although I really like Todd Pruitt....

Did anyone mention Presbycast? I just came across it....is it worth my time?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Feb 25, 2019)

I don't have anything in particular against Aimee Byrd, but I agree that the show (Mortification of Spin) became much less interesting when she joined it. Admittedly, I probably haven't listened in more than a year so it's possible things have changed, but it seemed like the discussions and topics lost a lot of their depth once she joined. Carl's academic and social commentary is the real draw of the show and it feels like it was diluted considerably with the addition of a lay-person--even a reasonably well-informed one. Todd and particularly Carl always bring an air of considered scholarship to the topics they discuss. Aimee, not as much. Todd and Carl's banter, which I always found humorous, was also seemingly softened with the addition of the fairer sex to the show.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 25, 2019)

A.Joseph said:


> Did anyone mention Presbycast? I just came across it....is it worth my time?


I really enjoy them. They have a deadpan delivery and sarcasm. All in all, I’ve learned a lot. It probably isn’t everyone’s flavor. 


Man! I have a lot to wade through. Keep ‘em coming!


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 25, 2019)

Joseph Knowles said:


> A couple friends and I will be launching a church history podcast in April



Keep me in the loop, please.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## augustacarguy (Feb 25, 2019)

A.Joseph said:


> I tried to get into Reformed Forum, but I find it kinda dry. Although, this was an excellent episode....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Love Presbycast. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew35 (Feb 26, 2019)

Re. Mortification Of Spin, I enjoy listening to it usually, and I like Aimee, Carl, and Todd a lot.

This is from memory, but a guest on MOS a few years ago was critiquing a "patriarchy movement" within Reformed, esp. Reformed Baptist circles. Among other issues she had with such a movement was the notion, developed I think by Sam Waldron as well as others, that the man is a sort of "priest" of his house.

Pruitt and Byrd seemed appalled at the notion, as "Jesus is the believer's only priest" in this dispensation. Which is, of course, true in an ultimate sense. They both seemed unaware, however, that there is a long tradition of the father functioning as priest to his family in the Reformed and Lutheran traditions. Trueman, no doubt, was aware of this and said nothing.

(edited for clarity, per Bill's comment)


----------



## Bill Duncan (Feb 26, 2019)

Andrew35 said:


> Re. MOS, I enjoy listening to it usually, and I like Aimee, Carl, and Todd a lot.
> 
> Nonetheless, I was amused a few years back when they had a guest on--I forget whom--discussing patriarchy in Reformed churches, esp. _Reformed Baptists._
> 
> ...


I'm sorry for being a little slow, but can you develop your point some more.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 26, 2019)

Have never listened to Presbycast. I got into Reformed Forum through their episodes on the Simplicity and Impassibility of God, which were excellent deep dive discussions. That sort of thing they do really well. Sometimes it seems like they're going through the motions just to produce an episode every week though. They also have some regular guests who I have a problem with, but others- like Dolezal- who are always interesting (in the areas they specialise in). As with MoS, I think they're weakest when they deal with "hot button" issues like festivals and worship. They'll get into the subject in a more in-depth manner,but they don't really commit to a position (or they commit to the wrong one) so I find that a bit of a cop-out. (Not that the impassibility of God isn't a "controversial" topic, but it doesn't have the cultural sensitivity that so-called christmas has.)


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 26, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> They also have some regular guests who I have a problem with


Such as who?


----------



## Bill Duncan (Feb 26, 2019)

[QUOTE="alexandermsmith, post: 1191223, member: 9291" I got into Reformed Forum through their episodes on the Simplicity and Impassibility of God, which were excellent deep dive discussions. That sort of thing they do really well. Sometimes it seems like they're going through the motions just to produce an episode every week though. They also have some regular guests who I have a problem with, but others- like Dolezal- who are always interesting (in the areas they specialise in). 
I suppose you are talking about "Christ the Center", the one hosted by Camden Bucey. Yes, they have guests quite often from differing positions. You have to be fairly firm in understanding to know that they are not advocating the other persons doctrinal argument but are rather allowing the listener to balance their own understanding with direct, from the horses mouth, contrast. Kind of like what Fox News claims to be, "Fair and Balanced", but is not.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 26, 2019)

I'm thinking particularly of Glen Clary.


----------



## Bill Duncan (Feb 26, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> Such as who?





alexandermsmith said:


> I'm thinking particularly of Glen Clary.


What's wrong with Glen?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 26, 2019)

He has very dangerous views on how a prosepctive communicant should be examined by his session and on the preaching of ministers such as the Tennents and Frelinghuysen.


----------



## Bill Duncan (Feb 26, 2019)

Can you refer me to anywhere he makes reference to these things so I can be aware. I listen to him often on Christ the Center and he is a faculty member of the OPC Ministerial Training Institute. I'm OPC in mind PCA in body. So I'm always interested in other's opinions.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Feb 26, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> on the preaching of ministers such as the Tennents and Frelinghuysen.



Please excuse my ignorance. What are their views on preaching? I have read sermons by both gentlemen but am not aware of their views in question.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 26, 2019)

This is the episode where the issues are discussed:

https://reformedforum.org/ctc412/

And also this address he gave on the issue:

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11121521263010

Clearly there are plenty of people who agree with the views expressed here. But I don't believe they are the historic Reformed understanding.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Feb 26, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> This is the episode where the issues are discussed:
> 
> https://reformedforum.org/ctc412/
> 
> ...



Is this in response to my question?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 26, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Please excuse my ignorance. What are their views on preaching? I have read sermons by both gentlemen but am not aware of their views in question.



The complaint certain people have with these ministers is, for one thing, their use of so-called "categorical" preaching whereby the minister applies the teaching of the sermon to particular categories of people in the congregation: the spiritually dead, the seeking, the new believer, the experienced believer &c. rather than addressing the congregation as if these differences don't exist. I certainly don't advocate a rigid formula whereby this is followed in every sermon but rather that these real distinctions should be applied as appropriate.

This discussion may be going off on a tangent from what the original poster was looking for. If one of the moderators thinks it should continue elsewhere that's fine with me, althoug hreally I just wanted to give my thoughts on the particular podcasts. As I said earlier: Reformed Forum, Christ the Center particulalry, is a good podcast and there's lots of helpful, interesting content there.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 26, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Is this in response to my question?



Actually it was in response to Bill Duncan, but it would answer yours as well.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 26, 2019)

I have only arrived on this thread, but, without necessarily agreeing with everything Alexander has said, I think that he is on to something in relation to Aimee Byrd. I recall a podcast on the patriarchy movement wherein she was criticising all these terrible things that the "patriarchy" believed and Carl Trueman noted that much of it was fairly mainstream opinion among conservative Christians.

While the influence of Cultural Marxism on New Calvinism has most clearly come out of late in relation to race, I think it is also showing itself in how so-called complementarians address gender relations. Indeed, I saw one New Calvinist leader a while back insinuate that Christian husbands who expect submission from their wives were acting like their wives should be justified by works. I have also seen it implied that husbands are "selfish" for marrying to fulfil needs, and the notion of a husband's "servant leadership" is being used by some to undermine what male headship really entails.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 26, 2019)

Reformed Covenant - Good points. Some people will claim to hold to "complementarianism" (which, let's be honest, is a rather naff term but I suppose we have to make do) but when one digs a little deeper they don't seem to be holding this doctrine to any great degree. Often it doesn't extend any further than exclusive male leadership in the church and even *that *can sometimes be qualified. One sees this in the conservative movement at large today where it has become very trendy to say "there are only two genders" but but then reject any actual real world consequences of there being two distinct *sexes*. Cultural marxists have had a long time to perfect their ability to distort and subvert language. We must always be on our guard.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JM (Feb 26, 2019)

Don Fortner's sermons

Dividing Line (is it still called that?)

ESV Daily Office Lectionary 

HB Charles Jr - On Preacing

And Joe Rogan. His influence is tremendous and I'm an martial artist and MMA fan so...

Yours in the Lord, 

jm


----------



## Spurgyon (Feb 26, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Mortification of Spin was alright at first but has been seriously compromised by Aimee Byrd joining. She is a feminist who has an agenda which she couches in "conservative" buzz words and argumentation, but it's nothing but liberal feminist ideology.



100% with you. More on Aimee Byrd here:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/troub...culinity-very-good-lets-stop-caricaturing-it/

And her next book is billed as an attack on "Biblical manhood and womanhood." I see her as part of the Evangelical-Intersectionality Complex, along with Revoice (LGBTQ) and Thabiti/Jemar Tisby/Anthony Bradley types (everything is about certain racist sins done by white men, not our own sins). I think she's more dangerous since she's in the OPC and appears less fringe-ish.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Spurgyon (Feb 26, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Reformed Covenant - Good points. Some people will claim to hold to "complementarianism" (which, let's be honest, is a rather naff term but I suppose we have to make do) but when one digs a little deeper they don't seem to be holding this doctrine to any great degree. Often it doesn't extend any further than exclusive male leadership in the church and even *that *can sometimes be qualified. One sees this in the conservative movement at large today where it has become very trendy to say "there are only two genders" but but then reject any actual real world consequences of there being two distinct *sexes*. Cultural marxists have had a long time to perfect their ability to distort and subvert language. We must always be on our guard.



Yep. I've also heard complementarianism described as the husband and wife being 99% identical, with God mysteriously giving the husband the tiebreaker vote if they ever disagree (which should be very rare). Oh and women can't be ordained, but can and should take every possible leadership and speaking opportunity not requiring ordination.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Kinghezy (Feb 26, 2019)

JM said:


> ESV Daily Office Lectionary



I use the ESV M'Cheyne feed

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Joseph Knowles (Feb 26, 2019)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> Keep me in the loop, please.



We don't have anything up on the website as of yet, but it will be at churchhistory.podbean.com. We're aiming to launch on April 23 and release an episode (30-45 minutes in length) every other week.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 27, 2019)

Spurgyon said:


> Yep. I've also heard complementarianism described as the husband and wife being 99% identical, with God mysteriously giving the husband the tiebreaker vote if they ever disagree (which should be very rare). Oh and women can't be ordained, but can and should take every possible leadership and speaking opportunity not requiring ordination.



A common tactic by Byrd and other crypto-feminists online is to go back to Genesis and re-translate Eve being Adam's "helpmeet" as, rather, Eve being Adam's "Necessary ally" and not really a follower or helper at all in the traditional sense. 

If you give a certain kind of woman a blog, she won't write to support traditional women in traditional womenly roles. She will rather write AGAINST men...to correct us. For example, Byrd started out writing about housewife theologians but now is writing against the Mike Pence/Billy Graham rule. 

The only woman online personality I follow is "The Transformed Wife" who is being mocked mercilessly (by mostly women, and some weak men) because she stated that men prefer debt-free virgins without tattoes as wives. A satirical Facebook group by that same name was quickly formed to make fun of her. I show my son these behaviors online as a guide to inform him what sort of women to avoid.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> A common tactic by Byrd and other crypto-feminists online is to go back to Genesis and re-translate Eve being Adam's "helpmeet" as, rather, Eve being Adam's "Necessary ally" and not really a follower or helper at all in the traditional sense.



One complementarian recently tried to tell me that "it is not good for man to be alone" only applied to Adam and does not apply to us. Just another example of how bizarre the whole movement has become. 



Pergamum said:


> For example, Byrd started out writing about housewife theologians but now is writing against the Mike Pence/Billy Graham rule.



Do you have a link about this subject?


----------



## BottleOfTears (Feb 27, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Do you have a link about this subject?


This article on friendship (connected to Aimee's book).
And this one in reply to an article comparing her to Potiphar's wife.

Her book goes into more detail on this, so I'll get a quote from that for you. (Might have to start a new thread soon though)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 27, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> One complementarian recently tried to tell me that "it is not good for man to be alone" only applied to Adam and does not apply to us. Just another example of how bizarre the whole movement has become.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link about this subject?


Here are some links:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/troub...-rule-why-aimee-byrd-is-misreading-scripture/

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Cant-We-...ds=aimee+byrd&qid=1551266450&s=gateway&sr=8-2

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 27, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> This article on friendship (connected to Aimee's book).
> And this one in reply to an article comparing her to Potiphar's wife.
> 
> Her book goes into more detail on this, so I'll get a quote from that for you. (Might have to start a new thread soon though)



Thanks. I read the first article, which was bizarre. The Mike Pence/Billy Graham rule is just a common sense application of the seventh commandment.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## BottleOfTears (Feb 27, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Here are some links:
> 
> https://www.patheos.com/blogs/troub...-rule-why-aimee-byrd-is-misreading-scripture/


That's an interesting article. I think a lot of it is useful, but seeing as the author had not actually read Aimee's book at the time of writing, it seems like he has assumed that she is arguing that we should treat all our brothers and sisters in Christ *exactly* like our biological brothers and sisters. I don't think she is arguing that at all. 

Secondly, I think it's strange how he just assumes the problem with the whole Bill Hybels situation is mere accusation caused by not following the Pence Rule. Now maybe it is just false accusations, but I think that's it's a wee bit simplistic to assume that's the only problem. The Pence Rule whatever it's usefulness, is certainly not a cure-all for sexual sin.


----------



## BottleOfTears (Feb 27, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Thanks. I read the first article, which was bizarre. The Mike Pence/Billy Graham rule is just a common sense application of the seventh commandment.


I think there's a Mortification of Spin episode on it too, I would have some sympathy for some of her views on the Pence Rule, but Todd if I remember makes some decent points in favour of it.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 27, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> This article on friendship (connected to Aimee's book).
> And this one in reply to an article comparing her to Potiphar's wife.
> 
> Her book goes into more detail on this, so I'll get a quote from that for you. (Might have to start a new thread soon though)



In her article on friendship she doesn't seem to grasp the rather important distinction between those who are our _blood_ brothers and sisters and those are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Inevitably our relationship with those we grew up with in the same house, who have seen us at our best and worst and with whom we have an intimacy we don't have with anyone else is going to be different from the relationship we have with non-blood siblings. It's surely bizarre to expect a man to have the same sort of friendship with a woman who is not his sibling than he has with his sister?

She recognises the nature of the society we live in (very sexualised) but wants to operate as if we can just ignore that. There's a very good reason why in the past it would have been frowned upon (to say the least) for an unmarried man and woman to be spending intimate time with each other, in private: it has the _appearance _of ungodliness, which we are to avoid (1 Thess. 5:22). It could well have been quite innocent, but the appearance of wrongdoing was sufficient to forbid the action.

It's also bizarre that in the current climate she would double down on her criticism of the "Pence rule". http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/pickpocketing-purity#.XHZ3jIj7TGg 

Is it guaranteed to 100% prevent all sexual immorality? Of course not. Is it going to prevent a lot of it? Without a doubt. And she makes the argument that this rule devalues the inherent dignity of those of the opposite sex by reducing them to mere sexual beings. Well actually, inherent sin does that. And inherent sin is very powerful and maybe we shouldn't make its job easier just to make some vague point or because we "should" be able to be friends with the opposite sex. We're fallen creatures.

A lot of the criticism of the "pence rule" and the morality it represents- not just from Byrd, but others- is that women will be penalised by this. They won't get access to the networking, the opportunities, the deal-making that is often carried out in informal situations. I.e. it stems from a grasping attitude on behalf of women: grasping to be part of the world of work, the world of men. That women have a right of access to men and their networks. Wrong.

Of course I'm not saying men and woman *cannot* be friends but nature itself shows us that it is highly unsual for a man's closest friend to be a woman and vice versa. It can happen, but it's the exception. The intermingling of the sexes in work and social settings as default is very new and I think we can say it's not working. Jordan Peterson (he has good points, he has bad points- I don't know what this forum's view of him is) actually made this point well when talking about the #metoo movement and the response of businesses whereby they are implementing ever more intrusive workplace regulations to comba apparent sexual harrassment. Where do we stop? Is make-up to be forbidden? Should we all be wearing the same clothes? I would say the great experiment of men and woman spending most of their time together is failing.

But anyway, maybe we should start a new thread if we're going to continue this discussion.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 27, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> That's an interesting article. I think a lot of it is useful, but seeing as the author had not actually read Aimee's book at the time of writing, it seems like he has assumed that she is arguing that we should treat all our brothers and sisters in Christ *exactly* like our biological brothers and sisters. I don't think she is arguing that at all.
> 
> Secondly, I think it's strange how he just assumes the problem with the whole Bill Hybels situation is mere accusation caused by not following the Pence Rule. Now maybe it is just false accusations, but I think that's it's a wee bit simplistic to assume that's the only problem. The Pence Rule whatever it's usefulness, is certainly not a cure-all for sexual sin.



I certainly got the impression from her article on friendship that she was saying we should treat our Christian brothers and sisters basically as our natural siblings. If that's not her argument she hasn't made herself clear at all.


----------



## BottleOfTears (Feb 27, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> In her article on friendship she doesn't seem to grasp the rather important distinction between those who are our _blood_ brothers and sisters and those are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Inevitably our relationship with those we grew up with in the same house, who have seen us at our best and worst and with whom we have an intimacy we don't have with anyone else is going to be different from the relationship we have with non-blood siblings. It's surely bizarre to expect a man to have the same sort of friendship with a woman who is not his sibling than he has with his sister?
> 
> She recognises the nature of the society we live in (very sexualised) but wants to operate as if we can just ignore that. There's a very good reason why in the past it would have been frowned upon (to say the least) for an unmarried man and woman to be spending intimate time with each other, in private: it has the _appearance _of ungodliness, which we are to avoid (1 Thess. 5:22). It could well have been quite innocent, but the appearance of wrongdoing was sufficient to forbid the action.
> 
> ...


Just about to start one now

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 27, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> I think there's a Mortification of Spin episode on it too, I would have some sympathy for some of her views on the Pence Rule, but Todd if I remember makes some decent points in favour of it.



I saw a short post by Trueman on the "pence rule" where he asks: what about sodomy? Men spending time together with other men, in our current climate of pansexuality, as if the two prblems are the same. Seems like it was a deliberate deflection on Trueman's part.


----------



## BottleOfTears (Feb 27, 2019)

New thread on Aimee Byrd's views on men and women here.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 27, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> New thread on Aimee Byrd's views on men and women here.


Thank you, Bottle o’ tears. Now we can spill our tears on such topics unencumbered.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 27, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> And she makes the argument that this rule devalues the inherent dignity of those of the opposite sex by reducing them to mere sexual beings.



If you remember the time when the Mike Pence rule hit the headlines, this argument was the very one that Feminist harpies employed to demonstrate that the Vice-President was every bit as much a "misogynist" as the President. In my opinion, this attitude reflects the Cultural Marxist notion that men = bad oppressors, women = good/oppressed victims. Whatever a man does, it is always wrong. If he is a philanderer who has said crude and vulgar things, he is a woman hater (even if he later admits the error of his ways, he cannot be forgiven). If he wants to avoid both sexual immorality and all appearance of sexual immorality, he is also a woman hater. You just cannot win with these people.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 27, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> I saw a short post by Trueman on the "pence rule" where he asks: what about sodomy? Men spending time together with other men, in our current climate of pansexuality, as if the two prblems are the same. Seems like it was a deliberate deflection on Trueman's part.



The comparison is nonsense as it does not recognise the distinction between natural lust and unnatural lust. Anyone with any common sense knows that the former is much more real problem for most men than the latter.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 27, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The comparison is nonsense as it does not recognise the distinction between natural lust and unnatural lust. Anyone with any common sense knows that the former is much more real problem for most men than the latter.



Exactly. If Trueman were right and this was as much an issue _for Christians_, never mind the rest of society, then I think we would have a much bigger problem on our hands.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BottleOfTears (Feb 27, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> this attitude reflects the Cultural Marxist notion that men = bad oppressors, women = good/oppressed victims. Whatever a man does, it is always wrong.


I certainly don't have much sympathy for this sort of thinking. It can be quite ridiculous.

However, I also find many people take a far different, equally simplistic and incorrect view. Some of whom are Christians, but many are not. I think we make a grave error in assuming all non-Christians are diehard feminists and that is the only danger here. I find this is much more a problem in American circles by-and-large, where, shaped by US politics, everything is a binary of "the good side vs the bad" and it is very hard for people to admit that anyone opposite them has a point. (See Republicans on healthcare and Democrats on infanticide)

Basically, people end up shifting most blame onto the women. Now, no one either side would admit in the abstract that everything is one gender's fault, however they seem to manage to shift the conversation away from that quite quickly. 

Mens' lust is possibly mildly condemned, but most emphasis is placed on how the woman acted, how she dressed. "This wouldn't have happened if you hadn't dressed like that" etc. 

Think of how many people react to women being abused in a club. We agree with the feminists that the abuse is bad, but instead of talking about how evil it is and showing any kind of common ground, we just jump straight to "well if that girl hadn't been wearing that". I mean I strongly disagree with modern views on promiscuity and modesty, and I think the Christian view of relationships offers (or should) a much better protection of women than what she might find in a night club. However, if all we do when some says "This abuse is terrible", is "Well she basically had it coming", we are showing no love or sympathy, and offering no hope. 

In the same vein, the problem with pastors who abuse is not simply that they messed up the Pence Rule, it's that they did something evil. And the evil is not being near a woman, the evil is abusing her. 

Saying that doesn't make you a feminist anymore than saying we should care for the poor makes us all communists.



Reformed Covenanter said:


> The comparison is nonsense as it does not recognise the distinction between natural lust and unnatural lust. Anyone with any common sense knows that the former is much more real problem for most men than the latter.


So can men who struggle with the temptation towards homosexuality have any friends? Or ever be alone with another human? 

That seems to be the logical conclusion of the absolute view of the Pence Rule. 

It seems to me that whether a man should be alone with a woman or give her a lift in his car depends massively on circumstance, and think we'll agree acting with wisdom is necessary. But making such blanket rules with zero exceptions seems to be completely simplistic and unrealistic solution.

Also we should probably take this discussion to the new thread here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 27, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> However, I also find many people take a far different, equally simplistic and incorrect view. Some of whom are Christians, but many are not. I think we make a grave error in assuming all non-Christians are diehard feminists and that is the only danger here. I find this is much more a problem in American circles by-and-large, where, shaped by US politics, everything is a binary of "the good side vs the bad" and it is very hard for people to admit that anyone opposite them has a point. (See Republicans on healthcare and Democrats on infanticide)



I agree to a point, though you are perhaps not conversant enough with the American political scene to understand why things are so polarised. Even though I have no problem with socialised medicine in the abstract, which would put me at odds with some Republicans, the Democrats are far worse and, from a Christian point of view, the platforms of the two parties are miles apart. While the GOP is far from perfect, I see the Democrats as morally equally to Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. 



BottleOfTears said:


> So can men who struggle with the temptation towards homosexuality have any friends? Or ever be alone with another human?
> 
> That seems to be the logical conclusion of the absolute view of the Pence Rule.



Respectfully, I think that you are completely missing the point. The point is that a man being alone with a woman is much more likely to result in lustful desires and perhaps even lead to actual fornication because men and women are naturally attracted to the opposite sex. This observation is just common sense. Someone who is given to unnatural desires should avoid situations where he is likely to be tempted to act on such unnatural desires. An example would be spending time _alone_ with another person who is likewise tempted to sodomy. The issue is not friendship, but being _alone_ with someone in a situation that is, at best, likely to start rumours. 



BottleOfTears said:


> It seems to me that whether a man should be alone with a woman or give her a lift in his car depends massively on circumstance, and think we'll agree acting with wisdom is necessary. But making such blanket rules with zero exceptions seems to be completely simplistic and unrealistic solution.



Of course it does, that is the nature of a general rule. If a woman was stranded at a roadside and needed a lift I would provide her with transport, but I would not needlessly multiply such situations and lead myself into temptations.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## BottleOfTears (Feb 27, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I agree to a point, though you are perhaps not conversant enough with the American political scene to understand why things are so polarised. Even though I have no problem with socialised medicine in the abstract, which would put me at odds with some Republicans, the Democrats are far worse and, from a Christian point of view, the platforms of the two parties are miles apart. While the GOP is far from perfect, I see the Democrats as morally equally to Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think that's all reasonable enough. I agree that as general rule it is often a very sensible option.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## AnotherDaniel (Feb 28, 2019)

You can check out the podcast that I just started with a couple of my friends:

https://www.thesanctifiedmind.com/

It is a bit different, we review a different theology book each month, released on the 1st of every month. So far we have done:

What is Faith by J. Gresham Machen
The Lord of Glory by Chris Strevel (my pastors first book, must read!)
In Defense of Theology by Gordon Clark
Text and Time by Edward Hills (releasing tomorrow)

We have some really good books coming up (listed on our website) and we would really appreciate feedback (positive or negative). Not a highly polished podcast by any means!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 28, 2019)

Potter said:


> You can check out the podcast that I just started with a couple of my friends:
> 
> https://www.thesanctifiedmind.com/
> 
> ...


Thank you so much! I’ll check this out tonight. I might be starting a podcast through Moody as an internship project. I’ll have to pick some folk’s minds like yours.


----------



## Johann Amadeus Schubert (Mar 6, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> He has very dangerous views on how a prosepctive communicant should be examined by his session and on the preaching of ministers such as the Tennents and Frelinghuysen.



Hello,

I do not detect anything dangerous at all concerning Dr. Clary's comments.

Having sat under Rev. Dr. Clary's teaching every Lord's day, I can attest to his faithful exegesis of the text and wholeheartedly recommend his Reformed Forum podcast. 

I also recommend Reformed Forum's Vos Group which is going through Biblical Theology, Old and New Testaments with Drs. Bucey and Tipton.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

