Jake

Where will you be on this day?

All your reformed theology and good doctrine will be annulled if you do not out-love those who oppose you. Paul Washer

Its so annoying when my peaceful dinner with my wife and kids is interrupted by a table of raccous boomer women trying to relive their teen years

@BiblicalBeauty Great job asking the right questions. Green ember series is the best I also really like Louis Lamour books for older boys. Definitely secular worldview so be warned, but often clear good/bad and no weird perversions.

Christian parents: In addition to the Bible, what else have you read to your boys to inspire them to become men of character and virtue? Recommendations appreciated!

@Gallo_Woodworks @wrowclif Sleeping on the floor is really not that bad imo, comes in handy during pregnant seasons if it works for you 🤷‍♀️

It’s always weird to me why they don’t just have a small cot instead, the cost is roughly the same, and a cot can be easily used as a place to sit for visitors Lowkey, I’m going to keep an army cot in my truck when I’m married with a pregnant wife, and just set that up real fast

This couch bed thing has a very pronounced dip in the middle

@StonecuttrStr My first reaction was buy him a box of nails and tell him he gets ice cream when they are all in the stump I work a lot with younger guys fresh out if high school. When I started my career I never pictured teaching guys how to swing a hammer but ever year that's what I do

The idiotic and negative responses to this post reveal a few things: 1. A very high percentage of people in our culture are never around young children. (I haven’t taught him the difference between nails and screws yet because he just turned 4 and still calls them both “bullets”. Why? Because he’s 4.) 2. The rot of egalitarianism has made its way into the heart of the societal structure. (Yes, I care if my son is good at stuff. Yes, I want him to be better at stuff than you. Almost everything in a man’s life has a competitive aspect to it, and I want my son to be a winner.) 3. People are dumb. (I could expound, but that pretty much covers it.)

What a happy accident that every biblical instruction to women was just cultural, and now perfectly aligns with feminism!

If you let the same guy rob you at gunpoint every day for 50 years because he promised he was “just keeping it safe” and would give it all back later. Then one day you see him robbing your adult kids at gunpoint. Do you: A: Realize this is insane. B: Yell at your kids to stop complaining and just give him the money so he can pay you back. This post definitely is not about Social Security.

@reformedhg Lol. Didn't mean it like that.. meant it feels weird, like it's inherently a masculine thing that now I don't know how to do cuz I don't want to hurt you. Maybe I'm just awkward

@1_of_7000 Yea if you’re in Afghanistan

Nothing throws me off faster than a limp handshake from a man.

@LucasBotkin Dumb question but why do we need gloves to shoot

I’m looking for a good shooting glove that isn’t from the tactical industry. What is a good option people don’t expect from another industry? Golf? Equestrian? …don’t you dare say garden gloves.

@FoundationDads Proverbs 13:24 - Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.

The "gentle parent" who refuses to spank at 18 months is the same parent screaming at the top of her lungs when that same child is age 4.

Two simple Truths: Jesus Christ died for our sins. America’s fallen died for our freedom. May we live worthy.

@Sky_Islander @WhiteHouse @POTUS For real. Put some duct tape over that sucker

@1_of_7000 Almost unimaginable. In what frame of mind does anyone dress in a cheap golf shirt pulled over a pendulous gut for a meeting in the @WhiteHouse with anyone, much less @POTUS. He embarrassed himself and whatever company he was there to represent. #bellybuttonman.

I can't see anything else on this video except the grown man with a classic 'about to give birth' belly button

@WesleyLHuff @MikhailaFuller This makes sense, however I've struggled with how to fit 1 Cor 14 into this view of tongues. Especially v 2. Can you explain more?

Seeing some response to my statement on @MikhailaFuller's podcast about speaking in tongues. Some potentially helpful clarification: First, I am not a cessationist (though I see myself being accused of it). I state in the interview that I believe that the spiritual sign gifts (tongues, prophesy, healing) still take place today, just not normatively like they were in the Apostolic era. Nonetheless, I hold to the standard exegetical position that biblical tongues refer to known languages. In Acts 2, the foundational instance, foreign speakers understood the disciples in their own native languages, establishing the clearest precedent for interpreting the phenomenon throughout Scripture. Secondly, while bliblical specialists and theologians debate whether tongues encompass human languages alone or include angelic speech, the consensus recognizes that a tongue functions as a language -- either immediately intelligible to hearers or requiring interpretation. The requirement that Paul places on interpretation in 1 Corinthians 14 indicates that tongues contain objective, propositional meaning subject to translation, and his statement that “every valid instance of tongues contains intrinsic, propositional meaning" reinforces this understanding. A prominent scholarly argument identifies glossolalia as “the miraculous ability to speak unlearned human and (possibly) divine or angelic languages,” with the most common usage of “tongues” referring to ordinary human languages. The term γλῶσσα throughout the NT carries two primary meanings: the human organ or a human language, and careful word studies demonstrate that it never denotes non-cognitive utterance. However, scholarly consensus isn’t absolute the core agreement across interpretations centers on cognitive content: tongues communicate meaningful, intelligible information rather than incoherent utterance. Third, the early church evidence after the Apostolic era is virtually unanimous: the Early Church Fathers consistently interpreted the gift of tongues as the capacity to speak the many languages used across the earth. Their writings indicate the gift served an evangelistic purpose enabling communication with non-Christian populations. The Patristics universally understood “tongues” in Acts and 1 Corinthians to refer to human languages, and ancient Christians understood the biblical gift of tongues as a miracle involving intelligible human languages. When the fathers described the phenomenon, they used concrete language: John Chrysostom wrote that believers “would suddenly speak in Persian, another in Latin, another in the language of the Indians or of some other people” (Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily 35), and Augustine stated that disciples “spoke in the languages of all the nations” (Sermon 269, Sermo CCLXIX. The most significant, and almost exclusive, early figure associated with ecstatic speech for tongues was Montanus, a 2nd-century prophet whose followers emphasized speaking in tongues; he was actually excommunicated (not necessarily for his position on tongues) around AD 177. By the late 2nd century, ecstatic interpretations of tongues were present but only in context of ecclesiastical concern. One interesting nuance appears with Philastrius in the 4th century, who understood angels as capable of conversing in all languages and believed the apostles received this same ability at Pentecost. However, this doesn’t represent a departure from the “knowable language” framework rather, the Early Church Fathers understood the gift of tongues as the ability to speak all languages spoken by people. The Church Fathers agreed the gift was the ability to speak all languages known to humankind, an ability they ascribed to angels, suggesting the “languages of angels” would not refer to a distinct heavenly language but rather to the capacity to communicate with anyone encountered. The historical record shows no discussion among the fathers of ecstatic utterances, unknown languages, or supernatural unintelligible speech. The gift remained firmly anchored to practical, learnable human languages throughout Patristic interpretation. So if you've stuck around this long, I think my position is both exegetically and historically sound.

@apologistlayman What's ANE worldview? Heiser was the first I've heard do it and actually not sound like a quack 😂

I’m convinced that the majority of people that criticise Heiser have never actually read him. Also, Heiser made the work famous, but many before him also articulated an ANE worldview. Stop being a reactionary.

This is so true. Doesn't matter what the job is, it's so much better when you're working with the best

People always say about hunting/fishing “oh I bet you feel like such a big man killing poor defenseless animals” honestly no bro the animals are smarter than me 90% of the time it actually makes me feel like a retard

Realest thing i’ve seen today

@Protestia New days, old demons

MCC pastor laments that Asherah, the "female divine presence who was worshipped alongside Adonai," and who is the ancient consort (wife) of God, has been "written out of the bible."