Zachary Shrout

2.3K posts

Zachary Shrout banner
Zachary Shrout

Zachary Shrout

@IemSparticus

Preacher-man, Missionary, Independent Baptist, husband of @JLSFiction, 49ers fan, and player of any stringed instrument I can get my hands on.

Katılım Ekim 2014
95 Takip Edilen62 Takipçiler
Zachary Shrout
Zachary Shrout@IemSparticus·
I get the frustration with generic “just do this” advice from people who've never been in the trenches - especially when it's unsolicited. Personal experience with kids definitely gives a depth that’s hard to fake. That said, I don’t think it has to be a hard gate. A good violin teacher doesn’t need to be a world-class soloist to help a student nail technique. A surf coach can break down physics and wave patterns without ever competing. Same with parenting: people who work with child, teachers, or even thoughtful observers can spot patterns and offer real insights that expand the toolbox, as long as it shows they actually understand the full messy picture (exhaustion, individual kids, the constant trade-offs) and it’s offered with humility, not superiority. We shrink the pool of useful wisdom if we limit it only to those who’ve done the exact thing. What matters most is whether the advice actually helps, not the source’s resume.
English
0
0
2
9
BeeHolder🐝🤲
BeeHolder🐝🤲@_BeeHolder_·
@wife2sirhusband I agree because that's sort of my point. Advice in general shouldn't be basic common sense. It should be something the other person may not know because of your particular experience. And because I play pedantic sometimes, "parenting" advice has to come from a parent 😅
English
1
0
4
48
rue🌿
rue🌿@Ruesavatar·
@wife2sirhusband “Not defending your ex” “Well what did YOU love about him” Kind of defending my ex. You could have left that part out and I would have been interested in answering the other question.
English
1
0
12
621
rue🌿
rue🌿@Ruesavatar·
I asked my ex once what he likes about me. Pretty face, nice body and hair, dresses well, excellent interior design taste, good cook/housekeeper, good mother, and excellent gift giver. Nothing at all about me as a person, just appearances and what I do for others. He was never in love with ME. I wish I had realized a lot sooner.
ひでまる@HiiDeMaRuu

男に「いい女ってどんな人?」って聞いてみてください。 「毎日美味しいご飯を作ってくれて、家事も全部やってくれて、自由を与えてくれて、文句ひとつ言わず、いつも笑顔で尽くしてくれる人」なんて家政婦の話をし始めたら、迷わず逃げてください。

English
93
473
4.5K
253.2K
さえ@hamu
さえ@hamu@mb_jg7·
お昼はカレーうどん 白い服の人は気をつけて!
さえ@hamu tweet media
日本語
6
19
418
3.1K
Zachary Shrout
Zachary Shrout@IemSparticus·
It’s just pride. It’s pure, unadulterated pride. It’s either the older brother… “I haven’t don’t anything like what he did, and not only are you forgiving him, but you are rewarding him?? Where is MY reward?” Or, it’s the Pharisees… “I am so thankful I am not like THAT person.” None of us are pure without Christ. And none of us are anything less than completely pure IN Christ.
English
0
0
2
26
Zachary Shrout
Zachary Shrout@IemSparticus·
I don’t actually believe that you were a pedophile who has now repented of his sins and been saved… I think this is merely a rhetorical device you think proves wife2sirhusband wrong… however, it IS TRUE that if this was your story, you WOULD be more pure than an unsaved person who was a non-offender. Do you know why? Because Christ’s righteousness was imputed to us in His crossword… and therefore our purity rests in HIS purity, not our own. When God looks at us, He sees Christ. So yes… when you are wonderfully saved, you are purified and washed whiter than snow. This is an amazing and comforting truth we find right in Scripture.
English
1
0
0
13
BowTiedQueenBee
BowTiedQueenBee@BowtiedQueenBee·
“Stop pretending there’s no difference between the girl who guarded her purity and the one who didn’t. And for the love of God, stop claiming the ex-promiscuous woman is somehow purer now. That’s not biblical — that’s cope on steroids.” That really hit me hard. I guarded my purity quite strongly as a young woman. My husband is my one and only. I’ve taught my girls the same and they are doing quite well. My husband fell in love with me because of my innocence. He didn’t know from the offset that I was a virgin, but he knew I was pure, and he was attracted to that. What Rage says is correct, and it’s the real issue at hand. We are trying to raise godly and pure young people. Encouraging young women that they can be “more pure than a virgin” is a slap in the face to me and my girls. Encouraging young men to forgive and forget a girl’s past is dangerous for my son. And yours. I don’t deny that God forgives and heals. I’m happy for Trevor’s wife. But glorifying degeneracy is what got us here. And that’s what he’s doing, whether or not he realizes it.
Rage Reads@RageRead

Trevor Sheatz isn’t some humble husband sharing a sweet redemption story. He’s a disingenuous little twat running a full-blown grift, and the mask is slipping hard. He proudly announces his wife was “formerly promiscuous” while he stayed a virgin, then has the audacity to declare she’s “more pure than most virgins.” He turns their altar-first-kiss wedding photo into viral bait, racks up millions of views, and uses the whole thing to grow his “On the Mount Inc.” business — the one where he teaches Christians how to monetize their faith stories online. Bro, you’re literally pimping your wife’s body count for clout and clients. That’s not testimony. That’s content farming with a cross filter. Disgusting. Then comes the gaslighting masterclass. When men push back and say, “Yeah, God forgives, but I still don’t want to marry a woman with a long sexual history,” Trevor and his defenders scream: “You’re idolizing virginity! You’re a Pharisee! You don’t believe in grace!” WTF?! Men aren’t denying God’s forgiveness. We’re not saying a repentant woman can’t be saved. We’re saying stop shoving “forgiveness” down our throats as an obligation to ignore reality. Stop pretending there’s no difference between the girl who guarded her purity and the one who didn’t. And for the love of God, stop claiming the ex-promiscuous woman is somehow purer now. That’s not biblical — that’s cope on steroids. Trevor twists Scripture like a pretzel: Luke 7 becomes “see, the biggest sluts love Jesus the most,” 2 Corinthians 5:17 becomes “her past literally doesn’t matter,” and 1 Corinthians 7 gets mangled to shame men who have preferences. All while he quietly admits “past sin carries consequences” in the same thread. Pick a lane, you disingenuous twat. He’s not defending grace. He’s defending his own choice by trying to make every man who wants a virgin wife feel like a graceless legalist. He’s not elevating redemption — he’s lowering the bar so his story looks like the premium package. “Sin big, repent loud, get praised as purer than the virgins, and land a simp who’ll brag about it online.” That’s the message young women are hearing, and it’s poison. Meanwhile, this same guy built his brand on the salacious details of his wife’s past. He coaches people on turning personal stories into engagement bait, then acts shocked when people call out the hypocrisy. Newsflash, Trevor: Real grace doesn’t need to shame men for having standards. Real grace doesn’t erase consequences just because it feels better for your narrative. Real grace doesn’t turn “go and sin no more” into “go and sin, then monetize the testimony.” You’re not a bold voice for the gospel. You’re a slick little operator who found a way to profit off the exact sexual chaos the Bible warns against, all while calling anyone who notices a Pharisee. That’s why so many men are fed up. It’s not hate. It’s exhaustion with the endless gaslighting, the deliberate distortions, and the weaponization of forgiveness to bulldoze basic wisdom and self-respect. Trevor Sheatz isn’t preaching Christ. He’s preaching cope, clout, and compromise — wrapped in just enough Bible verses to sound spiritual. And that, folks, is exactly why he’s a disingenuous little twat.

English
136
210
2.3K
108.3K
Zachary Shrout
Zachary Shrout@IemSparticus·
I’m glad @JeremyDBoreing is pressing this. I fundamentally disagree with Knowles here… both on his assertion that referring to someone as being promiscuous equals calling them a whore… word choices matter. I also fundamentally disagree with him that it is bad behavior for a husband to tell his wife’s testimony if it involves her lawless lifestyle. Furthermore, I disagree with his framing of the guy’s tweet. However… if we refuse to talk to people about things, and make assumptions instead, we will lose the ability to learn and grow. So… well done for having this conversation!
Jeremy Boreing@JeremyDBoreing

I've been disagreeing with @michaeljknowles since way before it was cool. Here, we discuss the controversy surrounding @TrevorSheatz's now infamous post, as well as the relationship between discretion and grace, with our pals @SpencerKlavan and @JRHay on The Jeremy Boreing Show Wednesday Live. I would like to point out for anyone who needs instruction in such matters that this is the proper way for friends to disagree -- over a nice Irish whiskey in front of as many cameras as possible. Gotta get them clicks!

English
0
0
3
54
JonnydelsFA
JonnydelsFA@jonnydels·
Truly did not expect people to defend a DUI by saying "it's something that almost everyone has done". Maybe my pool of people are different.
English
12
0
139
13.5K
Zachary Shrout retweetledi
Owen Strachan
Owen Strachan@ostrachan·
An open letter to @benshapiro, @andrewklavan, and @michaeljknowles: You have publicly wronged a good man, Trevor Sheatz. Each of you is a conservative leader. Many of us respect you for your contributions to public life in different ways. However, you have failed to honor the truth in this instance, and you have brought great shame to a young husband and his wife. You have held them up publicly to severe scorn, and people have sadly followed suit. Here is the truth, men. Ashley Sheatz has shared her conversion testimony for years. As one example, the screenshot below is from an article she wrote in May 2020 for a website I edited (it was called Reformanda and is no longer operating). I refer you to it for clarity. Of her own volition, Ashley shared about her deliverance from promiscuity, the occult, and doing hard drugs. These things wrecked and ruined her life. Again, Ashley was clear as crystal about her sexual sin, and said more about it in the 2020 article she wrote than Trevor did in the X post you tore to shreds on air. She has publicly talked about her deliverance from sexual sin on numerous occasions. (Nor did Trevor call his wife derogatory words--it's really disappointing that you all collectively presented him as doing so.) Ashley does all this--from what I know--not to be salacious or get clicks. (Nor does Trevor.) She does so to warn others about the destructiveness of sin, and even more than this, the redeeming power of the blood of Jesus. Ashley, with her husband Trevor, is a born again believer. I won't speak for her, but as a friend of her and Trevor, I know that she lives to magnify the mercy of God in her life. This letter is not written in fury or pique. I write it in love to each of you men to ask you to correct the record and consider the ungraciousness of your remarks about Trevor Sheatz. You are each a respected public figure; your words get carry a great deal of weight, far more than I have or Trevor has or Ashley has. You have wronged a good man, and you simply do not have your facts right about Ashley Sheatz's willingness to testify publicly to the power of Christ over her sin. You have passed judgment on a sweet young couple without taking the time to back up your pronouncements with research. In sum, you need the same forgiveness we all do. You need the blood of Jesus to cover you. You do not need to be a slightly better person, or a more committed devotee of religion. You need to be born again, to trust Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and to repent of all your sin. You and I are no different; we are great sinners all, but Christ is a great Savior. May God work in your hearts to lead you to this place if he has not. Best, Owen Strachan
Owen Strachan tweet media
Protestia@Protestia

The Daily Wire hosts mock and make fun of @TrevorSheatz for his viral "My wife was formerly promiscuous. I was a virgin" tweet. All the while, they show they don't know anything about the situation, or the fact that his wife @AshleySheatz has been sharing her testimony for years- it's been pinned to her profile since 2019- as a testament to God's mercy and lovingkindness.

English
153
112
1.1K
110.2K
Sarah St. Onge ن ♀🦬
Sarah St. Onge ن ♀🦬@shebringsjoy·
I’m a little confused on the whole “all women who aren’t virgins when they get married are prostitutes” dynamic coming from Christians. A prostitute is someone who sells her body for financial compensation. A woman who is unchaste before marriage is just a pagan. Both are redeemable, but one is very, very different than the other.
English
70
4
218
7.7K
Zachary Shrout retweetledi
Tom Buck (Five Point Buck)
I’ve pastored for 32 years. I’ve seen a lot of brokenness that has been healed by the transforming power of the gospel. We’ve never tolerated immorality of men or women inside the church. We’ve spoken prophetically against our godless culture. And we’ve preached a gospel that can redeem and cleanse people. I rejoice over the marriages in my church that began with two virgins and have a godly marriage. That’s true of my own marriage. But I also rejoice over the marriages in my church where one spouse or the other had a promiscuous past, got saved, married, and have a beautiful godly marriage. I never considered their marriage to be less ideal than my own. Every marriage has its struggles because it involves two sinners. Don’t let the godless culture we live in cause you to diminish the power of the gospel to completely transform someone. Don’t let a culture that celebrates immorality weaken your celebration of a prodigal that comes home. Don’t be like the elder brother! Shepherding people is messy because we are messy sinners. The good news is the gospel is able to cleanse us and make us new!
English
99
163
1.3K
41.5K
Zachary Shrout retweetledi
Owen Strachan
Owen Strachan@ostrachan·
If Andrew Tate preys on women and lives a pagan sexual life, he's "sinning in the right direction" (cause boys will be boys), but if a born-again woman has sexual sin in her past, she's "damaged goods"? There's some deeply anti-woman ideology out there today, and it's vile.
English
312
104
1.4K
116.9K
Zachary Shrout retweetledi
Owen Strachan
Owen Strachan@ostrachan·
One big reason why some people dishonor gospel testimonies is because those people have no gospel testimony. No new birth. No miracle of conversion. No awareness of their own depravity. No humility before God. They may claim Christ's name, but they are DEAD IN THEIR SINS.
English
96
85
559
46.4K
David ☦️
David ☦️@MedWhiteAcolyte·
Before anyone tries to convince you this is a good example of redemption ask them if they would react the same if the man was a rapist or pedophile or murderer or whatever. We can tone it down to fraud, cheater, drug dealer etc. Redemption for me but not for thee.
Trevor Sheatz@TrevorSheatz

My wife was formerly promiscuous. I was a virgin. She was then radically born-again. Committed to church, evangelized constantly, Puritan books in her bedroom, prayer journals, grief over past sexual sin, etc. We got to know each other well for over a year, dated for four months, engaged for two and a half, and didn't sin sexually with one another. Our first kiss with each other was at the altar on our wedding day (reaction pic attached!). We've been married for over five years now, and she's been the most wonderful and godly wife, mother to our three children, and homemaker you could imagine. She's more pure than most virgins, as biblical purity has less to with past sins (though they certainly matter) and more to do with one's current posture of the heart and daily decisions to honor the Lord (Matt. 5:8). We're far too quick to forget the story of the woman labeled as a known "sinner" (likely a prostitute) in Luke 7:36-50 who was washing Jesus' feet with her tears while kissing them too. The Pharisees were shocked that Jesus let a public sinner do this. Jesus responded with a parable about debts being forgiven and ended with this powerful conclusion: "Her many sins have been forgiven; that’s why she loved much. But the one who is forgiven little, loves little" (Luke 7:47). Everyone seems to highlight the benefits of virginity, and it certainly is a blessing. But we forget to highlight the benefits of being forgiven much as well. My wife knows the depths of Jesus' forgiveness more than most people, enabling her to more easily live out a life of passionate love for her Savior. A woman or man's past sexual sin matters. But what matters far more when it comes to deciding who to marry is if the person is truly born again, if their repentance is real, if they truly have a heart for Christ, if they truly follow Jesus and obey his commands. "God has chosen what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen what is weak in the world to shame the strong. God has chosen what is insignificant and despised in the world ​— ​what is viewed as nothing ​— ​to bring to nothing what is viewed as something, so that no one may boast in his presence. It is from him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became wisdom from God for us ​— ​our righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, — in order that, as it is written: 'Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.'" (1 Cor. 1:27-31) "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, and see, the new has come!" (2 Cor. 5:17)

English
109
55
829
37.1K
Zachary Shrout
Zachary Shrout@IemSparticus·
@scotchsoupmaker I reckon there are a solid handful of churches that make any denomination under the sun look… not so good. ;)
English
0
0
3
22
little joan 🥘🍂✨
little joan 🥘🍂✨@scotchsoupmaker·
@IemSparticus also not that all baptists operate super loosely like this, but there’s definitely a solid handful that don’t make y’all look so good 😭
English
2
0
3
69
little joan 🥘🍂✨
little joan 🥘🍂✨@scotchsoupmaker·
my favorite thing abt baptists is you can be married for a year at like 19 and they will say “heck yeah you can lead a ministry at church you’re in an authority position now.” which can lead to beautiful ministry. it’s also my least fav thing, because it’s not proper ordination
English
3
0
19
446
Jonathan Troke
Jonathan Troke@JonathanTroke·
I'm listening to this debate between @HwsEleutheroi and Dr. Van Kleeck. It's interesting. However, Dr. Van Kleeck seems to get increasingly annoyed at Dr. White's refusal to be wrong and it becomes quite distracting. youtu.be/a5p54TTe14E?si…
YouTube video
YouTube
English
1
0
17
7K
Zachary Shrout
Zachary Shrout@IemSparticus·
Thank you for your thorough response – mine will be long. I will attempt to address every point you made, so if I miss something, please know that the oversight was not intentional. The Greek preposition εἰς, as you are no doubt aware, has a *very* large semantic range. In fact, it’s entry in BDAG is pp. 288-291. The precise meaning will come from the verb that the preposition is paired with. For example, you said that εἰς often denotes “purpose, result, or entry.” “Often” is a bit hyperbolic, but it is quite true that is can denote entry into a state of being… when it is paired with verbs of going, coming leading, etc. It can denote the resolute of an action or condition indicated – such as in Romans 6:16 – “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin ***unto*** death, or of obedience ***unto*** righteousness?” And yes, it can denote purpose… such as “in order to.” But the most general way to define it is to say that it denotes “motion into a thing or into its immediate vicinity or relation to something.” Importantly, the verb ἐβαπτίσθημεν is aorist passive indicative. The aorist often carries an ingressive nuance with verbs denoting a change of state or entry into a condition – emphasizing the beginning or decisive moment of that state. Here, the shift Paul highlights is from not baptized to baptized: these Roman believers were once not baptized into Christ (not yet publicly identified with Him), but now they are baptized – meaning they have entered into a visible, professed relationship with Christ and the sphere of His saving death. This shift is not from "unsaved" to "saved" (as if baptism itself effects justification or initial union). Rather, it's from "unidentified publicly with Christ" to "identified publicly with Christ and His benefits." Paul reminds already-believing, baptized Christians of what their baptism signified and declared outwardly: it marked their belonging to Christ, their death to sin's dominion (via union with His death), and their commitment to walk in newness of life. The tense underscores that this public identification has already taken place – it's a done deal they can look back on – not an ongoing process or the initial saving moment itself. This aligns with parallels like Matthew 28:19, Acts 8:16, and Acts 19:5, where εἰς τὸ ὄνομα ("into the name") emphasizes relationship, authority, and belonging rather than instrumental causation. If Paul intended to stress baptism as the mechanism of entry into saving union, διά ("through/by means of") would have been more natural for the instrumental sense – but he saves that for verse 4. Yes, verse 4 brings διά into play: "Therefore we are buried with him by [διὰ] baptism into death..." Διά with the genitive frequently means "by means of," "through," or "by" – instrumental. But context determines whether it's causative/efficient (baptism effects the burial) or circumstantial/occasional (baptism is the context or occasion in which God's burying work occurs). Notice the parallel structure in the verse: "...that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by [διὰ] the glory of the Father..." No one takes "the glory of the Father" as the efficient cause of the resurrection in a way that excludes God's direct power. Instead, διά here denotes the sphere, means, or power through which the action happens. Similarly, in verse 4, baptism is the God-ordained occasion – the visible rite – through which believers publicly experience, declare, and are reminded of their burial with Christ. It's the setting for God's work, not the cause that unites us apart from faith. This fits the broader flow: Paul assumes his audience consists of believers who have already responded in faith. Their baptism publicly testifies to the spiritual reality (union with Christ by faith/Spirit), rather than creating it ex opere operato. And moving to verse 5: the organic imagery of σύμφυτοι ("united/grown/planted together") is beautiful – it conveys vital, living union with Christ in the likeness of His death (and, by extension, resurrection). But this unity isn't portrayed as abstract or pre-baptismal in a vacuum; Paul ties it to the baptism he just described. At the same time, the chapter's argument assumes these are believers who have died to sin through union with Christ – the baptism reminds them of that reality and calls them to live accordingly. Paul doesn't say baptism creates the union apart from faith; he reminds baptized believers of what their baptism publicly enacted and pointed to. Some further look into Paul’s teaching can be quite illustrative. Tale Galatians 3:26-27: "For ye are all the children of God by [διὰ] faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Faith is the means of sonship; baptism marks the incorporation/public "putting on." The "faith alone" passages (Rom 3:28, 5:1; Eph 2:8-9; etc.) exclude boasting in works of law, but when Paul addresses baptism directly, he gives it a participatory role as the public rite of identification – not as a replacement for faith. The rhetorical question in 6:3 ("Do you not know...?") appeals to what these baptized believers already experienced in their baptism. If baptism were the sole mechanism of union, the argument would be unnecessary or circular. Instead, Paul uses it to prove they have died to sin – because their baptism declared it. In short, I see baptism in Romans 6 as the God-given sign and seal of the believer's union with Christ (effected by grace through faith), vividly portraying burial with Him in death and rising to new life. It's not merely symbolic (it has real significance as obedience and public testimony), but neither is it the causative instrument of initial salvation apart from faith. This is the most natural way to read what Paul wrote, and what he was trying to communicate to his target audience at the time.
English
1
0
0
42
Brandon Edwards
Brandon Edwards@Brandonedwards·
You're correct that Paul doesn't use the phrase "contact Christ's blood" in Romans 6 (that's not in the text), and precision matters. He focuses on being baptized into Christ's death (vv. 3-4), where that death sets us free from sin (v. 7). But the Greek construction itself shows baptism as the necessary, participatory means of entering that union, not just a later enactment of a prior faith-union. Look at the key phrases: Romans 6:3: ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε ὅτι ὅσοι ἐβαπτίσθημεν εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν. The double εἰς ("into") is instrumental/directional: we were baptized into Christ Jesus, into His death. The preposition εἰς (often denoting purpose, result, or entry) indicates movement toward incorporation—believers are placed into the sphere of Christ's person and His saving death through baptism. Paul doesn't say faith alone puts us "in Christ" first, then baptism publicly shows it; the aorist passive ἐβαπτίσθημεν ("we were baptized") points to a decisive past act (baptism) as the moment of entry into that union. Romans 6:4: συνετάφημεν οὖν αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον... "We were buried therefore with him through [διὰ] the baptism into death." The preposition διὰ with the genitive here means "by means of" or "through"—baptism is the instrument through which burial with Christ occurs. The purpose clause (ἵνα... "in order that we too might walk in newness of life") ties the burial/rising directly to baptism as the means of experiencing resurrection life and freedom from sin's slavery (vv. 6-7: "our old self was crucified with him... set free from sin"). Romans 6:5: εἰ γὰρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ... σύμφυτοι ("united/grown/planted together") conveys organic, vital union - grown together with the likeness of His death. This unity isn't abstract or pre-baptismal; it's tied to the baptism described in vv. 3-4. Paul is reminding baptized believers of what happened in their baptism, not what faith accomplished apart from it. He roots freedom in Christ's victory (vv. 9-10), yes, but applies it to us through being "in Christ" via baptismal union (see also Gal 3:27: "as many as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (same εἰς language for incorporation)). On omissions in salvation formulas (Rom 3:28, 5:1, 10:9-10; Eph 2:8-9; Acts 16:31): Paul stresses faith as the root to exclude boasting in works of law, but when he addresses baptism directly, he gives it a causative, participatory role—union and freedom happen in/through it. The opposite must hold: if baptism were merely post-salvation symbolism, why does Paul use it as the proof that believers have died to sin (v. 3: "Do you not know...?")? He doesn't say "since you believed, you died—now remember your baptism as a picture." He says baptism is how you were buried with Him.
English
1
0
0
32
GodlyAction
GodlyAction@GodlyAction·
Baptism is not required for salvation.
English
854
39
1K
215.2K