Tim Stratton

Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism is now available on Kindle for only $9.99. Here’s the link: amazon.com/Human-Freedom-…

Lenny, two points. First, I did not present the 1967 war in isolation. It merely functioned as one element within a broader cumulative pattern of historical astonishment: Israel’s survival in 1948 against overwhelming odds, the rapid outcome of 1967, recovery after the surprise attack of 1973, and the remarkable persistence of Jewish identity through nearly two millennia of diaspora. Moreover, it's historically unusual for a dispersed people to preserve their language, customs, religion, and even genetic continuity for roughly 2,000 years without a state. That persistence itself is widely noted by historians. It's attention-getting to say the least. Any single element may admit ordinary geopolitical explanation; the point concerns the cumulative pattern. Simply put: it's astonishing. Second, your rejection of A4 and B5 depends on a category mistake. Those premises do not equate the Abrahamic covenant with the modern Israeli state. They make a narrower claim: in the present geopolitical context the continued existence of Israel functions as the primary means of safeguarding millions of Jewish persons who face openly declared threats of eradication. That claim concerns prudential protection of persons, not covenantal entitlement of a state. So there is no equivocation between preserving the Jewish diaspora and underwriting a secular government. The argument is that if a people faces credible threats of destruction and a particular political structure presently serves as their primary means of protection, Christians have defeasible moral reason to support that structure’s continued existence. If you reject A4 and B5, the burden is to show either: (i) Jewish persons do not face credible existential threats, or (ii) The continued existence of Israel is not presently a primary means of preventing those threats. Absent that, the premises remain intact and my conclusions follow.

@TSXpress Tim, you evaded the core issue: ASYMMETRICAL attribution. Why does '67 get "theological significance" but not Ottoman conquests? To your attempted pivot: I reject A4 & B5. You fatally equivocate preserving the global covenantal diaspora with underwriting a 1948 secular state.

You may have seen the recent exchange between @TuckerCarlson and Ambassador @GovMikeHuckabee, where Genesis 12 was cited as a biblical basis for supporting Israel — and where it was suggested that it would be “fine” if Israel simply took all the land originally promised to Abraham. Let me say this clearly: I love that politicians are willing to engage biblical theology publicly. That’s a good thing. Scripture should not be sidelined from serious conversations about geopolitics. However, Genesis 12 alone is not sufficient to establish a full theological case for modern Israel — and it certainly does not mean that it is “fine” for Israel to simply take all the land right now. The Abrahamic promise is foundational. But it must be interpreted through the lens of the whole canon — especially the New Testament. Romans 9–11 matters. The nature of fulfillment in Christ matters. The difference between covenant promise and present political entitlement matters. God may, in His sovereign purposes, yet bring about a fuller restoration of Israel in ways we do not fully understand. An argument can even be made that He has already given back part of the promised land in His providence. But that is very different from saying Israel presently possesses moral license to seize all territory described in Genesis. That is not my position. That’s why my latest article grounds its argument primarily in Romans 9–11 and in broader biblical moral principles — particularly the command to defend vulnerable persons facing unjust destruction — rather than in Genesis alone. If we’re going to make a biblical case in public, we should make the strongest one possible. And frankly, I’d love to see more analytic and systematic theologians brought into these discussions when Scripture is being cited in political debate. If you want to see the full two-track argument — theological and moral — the link to the FreeThinking Ministries website article is below. Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18).

Now you’re assuming that recognizing possible providential significance requires denying secondary causes. That’s not my view. On a Molinist account (see my book on the topic), God’s providence works precisely through secondary causes and free human decisions. Operation Focus, military planning, intelligence advantages, and geopolitical conditions remain the causal explanation of the 1967 war. Noting that the outcome invites theological reflection does not assert a miracle or suspend natural explanation. It simply acknowledges that historically extraordinary outcomes can have interpretive significance within a providential framework. That’s not special pleading. Special pleading would require claiming a supernatural intervention while ignoring the causal history. I did the opposite—I explicitly affirmed the causal history. You’re treating natural explanation and providence as mutually exclusive. Classical theism—and Molinism in particular—doesn’t. Bottom line: I offered two deductive arguments as to why Christians should support Israel. Which premises do you reject? Why do you reject them?

@TSXpress God ordains secondary causes universally. Ascribing unique "theological significance" to the '67 IDF victory, but not Ottoman conquests, is special pleading. The Texas Sharpshooter stands: you painted a theological bullseye around your preferred geopolitical outcome.

You’re forcing a false dilemma. Recognizing that an outcome is historically astonishing does not deny the empirical explanations behind it. Operation Focus, intelligence advantages, military planning, and geopolitical circumstances all belong to the causal account, and nothing in my article denies that. Describing an event as historically astonishing—or noting “echoes of the miraculous”—is not the same as asserting a miracle. The phrase signals that the outcome invites reflection given the prior expectations, not that natural explanations are being rejected. Scripture itself models this kind of layered explanation. In the David and Goliath narrative there are clear physical mechanisms—a sling, a stone, and an ever so small but vulnerable target—yet the outcome is still interpreted theologically as God was sovereign over this event. Natural explanation and theological interpretation operate at different explanatory levels. Historians routinely describe events as remarkable or extraordinary without abandoning empirical explanation. My point concerned the interpretive significance of the outcome, not the mechanics of how the war was fought. So the Texas Sharpshooter charge simply doesn’t apply. It would only apply if I had retroactively selected the outcome to claim a supernatural intervention while ignoring the causal history. I did the opposite—I explicitly avoided claiming a miracle. In short, you’re criticizing a claim I never made.

@TSXpress You explicitly cited "echoes of the miraculous." Hedging with question marks is just intellectual plausible deniability. If 1967 is purely human agency and military asymmetry, your entire "historical astonishment" premise collapses into mere geopolitics.

@13thconcept_ I never claimed that it was a miracle. You should be more rigorous than that.

@TSXpress So I read the article. Framing the 1967 war as a 'miracle' is historical revisionism & a classic Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You're substituting the empirical reality of Operation Focus with theological mysticism to force a narrative. We have to be more rigorous than that.

Today at 3pm CST @TSXpress and @JoshRKlein will host a Persian-American Christian with connections to the former Ayatollah of Iran to discuss the Iranian conflict... you won't want to miss it. Streaming live on Facebook, X and YouTube! YT link: youtube.com/live/oJz7I00TM…

Dear feminists. Trump just freed the most oppressed women on planet earth And you hated it.

Have you been straw-manned or simply misunderstood? After being accused of misrepresenting Calvinists, Phil Kallberg of @freethinkmin clarifies what a straw man argument truly is—and isn’t. #Logic #Truth 👉📱crossexamined.org/what-a-straw-m…

@JoshRKlein If one believes in election, then their prayers are irrelevant.

I like Voddie, may he rest in peace, but this has always just been a silly question.

"Make America Great Again" just means "America's flourishing is our priority," which just means, "America first." That's the agenda. The new America First movement, as distinct from MAGA, doesn't actually prioritize America; it just conflates hating Israel with patriotism.

Definitions (for clarity) • “Support” = supporting Israel’s right to exist and its right to defend its civilians against actors aiming at its eradication.
 • “Support” does not mean endorsing every Israeli policy, territorial claim, or military tactic. 
 Track A: Theological / Redemptive-Historical Argument (Romans 9–11) A1. If God continues to regard ethnic Israel as corporately significant within His redemptive purposes, then Christians have at least a defeasible moral reason to refrain from actions (or public postures) that would contribute to the unjust harm, delegitimation, or eradication of ethnic Israel. A2. God continues to regard ethnic Israel as corporately significant within His redemptive purposes (Rom 11:1, 28–29). A3. If (i) Christians have defeasible moral reason to refrain from contributing to the unjust harm, delegitimation, or eradication of a people, and (ii) the continued existence and defensive protection of a state is presently necessary for preventing that people’s eradication, then Christians have defeasible moral reason to support that state’s continued existence and defensive protection (in that limited sense). A4. In the present geopolitical context, the continued existence and defensive protection of the State of Israel is presently necessary for preventing the eradication (and safeguarding the survival) of millions of Jewish persons facing openly stated existential threats. A5. Therefore, Christians have defeasible biblical-theological reason to support the continued existence and defensive protection of the State of Israel (as defined above). Track B: Moral / Justice Argument (General Biblical Ethics) B1. If Scripture commands God’s people to defend vulnerable persons from unjust destruction, then Christians have at least a defeasible moral reason to support effective means of protecting such persons when they face credible threats of eradication. B2. Scripture commands God’s people to defend vulnerable persons facing unjust destruction (Prov 24:11; Ps 82:3–4). B3. The Jewish people presently face credible, ongoing threats of unjust destruction from hostile actors who openly call for their eradication. B4. If (i) a people faces credible threats of unjust destruction, and (ii) a particular state’s continued existence and defensive capacity is presently necessary to protect millions of that people, then Christians have defeasible moral reason to support that state’s continued existence and defensive protection (in that limited sense). B5. In the present geopolitical context, the continued existence and defensive protection of the State of Israel is presently necessary for protecting millions of Jewish persons from credible threats of unjust destruction. B6. Therefore, Christians have defeasible moral reason to support the continued existence and defensive protection of the State of Israel (as defined above). Joint Conclusion (What follows from either track) C. Therefore, Christians have strong biblical and moral reason to support the continued existence and defensive protection of the State of Israel—without endorsing every policy, and while retaining the duty to condemn injustice wherever it appears. Notice what this conclusion does — and does not — entail. It does not entail that every Israeli policy is just, It does not entail that Israel is morally infallible. It does not entail blind nationalism or zionism. Covenantal significance does not imply governmental perfection.

Should Christians Support Israel? freethinkingministries.com/post/why-chris…

Yes.

I know people around the world who are more “American” than people who were born here called Democrats.

“THE ONLY THING MORE POWERFUL THAN HATE IS LOVE.” There’s truth in that—but Scripture gives us a fuller picture. Christians are called to love all people, because every person bears God’s image. But the Bible also commands us to hate what is evil: “Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.” — Romans 12:9 “You who love the LORD, hate evil!” — Psalm 97:10 Loving people does not mean approving of everything they do. Real love requires opposing what harms them and others. Jesus loved sinners—and also called them to leave their sin behind. And He commands us: “Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” — John 7:24 So the biblical balance is simple: Love people. Hate evil. Judge rightly. And stay reasonable — Isaiah 1:18.

My mind is blown! Well done TPUSA! Our band often plays “’Til Ya Can’t” when we’re backing Jaden Schumacher out of Nashville, and it’s always a crowd favorite. The whole song is about not waiting to do what matters most while you still have the chance. So I’ve gotta admit, I was pretty dang surprised watching the TPUSA halftime show to hear @KidRock — of all people(!!!) — add a new verse to that song encouraging folks to dust off their Bibles and give their lives to Jesus. Definitely didn’t see that one coming! Kid Rock (aka, Robert Ritchie) is definitely a guy who needed Jesus (we all fall short of God’s glory). I’m so happy to hear those words come out of his mouth. Honestly, though, it fits the message of the song perfectly. Don’t wait to make the most important decisions in life… because one day, you won’t be able to. Now I’m thinking I might have to talk Jaden into letting us add that new verse the next time we play it. If Kid Rock can share the gospel with millions of people watching, we can do it too. You never know what might hit home with someone who needs to hear it. Praise Jesus!

@PetGorilla 100% true!

Kobe Bryant was better than LeBron James could ever hope to be. That's the post.

@megbasham @JohnPiper

Again, Pastor Piper, you can recognize that the image alone was a racist one (and I do)”. But we now know that this was a false narrative circulating, and that the actual video that Trump posted was on election fraud. And a few seconds of this popped up at the end as a separate reel. Moore’s take is slanderous.

One not to be so afraid of sounding “quasi-woke” that one cannot agree with Russell Moore on this.

Let’s assume the worst. What follows?