Awaiting Our Blessed Hope!
56.5K posts
@james_bert_mill
✝️Titus 2:13. Baptist. Appalachian Man. Case XX. Guitar player-Fender Stratocaster. Marshall Amplifiers.
Minneapolis Is No Longer Governed for Americans — It Is Governed to Protect and Entrench Our Replacements. Mayor Jacob Frey just stood at a podium and told illegal foreigners: • We have prepared the city to resist federal law • You will be protected regardless of status • Police and fire are forbidden to cooperate with ICE • You will get services, rights, and legal help from the city • We will sue the U.S. government again to defend you He did not address citizens. He did not address taxpayers. He did not address the people who built the city. He addressed the demographic that now controls its elections. Minneapolis is beyond “sanctuary.” It is a municipality openly refusing federal law to secure the loyalty of a foreign voting base. And here’s the punchline he will never say aloud: The very bloc he is pandering to will replace him — they are not his voters, they are his successors. Minneapolis is being prepared for its next mayor: Omar Fateh, a Somali-American Muslim and Democratic Socialist. This is not inclusion. This is not compassion. This is post-American rule - the city run for the people who replaced its citizens.
More than 312,000 refugees, migrant workers and their dependants applied for citizenship in the year to this March – the highest number on record and double the rate of eight years ago Read how migrants are rushing to apply for British citizenship in record numbers to avoid future restrictions on settlement rights planned by the Labour Government 👇 telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/05/2…
A little about my faith journey. I was part of what was called the JPII generation. I was a thirty-something conservative man that was raised attending an Evangelical church but had left in my teenage years. Work and party culture became my life and alcohol almost destroyed me.
A little about my faith journey. I was part of what was called the JPII generation. I was a thirty-something conservative man that was raised attending an Evangelical church but had left in my teenage years. Work and party culture became my life and alcohol almost destroyed me.
The Roman Catholic backlash to @gavinortlund and @WesleyLHuff has been instructive. Both men are irenic, careful, and respectful in how they address what they believe are errors in Roman Catholic doctrine. Yet both have drawn deeply personal attacks for their apologetic work. This raises an important question many Protestants are asking: why do thoughtful, respectful critiques of Roman Catholicism often provoke such a visceral response? The visceral reaction many Catholics have when Rome is challenged makes sense once we understand the Roman Catholic system. Rome is not merely one church among others in their theology. It is the visible institution possessing the fullness of the means of salvation, the sacramental economy, the authentic interpretation of Scripture and Tradition, and the Petrine office of universal authority. Therefore, to challenge Rome is not received as a mere doctrinal disagreement. Rather, it is received as an attack on the what they believe is the very structure by which Christ supposedly teaches, governs, absolves, and saves. In contrast, Protestants are less threatened by challenges to a particular church tradition because Protestantism, at its best, does not locate salvation in institutional submission. The Baptist does not need the Baptist church to be indefectible. The Presbyterian does not need every presbytery to be incapable of grave error. The Lutheran does not need Wittenberg to be the necessary center of visible unity. Protestants argue fiercely, but their assurance rests finally in Christ’s finished work received by faith, not in the claim that one visible hierarchy or institution uniquely dispenses the fullness of saving grace. That is the real issue: Rome’s authority claims make historical criticism an existential threat. Protestantism can admit that church history is messy because the visible Church is always in need of reform. Protestants can also recognize ambiguity in the historical record and draw reasoned conclusions that differ from others without collapsing the faith. Rome cannot do this so easily. If too much historical complexity is admitted, Rome’s claim to be the indefectible guardian and interpreter of the apostolic deposit begins to weaken. History must produce clear answers because Rome must show that she has always taught what she now requires believers to confess—whether baptismal regeneration, Eucharistic transubstantiation, or papal supremacy. If the historical record shows change, ambiguity, contradiction, or later accretion rather than apostolic continuity, the entire sacerdotal system is threatened. So when a Roman Catholic lashes out at a protestant theologian or historian who is making an argument that runs counter to the approved narrative, the issue is often deeper than the topic being debated. The Protestant is arguing about history or doctrine. The Catholic may feel that their whole edifice of certainty, grace, authority, and salvation is being pulled down. And in a sense, the Catholic is right to feel critical importance of the stakes. If Rome is wrong about herself, then she is not merely wrong about secondary matters. She is wrong about the very place she has assigned herself between Christ and the believer.
A little about my faith journey. I was part of what was called the JPII generation. I was a thirty-something conservative man that was raised attending an Evangelical church but had left in my teenage years. Work and party culture became my life and alcohol almost destroyed me.
