God Is Not Done With Britain

 

It is customary for me in my writings to seek to inspire hope. Hope is important. Hope in the sense we use that word often in English means a wish about something that we want to happen. It is a fleeting feeling. But hope in the Bible is about a certainty of trust in God. We should have a certain hope that God is at work, and therefore, even when things look bleak in our world we know that is not the final world.

Here is a good example, from Caldron Pool,

“Recent data from the United Kingdom suggests a renewed interest in Christianity, reflected in rising Bible sales, increased church attendance, and shifting patterns of belief—particularly among younger adults.

According to NielsenIQ BookData, Bible sales in Britain increased by 19 percent last year, reaching their highest recorded level since tracking began in 1998.

Christian publisher SPCK Group reported that total Bible sales in the UK reached £6.3 million in the past year, more than double the figure recorded in 2019.

Sam Richardson, chief executive of SPCK, said the figures indicate “evidence of a significant cultural shift.”

He said: “The significant and sustained upward trend in Bible sales suggests that more and more people are investigating the Christian faith themselves and seeking to draw their own conclusions about its truth.”

Richardson said global developments, including the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical conflicts, the rapid development of artificial intelligence, and growing mental health concerns, have led many people to reconsider questions of meaning and spirituality.

Survey data from YouGov comparing 2018 and 2024 indicates that the proportion of adults in Britain attending church at least once a month has risen from 8 percent to 12 percent.”[1]

I hear people black pill about Britain all the time. Probably some of the people who do this the worst are those who have fled Britian to come and enjoy the sunny beaches in Australia. They talk about how Britain is being overrun, run into the ground, and is not a good place to raise your kids anymore. But God has not given up on Britain, as this data shows and neither should we.

For all those who think Britain cannot come back from this situation, I encourage you to remember Alfred the Great. In his day it looked like England would come to an end before it had even really gotten off the ground. The Danes had overrun it, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were in a shambles. But it Alfred the Great took a remnant of the power of the English and restored the nation back to its primacy in its own lands. The rest is history.

Paganism might look like it runs supreme again. But God is not done with Britain, he is rising up a holy remnant,

“25 From you comes my praise in the great congregation;
    my vows I will perform before those who fear him.
26 The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied;
    those who seek him shall praise the Lord!
    May your hearts live forever!

27 All the ends of the earth shall remember
    and turn to the Lord,
and all the families of the nations
    shall worship before you.
28 For kingship belongs to the Lord,
    and he rules over the nations.”

Psalm 22:25-28

God does not forget those who were called by his name. Nor does he ignore those who call upon his name. England and Britain can be restored to their Christian glory once again. Perhaps today we are seeing the signs that it will happen in our day?

List of References

---

[1] https://www.caldronpool.com/p/something-is-stirring-in-britain

Is The Human Genome Failing?

 

In one of his latest books, The Frozen Gene, Vox Day makes some quite controversial but also well backed up claims about the human genome. According to Day it is degenerating, the human genome is actually failing. This goes against the general consensus of modern science and also the general consensus amongst popular culture. It is just assumed by virtually everybody that the human genome is evolving. Some believe we can even speed this evolution along and create the Superman that philosophers have dreamed of since the 19^th century. But this is not the case, as Vox argues,  

“The Prophet of the Genome

Yuval Noah Harari is not a geneticist. He is a historian, trained in medieval military history, who parlayed a talent for sweeping narrative into one of the most successful publishing careers of the century. Sapiens has sold over twenty-five million copies. Homo Deus sits on the bookshelves of virtually every tech executive in Silicon Valley. His ideas—about the "Cognitive Revolution," about humans as "algorithms," about the coming merger of biology and technology—have become the default framework through which the educated public understands human evolution and its future.

This influence would be unremarkable if Harari confined himself to history and philosophy, where narrative sweep is a virtue and quantitative precision is optional. But Harari does not confine himself. He makes specific, falsifiable claims about biology. And when those claims are subjected to the mathematical scrutiny he consistently avoids, they collapse.

The central promise of Homo Deus is that humanity stands on the threshold of self-directed evolution. Through genetic engineering, brain-computer interfaces, and AI integration, we will "upgrade" ourselves into something beyond human. The key passage bears examination:

"Iterate this procedure for a few generations, and you could easily end up with superhumans (or a creepy dystopia)."

This sentence contains a claim about how genetics works. Harari believes that genetic modifications can be "iterated"—that each generation builds upon the last, accumulating improvements the way software accumulates features across versions. Edit a child with enhanced genes; that child grows up and has children who inherit the enhancements; their children inherit even more; and so on, generation after generation, ascending toward godhood.

It is a beautiful vision. It is also biologically illiterate.

Harari treats genetics like software versioning. But genetics is not software. Genes do not copy perfectly from parent to child. They segregate, recombine, and dilute according to laws discovered by Gregor Mendel in the nineteenth century. Laws that Harari never mentions because, one suspects, he has never done the math.

Let us do the math he refused to do…”[1]

Vox then goes on to demonstrate that even if you genetically engineered superior human beings, within four generations their genetic advantage would be diluted, even if you selectively breed them with other genetically engineered human beings. We don’t have the power to fix superior genetics into the population as we would like, because it takes too many generations to fix a gene in a total population. Especially one as large as the human population is today. So, the idea of a genetically superior humans over taking the gene pool in our generation is just not possible,

“The Cognitive Revolution

That Cannot Repeat Harari’s futurism rests on a claim about the past: that the cognitive revolution of 70,000 years ago resulted from "a few small changes in the Sapiens DNA, and a slight rewiring of the Sapiens brain." If small genetic changes produced such dramatic results before, surely we can engineer similar changes now?

Set aside the question of whether the Cognitive Revolution actually occurred as Harari describes it. Grant him the premise. What would be required to repeat it?

If the Cognitive Revolution required one thousand beneficial genetic changes—a modest estimate for a transformation that allegedly produced language, abstract thought, and cumulative culture—then the fixation throughput math from earlier chapters applies.

Under ancestral conditions:

-        Available time: 70,000 years = 3,500 generations at 20 years per generation

-        Ancestral d ≈ 0.55: effective generations = 1,925

-        Maximum throughput: approximately 0.5 fixations per generation

-        Required rate: 1,000 / 1,925 = 0.52 fixations per generation

The numbers barely work. The Cognitive Revolution, if it occurred through accumulated beneficial mutations, operated at the ragged edge of what population genetics permits.

Under modern conditions:

-         d ≈ 0.015: effective generations per 1,000 years = 52

-        Time required for 1,000 fixations at 0.5 fixations per effective generation: 40,000 years minimum

-         But the Bernoulli Barrier makes parallel fixation self-defeating at any reasonable scale

We cannot engineer a second Cognitive Revolution because we no longer have the demographic conditions that made the first one possible. The door is closed. CRISPR cannot reopen it, because CRISPR edits individuals, not populations, and populations no longer experience the selective turnover that converts individual variation into population change. Harari promises a future that requires a past we have left behind.”[2]

But the situation is even worse that that. Not only will our manipulation of the gene pool not breed superhumans, the negative mutation load is increasing in the current human population. It is trending towards degeneration, and therefore failure,

“The Death of the Superman

We have spent the first half of this chapter demolishing Harari’s optimism. The genetic math does not support his vision. Enhancement edits dilute across generations. CRISPR cannot modify populations or species. The Cognitive Revolution cannot repeat under modern demographic conditions. The techno-futurist dream is exactly that—a dream, unsupported by the mathematics of inheritance.

But in demolishing Harari’s optimism, we have uncovered something far more disturbing.

The frozen gene pool is not merely frozen. It may be failing.

Recall the core insight of this book: selection requires differential reproduction, differential reproduction requires some individuals to fail to reproduce, and modern demographics have reduced reproductive failure to negligible levels. With d ≈ 0.015, natural selection has lost ninety-seven percent of its power compared to ancestral conditions. The gene pool is frozen because selection can no longer drive allele frequency change.

But there is an asymmetry we have not yet confronted.

Mutation continues.

Every human generation, every individual accumulates approximately seventy new mutations. These arise from DNA replication errors, oxidative damage, radiation, and other physical and chemical processes that do not care about demographic conditions. Of these seventy mutations, approximately fifty are deleterious—harmful to the organism in some way, whether dramatically or subtly.

Under ancestral conditions, this was not a problem. The same selective pressure that drove beneficial alleles to fixation also purged deleterious ones. Individuals with more mutations were more likely to die before reproducing or to have fewer offspring. Mutation and selection were in balance: new errors entered the population at approximately the same rate they were removed.

Under modern conditions, this balance is broken.

New mutations still enter at the rate of fifty per generation. But selection no longer removes them at that rate. With d ≈ 0.015, the mechanism that purged deleterious alleles is operating at three percent of its ancestral capacity.

The input is running. The filter is off.”[3]

This is not the first time I have heard about the failing human gene pool. I remember reading about it in a Creation Ministries journal some years ago. And from a biblical perspective it makes sense. Adam was essentially the perfectly crafted human being, and even after the fall he had a supremely long life. Eve as well. But as we go down Adam’s lineage in the book of Genesis we see that long life declining. By the time we get to the days of the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt the human lifespan had settled at a similar age as we have today, around 80 years (Ps. 90:10). But even this age is remarkable, when you think about it, because the ancient Israelites did not have indoor plumbing and modern medicine. So, considering the age of 70 or 80 years to be relatively normal back then is remarkable. It declined even more in the more recent millennia, only picking up again recently because of modern hygiene and medicine.

In effect Adam was an Numenorean compared to modern human beings. In Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings Numenoreans are the long-lived great men of the north, who have lifespans much longer than the average mortal. But over time their lineage fails and their life spans come down to the norm of other humans.

If you believe the Bible to be telling the truth about the long life-spans of Adam and his near kin, then it stands to reason that the human genome has been degrading over time. It also stands to reason, and appears to be demonstrated by the data, that different social conditions can either hasten this degradation or slow it down. In our day it appears to be degrading at a higher-than-average rate, ironically because of modern society’s ability to reduce infant mortality and extend life, through the aforementioned hygiene and medicine.

This is fascinating to consider and deserves more scientific inquiry. As Vox notes in The Frozen Gene the numbers point to this reality, but it is not fully confirmed. Also the rate at which mutations are building in the human genome is not exactly known. More research should be done.

But what should concern us is that the scientific majority, and society in general, have a worldview that says this should not be happening. So, while there may be scientific means of addressing this, the blinkers of modern science are hampering our ability to face what is very likely actually happening to our species right now.

As a historian I cannot speak to the science with any expertise. But I can note that historically many societies have collapsed because of ideological blind spots. This is a consistent civilisational trend, or should I say dyscivilisational trend. And what is worse is that we may be causing this by the very means that we have used to extend our lifestyle, improve our lifestyles, and build shared prosperity. This is fascinating to consider, and a little horrible as well.

This is a good example of how bad science is not just bad science, it can also be dangerous to human health and progress. All civilisations have blind spots. Many bring great troubles on themselves because of these blind spots. Hopefully, scientists with the ability to address this are paying attention to this matter.

List of References

---

[1] Day, Vox. The Frozen Gene: The End of Human Evolution (The Mathematics of Evolution Book 2) (pp. 369-370). Castalia House. Kindle Edition.

[2] Ibid (pp. 377-378)

[3] Ibid (pp. 378-380).

The Old Sacrificing the Young

 

War is the old sacrificing the young.

The data for who dies in war and who calls for war paints a stark and consistent picture of sacrifice across the last 120 years. While a single, global average age for fallen soldiers over the entire period is not available, the figures from major conflicts are remarkably consistent and paint a clear picture: the young are often sacrificed on the altar of war. Conversely, the political leaders who make the decisions for war are, on average, several decades older, and generally very wealthy. These older leaders general have interested far divergent from these young men who are called upon to lay down their lives.

Here is a breakdown of the available data on the average age of combatants killed in action. We will look World War 1, World War 2, the Korean War, Vietnam war, and the Iraq War, and the average age of combatants killed.

World War I (1914-1918) Varies by nationality:

• ~29 years old (German soldiers)[1]

• ~27 years old (British soldiers from North-West England)

• ~19 years old (British soldiers overall)[2]

The variation highlights different data sets. The 29-year figure comes from autopsies of German soldiers. The 27-year figure is from a regional British study. The striking 19-year average for British soldiers is also cited, underscoring the immense loss of very young men.

World War II (1939-1945) ~26 years old (U.S. soldiers)

This figure is provided for the average age of the U.S. fighting man, though a precise average for those killed is harder to pinpoint.[3] 2.2 million were between 17 and 20.[4]

Korean War (1950-1953) ~17-24 years old (U.S. soldiers).[5]

Vietnam War (1955-1975) ~22 to 23.11 years old (U.S. soldiers)[6]

An academic study gives an average of 22 years. A detailed analysis of the 58,148 U.S. fatalities puts the average at 23.11 years, also noting that 61% were younger than 21.

Iraq and Afghanistan Wars (2001-2011) ~26 years old (U.S. soldiers)

This more recent average is based on a large sample of 3,832 autopsied U.S. soldiers. The increase from Vietnam reflects the all-volunteer force and the inclusion of older service members in support roles.

The Average Age of Political Leaders

Finding a precise, aggregated average age for all national leaders who initiated wars over the last 120 years is a complex task that would require an extensive database. However, the data that is available strongly supports the conclusion that these leaders are consistently and significantly older than the soldiers they send into battle.

• Examples from World War II: The key figures who started World War II were all in their later years. Adolf Hitler was 50, Benito Mussolini was 56, Joseph Stalin was 60, Winston Churchill was 65 and Franklin D. Roosevelt was nearly 60 when the U.S. entered the war.[7] Average lifespans were a bit lower in those days well, FDR was considered quite advanced in age in his day.
• Modern Context: This trend continues in recent conflicts. Leaders involved in decisions for war in the 21st century are often in their 60s, 70s, and even 80s, an age profile made possible by rising life expectancies. The Ayatollah was 86 when he died. Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump are 76 and 79 respectively[8], so in the upper ages of those who start and call for wars.
• Academic Research: Scholarly studies confirm that the age of a leader is a significant factor in international conflict, with some research suggesting that younger leaders may be more prone to initiating disputes, while others indicate that aggression can be found across age ranges. The key takeaway is that leadership is an arena where age, experience and power are concentrated at the highest levels. But not necessarily wisdom.

A Tale of Two Ages

The contrast between the age of the decision-makers and the age of those sent into battle is stark. George Carlin once said that, “War is rich old men protecting their wealth by sending lower and middle-class men off to die.” Nothing we see happening at the moment proves this to be false. As someone has said, the tragedy of war is, first of all, the tragedy of young men. The data shows that the average soldier killed in America's wars of the last 70 years has consistently been in his early to mid-twenties, with a significant portion being teenagers. Teenagers!!!

It should really be illegal to send a man to war before he has had a chance to start his family, and continue his line. We might find that if we did this then society would be built by people who were far pickier at the kind of wars we go into. The Bible had a similar restraint on who could be sent to war, “When a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army or be liable for any other public duty. He shall be free at home one year to be happy with his wife whom he has taken” (Deut. 24:5). Allowing the wealthy and the powerful to exploit the young so that they can establish or protect their wealth is a terrible evil in this world. How many countries in the West have actually been drawn into war to protect their borders in the last 80 years since World War 2? Virtually all of the wars have been empire wars, far away from their own shores.

This reality is perhaps best summarized by a quote attributed to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a man who led his nation through a global war in his 60s: "War is young men dying and old men talking."

Don’t fall for the propaganda that we must be involved in this war. Don’t let your son’s fall into the trap of being called far away from their home, into a foreign land. Maybe war will come directly to our shores, then we should defend them, of course. But wars to extend the reach of global powers? No. These are wars that are designed to make the poor suffer to enrichen the already very rich. These are evil.

List of References

---

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5018484/table/T1/

[2] https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/569321-spoiled-by-war

[3] https://www.studycountry.com/wiki/how-old-was-the-average-us-soldier-in-ww2

[4] https://www.civil-war.net/what-was-the-average-age-of-soldiers-in-ww2/

[5] https://www.answers.com/history-ec/What_was_the_%27average_age%27_of_Korean_War_soldiers

[6] https://www.navytimes.com/opinion/commentary/2020/07/08/raising-the-age-of-military-enlistment/?contentFeatureId=f0fmoahPVC2AbfL-2-1-8&contentQuery=%7B%22includeSections%22%3A%22%2Fhome%22%2C%22excludeSections%22%3A%22%22%2C%22feedSize%22%3A10%2C%22feedOffset%22%3A15%7D

[7] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/old-men-cry-war-young-men-die-part-1/articleshow/122239365.cms

[8] Ibid.

Bible Study - Galatians Chapter 3 – One People of God

 

You can watch the video of this study on YouTube here at 8pm to 9pm AEST.

English Standard Version

By Faith, or by Works of the Law?

3 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. ² Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? ³ Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? ⁴ Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? ⁵ Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— ⁶ just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?

⁷ Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. ⁸ And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” ⁹ So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

The Righteous Shall Live by Faith

¹⁰ For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” ¹¹ Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” ¹² But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” ¹³ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— ¹⁴ so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

The Law and the Promise

¹⁵ To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. ¹⁶ Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. ¹⁷ This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. ¹⁸ For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

¹⁹ Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. ²⁰ Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.

²¹ Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. ²² But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

²³ Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. ²⁴ So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. ²⁵ But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, ²⁶ for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. ²⁷ For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Introduction

The Apostle Paul’s letter to the Galatians is a passionate and urgent defense of the core truth of the gospel: salvation is by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. In Chapter 3, Paul moves from a personal defense of his apostolic authority to a powerful theological argument, confronting a dangerous heresy that had infiltrated the churches in Galatia. This heresy, often called "Judaizing," taught that Gentile converts to Christianity must first adhere to the Mosaic Law, particularly circumcision, to be truly members of the people of God. In essence, it was adding human works to the finished work of Christ. Because Paul’s consistent message was salvation by faith, or in other words, you become a full member of God’s people, an inheritor of all the promises, simply by trusting in Jesus. (cf. 2 Cor. 1:20).  

Paul begins with a startling and emotional rebuke: "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?" He points them back to their own powerful, transformative experience of receiving the Holy Spirit. This was not a result of their law-keeping but of their "hearing with faith." He establishes a critical principle: the Christian life begins by the Spirit, and it cannot be "perfected by the flesh" (human effort). To revert to law-keeping as a means of righteousness is to nullify the very grace that saved them and to make their suffering for Christ meaningless.

Paul then masterfully uses the Old Testament itself to prove his case. He points to Abraham, the father of the Israelite (and therefore, Jewish) nation, who was declared righteous by God because he "believed God" (Genesis 15:6), long before the Law was given at Mount Sinai. Therefore, the true children of Abraham are not those who are biologically descended or who keep the law, but "those of faith." The Law, Paul argues, was never intended to be a path to life. Instead, it reveals our sin and places us under a curse, for no one can perfectly abide by all its demands. But the glorious good news is that Christ redeemed us from this curse by becoming a curse for us on the cross.

Finally, Paul clarifies the purpose of the Law. It was a temporary guardian, a "paidagōgos" (a servant who supervised a child's conduct), put in place to lead us to Christ. Now that faith in Christ has come, we are no longer under this guardian. Through faith and baptism, we are clothed with Christ, becoming sons of God and heirs according to the promise made to Abraham. This new reality breaks down all earthly divisions—Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female—uniting all believers equally in Christ. Galatians 3 is a monumental chapter that liberates us from the tyranny of performance and anchors our hope securely in the promise of God, received by faith.

It also once and for declares that the people of God, the inheritors of the promises to Abraham, those who can claim to be the sons of Abraham, are only and ever those who have faith in Jesus Christ. We will see this as we go through the chapter.

Analysis and Overview

1.     The Argument from Experience (vv. 1–5) - Paul rebukes the Galatians for being “foolish” and asks a pointed question: “Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?” (v. 2) He reminds them that their salvation and reception of the Spirit were based on faith, not law-keeping. Their suffering and spiritual experiences would be in vain if they now turned to the law.

2.     The Example of Abraham (vv. 6–9) - Paul quotes Genesis 15:6: “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” (v. 6) He argues that Abraham was justified by faith, not by the law (which hadn't been given yet). Therefore, those who share Abraham’s faith are his true children. The gospel was preached beforehand to Abraham: “In you shall all the nations be blessed” (v. 8).

3.     The Curse of the Law and Christ’s Redemption (vv. 10–14) - Paul contrasts faith and works of the law: The law brings a curse because no one can perfectly keep it (v. 10, quoting Deut. 27:26). Habakkuk 2:4 is cited: “The righteous shall live by faith” (v. 11). Christ redeemed us from the curse by becoming a curse for us (v. 13, quoting Deut. 21:23). The result: the blessing of Abraham (justification and the Spirit) comes to all nations through faith (v. 14).

4.     The Law and the Promise (vv. 15–18) - Paul uses a human analogy: a ratified covenant cannot be altered. The promise to Abraham and his offspring (singular—Christ) was given 430 years before the law. The law does not annul the promise; salvation has always been by promise, not law.

5.     The Purpose of the Law (vv. 19–25) - If the law doesn’t save, why was it given? It was added because of transgressions (v. 19) It was temporary—“until the offspring should come” (v. 19) It imprisoned everything under sin so that the promise might be given through faith (v. 22) It acted as a guardian (or tutor) until Christ came, leading us to justification by faith (vv. 24–25).

6.     Unity in Christ (vv. 26–29) - Paul concludes with the inclusive nature of faith: All are sons of God through faith (v. 26) Baptism into Christ means clothing yourselves with Christ (v. 27) No divisions—Jew/Greek, slave/free, male/female—all are one in Christ (v. 28) If you belong to Christ, you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise (v. 29).

Conclusion - Galatians 3 is a powerful defense of the gospel of grace. Paul shows that: Faith, not law, brings righteousness and the Spirit. Abraham is the model of faith. The law was temporary and pointed to Christ. In Christ, all believers are united and become heirs of God’s promise.

Bible Study Questions

Section 1: The Personal Appeal & The Experience of the Spirit (v.1-5)

1. Question: Paul begins with a strong rebuke. What does his tone reveal about the seriousness of abandoning the core message of faith for works? What does it mean to be "bewitched" in a spiritual sense?
• Cross-references: 2 Peter 2:1; 1 Corinthians 1:23
2. Question: In verses 2-5, Paul grounds his argument in the Galatians' own experience. Why is the source of the Holy Spirit's reception and miraculous work a powerful proof for salvation by faith?
• Cross-references: Acts 10:44-45; Romans 8:9

Section 2: The Example of Abraham & The Blessing of Faith (v.6-9)

3. Question: How does the story of Abraham in Genesis 15:6, quoted in verse 6, fundamentally shift the basis of righteousness from what we do to what we believe?
• Cross-references: Romans 4:3-5; James 2:23
4. Question: According to verses 7-9, who are the true "sons of Abraham"? How does this refine our definition of the people of God?
• Cross-references: Romans 9:6-8; John 8:39

Section 3: The Curse of the Law & The Redemption of Christ (v.10-14)

5. Question: Verse 10 states that relying on the works of the law places one under a curse. Why is perfect obedience an impossible standard, and what is the purpose of this realization?
• Cross-references: James 2:10; Deuteronomy 27:26
6. Question: Contrast the principle in verse 11 ("the righteous shall live by faith") with the principle in verse 12 ("the one who does them shall live by them"). What is the fundamental difference between a system of faith and a system of law?
• Cross-references: Habakkuk 2:4; Leviticus 18:5
7. Question: In verse 13, how did Christ redeem us from the curse of the law? What does it mean that He "became a curse for us"?
• Cross-references: 2 Corinthians 5:21; Deuteronomy 21:23

Section 4: The Law and The Promise (v.15-22)

8. Question: Using the analogy of a human covenant (or "will"), what point is Paul making in verses 15-18 about the relationship between God's promise to Abraham and the later Law of Moses?
• Cross-references: Hebrews 9:16-17; Jeremiah 31:31-33
9. Question: In verse 16, Paul makes a specific argument about the word "offspring." Who is the ultimate, singular "offspring" of Abraham, and why is this crucial for understanding the promise?
• Cross-references: Genesis 22:18; Acts 3:25-26
10. Question: Paul anticipates the question, "Why then the law?" (v.19). What was the law's purpose, according to verses 19-22?
• Cross-references: Romans 5:20; Romans 3:20
11. Question: Verse 21 is a key moment. Does the law contradict God's promises? What is Paul's answer, and what does it reveal about the law's inability to save?
• Cross-references: Romans 7:12; Romans 8:3

Section 5: Sons of God Through Faith (v.23-29)

12. Question: What was the function of the law as a "guardian" (or "schoolmaster") until Christ came (v.23-24)? How does this role change once "faith has come" (v.25)?
• Cross-references: 1 Corinthians 4:15; Romans 10:4
13. Question: According to verses 26-27, what is our new identity "in Christ Jesus"? What does it mean to be "baptized into Christ" and to have "put on Christ"?
• Cross-references: John 1:12; Romans 13:14
14. Question: The declaration in verse 28 is radical for its time and for all time. What are the practical implications of this unity "in Christ Jesus" for how we view ourselves and others within the body of Christ?I don’t
• Cross-references: 1 Corinthians 12:13; Colossians 3:11
15. Question: How does the chapter conclude (v.29)? How does this final statement tie the entire argument—about Abraham, promise, faith, and Christ—back to the believer's identity and inheritance today?
• Cross-references: Romans 8:17; Titus 3:7

 

Society is Healing

 

Who said it is all bad news out there? There is a reason you will never see me among the black-pillers, because when things are dark, this gives light a chance to shine all the more brightly. And we do see good things happening even in our decadent days. Here is some encouraging news,

“Almost a third of generation Z men and boys think a wife should obey her husband, according to a global survey of 23,000 people that found young men hold more traditional views about gender roles than older generations.

A third (33%) of gen Z males also said a husband should have the final word on important decisions, according to the 29-country survey, which included Great Britain, the US, Brazil, Australia and India.

It found that gen Z males (born 1997-2012) were twice as likely as baby boomer men (born 1946-1964) to have traditional views on decision-making within a marriage, with just 13% of men in the older cohort agreeing that a wife should always obey her husband. Among women, 18% of gen Z and 6% of baby boomers agreed.

People of both genders in Indonesia (66%) and Malaysia (60%) were most likely to agree with the statement, compared with 23% in the US and 13% in Great Britain.

The annual research of over-16s was conducted by Ipsos and the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at King’s College London and revealed a stark difference in the beliefs of different generations of men when it comes to gender roles:

Almost a quarter (24%) of gen Z males think women should not appear too independent or self-sufficient, compared with 12% of baby boomer men.

Attitudes toward sexual norms also differed sharply across generations, with 21% of gen Z males thinking a “real woman” should never initiate sex, compared with only 7% of baby boomer men.

More than half (59%) of gen Z males said men were expected to do too much to support equality, compared with 45% of baby boomer men. For women, the proportions were 41% and 30% respectively.

Despite being the most likely to believe a woman should not appear too independent or self-sufficient, gen Z males were also the group most likely to believe women who have a successful career were more attractive to men – 41% agreed with this statement.”[1]

That wives should submit to their husbands has been the norm throughout history, in virtually every culture known to mankind, with very few and limited exceptions. And it has worked, incredibly well. The human race is here today because of these ancient traditions. Some cultures took it too far, of course, but still this situation has worked. In the last century or so feminists have over-turned this long cherished tradition, and now virtually every western nation that has fallen into the feminist trap has below replacement births and is now seeking to fill its societal gaps with mass immigration. Not just small, targeted skilled migration, but bringing in more people each year than are born, in many contexts. This is because feminism is a poison to society, it saps society of its ability to reproduce itself. 

For this, and other reasons, many of the young are seeing through the failures of feminism and egalitarianism. Though, it should be noted that part of the reason this is happening is also because many of the immigrants that leftists advocate for bringing into the country, come from countries with far more traditional gender values than Australia. Hence, the left is starting to freak out, in part, at the fruit of their own advocacy and politics. Still, because of this and because of the obvious failures of egalitarianism to make a society that works well for men and women, many of the young are starting to reject the values that boomers made popular.

Overall, however, we should take encouragement from this. I have consistently preached the biblical message that wives should submit to husbands and that husbands should lovingly lead and cherish their wives. Many pastors have been afraid of getting into these topics, often because they think that young people will not gel with them, or that women specifically will not gel with them. But the truth is resilient, society generally circles back around to it over time. Our job as Christians is just to remain consistent to biblical truth, no matter where the winds of social pressure are blowing.

List of References

---

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/05/gen-z-men-baby-boomers-wives-should-obey-husbands

The End of Evangelicalism in Our Day?

 

Are we going to see the end of evangelicalism in our day? This might seem like a radical question, but I don’t think it is. When you consider the serious missteps that evangelical leaders have tied their movement to, from Prohibition in the early 20^th century, to the seeker sensitive movement, a.k.a watered down light rock concert style church with little teaching, to the prosperity gospel, to feminism, and many other examples, you can see that this movement has tied itself to some very unorthodox beliefs and ideologies. Not the least of which is how heterodox end times views have come to dominate in the evangelical space.

I think history can give us some insight here. When we look at how history rhymes, we might be able to answer this question, somewhat.  

In 1535 something incredible happened. In the Middle of the Protestant reformation while Luther and other Reformers were overturning many Catholic traditions. Right in the heat of the famous schism between those two traditions, something unbelievable happened. The Protestants and Catholics joined forces to deal with something they considered an even bigger concern. Catholic and Protestant magistrates joined forces to put down a rebellion in the town of Munster.

Why? What would inspire such divergent groups to lay aside differences like that? In the middle of their most heated time of dispute?

Well, in the late 1520's and early 1530's the Anabaptist movement was captured by apocalyptic forces. The Anabaptists started off with a very moderate, and peace focused leadership. They believed that Christians should meet voluntarily, and not be born as members of the state churches. Many took on board a strong form of pacificism, that shunned any use of force for any reason. Others believed that the state held this power and should use it for good, but not to compel conscience. Both views had a strong lineage in Church history. It did not matter, their break with their state churches brought upon them swift and harsh persecution. The measured leadership of their early days was mostly gone by the early 1530’s, having perished in that tribulation.

This created a leadership vacuum that allowed apocalyptic preachers, like Melchoir Hoffman and John of Leiden, to proclaim the end of days was immanent, and that the kingdom of God was about to be established. Hoffman believed his own prophecies and allowed himself to be put into jail, believing he would be freed when Jesus returned. He died in prison years later, a victim of his own errors. Leiden proclaimed himself king of the beleaguered people of Munster. He was publicly put to death when the rebellion failed.  

Other false prophets came along as well. They built on the messages of men like Hoffman and through a serious of events they took military control of the town of Munster, proclaiming it the New Jerusalem. Leiden was among the most influential of these people, but there were many others.

This led to conflict and eventually war with the authorities in the region. Anabaptists flocked to the city, believing it to be a refuge, and finding it to be in reality an apocalyptic nightmare. But to many the events of the Reformation, the tumults happening all over Norther Europe, lined up so well with the book of Revelation that they fell under the trance of these false prophets. Their prophecies were even considered to have more weight, because of the great tribulation happening in those days.

Eventually, the abominable behaviour of the leaders of this city provoked such an outrage in the region, that the Catholics and Protestants authorities aligned together to put down what became known as the Munster Rebellion. Many Anabaptists perished in the defeat of this rebellion. Among those that perished were some of the pacifist variety who got caught up in the middle of the conflict, and just thought the city of Munster would be a refuge from the travails of the Reformation persecution raging around them. But it did not matter, they were punished along with many of the instigators of the rebellion. The word Anabaptist became a curse word for centuries. Even though Anabaptists had peaceful branches like the Mennonites, the stain of Munster lived long in people’s memories.

Now, we see history gearing up to rhyme in our day. False prophets have been declaring that war with Iran is a must for the End of Day’s events. We are seeing bad prophecy being self-fulfilled in our days by many of its own adherents. The Spirit of Munster was really the Spirit of false prophecy. When these kinds of people get military power, they can cause great damage. Because they can seek to bring to pass their own apocalyptic ideas. And we are seeing this in action, and some strains of evangelicalism are right in the midst of this.

Are we seeing evangelicalism's Munster moment?

I think this is entirely possible. For decades too many pastors have been silent about false apocalyptic narratives. Caught up in the seeker sensitive movement which has been dominant for too long in western churches, many pastors have been trained to avoid such topics. Only those who passionately believe in these end times views tend to buck this trend, at least generally speaking. Privately pastors will talk about how bad such theology is. Publicly they are pan-millennialists who don’t want to get into it, for fear of upsetting people, or causing division. But this has allowed bad theology to become generally accepted among a large swath of the evangelical church. Has this silence of the vast majority of pastors in the church fostered tragedy? Has this allowed the evangelical church to be captured by the same sort of errors as Munster, just in a different form?

I don’t think we will see all of evangelicalism come to an end. The Anabaptists live on, but only because they rejected their earlier apocalyptism. Evangelicalism will continue, but I think large streams of it will begin to be shunned by more and more Christians. Already many people avoid the end times parts of the Bible because they have heard too many bad interpretations. But with credible reports of powerful Christians using bad prophecy to justify war in the Middle East, many are seeing in real time how this brings disrepute on the church, that is not far different to what Munster did. This will cause a reaction against the kind of literalist Bible reading that became a staple of the reformation, but in some quarters has morphed into a type of end times view that expects the Old Testament to come alive again in our day.

There is not doubt that the Iranian regime is bad. Radical Islamist governments are bad. That is easy to declare. But there are many bad regimes in this world. We are not at war with most of them. Two things can be true at once. They can be bad, and what is happening now can also be the fruit of bad theology and bad ideology.

We are seeing the convergence of many false apocalyptic ideologies coming to war with each other in the Middle East right now. I see many Christians online talking about the errors of fundamentalist Islam. But I see many of the same Christians decreeing that this war is God’s will, at the exact same time. Can you see the irony? Because many of them cannot. Christians need to do some real soul searching about their part in fostering these kinds of theologies.

I would say a good place to start this soul searching is reading a book like The Anabaptist Story, by William R. Estep. Estep does a good job of showing how two very different streams of theology ran through the Anabaptist movement, and he shows how one led to tragedy, and the other led to a movement that is still vibrant and peaceful till this day.

Wrestling with how past Christians faced and handled negative apocalyptic movements can help give us theological clarity in our day. The Bible is not subject to history, or man’s word. But faithful believers who loved God’s word have faced many of the same challenges that we do today, and they learnt how to navigate them. I think evangelical pastors should consider addressing this as a priority in the coming days, weeks and months. Because the church is called to be salt and light, it is created to be influential, but sometimes it gets hijacked by bad ideas and that influence turns sour.