With Presbycast Discussing Side B, Concupiscence, And The Distinction Between Nature and Grace

by Heidelblog on September 9, 2022 | 7 Comments

The Presbycast is always weird—the intro music for this episode comes from Ralph Carmichael; a blast from the CCM past—wild, and fun and this episode is no exception. HB contributor Stephen Spinnenwebber and I joined HB contributor and Presbycast co-host, Brad “Chortles” Isbell, and Presbycast co-host, raconteur, and man about town, Wresbyterian to discuss Stephen’s recent article on the HB, “Homosexuality, Concupiscence, and the PCA.”  We also considered an illuminating Twitter thread, the nature/grace distinction, and related topics. On top of all that, we had a visit from “The Doctor,” who, remarkably, had some comments about the Nebraska football game in Dublin, Ireland. It was, as the drop says, “weird, wild, stuff.” Here is the archival audio:

Subscribe to the Presbycast where ever podcasts are found and listen to it in its native environment.

Resources

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


7 comments

  1. Don’t let the rather formal heading above put you off. This is not some dry, uninvolved discussion. It’s one of the best Presbycast episodes ever. Y’all are spot on here, with theological insight, practical application, and pastoral wisdom.

    At 35 mins., Dr. Clark’s imagining “a conference celebrating homosexual immorality” is biting – and brilliant. Let’s turn the tables more like this. What do you call it? A “sanctified beat down”?

    • I’m sending a couple of texts to several friends today:

      The recent Presbycast episode on Side B and concupiscence, with Scott Clark and Stephen Spinnenweber, is one of the best examples of doing theology clearly, seriously, and compassionately that I’ve ever heard. This is a model of how to do it. Archive this one!

      Stephen S. has become one of our best writers of precise and concise theology.

  2. I just finished listening to this excellent discussion and would thank all involved. I would like to throw out one point for your consideration involving a current equivocation being used. That would be the term “minor attracted.”

    We can see how ‘pedophile’ has been conflated in discussions around Jeffrey Epstein & “pedo island”. As far as I have seen (and I confess I have not sought every possible reference) the girls used & abused were all adolescents, they were not ‘children’ in a biological sense. There appears to be a effort to normalize attraction to prepubertal children (a deviant desire held by very few men) by conflating this with attraction to “underage adolescent females” (normative in adult males). Indeed, in past ages it was quite normal for a 15-16 year old female to marry an older male. But marry a child? Never!

    So “minor attracted” is an ambiguous term as it attempts to connect a natural desire (attraction to a sexually mature female capable of childbearing) with an unnatural desire (attraction to prepubescent females, ignoring homosexual desires for the moment). Distortions of language are part of the efforts towards deconstruction & ought to be addressed & confronted, rather than ‘let slide’.

  3. Thank you, sir! I follow Hblog far more diligently in recent months, but last year was more “hit & miss.” I am pleased that you have addressed this as I have seen this issue slip by most commentators. Let me now actually listen to that program 🙂

  4. Actually, I don’t see the issue of language ambiguity addressed. Normalizing of pedophilia is a problem, but the “word game” is important as it continues to be used to confuse & distort. You & I are both old enough to remember when “GAY” had a most different meaning than we see at present.

    As an aside, I’ve been looking at 3FU from my Presbyterian perspective, and read some of the Scot’s confession earlier today. Had to look up a couple of words, such as “quhilk”. Turns out it is an archaic form of ‘while.’ Somehow our language changes are far more sinister.

Comments are closed.