Treblemaker2020

Believer in objective truth and that it cannot be changed. 🚫 DM’s.

[Treblemaker2020 @treblemaker2020]

#MarAlago NYE at Maralago, guests mill around chatting, “Hallelujah” is sung on stage as an artist starts with a cross on a canvas and paints a portrait of Jesus.Trump’s attention is fixed not on the crowd, but the portrait being created on the stage. Let’s have a blessed 2026!

[Treblemaker2020 @treblemaker2020]

@The_RomaArmy Just a friendly warning…Patrick’s lawyer is fine with you guys defaming him.

[Gabriel Hudelson @GabrielHudelson]

PENDRAGON, NUDITY, AND “CHRISTIAN ART” (🧵)

I’m thankful for many things that @JeremyDBoreing (and @realDailyWire) have done. I believe in supporting the efforts of yellow Christians and even of conservatives in general, where we can.

But I also believe in holding one other accountable and pushing each other to greater levels, not only of excellence, but of holiness.

What we put in our movies matters. Here are some reasons why the sexual content in Pendragon is completely inappropriate for Christian filmmakers and viewers alike.

1- Nudity is never necessary. Plenty of the great films have nudity in them, but it is a complete error to cite that as proof that nudity is necessary. Braveheart could have been made historically accurate and without any nudity, and it would’ve been better, not worse. Just because godless Hollywood does it doesn’t actually mean that we should. Our standards should be the holiness of Christ, not the horniness of our culture. So Jeremy pointing to Braveheart as justification falls flat.

2- Speaking of culture, we must recognize just how desensitized we are by the slow drip of our licentious culture. Given the massive saturation of our society with p*rnography, smut novels, and sexual content in films and TV, what qualifies as “mild sexual content“ today would have been shocking to previous generations. This is, of course, one of the reasons why it is necessary to look to Scripture and to our Christian heritage for our standards.

When pressed on this issue, the defenders of Pendragon keep saying “there’s nothing actually bad in it! There’s not actually any sex in it!”

So the argument is, quite literally, that watching topless couples make out on their wedding night is fine; the red line, apparently, for now, is full frontal nudity and actual sexual intercourse. And since that doesn’t happen on screen in Pendragon, there’s “nothing bad in it.” It’s cleaner than Game of Thrones, after all!

In other words, we are allowing our red line to be defined by the culture of Sodom.

This slow drip has occurred in basically every area of our media consumption. In everything from sexual content to language to feminism to gratuitous violence, we accept as normal now things that would have not only shocked previous generations, but would even have shocked many of the very people who are now defending it if they had seen it 20 years ago.

Your average run of the mill PG-13 film today is full of perverse speech, sexual immorality, feminism, humanism, and more. It is worth asking how we ever got to the place where we find this stuff to be entertaining and wholesome.

3- Let’s be honest about what is actually going on in these filmmaking situations. You have actors and actresses that are exposing themselves in front of an entire crew of people, committing actions that in any other context we would all rebuke as sinful.

It would never be OK for a Christian to strip their clothes off, embrace someone that is not their spouse, and begin passionately making out with them, and with an audience to boot…

Except when we’re making a movie. Then it’s OK.

You can’t tell me that that is not a stumbling block for the actor/actress. You can’t tell me that it is not a stumbling block for the crew. You can’t tell me that the people who are watching the film are not envisioning and feeling the entirety of what is happening.

And to the folks that say “you’re being Puritanical, I can watch this stuff, it doesn’t bother me”- allow me to suggest that this is a confession, not a flex. If you were not already used to promiscuous content, it would bother you. This is like bragging that small doses of cocaine don’t bother you… Because you’re used to crystal meth.

Besides, I take a comparison to the Puritans as a compliment. So that’s not gonna get you anywhere with me. (Continued)

[Treblemaker2020 @treblemaker2020]

@nicksortor The sane people in this country would like to buy this guy a beer.

[Treblemaker2020 @treblemaker2020]

@zedzedemem @sappholives83 @AfaHbybh Put a nine year old dressed like an adult with 5-6 adult American men, one caressing her face, and see how quick authorities are called. This is straight up creepy.

[Treblemaker2020 @treblemaker2020]

@Reserved501 @Ilsaviourll @howertonjosh Reread the mission statement in bold. They haven’t enough of the population to be a presence strong enough to fulfill the mission.

[Treblemaker2020 @treblemaker2020]

@Ilsaviourll @howertonjosh How about the Muslim Brotherhood? Here are a couple statements to chew on…

[Treblemaker2020 @treblemaker2020]

@JoshuaLanders2 @howertonjosh You get the dumbest comment of the day. You totally misunderstand the reformed movement. Evangelism is utmost importance. Christians are the hands and feet of Jesus. Is your church evangelizing? Ours is!

[Treblemaker2020 @treblemaker2020]

@cncwahnumacre @howertonjosh But we are not sharing the Gospel. Muslim communities are off limits yet it is 100% nonChristian and needs to hear it. The churches need to get out from behind their very walls and get on the trenches of the battle for souls.

[Treblemaker2020 @treblemaker2020]

@howertonjosh There are other ways to go to battle. Surround them with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Coming and going, with a witnesses on every street they frequent. Quote Scripture. Pray over them. Fill their streets with songs of praise. His Word is sharper than a two-edged sword!

[Treblemaker2020 @treblemaker2020]

@DisciplingJesus And cowardice.

[Treblemaker2020 @treblemaker2020]

@atensnut @girlscouts Goodbye, Thin Mints.

[Diana Alastair💚🤍💜 ⚢ ❌❌✡️ @sappholives83]

Endurance Sabon is only 15, and a Christian, so when a Muslim man demanded her hand in marriage, her parents refused. To retaliate, he and eight accomplices attacked Endurance, and mutilated her by cutting off both of her hands with a machete.

Violence against Christian girls in Nigeria is shockingly common. Many are kidnapped and forcibly converted to Islam before being married off to older men. Others, like Endurance, have been attacked and mutilated, most commonly with acid. One girl, 18 year old Binish Paul, was thrown from a second story roof by a Muslim man named Tabeer Abbas after she refused to convert to Islam and marry him, suffering catastrophic injuries to her spine and legs. Local law enforcement often protects the perpetrators of these crimes, and persecutes surviving victims.

Everywhere Islam goes, female suffering follows.

[Treblemaker2020 @treblemaker2020]

@EricinSC76 @5PointBaptist Ephesians 1

[Treblemaker2020 @treblemaker2020]

@PersonhoodDad @Joseph_Spurgeon Maybe I read a little more into it? Ephesians 1 drives my beliefs on election. I look no differently on Arminians in their salvation. I feel both views are true in a sense. God has mercy on his elect. That mercy softens hearts and the person chooses and follows Jesus.

[Treblemaker2020 @treblemaker2020]

@PersonhoodDad @Joseph_Spurgeon Did you even read the post? It really helped me with the argument of why do Calvinist present the gospel if they believe in pre-election; presenting the gospel is of utmost importance in the Providence God as He exercises in the softening of the heart of those who hear.

[Joseph Spurgeon @Joseph_Spurgeon]

The Calvinism debate can be boiled down to one stubborn question that the Noncalvinist never really answers.

Imagine two twin brothers. Same home. Same parents. Same basic upbringing. Both hear the same gospel. Both are told they are sinners. Both hear that Christ died and rose again. Both are commanded to repent and believe.

One believes. The other rejects Christ. What made the difference? That is the question. Not whether the believer really chose Christ. Calvinists believe that he did. The question is: Why did he choose Christ when the other man did not?

Maybe you say one understood the gospel better. Fine. Why? Maybe one was more humble. Why? Maybe one had experiences that softened him. Maybe certain conversations, sufferings, relationships, memories, warnings, or circumstances prepared him to respond differently. Ok Why?

Because now you are talking about providence.

God put this man in this family, at this time, in this place. God brought these people across his path. God ordained these circumstances. God caused him to hear this particular preacher proclaim this particular gospel message at this particular moment.

So did those providential differences explain why he believed?

If yes, then God’s providence made the difference. And now you have to ask why God gave one man the providential influences that brought him to faith and not the other.

But suppose you deny that. Suppose you say none of those things actually explains the difference. Both men received sufficient grace. Both were equally able to believe. Their circumstances did not determine it. Their experiences did not determine it. Their understanding did not determine it.

Then what did?

Maybe you say the believer had stronger desires for Christ. Then where did those desires come from? If his desires explain his choice, then they are part of the explanation for why he believed.

Maybe you say it was his character. Then what shaped that character?

Maybe you say it was his nature. Then why did his nature move him toward Christ while the other man's did not?

Every time you give a real explanation for why this man believed rather than rejected Christ, you are identifying something that actually made the difference. And then we can ask where that difference came from.

But to escape the difference being God's decisive acts, the non calvinist eventually refuses to let anything explain the decisive difference.

Not providence. Not nature. Not character. Not desires. Not understanding. Not circumstances. Not differing grace.

So what finally explains why one man believed?

His will chose to. Why did his will choose Christ rather than reject Christ?

Because it just did.

That is not an explanation though. Its just arbitrariness. This is the fatal problem with what is called libertarian free will: the will becomes the unexplained explainer.

The libertarian can give you all kinds of reasons the man had for believing. But here is the question that matters: What was the choice-specific reason he believed rather than rejected Christ? If precisely the same nature, desires, reasons, circumstances, influences, and grace could have produced the opposite choice, then none of those things explains why this choice actually occurred.

Everything could remain exactly the same, and the will could simply fire the other direction. This is by definition arbitrary and rationally unintelligible.

The Reformed view does not have this problem because we do not imagine the human will as some autonomous little god floating above the man’s nature, affections, desires, and reasons.

Men choose according to what they want. Their choices are real. Their desires are real. Their reasoning is real. Their willing is real. But the will belongs to a person, and fallen man, left to himself, does not want God. He loves darkness rather than light. He will not come to Christ that he may have life.

So why does anyone believe?

Because God makes the difference. God chooses. God governs providence. God sends the preacher. God brings the gospel. And through that gospel, by the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit, God does not merely stand outside the sinner begging an autonomous will to make the right choice.

God gives life to the dead. He takes out the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh. He renews the will. He opens blind eyes. He changes what the sinner loves. Christ, whom the sinner once rejected, is now seen as glorious and desirable.

And then the man chooses Christ. Really chooses Him. Freely chooses Him. God does not believe for the sinner. God does not repent for him. God does not drag him into the kingdom against his will. God changes the man, and therefore the man comes willingly.

So put the two brothers beside each other again. One believes. One does not.

Why?

The noncalvinist eventually says, “Because one will chose one way and the other will chose another,” and when you ask why, the explanation finally evaporates.

The Reformed Christian has an answer. God made the difference. And therefore the believer does not finally look at his unbelieving brother and say, “We received the same grace, but I arbitrarily supplied the decisive difference.”

He says with Paul: “By the grace of God I am what I am.”

That is the difference between Calvinism and NonCalvinism. One ends with an autonomous will that has no rational explanation and yet did the most vital work for salvation.

The other ends with grace. From beginning to end, sovereign grace.

[Treblemaker2020 @treblemaker2020]

@Joseph_Spurgeon Wow. This is so good. Thank you for this.

[Treblemaker2020 @treblemaker2020]

@DrDrillbit @thejonacosta @davebrown_twit @bennyjohnson 🎯

[Treblemaker2020 @treblemaker2020]

@DOGEQEEN Well this should be a slam dunk for the Supreme Court.

[David Limbaugh @DavidLimbaugh]

I confess I hate being barraged by emails and I rarely read those emails from people who always send articles and that type of thing but for some reason I read one today and I thought it really interesting so I’m going to paste it here. You may have seen it before, but I haven’t.

Conundrum

Free people are not equal. Equal people are not free. (Think this one over and over…makes sense!)

"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again."

The definition of the word Conundrum is: something that is puzzling or confusing.

Here are six Conundrums of socialism in the United States of America :

1. America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.

2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.

3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.

4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.

5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.

6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.

Think about it! And that, my friends, pretty much sums up the USA in the 21st Century. Makes you wonder who is doing the math.