Alastair Robert’s The Virtues of Dominion

The second post in the series. I’ll link my post

  1. Aaron Renn on The Manosphere and the Church. My post.
  2. Alastair Robert on The Virtues of Dominion.

Let’s get into it.

The human calling is not a gender-neutral one. By the very nature of the way that God created man and woman, the weight of the fivefold human commission—to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, subdue it, and exercise dominion over all of its creatures—would, though collaborative, fall very differently upon each sex’s shoulders.

In part this can be witnessed in the different ways that God creates the man and the woman in Genesis 2. The man is created in response to the need of the earth for a man to till it, while the woman is created as a helper to the man in their common human vocation, as one who will bring what he initiates to glorious completion. The man is created out of the earth for a task of mastery that chiefly moves out into it; the woman is later created from the side of the man for a task that principally focuses upon the bearing of human life and developing the realm of human community. The contrasting foci of their callings is further witnessed by their respective judgments after the Fall.

Relating Genesis 2 to Genesis 1, we might observe that the task of the man chiefly focuses upon the forming tasks that we find on the first three days: the tasks of taming, naming, structuring, ordering, dividing, and ruling. The task of the woman, by contrast, chiefly focuses upon the filling tasks that we find on the second three days: the tasks of filling, establishing life and communion, making possible succession and delegation of rule to children, glorifying, and perfecting. While both clearly assist the other in their respective callings, and neither is exclusively concerned with their own more immediate tasks, there are manifest differences of focus.

Agreed with the first paragraph. It is straight out of Genesis 1:28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

The second paragraph reaches a bit. God creates man in the garden for a few specific purposes:

Genesis 2:15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

  • Cultivate and keep the garden
  • Obey God’s commandment(s)

Principally, Adam is able to be fruitful (cultivate and keep the garden) as well as subdue and take dominion (take dominion over and name the animals). However, he is unable to fulfill the multiply and fill without a helper. His helper can obviously help with the former, but is unneeded, but definitely needed for the latter.

To parallel this to Jesus and His Great Commission, we have the same thing for evangelism and making disciples. The reason why Paul designates singleness as preferred is that all of the commands (Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over) can be done without marriage now as winning and discipling people for Christ is also multiplying and filling the earth.

In principle, I agree with glorious completion, at least in some of the tasks. Developing the realm of human community is true in the perspective of being fruitful and multiplying. Though this can be misinterpreted.

When I say that a husband must regularly “earn” privileged access to the marital bed, I mean that a husband owes his wife the confidence, affection, and emotional support that would lead her to freely give herself to her husband in the act of sex…. Put most bluntly, I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire. -Albert Mohler

Renn notes of Mohler in the previous post to where women civilize men which is not an uncommon thought in the Christian community. I believe Driscoll had some similar comments on such.

The third paragraph makes this more clear, though similar wording can give some issues. Paul specifically talks about how woman is the glory of man, though not in perfecting in the way we think of it. However, you could arguing if you are using the NT definition of perfection (e.g. Matthew 5) it means completeness to which I would agree.

Modern Christians, accustomed to thinking in terms of abstractions and ideologies and assuming that social reality flows chiefly down from ideas and rules, tend to be unmindful of the degree to which our social reality is determined by material conditions—by bodies, by geography, by resources, by technologies, by economic conditions, and many other such things that constitute the under-considered material fabric of our reality. The sexual order of society largely flows ‘up’ from such realities, rather than ‘down’ from abstract ideas.

When considering God’s purpose in creation, we should consider not only his explicit commands or commissions, but also what he built into our natures—natural law—not least because Scripture itself often appeals to it. As the Apostle Peter observes, women are the ‘weaker vessel’: men were created considerably stronger, not merely in terms of their typical raw physical strength as individuals, but also in their ability to create and exert social and material power in male groups. The biblical teaching principally concerns a divinely established empirical reality that must be honored and upheld; it was never simply chosen or even divinely commanded—man is the head. The prescriptive teaching of Scripture is grounded upon a descriptive account of difference.

This is true but it is important to understand why.

Like I’ve discussed in some of my attraction posts, marriage is an earthly institution as there is no marriage in heaven. By parallel, this also means that the institutions that God created in the beginning are earthly institutions meant for earthly purposes. In other words, creation is constrained by the rules (natural law) that God implemented within its nature.

Women being “the weaker vessel” is logically consistent with the ordering of creation and the purpose of her being a helper. All NT truth builds on the foundations of the OT truth that we observe.

While it may be impolite to dwell overmuch on the fact (and contemporary society deems it pathological), men create, possess, and symbolize power much more directly in the world than women (women themselves exercise very considerable power and influence, albeit different and typically less direct modes of it). This is a reality that, though ideologized, institutionally enforced, and socially inculcated in various ways, is a stubborn fact of the world as God created it, replicated across countless cultures in different times. In those tasks that relate to human dominion—in gaining mastery over our physical environment, in the task of invention, in the establishment and exercise of political power, etc.—men’s pre-eminence is everywhere self-evident.

Take a moment to look around you right now and consider the degree to which you live in an immediate environment, and in a world more generally, that has been created by men’s exertion of dominion over nature in all of its aspects, as well as by fundamentally male power structures and endeavors in human society—in politics, resource extraction, trade, infrastructure, construction, invention, science, technology, and a host of other areas. While much is said about the ‘empowerment’ of women, it is important to note that empowerment typically presupposes a party with more immediate possession of power authorizing the empowered party to wield some of it.

Yup, men build civilization.

I think women’s place in churches is rather more complicated than Renn’s account suggests. While women are placed on a pedestal, not every woman is placed on such a pedestal. Many women’s experience in churches is one of the loneliness and the self-alienation involved in struggling to maintain the façade of having it all together that the pedestal requires, of the unpleasant ways in which women jockey for the limited space on that pedestal, of the painful experience of falling from it, or of the experience of being conspicuously denied a place upon the pedestal by virtue of being unmarried, divorced, or childless. The grass is not necessarily greener on the other side.

While it can be an inhospitable place for many women, contemporary evangelical church life is nonetheless chiefly ordered around the women at its heart. The good man in such a context must greatly tone down his manliness. Headship is mostly characterized as a beholden-ness to the women and children in men’s lives. Men are to be the obliging mall cops upholding this domesticated realm and taming other men for operation within it. The man is much more figurehead than actual head.

Yes and no. While it is true that women do have some semblance of responsibility placed on them (e.g. virginity, modesty, propriety, etc.), it is definitely not to any of the level of degree that men have placed on them. The facade of having it together is the cultural milieu of the feminism rather than the Church, although we must admit that the world has highly infected the Church.

Yes, if you are single or divorced it can be an issue of mostly other women looking down on you in your Church, but if it comes up as a main Church topic such as through a sermon or message than even with men (or women) preaching they’re only going to say that the single women are daughters of the King or that the single mothers need help. Despite often times if they are living in sin. Heck, as we’ve seen before, single mothers get credit for being fathers too on Father’s day.

Men, on the other hand, are just demonized in general whether in small talk or through the Church pulpit. Maybe they get a golf clap on the occasional Father’s day.

Where the church has particularly failed is in effectively addressing man as the head. For many Christians, the concept of male headship is a culturally embarrassing biblical teaching that needs either to be rejected (the more popular egalitarian option) or qualified to virtual extinction (which is more common among complementarians). Concepts such as that of the ‘servant leader’ have been employed to soften the teaching. Where the concept is most emphasized, it can be attended more by blame than by honor.

What the manosphere and others of the teachers that Renn identifies recognize is the importance of manliness, of the traits that make a man apt for the exercise of dominion in various spheres of his life. A man who can act with mastery, competence, assertion, confidence, honor, courage, strength, nerve, and the like—especially if he acts as a skilled possessor of a behavioral repertoire, which he can deploy with discrimination, discernment, and self-mastery—compels respect as a man. Such traits, well-exercised, are manifestly attractive to women. Yet churches provide little training in, contexts for the formation or exercise of such traits, or purpose for their employment. This neglect results from and perpetuates a neglect of the broader, outward-oriented task of dominion. It also means that many Christian young men will turn to pagans to learn manly virtues, often picking up perverse notions of masculinity that glorify lording over others, or despising the weak, in the process.

The pre-eminent dominion given to the man in creation pre-existed the creation of the woman. The purpose of man’s dominion includes yet greatly exceeds the end of serving and building up the woman. To exercise such dominion effectively and appropriately, man needs to grow into various forms of mature manliness, requiring developing a constellation of qualities and virtues beyond the narrowly moral. A man who is kind, yet lacks strength of will and character is deficient in virtue—which limits even his capacity for true kindness.

The failures of the church in this area are related to dysfunctions in the way that its own life is ordered. If the church largely neglects the task of dominion and the development of truly Christian forms of power and mission in the wider society and mostly focuses on the internal concerns of its communities, it is unlikely that it will be a place that produces mature Christian manliness. In such communities, ‘male headship’ loses its outward orientation and tends to become either oppressive or pathetic. The man functions chiefly as the helper of the woman, rather than vice versa, as God established things in creation.

Excellent analysis, albeit it needs to be qualified with our ultimate mission: The Great Commission.

While women may favor manly traits in their partners, they generally do not favor such traits in the men in their immediate groups as individuals. It is one thing for a woman to have a strong and virile man in her corner (that can represent an increase in her agency); it is quite another to have to compete against such men. Nevertheless, because male groups are powerful and good at creating power, women desire empowerment from them. Contemporary politics between the sexes have much to do with the breakdown of marriage as the means by which male power served and empowered women and the rise of political and corporate structures for independent female empowerment and the limiting or discouragement of pronounced male agency.

The modern gender integration of society and of the church has tended to produce a situation where manliness is discouraged, where ‘good men’ are the docile and obliging men who can operate best on women’s terms. Changing this situation will require a reordering of the church’s life, where men’s virility and greater spiritedness are no longer treated as things to be house-trained, but as strengths to be developed and harnessed in the service of a newly prioritized outward church mission.

This would require a sharply counter-cultural posture towards men as agents of dominion, encouraging men to lean into and develop their aptitudes in this area, rather than stifling them in order to secure a more domesticated and equalized gender-neutralized society. It would also require the establishment of a very different settlement between the sexes, wherein men’s strength was not—as it has so often been—exercised at the expense of, without regard for, as a diminishment of, or as a lording over women, but where women more generally were strengthened by men’s greater exertion of their strength in the world. The manosphere will offer us little aid in that.

In my opinion, the big issue where this article falls short is that it fails to address the infiltration of cultural concepts into the Church and its subsequent destruction. It’s not so much that Churches need a counter-cultural posture, they shouldn’t had that in the first place.

“Being in the world but not of the world” means you are connected first and foremost to Jesus’ Great Commission. You don’t need to “counter” the culture because you already resist the culture. One is proactive and the other is reactive. The initial manosphere in itself is/was reactive by nature as well.

Part of this is the watering down of the gospel. If there’s no cost to following Christ, we get tons of false teachings out of it: prosperity gospel, soul mates, etc. Discipleship is based around men because they are innately better at dealing with the suffering that should come with following Jesus.

Romans 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; 4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; 5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

As feminism infects Churches (and all of the underlying reversal of roles in marriages and pastors or women pastors), the gospel gets watered down and turns into basically self help groups where God becomes the cosmic vending machine to make you feel happy and accepted. No need to repent of your sin because God’s love overcomes all.

In conclusion, a counter-cultural posture is worthless because it’s reactive. Churches need to get back to the gospel with a mission focus. Most of the Church and its programs should be focused on developing missions for men. If you have a Church with strong masculine men, the women will follow as they will be naturally attracted.

This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Alastair Robert’s The Virtues of Dominion

  1. Novaseeker says:

    It would also require the establishment of a very different settlement between the sexes, wherein men’s strength was not—as it has so often been—exercised at the expense of, without regard for, as a diminishment of, or as a lording over women, but where women more generally were strengthened by men’s greater exertion of their strength in the world.

    This is the weakest part of his piece, to be honest.

    A “very different settlement” sounds an awful lot to me like the “SuperFriends” marriage where man and woman are riffing on each other’s superpowers and the united whole is greater than the sum of its parts — a fantasy from a child’s cartoon, and nothing more. Women are not per se strengthened as individuals by the exercise of male strength (and power) in the world in a way that excludes women from directly exercising such strength (and power). The effect is indirect, and indirect effects like that require dependency, and dependency is right out at the moment, even among Christians with daughters, and especially among almost all Christian women themselves apart from a few outliers. Efforts to strengthen men in this area will be met by stiff resistance from other men (fathers or daughters) and an army of well organized, aligned women across the political spectrum, because the greater exertion of male strength in the world is received by women, generally, in our culture as something that is per se exercised at their expense and which diminishes them, directly, even if it has indirect benefits for some women who opt for dependency. There’s no way around this. The cultural idea of individual empowerment is in the Church, it’s seeped very, very deeply into both sexes at this point and it spans several generations now. Removing it would require a massive paradigm shift, which seems very much like a pie in the sky to me.

    The same kind of shift would be required for the Church to change gears and shift its focus away from the predominantly female oriented concerns of safety and security that dominate today towards male-oriented external missions and evangelism — women will resist this, en masse, in lock step. I don’t see how it’s feasible other than founding new churches and policing them strictly so as to keep the dominant culture out … and the problem with those is that they often become so separatist in doing so that they run the risk of becoming cultlike. Perhaps that can be avoided with care — it’s worth a try. I don’t see it as being feasible in existing churches, however, until the Church really shrinks so much that the masses are not present to resist a paradigm shift meaningfully … which would indicate that there are other problems to deal with at that point as well.

    I don’t want to be overly negative (I know that this post comes across that way), but this kind of change — especially the one he is describing — seems almost impossible to implement in real life in actual church settings in 2020.

  2. @ Nova

    I don’t want to be overly negative (I know that this post comes across that way), but this kind of change — especially the one he is describing — seems almost impossible to implement in real life in actual church settings in 2020.

    Definitely agreed on that front. Most of the staunch supposed conservative Christians are all of the ones crying that men are not manning up with service the military and refuse to condemn women from joining.

    It’s basically more of the same unless you can say “no” to various behaviors, but most men don’t like saying no to women. If you can’t say no, then you’re going to get people who do whatever they want, and it’s basically going to default run away from God to the culture. This is why trying to change the community to something “counter-cultural” always fails. It’s reactionary much like the secular manosphere proper was reactionary. Reactionary movements peter out and fail.

    A refocus to the gospel and discipleship is the only way to go, and building it off of a similar starting point like Jesus did (12 male disciples with a thriving community around them) is probably the way to go.

  3. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    I must disagree with your conclusion. “ If you have a Church with strong masculine men, the women will follow as they will be naturally attracted.” . This statement assumes too much about the nature of women and excuses them from their own sins. Let us consider the relationship of Christ to the church which is the anti-type of the husband and wife. Could anyone say that Christ lacks masculinity? And yet the church is still attracted to worldliness, heresy and idolatry. If Christ, the perfect husband is insufficient in His masculinity and leadership to keep His bride from such sin, how much can a fallen man hope to succeed with a woman who is enchanted by the world, power and control.

    The church must not only teach men to develop true Christlike masculinity, but must call out with a clarion voice to address the sins of feminism. The older women have utterly failed to to teach the younger how to love their husbands and children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. (Titus‬ ‭2:4-5) Instead the older women have taught the younger to be blaspheming narcissists. Marriage which is to be a picture of the gospel has become the image of apostasy. Because men following the sin of Adam, have heeded the voice of women, they have traded their headship for the pleasure of women. As Adam feared losing fellowship with Eve more than losing fellowship with God, so also men have sought to please women and women have seduced them into the sin of abdication.

    Mohler is particularly offensive because he treats the marriage bed as a transaction. If the husband earns the bed ie pays the wife’s acceptable price, then the wife (prostitute) will gladly receive him sexually. This is not covenant marriage and a sign that the church is dire need of repentance. Again looking at the type anti-type, could anyone dare accuse Christ of nor earning the union with His bride, is the church ever just in saying that she refuse union with Christ because He failed do enough to earn her affection. This is yet another blasphemy, the same one referenced in Titus when in the type the woman does not love or obey her husband. Mohler’s influence is widespread, and he is considered to be more conservative and orthodox than most, yet look how far from 1 Cor 7 he is willing to go for some female appreciation.

    Women are generally the thermostats in the marriage. The older women were supposed to teach the younger women this. Aa a generalization, a controlling, complaining fearful woman will find her husband cold and distant, but a grateful, respectful, and subordinate wife will reap the harvest of adoration, affection and care from her husband. A wife that supports her husband’s mission will find that he peruses that mission with confidence and power that a secure marriage provides, but a wife that contends or criticizes his mission or his manner of pursuit will deflate his efforts and emasculate him.

    The manosphere cannot fix the problem of the church, it can only be helpful in identifying those problems. The church must repent of her sins. Those sins are institutional and cultural, they involve changing the manner that women and men are taught in their sex roles, the manner of preparing clergy, child rearing and pretty much holy living for all of life. It is not enough to bash men, or reform a few males. Until we see women and men biblically and not according to cultural frames like chivalry, we will blabber with words that have the appearance of godliness but not the power thereof.

  4. @ Jonadab

    This statement assumes too much about the nature of women and excuses them from their own sins. Let us consider the relationship of Christ to the church which is the anti-type of the husband and wife. Could anyone say that Christ lacks masculinity? And yet the church is still attracted to worldliness, heresy and idolatry. If Christ, the perfect husband is insufficient in His masculinity and leadership to keep His bride from such sin, how much can a fallen man hope to succeed with a woman who is enchanted by the world, power and control.

    I don’t disagree. I said that earlier in the post.

    However, I put that as the conclusion as I think that is where you have to start. But you must follow that up with calling out all kinds of sin as it comes up as you mentioned.

  5. wodansthane says:

    @Jonadab.
    Solid, succinct analysis! The challenge can seem overwhelming. But with Christ, all things are possible. We also need to adopt Chesty Puller’s attitude at the Chosin Resevoir, “The Chinese have us completely surrounded, the bastards can’t get away this time!”.

  6. Sharkly says:

    “God creates man in the garden for a few specific purposes:”
    Adam was not created in the garden of Eden, nor was Eve.

    I don’t see how it’s feasible other than founding new churches and policing them strictly so as to keep the dominant culture out … and the problem with those is that they often become so separatist in doing so that they run the risk of becoming cultlike.
    It is necessary that the bride of Christ be taken out of the body of Christ like Eve, Adam’s rib, was taken out of the body of the first Adam. Just a small remnant will be taken out, who do not bow their knee to this goddess worship. The bride of Christ must separate herself out from the Great Whore. The true disciples will be known by their love, and their ability to maintain unity and discipline. When the bride of Christ comes out of the body of Christ, the last Adam, she won’t behave herself like the great whore has.

    “A refocus to the gospel and discipleship is the only way to go…”
    The Gospel is our evangelistic message to the lost, but within the church, the Gospel is the milk not the meat.

    “Mohler is particularly offensive because he treats the marriage bed as a transaction.”
    Why would you expect the Great Whore to preach anything but transactional sex?

    “The church must repent of her sins.”
    The whore takes it in, wipes her opening, and says, “I have done no wrong”.(~Proverbs 30:20)
    I wouldn’t expect the Great Whore to repent, she doesn’t acknowledge her wrongdoing. You have to come out of her and be separate. Her feet go down to death; her steps follow the path to Sheol;
    Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
    Lots of “Christians”, church folks, will be cast out of heaven. And not because they repented of their sin, but because they wouldn’t repent of their whoring after the world. They don’t think it is wrong.

    “Mathetes” taught: For God loved men, whom He created after His own image, for whose sake He made the world, to whom He subjected all things that are in the earth. [including women]

    And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. … And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
    Adam got to name all that was under his dominion, and it was called whatever Adam said it was. Eve is not recorded to have named anything until Cain was born.
    In Genesis 1:26, in Hebrew, Adam (אָדָ֛ם) is given dominion (וְיִרְדּוּ֩) there is no “them” in the original language, that is an assumed word, it might just as easily be assumed as “him”. if “them” is assumed, it should be assumed to mean men, or mankind as opposed to womankind. The woman was not given dominion, but was instead put under subjection to Adam. Because it is only fitting(Colossians 3:18) that all things should be subjected to the image of God.

  7. JPF says:

    @Jonadab-the-Rechabite

    It is good to see you again. Solid comment.

    @Sharkly wrote, The bride of Christ must separate herself out from the Great Whore. The true disciples will be known by their love, and their ability to maintain unity and discipline.

    These two sentences show a problem though. Followers of Christ should have unity, despite their differences, such as differing levels of maturity, differing personal problems, differing levels of knowledge.
    There are also however false prophets/teachers (Matthew 7:21-23). And being united with those is not really possible, nor is any attempt at this wise.
    We have some people that demand we be united with them, even at the cost of surrendering our freedom to have beliefs that we think (rightly or wrongly) are directly based on the word of God. Some Orthodox have this requirement; they think their religious group has the right to define theology on all questions for all people. Anyone not accepting the need to submit to their religious group, rather than directly from that person to God, is seen as being in error, or being separated from the true church. In practice this attitude means people are required to follow that group, rather than to follow God. Regardless of what group or person acts this way, I see this as “cultish” behaviour, and unacceptable.
    (Not trashing the Orthodox; I respect some of them highly.)

  8. Sharkly says:

    JPF,
    So if one were to try to separate out and start a new church, how should unity and sound doctrine be maintained? Just with lots of proactive church discipline by the groups elders?

    Church discipline seems like a thing today’s churches don’t ever want to do, except if a man challenges their Feminist goddess worship.
    Bnonn Tennant apparently got the boot for questioning Feminism, even after backpedaling and trying to apologize for some of it:
    https://bnonn.com/excommunicated/

  9. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sharkly, thanks for that link. I frankly quit paying attention to Bnonn and the “Good to be a man” site a couple of years ago. It is a sad irony that he has been sanctioned by that church essentially for a watered down version of what we’ve been discussing here and there and there…things that he didn’t like much, either. IMO Bnonn got a big in-the-face dose of what Driscoll and others have been serving up to men for years. In fact, he has a longer version of the Joseph of Jackson story from Dalrock’s years ago.

    Last year in March or so Tim Bayly headed up a new denomination (Evangel Presbytery) centered in Indiana, but I believe Michael Foster’s South Carolina church is part of it, so I guess he’s better off than Bnonn.

    It will be interesting to see what direction he goes now.

  10. Pingback: Peter Leithart’s Side Effects | Christianity and masculinity

  11. Pingback: Bill Smith’s Attraction: The Biblical Theology of Pickup Artistry | Christianity and masculinity

  12. Pingback: Paul Maxwell’s The Measure of a man | Christianity and masculinity

  13. Pingback: Mike Bull’s What is biblical feminism? | Christianity and masculinity

  14. Pingback: The Red Pill and Blue Pill as Paradigms of Sanctification and Defilement (with a mathematical analogy) | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s