United Nations Definition of Genocide and Pertinent Videos

Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as,

“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part1 ; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”


II Peter 1:21 …. Men Moved By The Holy Spirit — Infallibility

Peter, as we saw last week, is seeking to provide credibility to what he has been saying. Last week we saw that Peter appealed to his own,

I.) First-hand testimony to sustain the credibility of his message

We demonstrated last week how this kind of appeal is not unique to Peter. We find St. John doing so. We find St. Paul doing so.

“The narration of the facts is history; the narration of the facts with the meaning of the facts is doctrine. “Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried”–that is history. “He loved me and gave Himself for me”–that is doctrine. Such was the Christianity of the primitive Church.”

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism

Christianity cannot survive as Christianity if the empirical historical facts that are bound up with Christianity are found to be not true.  If Peter was lying about the History of the Transfiguration then the Transfiguration cannot be mysticized and so rescued. If St. John was lying about the History of the Resurrection the Resurrection cannot be rescued as having any meaning by somehow transcendentalizing it so that it is religiously true but not historically true.

People, seeking to avoid the hard work of studying Christian Doctrine and Christian History might appeal to the idea that it is the Christian life that is what is really important but if these historical facts are not true then any idea of a “Christian life” is just so much wish-mongering, personal preference, and poppycock.

All of this is why Peter insisted that “We had not followed cleverly invented tales.”

II.) Appeal to Scripture to Sustain Credibility

“The Prophetic word confirmed.”

You see what Peter is saying here is that their experience confirmed that which they had owned as “prophetic.”

What we labored at last week in demonstrating on this point is that their understanding of the Prophetic Word was the lens through which they understood and interpreted their eyewitness experience.

Imagine if Peter had been on the Mount of Transfiguration and had not been conditioned by Scripture as to what could and could not be possible. Peter believed in a coming Messiah. Peter believed that this Messiah would be extraordinary in every capacity and so Peter’s Scripturally informed Worldview allowed Peter to see that Transfiguration as being what it was — the inbreaking of the age to come on this present evil age.

But people who do not interpret their experienced reality through the prism of Scripture can’t see reality for what it is even if they eyewitness it.

I appeal to Luke 16. You know this account,

27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house— 28 for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham *said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

You see what is going on here? Abraham is saying that even if they were eyewitnesses of someone rising from the dead they would not be eyewitnesses of someone rising from the dead because they have not listened to Moses and the prophets. Their capacity to be eyewitnesses of the supernatural unto believing it was anchored in what they first believed about the verity of Scripture.

1.) Experience is pre-interpreted through a grid that informs what is and is not possible. A warning from the dead would not matter to those who disbelieve an even more credible witness (Moses and the prophets) to begin with.

2.) In order for experience to be valid as a source of credible information that experience must be reckoned through the prism of Scripture. It is not only the case that Scripture must interpret Scripture but it is also the case that Scripture must interpret experience. That the Brothers of Dives would not believe the testimony of the Moses and the Prophets means that they would even interpret wrongly the testimony of the Dead come back to life to warn.

3.) Scripture then is our epistemological foundation. Not experience. Not reason. Not tradition. Not mystic revelations. Only Scripture can give us the capacity to know the times and what should be done.

In his letter Peter anchors his credibility in his eyewitness account and then he anchors the credibility of his eyewitness account in the “prophetic word confirmed.”

The prophetic word confirmed.  God has given us epistemological tools. History, reason, tradition, experience, but each of those tools is only as good as the foundation upon which they are anchored. The prophetic word confirmed is what inform all our other epistemological tools.

So, that was by way of review of last week. In the few minutes we have left we want to take up one more point here and that is how Peter,

III.) Appeals to God to Sustain Credibility of Scripture

19 [k]So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

So, Peter starts out with his eye-witness account. He then places that eye-witness account on the foundation of the “prophetic word confirmed.” Lastly, Peter places that “prophetic word confirmed” on the foundation of God’s sovereign working.

Peter spoke about the prophetic word confirmed and now he speaks to the origin of that prophet word.

Negatively — never made by an act of the human will
Positively — Men move by the Holy Spirit spoke from God

This is intended to provide a stark antithetical contrast that doesn’t demonstrate itself as well in the English.

Prophecy was not brought in by men;
but men were brought to utter it by the Spirit.

Remember, Peter is dealing with people who are being inundated with false teachers. He is trying to shepherd and protect them. He is providing an apologetic for his truthfulness… that he can be trusted.  He has appealed to his own eye-witness experience. He has based that appeal on an appeal to the “prophetic word confirmed,” and now Peter is saying “and that prophetic word it trustworthy because it comes from God.”

The words and idea of men being moved by the Holy Spirit is a picture of the wind carrying a sailboat along.  The men speak but the Spirit impelled.

Of course, this is one passage we look to for our doctrine of Inspiration. It teaches that the Scriptures, like the Incarnation, have a human and divine nature. Indeed, we might say that the Scriptures are 100% Divine and 100% human.  While we do not hold that God used men as human dictation machines we would say that God so ordained the ordering of these men’s lives, their personality, their character, their experiences, their socio-linguistic background that they were the perfect instruments to bring what they were to what God had to say.

You must understand that when people inveigh against the mechanical dictation theory of inspiration (MDTI) the problem is not that they are suggesting that God had to much control of the human author. No, the problem with the accusation of “the mechanical dictation theory of inspiration” is that it doesn’t credit God with enough sovereignty.

Those who rail against the MDTI act as if God, in inspiration, suddenly descended upon the author, who heretofore had been completely unaffected by the sovereign working of God. And yet, any Christian theory of inspiration insists on something more then MDTI. The Christian theory of inspiration says that God controlled all the events, all the learning, all the experiences, of the inspired author’s life to bring him to the point that he would say just exactly what God intended Him to say as ordained from eternity past.

No … the MDTI will never do because it doesn’t emphasize enough God’s sovereignty in the whole Inspiration process.

Now we would say here that as it is clear from the passage that God is ultimately responsible for Scripture, therefore we do no believe that it is possible for Scripture to be errant or fallible. I hope we can see the contradiction between believing in a God that cannot fail while holding that the Scripture which was “God-breathed,” is fallible.  If it is the case that God breathed out the Scripture (II Tim. 3:16) then it would be an impugning of God’s character to suggest that there are errors in God’s Word.

Now let’s take a brief moment to talk about this idea of infallibility. Many are the men both within and without the Church who mock Biblical Christians for believing that God’s word is infallible and in doing so they suggest that they themselves are more enlightened inasmuch as they don’t believe in infallibility.

But allow me to suggest that when men give up on the infallibility of Scripture they always relocate that same infallibility someplace else. They may deny infallibility as belonging to Scripture but they affirm, knowingly or not, infallibility in some other knowledge source. In short, infallibility is a concept that cannot be escaped.

Many Evolutionists act as if their evolutionary theories are infallible. And of course, if God is ruled out, a-priori, then where are we to find truth except in infallible evolution? The infallibility of God’s Word traded in for blind time plus chance plus circumstance infallibility.

In the political realm, we have the phrase,  “vox populi, vox dei.” The voice of the people is the voice of God.” Telling phrase that. In Democracy the people taken as God now speak infallibly in their majority voice. The voice of the people as the voice of God gives us an infallible truth and if we don’t like a new infallible truth we can soon enough replace it with a different one.

In the philosophy of existentialism it is the meaningful experience the individual has wherein infallibility is discovered.

For the Nihlist it is the sovereign ubermensch self who is infallible.

The Roman Catholic Church posits infallibility in the Pope as he speaks from the chair.

Infallibility is an inescapable concept because people have to have someplace certain and authoritative to stand upon. If they will not stand on the Scripture as certain and authoritative — infallible — then they will find something else that is infallible to try and stand upon.

It might be Rousseau’s theory of the “General Will”
It might be his idea of “the Noble Savage.”

— That the man who is uncorrupted by the trappings of civilization is the one who is to be most listened to and who will have the most inherent wisdom.

For Hegel it was the State which was the incarnation of the Universal Spirit and so infallible

“Every creed, every philosophy has either openly or implicitly a doctrine of infallibility. Because man has to live by an authority of certainty. He has to have something as his ultimate standing ground. A man cannot stand on nothingness, on thin air. I am standing on a platform here…it is this platform that supports me as I speak to you. And intellectually the platform that supports me and gives me the foundation for my speaking is the infallible word. Now every man has a platform on which he stands. And he must believe, he cannot escape believing, it is an inescapable requirement of human thought, that he affirm that platform without qualification, whatever it may be. That he hold to its infallibility, its certainty, its authority. And so there are a variety of infallibility concepts current among us.”


And so back to Peter. Peter says but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

And we believe therefore that Peter’s testimony and all of Scripture is infallible.

Make Sure and Laugh When Talking With and About the Absurd

In this interview,

Tucker Carlson debates a male transgender lawyer.

When we take matters like this seriously we have already lost the battle.

The male transgender lawyer is dressed here like a woman complete with blond wig, makeup, jewelry, etc.. Carlson and the Lawyer are having a serious conversation about what it takes to be officially Transgender.

I was getting sucked into the conversation when all of a sudden I start cracking up laughing from realizing how absurd this whole interview is.

I thought … “when we don’t howl in peals of laughter over the absurdity of all this we’ve already lost the battle. Taking any of it seriously means they win.”

In the past, in Ecclesiastic meetings, I’ve warned people about the danger wrapped up in having serious conversations about the absurd. I didn’t mean then and I don’t mean now that we shouldn’t debate about the perverse or about the perverted. Neither do I believe that we should not talk to them but if and when we do so it should be accompanied by belly laughs on our part during the conversation.

The Strangeness of Dr. Strange … A Movie Review

My Father was a man who had a hard time communicating affection. One way he was able to do so when I was a child, was by bringing me home comic books. My Mother wasn’t wild about me reading all these comic books. (My stash was significant.) She understood, properly, that I could be spending my time reading better subject matter. Of course, at that age I didn’t see that but looking back I realize how right she was.

Many have opined, and likely properly so, that the advent of super-heroes rose corresponding to a decline in the proper concrete estimation of the character of God. God is diminished and the vacuum is filled with God as man said loudly. Another observation is that with superhero comic books it’s as if the gods and the demigods of the Romans and Greeks made a sort of comeback. In all of this there is the idea of continuity of being. God and man are not that really different after all. The difference merely being that the gods have more being than mere mortals.

Still, comic books got me started in reading. These many years later the comic book world has been translated onto the Movie Screen in Hollyweird for the Baby Boomers, and I, like many others have viewed more than a few comic book films.

The latest comic book film to hit the silver screen is “Dr. Strange.” Dr. Strange belongs to the Marvel Comic Universe. Dr. Strange was the superhero for the paranormal and it is interesting that Dr. Strange as created in 1963 presaged the rise of interest in the paranormal and the occult that soon saw Universities across the nation offer programs in the Paranormal. (Stanford University, in 1911, was the first such university to offer such a  program to students in these US.)

Dr. Strange reflected that occult- paranormal interest perfectly. Modern man, in the 1960’s had become rationally bankrupt and had begun to turn in earnest to the Occult as a worldview option. That pursuit continues full-throated to this day. The Dr. Strange film taps into the modern fascination with the occult.

In the Dr. Strange film, one finds the usual contradictions that Worldview oneism provides. Oneism is a common denominator in all occultic worldviews and the Dr. Strange film is no exception. Oneism, communicates the idea that underneath what mortals see as differences there is an abiding sameness to everything. Hence the common mantra, “All is one.” We see this Oneism in the film when the guru “Ancient One,” says to Dr. Strange,

“At the root of existence, mind and matter meet.”

And again the villain Kaecilius offers in dialogue with Dr. Strange explaining what the conflict is all about,

“The many becoming the few, becoming the One.”

And again in that same exchange,

“This world doesn’t have to die, Doctor. This world can take its rightful place among so many others, as part of the One. The great and beautiful One.”

Dr. Peter Jones has done some excellent work on “Oneism.” I recommend his books to all who desire to see and understand the occult worldview expanding in our culture.

So, in the Dr. Strange film one finds this theme of oneism (All is one) and yet the contradictions continue to roll as there is a universe of different Universes. All is one and yet the film toys with the yin and yang theme which posits two equally opposite forces in the universe. Further, the film shifts from the idea that all is Material to all is non-material. In this sense, it is Western new-age. Now toss in Occult symbology here and there and you have a typical Hollyweird Kaballah film.

Another example of the embrace of contradiction is seen in this exchange,

Dr. Strange — “I control the river by surrendering control? That doesn’t make sense.”

Ancient — “Not everything does. Not everything has to. Your intellect has taken you far in life but it will take you no further. Surrender Stephen.”

This is not a great deal different from when assorted Roman Catholics, Arminians, and Open Theists tell me that “God is sovereign enough to not be sovereign.”

The appeal to the irrational is also part of the appeal to contradiction. Not everything has to make sense is an overt embrace of reasoning by contradiction. The call to surrender is the call to surrender rationality.

There was also a substantial amount of worldview inversion going on where good was being labeled “evil,” and evil was being called “good.”

The most blatant example of this was seen when the villain Kaecilius says,

“Dormammu gives freely. Life, everlasting.”

This is never denied in the film. Indeed the Ancient One lives long life by tapping into Dormammu.

Christianity, on the other hand teaches that it is Christ who came to give life and give it abundantly.

Another example is where we see the desire for eternal life as painted as being evil, and “the Ancient” who was one of the main “good guys” could only be good and have long life as long as she tapped into the evil. (Nevermind, that if all is one, good and evil are categories that can’t exist.) It is only in the Dark Dimension were the omnipotent Dormammu reigns where time does not exist and where all can have eternal life. In the Dr. Strange film, the only way to access eternal life was through concourse with the dark side.

Second, there is worldview inversion where death is seen as a positive good that gives meaning to everything.

Ancient One — “Death is what gives life meaning. To know your days are numbered. Your time is short. “

So, one can have eternal life by embracing evil Dormammu or one has to die to find meaning in living. Of course in Biblical Christianity death is the enemy… the last enemy to be defeated.

There are also hints of blood atonement in the film, but in the worldview inversion, the atonement is offered up to the Satan character in the film. Dr. Strange has to die over and over again in order to ransom earth. The ransom is paid to Dormammu (Satan). This is an inversion of Biblical Christianity where the blood ransom price in the atonement that is required is paid to God. Whereas in  Biblical Christianity the ransom as the atonement price means peace with God in Dr. Strange the ransom as the atonement price means that Dormammu (Satan character) leaves earth alone.

Top all this off with a clear teaching of a kind of ethical relativism and one has the perfect recipe for a film with an anti-Christian worldview. While in Christianity Christ comes to keep all of God’s law, in Hollyweird’s “Dr. Strange,” the Hero comes and saves the world by breaking all the unbreakable rules.

In the end, Mordo, a co-hero in the film, ends up turning disillusioned and embittered because the unbreakable laws were all broken. Dr. Strange as the hero is willing to do anything — to break any rule — in order to get the right result, while the perceived legalist Mordo won’t break the rules and is seen as lacking compassion. Is this a Hollyweird hint that Christians are legalistic and lack compassion because they are not relativists and won’t break the rules?

In the end, while Dr. Strange may be entertaining, it is fraught with Worldview ugliness.

Par for the course for Hollyweird.

President Trump’s 2017 Address to Congress … An Analysis (Or Trump Channels FDR)

President Trump’s Address to Congress,

Liberal proposal #1

“… We have formed a Council with our neighbors in Canada to help ensure that women entrepreneurs have access to the networks, markets and capital they need to start a business and live out their financial dreams.”


Bret notes,

Keep in mind that making sure women have access to the networks means they are prioritized over men who may be more qualified. This is a form of affirmative action for feminists.

President Trump’s Address to Congress,

Liberal proposal #2

President Trump’s Address to Congress,

Liberal proposal #2

“I have further ordered (my agencies) … to coordinate an aggressive strategy to dismantle the criminal cartels that have spread across our Nation.”

Bret observes,

This is not so much Liberal as it is naive. The largest criminal cartel in America that needs to be dismantled is the Federal Government in its Corporatist expression.

The cynic would hear this quote and say, “Yeah, the FEDS want to dismantle the criminal cartels because they don’t want any competition.”


President Trump’s Address to Congress,

Liberal proposal #3

“I will be asking the Congress to approve legislation that produces a $1 trillion investment in the infrastructure of the United States — financed through both public and private capital — creating millions of new jobs.”

Bret observes,

Legion are the books from Conservatives blasting FDR for Government make-work infrastructure projects during the New-Deal era. Yet many conservatives today are cheering this President and this speech as if we have found the second coming of John Calvin Coolidge. Trump is proposing Keynesian economics. To spend a Trillion dollars on infrastructure means either printing more money (can you say inflation?) and /  or increased taxation. This is pure Liberalism.

Also there is no draining the swamp as long as the swamp is flooded with money. More Government spending means more Government.

President Trump’s Address to Congress,

Liberal proposal #4

“Tonight, I am also calling on this Congress to repeal and replace Obamacare with reforms that expand choice, increase access, lower costs, and at the same time, provide better Healthcare.”

Bret observes,

This is infantile. This is a “Chicken in every pot” type of promise. It is simply not possible to do all this and at the same time to make sure every American is covered by health insurance, as Trump promised in a statement in January,

“We’re going to have insurance for everybody. There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”


Trump’s Address to Congress,

Liberal proposal #5

“My administration wants to work with members in both parties to make childcare accessible and affordable, to help ensure new parents have paid family leave … “

Bret responds,

Paid family leave means those not being on paid family leave are paying for it. Redistribution of wealth program. Pure Keynesianism again.

President Trump’s Address to Congress,

Liberal proposal #6

President Trump talked about the need to introduce efficiency by rolling back regulations at the Food & Drug Administration and at the Education Department. A Conservative President would have instead called for the elimination of these Agencies since they are not Constitutional. It is progressive politics to desire that these unconstitutional agencies have any role at all in prescription drugs developed or in setting policy for Education from Washington.

President Trump’s Address to Congress,

Liberal proposal #7

“I am sending the Congress a budget that rebuilds the military, eliminates the Defense sequester, and calls for one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history.”

Bret observes,

Trump is going to,

1.) Cut Corporate Taxes

2.) Cut Middle-Class Taxes

3.) Spend a Trillion dollars on domestic an infrastructure project.

4.) Reform Healthcare so that it covers all Americans.

5.) Provide one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history.

6.) Increase funding for Veterans

7.) And all this while being fiscally responsible.

Only 5-year-olds believe in the tooth fairy.

In the end, Trump revealed last night, with his address to Congress, that he remains an FDR Democrat. Principled people continue to have next to zero representation in Washington.