Curious Words From The New Pope

The blurb opens up with,

In comments likely to enhance his progressive reputation, Pope Francis has written a long, open letter to the founder of La Repubblica newspaper, Eugenio Scalfari, stating that non-believers would be forgiven by God if they followed their consciences.

Bret responds,

I’m sure the atheist Richard Dawkins is glad to hear this latest statement by Pope Francis, because now he can be forgiven as he follows his conscience in supporting pedophilia. Dawkins recently said,

Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, the renown atheist recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters

    “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.”

Dawkins said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded:

    “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”

    “I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,”

Dawkins said.

Dawkins went on to say the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and should not be bracketed with what he called

    “just mild touching up.”

So now, given Pope Francis’ insight, Richard Dawkins can be forgiven when he, and other unbeliever’s like him follow their conscience in “just mildly touching up” little children. Pedophilia never held so much promise.

Pope Francis weighs in

Responding to a list of questions published in the paper by Mr Scalfari, who is not a Roman Catholic, Francis wrote: “You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.”

“Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.”

Bret responds while scratching his head,

Why would the one who does not believe in God go to a God they don’t believe in, with a sincere and contrite heart? The one we are talking about DOESN’T BELIEVE IN GOD.

The article continues,

Robert Mickens, the Vatican correspondent for the Catholic journal The Tablet, said the pontiff’s comments were further evidence of his attempts to shake off the Catholic Church’s fusty image, reinforced by his extremely conservative predecessor Benedict XVI. “Francis is a still a conservative,” said Mr Mickens. “But what this is all about is him seeking to have a more meaningful dialogue with the world.”

Bret responds,

Translated — “In an attempt to convert the world, the world has converted the Papacy and the ‘Church’.”

The article finishes,

In a welcoming response to the letter, Mr Scalfari said the Pope’s comments were “further evidence of his ability and desire to overcome barriers in dialogue with all”.

In July, Francis signaled a more progressive attitude on sexuality, asking: “If someone is gay and is looking for the Lord, who am I to judge him?”

In fairness to Francis, it was said that when Francis said this he was referring to celibate sodomites. Though, after this piece, I’m having my doubts about that Vatican post comment spin.

Putin’s New York Times Editorial Piece

There has been a great deal of buzz about Vladimir Putin’s editorial in the New York Times today. I don’t consider the Times to be a reputable Newspaper but I thought I would make a few observations about the Putin editorial. The editorial can be found here,

Keep in mind that my distrust of Putin in no way implies trust for Obama, Democrats, or Republicans. I can manage to be against them all at the same time, hoping that they conspire to pull each other houses down so that a non Tyrannical house can be built.

1.) Putin offered, “But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together.”

When Putin uses the word “we” here in the context of being allies during WW II, it strikes me that he is identifying himself with the former Communist Bolshevik Tyranny that held the reigns of power during WW II in Communist Russia. For this reason alone I find Putin to be a character that is not to be trusted. Anybody who self identifies with the Communists is someone whom Christians should be skeptical.

Secondly, on this score, it is true that the Nazis were defeated, which was good news, however, the price we paid in turning over much of the globe to international Communism (the “WE” that Putin self identifies with) made the defeat of the Nazis an empty victory.

2.) Putin extols the United Nations in his piece. This is another indicator that the man is not to be trusted. The United Nations has always been the residence of the progressive Marxist left, and was established in order to assist the bringing to fruition the long held dream of the New World Order. Putin further says on this score that nobody desires to see the UN fail. That is not true. I suspect that millions of people pray daily that the UN will fail.

3.) Keep in mind as you read anything coming from Putin that a defector from the KGB, (Anatoliy Golitsyn) told us long ago that the Soviets will fake the death of the USSR. His predictions were spot on. Do we really think that one day a huge super power like the USSR just falls apart without a whimper? No trials or anything for the former rulers? All the party faithful oligarchs are transformed from communists into “entrepreneurs” overnight? The former rulers become the new rulers, nothing really changes in the power structure? The purpose of this long con is to advance the agenda of the New World Order. Putin, being former KGB, is part of this deception and the end goal remains the Communization of the globe. Meet the new boss … same as the old boss.

We have to keep in mind that the cold war was useful to accomplish big things for the New World Order but the International elites needed a new era. Remember our state dept and Wall-street gave the world the USSR, Red China, Cuba, and so on. The best enemy money could buy. Putin, in my estimation is playing his role in the long con to enslave the world.

This long con was hinted at by Gorbachev in 1987 in an address to the Soviet Politburo,

“In October 1917, we parted with the old world, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving toward a new world, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road!? He further reassures his Communist colleagues: Comrades, do not be concerned about all that you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal change within the Soviet Union other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.”

There is no reason to believe that the long con does not continue.

4.) Putin in his speech appeals to the same old tired egalitarianism that has always been part and parcel of Communist ideology. In appealing to this egalitarianism Putin reveals, for those with eyes to see, the fact that Putin remains Red.

5.) So what game is Putin and Obama playing in this dramatic song and dance routine that is Syria? (Note — I believe most of what happens before the Cameras as well as what is reported in the press is Kabuki theater meant to fool the useful idiots) I believe that this was never about Syria. It was about weakening the prestige of America in the site of the World while discouraging Americans. This discouragement is part of the psychological warfare that KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov warned about almost 30 years ago. Obama has always been about destroying this country. Putin helped him in his goal as together they operated to bring down our prestige around the world while at the same time dispiriting Americans in regards to their country.

6.) Finally, Putin notes in this article that America should not think of itself as an exceptional country. This is consistent with what Obama has said in the past. In 2010, when Obama was asked if he believed in American exceptionalism, President Obama responded, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” If everyone is exceptional per Obama, then no one is exceptional per Putin. They are reading off the same script.

Those who dine with Putin, would be well advised to dine with a long spoon. I do not think he is the anti-Obama hope that some people think he is.

I’d like to be wrong. I don’t think I am.

R2K’s Inherent Pessimism

“Christians have always lived in pessimistic times. That’s the nature of being aliens and exiles. That’s what happens when you worship in the church militant. Sure, Christians are optimistic about going home to be with their Lord. But they’re not optimistic about making their home here, this side of glory….

… 2kers, in fact, know that we are always in a battle and that culture wars often distract from the real warfare which is spiritual and that can only seen by faith and not by sight.”

Darryl G. Hart
R2K Connoisseur
https://oldlife.org/2013/09/06/making-difference-even-bill-evans-cant-see/

1.) I for one am glad that not all Christians have agreed with Dr. Hart on this matter when he says that Christians have always lived (and, by way of implication, “always will live”) in pessimistic times. For example, Dr. J. Gresham Machen did not agree with Darryl on this score. Machen could look forward to times that would be absent of pessimism,

“God still rules, and in the midst of darkness there will come in His good time the shining of a clearer light. There will come a great revival of the Christian religion; and with it will come, we believe a revival of true learning…”

2.) Note that it is Darryl’s worldview that forces him to conclude that Christians have always lived in pessimistic times. Darryl’s apriori militant amillennialism requires him to look at all history and all the future as “pessimistic times.” If Darryl did not have this worldview component, then Darryl wouldn’t be interpreting all of history through these pessimistic lenses. I especially note this because Darryl insists that he has no use for Worldview thinking and yet here we find Darryl engaged in Worldview thinking at its finest. In point of fact, R2K Theology is Worldviewism at its finest.

3.) Can you imagine attending a party with Darryl? He makes Eyeore and Oscar the Grouch look like winsome dinner guests. Darryl makes Schopenhauer and Voltaire look like guys you’d like to invite to your next garden party to hand out party favors.

Imagined conversation with Darryl at a party,

Guest — “So what do you do for a living Darryl?”

Darryl — “I write books and articles trying to convince people how pessimistic the times are in which we live.”

Guest — “Well, that sounds interesting.”

Darryl — “It depresses me and everyone who reads me but I press on.”

4.) Note that for Darryl, that the “not yet” of his eschatology completely obliterates the “now” of his eschatology. We can be optimistic about the sweet bye and bye but what is required now is pessimism. Now, R2K types will object and say that their “now” is Spiritual and that the problem with people like me is that my eschatology is “over-realized.”

Which brings us to our next point,

5.) R2K really is platonic or neo-platonic or, if one prefers, gnostic. We see this in the quote above that contrasts real warfare (spiritual) with non real (non spiritual) warfare. This is neo-platonism. Neoplatonism is the idea that the “spiritual’ (i.e., non-physical, ethereal eternal) aspect of life (Darryl’s Church realm) is superior to the more physical aspects. The Neoplatonic R2K perspective implicitly denies the biblical facts that man is a unit, and that God is concerned with the whole of our being and with all of life. R2K Neoplatonism leads to a spiritual contempt for God’s material creation and for the laws God has ordained in such areas as education or social order issues.

For Darryl and R2K, the really important part of life is in the realm of the Church. In the Church alone one finds the Spiritual. Outside in the common realm all one finds is the temporal and the carnal. In R2K thinking the temporal realm suffers soul sleep upon the consummation of all things. As such the temporal realm only finds its importance as it supports those working in the Spiritual realm.

If one wants to glory in pessimism, R2K is the way to go. However, if one optimistically believes, along with Machen, that Revival is coming, one will want to eschew R2K’s call for eternal pessimism and embrace the confidence and optimism of Machen.

Reviewing Just War

If one makes even a cursory reading on war, one is immediately convinced of how dreadful it is. Whether one reads Josephus’ account of Rome’s war against Jerusalem in AD 70, or one reads of both Axis and Allied atrocities during WWII one learns quickly why someone once said “War is Hell.”

War brings not only death, but cruel death. Death by famine, pestilence, torture, and cannibalism. War brings death instantly and death to those who wish they had been blessed to die instantly.

War brings out the worst in man … envy, hatred, callousness, and selfishness.

Because this is so, War, for the Biblical Christian, has always been taught to be a matter of last resort. These Christians who believe that war is terrible but sometimes unavoidable have always embraced what is called “Just War teaching.” And we will be looking at that as we probe what Scripture has to say about when Christians fighting war is warranted.

Because war is so terrible, many Christians through the ages have taken a position that no Christian should ever be involved in violence against another person no matter what. This position has been called “pacifism.” It is a position often associated with the ana-baptist wing of thinking.

The reason we are taking this up, is because the War Drums are being beaten again, and as such I want us to be informed so that as Christians we can take up both our Christian duty and our civic duty. I will be giving the principles of Just War theory this morning and seeking to support those principles from Scripture. As tempting as it might be, I will not be telling people what to think about the current war call that is being advanced.

Before we get to the criteria for Just war I want to spend just a few minutes laying the groundwork to negate the idea that a Christian should never ever involve themselves in War because War, is ipso facto sinful. These brief 5 points are introduced in order to dismiss the idea of the Pacifists who teach that war is always wrong all the time.

1.) First, God repeatedly aligns and identify’s Himself with war and the warrior in Scripture. This is proof that war can be consistent with Christian involvement.

Isaiah 42:13 The Lord goes out like a mighty man,
like a man of war he stirs up his zeal;
he cries out, he shouts aloud,
he shows himself mighty against his foes.

In Revelation 19:11-12 we see the Messiah likewise being portrayed as a Warrior,

11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.

The point here is that if War were automatically evil in and of itself then God could never be spoken in Scripture as being as a Warrior. Just as God never refers to Himself as a liar, murderer or homosexual, because these behaviors are inherently evil, so God would never refer to Himself as a Warrior if War was inherently evil.

2.) Second, God commanded His people to engage in War. If War were inherently and intrinsically evil, then such a command would be inherently and intrinsically evil.

Judges 4:6-7

6 She sent and summoned Barak the son of Abinoam from Kedesh-naphtali and said to him, “Has not the Lord, the God of Israel, commanded you, ‘Go, gather your men at Mount Tabor, taking 10,000 from the people of Naphtali and the people of Zebulun. 7 And I will draw out Sisera, the general of Jabin’s army, to meet you by the river Kishon with his chariots and his troops, and I will give him into your hand’?”

3.) In Deuteronomy 20:1-20 God gave explicit words on how war is to be conducted. We looked at these carefully in a recent Evening Service series. The point is that if God gave explicit words on how war is to be conducted therefore it can not be the case that to be involved in war is always wrong all the time.

4.) Many of the Saints of the OT, bragged on in Hebrews 11:33-34 were men of war and are commended as Warriors.

Hebrews says of these Saints that they … “became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight.”

God would never commend that which is intrinsically evil.

5.) Romans 13:1-4 explicitly says that the Magistrate, who is a minister of God, has been given the Sword.

for he is God’s servant … he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

Explain the symbolism of the sword.

So, these five points dismiss the pacifist notion that War is always wrong all the time. There are times when War is just in God’s sight.

So, as we consider what constitutes Just War we say at the outset that if we lived in a world that was un-fallen there of course would never be war. War comes about because, as James 4 teaches,

What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions[a] are at war within you?[b] 2 You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel.

So war is a result of bent passions and avaricious selfishness of the wicked. And just war is the means by which those bent passions and avaricious selfishness is halted. For a Christian Magistrate, war is where He uses the Sword, per Romans 13, to execute God’s justice against those who are terrorizing those who desire to live a peaceful and quite life that is godly in every way (I Tim. 2:2). The Christian magistrate like God is a warrior when he has needs to oppose the attempt of the wicked to tyrannize the righteous.

What I am about to give you in terms of Just War theory is not new with me. This teaching goes far back to chaps like Ambrose and Augustine in the 4th century and was elaborated upon by Aquinas in the 13th century, and has been refined over and over again through the centuries from that point forward. Some of these men spent more of their time anchoring just war theory in Scripture, while others sought to universalize just war theory by anchoring it in what they viewed as Natural Law.

We will give the several principles of Just war theory so you can see them gathered together.

1.) War can only be sanctioned and called for by the duly recognized authority.

Here we have an example of the jurisdictionalism which we bring out often here. The family has a sphere of jurisdiction, the church has a sphere of jurisdiction and the civil magistrate has a sphere of jurisdiction. Romans 13, which we cited earlier, clearly teaches that the Magistrate is a minister of God who wields the sword. War is a sword wielding event. In our own Constitution the sanctioning of War can only legally be called for by the US Congress, though this has been ignored often in our history with the Executive branch doing the sanctioning.

2.) War has to be waged because of a just cause. And of course the idea of “just” has to be defined consistent with God’s Scriptural revelation.

We return here to the idea of the Magistrates sword. The magistrate is only to use His sword in keeping with what God defines as “just.” “Just causes” we can imagine taking up the sword for would be to protect life (6th comm), protect property (8th commandment), avenging evil, etc. Obviously, if these kinds of evil could not be resisted, then we would live under the maxim that might makes right.

Also we must note here that consistent with God’s word, any war that is prosecuted against a judicially innocent people, inflicting upon them the penalty of war despite their innocence, would require that those prosecuting the unjust war be visited with the penalty of war that they were seeking to implement against the judicially innocent.

This is a principle gleaned from passages like,

Dt. 19:16 — If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother.

Returning then to the theme of “just cause,” we would note that Augustine here offered that war can be waged justly as a defense against aggression and for the protection of life and liberty. Augustine also held that war, on certain occasions, could be fought because of wrongs inflicted on a nation through economic or other means. Thus, war should only be waged to vindicate justice. The goal of war, taught Augustine, was the restoration of international peace.

Let me give you just a hint of what we will find on this matter. With some exceptions, Just war is defensive war. Now, defensive wars can have offensive movements in them, but the war itself, in just war theory, is most commonly Defensive war. Wars of aggression, or wars to build Empire, are by definition, not just wars and so need to be opposed by all Christians.

Southern Theologian R. L. Dabney offered, “Defensive war is, then, righteous, and only a defensive war.”

3.) The war is waged with right intention.

This one is added so that War is advertised with the just cause while the real reason is for some other selfish purpose such as the desire for territory, or some advantaged gained in seizing significant trade routes, or by seizing some Natural resource that is needed.

Mosely contends that “a just war cannot be considered to be just if reasons of national interest are paramount or overwhelm the pretext of fighting aggression.”

Here we must note that a State almost never beats the war drums without insisting that the cause is humanitarian or noble. States do not say … “we are going to war in order to seize oil reserves, or in order to protect the American dollar against those who are seeking to set up other International economies that would destroy us …” Remember the maxim that the first casualty of War is the truth.

States always sell War by telling their people that their cause is just, true and right. It is up to the citizenry then to do the best they can to ferret out the truth. As in all things, but especially in War, we should follow the Maxim, “Let the buyer beware.”

Here we need to insert Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler’s observation that “War is a Racket.” It is incumbent upon us as Christians, when determining whether or not to support a war or to speak out against it, to “follow the money.” It would be naive of us to not look at the economic equation behind war pursued. Butler, in his short book just mentioned, suggested that even when he was being used as a Mercenary (turn of the 20th century) for big Corporate interests, the wars of his nation were always about money, or turning a profit for the Corporatists. It is not Just war to fight to enrich the Oligarchs, the Cartels, and the Corporatists who advance their position by blood.

4.) War can only be justified once all other avenues of recourse are exhausted. This is consistent with a principle we find in Matthew 18

15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Here we see reconciliation is exhaustively pursued before sanctions are levied.

One of the early Reformed writers on this subject Johannes Althusisus could write on this score,

Althusius stated: “Just cause for waging war occurs when all other remedies have first been exhausted and peace and justice cannot otherwise be obtained.”

And again,

This authority to undertake war ought not to be employed by the magistrate unless all other remedies have failed, and there is no other way to repel an attack upon his subjects, to avoid and vindicate injustice to them, or to obtain peace and tranquillity in the realm….But before undertaking war a magistrate should check his own judgment and reasoning, and offer prayers to God to arouse and direct the spirit and mind of his subjects and himself to the well-being, utility, and necessity of the church and community, and to avoid all rashness and injustice….

5.) The War waged can be a War successfully prosecuted.

This is consistent with what we find in Luke 14:28-32,

28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ 31 Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.

On this score, we have to keep in mind that war is so terrible and the consequences so grave that it should not be prosecuted if there is no hope of winning. To wage a war that can’t be won would be nothing less then murder of the citizenry by the Magistrate.

Exceptions noted

1.) Exception for National or people group survival
2.) Exception to avoid enslavement

6.) The End must envision a better state of affairs then the end envisioned if war is not prosecuted. The overall destruction that will come should be weighed against by the good that is aimed at.

7.) War is principally fought by soldiers that are male.

Numbers 1 and Numbers 26 both have God telling the leadership,

“List all the men twenty years old or older who are able to go to war.”

War that is fought with women would make a war unjust. Again, national survival might be an exception, but any people who use their women as combatants is a people who are already lost to the God of the Bible.

8.) War is not total. Distinction between soldier and civilians maintained.

This Biblical principle found in Dt. 20 was largely followed by the civilized West and was only reversed on a grand scale in the 19th century in the States. Ever since then though it has been largely the way we conduct war.

Wars that typically abide under these maxims are generally defensive wars. Wars that are protecting hearth and home. Exceptions may exist for that but those exceptions are very constrained.

In Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants) we find language that speaks of fighting wars that are not strictly in defense of hearth and home. It asks the question “Whether neighbor princes may, or are bound by law to aid the subjects of other princes“. The answer is a qualified yes; providing some very strict criterion are met. For example, the oppression must be grievous, the chances of defeating the tyrant must be reasonable, the aid must be done with no objective of personal gain, and we are most obligated to aid those closest to us in terms of blood, religion, and geography. In other words, a ruler being a “bad guy” is nowhere near enough justification. This fits very well with the Christian Just War Theory and was doubtless influenced by just war categories.

So, there may be times when just War is pursued besides defense of home and hearth but in general just war has typically found that War is only just when it is defensive.

E. J. Carnell sums it up nicely,

Defensive warfare is simply the use of a national police force to destroy gangsterism on an international scale. The soldier is in exactly the same position as the civil officer at the scene of a bank robbery. Each must put down perversity with force. War is the last expedient to which a nation can turn when its survival is threatened by those bent on world domination and the lust for power. There is no doubt but that war is a terrible thing, almost too awful to speak of without tears in our voices. But the consequence of not matching force with force within the collective ego is infinitely less bearable. We will destroy the very securities within which men can preach and hear the Word of Life; we will betray all of the forms that guarantee our basic freedoms; and, worst of all, we will commit a sin against the very God who has ordained that Christian citizens be subject to those who have been placed in civil office as a praise to the good and a terror to the evil.

Machen, The Worldview Thinker … The Machen Hart Never Told You About

“What has Christianity to do with education: What is there about Christianity which makes it necessary that there should be Christian schools? Very little, some people say (R2K “Christians, for example — BLM). Christianity, they say, is a life, a temper of soul, not a doctrine or a system of truth; it can provide its sweet aroma, therefore, for any system which secular education may provide; its function is merely to evaluate whatever may be presented to it by the school of thought dominant at any particular time. This view of the Christian religion…is radically false. Christianity is, indeed, a way of life; but it is a way of life founded upon a system of truth. That system of truth is of the most comprehensive kind; it clashes with opposing systems at a thousand points. The Christian life cannot be lived on the basis of anti-Christian thought. Hence the necessity of the Christian school.” 

~ J. Gresham Machen

“It is this profound Christian permeation of every human activity, no matter how secular the world may regard it as being, which is brought about by the Christian school and the Christian school alone. I do not want to be guilty of exaggerations at this point. A Christian boy or girl can learn mathematics, for example, from a teacher who is not a Christian; and truth is truth however learned. But while truth is truth however learned, the bearings of truth, the meaning of truth, the purpose of truth, even in the sphere of mathematics, seem entirely different to the Christian from that which they seem to the non-Christian; and that is why a truly Christian education is possible only when Christian conviction underlies not a part, but all, of the curriculum of the school. True learning and true piety go hand in hand, and Christianity embraces the whole of life — those are great central convictions that underlie the Christian school.”

~ J. Gresham Machen