Category: Marxism/Cultural Marxism

The Wheaton Imbroglio and “Worshiping the Same God.”

The Protestant way of discussing the issue of God and His nature and worship starts with the Bible as determinative in all matters.  Thus biblical theology always trumps philosophical analysis.  Said succinctly and simply put, God and Allah are not the same.  Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God.

Rev. Bassam Madnay 
Pioneer of Arabic radio missions over a period from 1958 to 1994

Developer of a Bible-based ministry, which emphasizes the centrality of the Word of God in missions to Muslims.

Author of several books in Arabic for the follow-up ministry that was used in his work for use among Arabic-speaking people.

Wheaton College continues to struggle with what to do with  professor Larycia Hawkins who said that  Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Of course this is all complicated by the racial dynamics as  professor Larycia Hawkins is one of only a few African American professors at Wheaton. Doubtless, were Wheaton to fire  professor Larycia Hawkins, there would be cries of racism and so it is easy to see how wanting to avoid those potential cries of “racism,” might become part of the decision making matrix in this case. To put it bluntly, Wheaton may well be tempted to not stand by its Christian confession so that it can avoid being seen as intolerant, bigoted, and racist by firing  professor Larycia Hawkins.

This debate is muddled up by imprecise thinking.

First, as there is only one God, religions which assert contradictory truths about that one God, as revealed in the OT and NT alone, are therefore not serving any God at all, but a fiction of their imagination. Muslims and Jews do not worship the same God since the “god” Muslims and Jews worship is a no god. The “god” of Jews and Muslims has no being or existence and so cannot be aligned with the the God who has being and existence.

Second, as the essence of Christianity is to affirm, with the Scriptures, that God is plurality in Monotheism,  we see contradiction to the false religions of Judaism and Islam, who worship a god without being or existence, who, nonetheless affirm that their no gods are unitary monotheistic gods who have no plurality.  How can it be the case that Christians, Jews, and Muslims, all worship the same God when the true God of Christianity and the false no gods of Judaism and Islam can’t even agree on the nature of God?

Third, the Christian faith affirms that there is no worship of God apart from the Son; The Lord Christ (John 14:6). In contrast Judaism denigrates Christ as can be seen by the Talmud’s affirmation that Christ is in hell boiling in hot semen. In contrast Islam, while esteeming Christ as a great prophet, still denigrates him by refusing to identify Christ as being very God of very God. The fact that Christianity affirms the centrality of Christ in order for worship of God to be possible as contrasted with Islam and Judaism which denigrate Christ proves again that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam do not and cannot worship the same God.

Fourth, this muddled headed thinking doesn’t understand that words find their meaning dependent upon the plausibility structure wherein they rest. The word “God,” then, like all words, is filled with meaning only as consistent with the paradigmatic contextual web wherein the word exists. It is true that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all use the word “God,” but when that word and concept is conditioned by all the rest of their respective contradictory worldviews the end results is a shared word with meaning and referent that has nothing in common except the lexical form and auditory pronunciation.

As we explore this idea that “Christians and Muslims,” worship the same God we butt up against some other difficulties.

Ask yourself whether or not if Christians, Mohammedans, and Jews all worship the same God does that mean they all hate the same devil? It would seem to be the case that if the former holds the latter must hold as well. If we all worship the same God then how could we all not hate the same devil since God and the devil are polar opposites. A commitment to worshiping the same God would commit us to agreeing on hating the same devil.

 

Next we might inquire that if Christians, Mohammedans, and Jews all worship the same God and they all hate the same devil would that not mean that they all believe that the same God delivers men from the same devil via the same salvation? Here we get perilously close to what I believe the real project of this linguistic subterfuge is all about and that is the collapsing of these contradictory faith systems into one ecumenical miasma.

There are those who serve on the mission field who will insist that saying that Jews, Muslims and Christians all worship the same God makes evangelism easier as a place of commonality can be agreed upon so as to facilitate further conversation on the character of this God. However, if we begin in our discussions presupposing a shared God it is hard to envision that we will not end our conversations Islamifying our Christianity or Judaizing our Christianity to one degree or another when all is said and done.

Honestly, this attempt at insisting that Jews, Muslims, and Christians all worship the same God is just another example of the postmodernism worm eating away at all meta-narratives in favor of its own meta-narrative which teaches that all is social construct and is in favor of a kind of tortured monism.

In all this we must keep in mind that God is not a generic and abstracted philosophic construct that can be divorced from a concrete context. To suggest that Muslims, Christians, and Jews all serve the same God completely eviscerates the Christian religion as Scripturally revealed and as Historically practiced by those who have taken God’s revelation seriously through the centuries.

That Wheaton might ignore all this in order to align themselves with the demands of multiculturalism and political correctness in its demand to protect an errant minority professor is a sad testimony to where Christianity has descended. That this has even become a question that needs to be discussed and debated demonstrates the heights from which muscular Christianity has fallen.

 

If A Politically Correct Version of the Lord of the Rings Were Written Today

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. With that in mind we are kind of imitating the great J. R. R. Tolkien in this piece imagining what the Middle Earth would have been like if his creativity had fallen into the hands of a Politically author.

1.) First it would be easy to imagine in a 21st century PC version of the “Lord of the Rings,” that Sauron and Saruman would have been much more subtle in their drive for conquest. Instead of invading they would have teamed up as International Financier Elitists and emigrated the Dweefsums into the Shire in order to conquer the Shire. Further, Saruman and Sauron would have appealed to the Hobbits altruism and convinced them that assimilating with the Dweefsums was the compassionate thing to do. Eventually Mayor Whitfoot of Hobbiton as well as the Thain of the Shire became convinced that this was good policy and placed in charge of the Orc Immigration process (OIP) Ted Sandyman and Lotho Sackville-Baggins. After some time, with the success of the OIP,  the schools of Hobbiton began to teach the Hobbiton children that mating with Dweefums was a noble thing to do.

Over the passage of time Merry and Pippin and Samwise pushed for the legalization of male mengae-a-trois relationships and they were finally Knighted when their long fought for legislation finally passed.

2.) With the passage of time, Denethor, by using the Palantír  (seeing stone) saw how hopeless his situation was and so convinced his ruling council that accommodation was the best course for Gondor and so embraced a “keep the Great Gate open” policy toward Minias Tirith and so was a open invitation to the citizens of Osgiliath.

3.) Eventually, the Rohirrim gave up their women folk preferring bestiality after a decades long study was published by a Dr. Alfred Kinsomer that confirmed that the Rohirrim were indeed closer to their horses than to their women.  Over the course of time a proper perspective of History was arrived at and so there was outlawed any celebrations of the Rohirrim’s victory at Helm’s Deep. Indeed a generation was raised up that tore down the monuments to Theoden gallantly fighting on Snowmane and of Eomer supporting his Uncle in Battle. What took their place was a monument to the Uruk-Hai instead, who – it turns out – were the real victims of the battle of Helm’s deep.

4.) Aragorn finally divorced Arwen Evenstar and married Farimer. Arwen finally gave into her Transgender Man soul and shacked up with her own Father Elrond. After Aragorn abdicated the throne the “Mouth of Sauron” took over the throne of Gondor and he, in turn, made the Nazgul his privy council.

5.)  Gondor families started adopting lovely little Easterlings and accused everybody else who was not doing the same of sinning. And with each adopted Easterling, Haradrim, and Umbarian the Churches in Gondor rang their bells and celebrated their nobility for being so caring.  Indeed, even when it was clear that the Easterling, Haradrim, and Umbarian adopted children were corrupting their own seed, it didn’t matter since the Easterlings, Haradrim and Umbarians were a missionary projects.

6.) The Gondorian Naval forces were disbanded when it was realized that the Pirates of Umbar were simply “misunderstood.” The leadership of Gondor came to realize that the Pirates of Umbar would instantly drop down their weapons once they would see the tolerant shores of Anfalas.

7.) Equality was finally arrived at in the West when the Pukel men were invited to intermarry with the women of Dale. Also, Elves and Dwarves began to have marital concourse so that a new race of Dwelfs was formed. The Dwelfs though were a insecure people never having a clear identity of who they were.
 8.) The Wizards were found out to be of a long ignoble line made of the limited quantity of something called “White Light.” These Wizards were created by the wicked Valor and so finally understood to be as wicked as Grima Wormtongue had once warned King Theoden about.  Wormtongue knew all of this all along! Oy vey, Wormtongue! You have always been our greatest ally!
 9.) Galadriel was the great great great Grandmother of Angela Merkle and like her illustrious great great great Granddaughter was a key link in finally inviting the natural enemies of the Elves to integrate into Lothlorien.

10.) Gollum was declared to be a great civil rights leader and a Middle Earth holiday was established in his honor, during which the utes of Gondor would celebrate his contributions to cultural diversity by pillaging and ransacking various Merchants of Gondor while playing a game called Out-Knock. Raw Fish was considered a delicacy among the Utes during this celebration.  Indeed, eventually a Statue was raised of Gollum in the Hobbiton city square. (The statue though was made by a woodelf and as such Gollum, in his statue, looked suspiciously like a wood elf.) Further, every city in the West, large or small, had a street named ‘Gollum Smeagol –The King,’ Street.

Later it would be discovered that “Doctor” Gollum Smeagol — The King,  had plagiarized large portions of his Ph.D. dissertation, as well as his iconic “I Have a Precious” speech, from the writings of several Elven academics and at least one River-folk preacher.  Also, later it was celebrated that Dr. Gollum Smeagol — The King, had also plagiarized large portions of his “Letter from a Wood-Elf jail” correspondence.

11.) Black Hearted Huorn Ents tried to fit into the ruling councils of men but, always needing a filibuster just to introduce themselves, they had long since gone, once again, looking for Entwives.

Hat Tip — Habakkuk Mucklewrath, Durand Gregory, Dunns Thomas,  Cherry Nathanson.


I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends … Mickey Henry; A Christian Apologetic For Open Carry During Church Worship Services

Mickey Henry is a non de plume of a personal friend of mine who was recently rebuffed by his Church “leadership” for daring to open carry in Church in a state where to do so is legal. This is a letter he wrote to his leadership after being told he may not open carry in his “conservative” Church. Try to keep in mind that there was a time in the history of our country when it was not uncommon for men to carry their weapons to Church. I think that Mickey’s letter is convincing.

——————

Dear Elder Donnie

Since concealed carry is encouraged, we share a lot of common ground concerning self-defense and the errors of pacifism. Suffice to say, armed defense of innocents is simply the application of the positive requirements of the Sixth Commandment. The crux of disagreement, then, is open vs. concealed. Here, in brief, are my arguments for open carry:

1. I am of the strong opinion that open carry acts as a deterrent to violence. Open carry is essentially a clear statement that acts of aggression will be met with strong resistance.

2. To Christ is given all authority; all earthly authority is thus derivative. Because we Christians confess Christ as Lord, submitting to His Law-Word, Christians have a unique responsibility to rule under Christ as His earthly vicegerents. We are, in fact, commanded to do so by the Dominion Mandate. Weapons and related imagery, such as swords, spears, maces, the fasces, halberds, etc., are the customary tokens by which power and authority are symbolized and commonly recognized (the instruments of the death penalty are identified with the authority to execute the death penalty). I open carry as a visible symbol of my submission to Christ’s Law-Word, and my willingness to use the authority He has given me to defend my family and other innocent life.

3. Just as the Gospel is made clear in the symbols and liturgy of the Church, there is a certain visible representation of the Law-Grace dynamic in the open carry of weapons by confessing Christians: grace and mercy to the innocent, justice for those who would transgress His Law.

4. The degenerate culture around us tolerates Christians only if we are weak and impotent. But we are to be standard bearers, a city on a hill, no matter the spirit of the age. I am glad that a number of the men at Redeemer do carry weapons, but open carry makes manifest that ours is a vital faith, and we will not cower or lower ourselves to the popular image of the ineffectual Christian man engendered by the enemies of God.

5. As to scaring away visitors, I humbly submit that this is an expression of the “attractive Gospel” theories of the Kellerite/New Calvinist movement, and is at odds with the historical understanding of Calvinism. A work of God’s grace on His elect is to overcome their sinful aversion to the practical outworking of His Law. Large families, homeschooling, modest dress, infant baptism, all male leadership, advocacy for traditional marriage – these things and others in open view at Redeemer are offensive to the broader culture and even to some of our brethren in other denominations, but we practice them as the people of our Lord and Savior, and depend on the sufficiency of His grace to reach those who visit us. Additionally, this being Texas, I have little doubt that at least some visitors would be attracted by a sign of such vitality.

One of Obama’s 2016 State of the Union Whoppers

“We need to reject any politics that targets people because of race or religion This isn’t a matter of political correctness. It’s a matter of understanding what makes us strong. The world respects us not just for our arsenal; it respects us for our diversity and our openness and the way we respect every faith. His Holiness, Pope Francis, told this body from the very spot I stand tonight that ‘to imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place.’ When politicians insult Muslims, whether abroad or our fellow citizens, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid is called names, that doesn’t make us safer. That’s not telling it like it is. It’s just wrong. It diminishes us in the eyes of the world. It makes it harder to achieve our goals. And it betrays who we are as a country.”

Barack Hussein Obama
State of the Union — 2016

1.) This is just another way of saying we need to reject profiling. It continues with the fantasy that communicates that looking at the law of averages is a sin and so makes one a not nice person. As an example, where is the error in thinking that if bald people commit a disproportionate amount of crime as compared to their demographic presence then bald people should be targeted and the fact that there are bald people who are nice doesn’t change the necessity to target bald people one iota. If it is a known fact that bald people, when taken as a whole, tend to strap on explosive vests and blow people up then bald people need to be targeted. If it is known that bald people, taken as a whole, don’t understand that rape is not perfectly acceptable than bald people need to be targeted even if there were some bald people who would strenuously object to fellow baldies strapping on explosive vests and going on rape binges.

When the President says these kinds of things we need to just say that ‘we have a fool for a President.’ It wouldn’t be the first time that a fool has been President. Honestly, one can’t help but wonder if the reason he says these kind of things is because he belongs to a demographic that, when taken as a whole, does need to be targeted.

 2.) We do not respect every faith. There is absolutely zero respect for any faith that says that we should not respect every faith. There is zero respect for any faith that says that it alone is the only true faith and that all other men need to repent. There is zero respect for any faith that insists that it alone should be the foundation upon which all social orders should be based.  There is zero respect for Christianity because Christianity makes all those truth claims.

3.) Diversity is most definitely not a strength. How can the fact that different faith systems that contradict one another as present in the same nation be considered a strength? Diversity is only a strength when all the diverse elements — all the diverse talents and abilities — share a common faith, a common theology, and a common culture. Any other diversity is a recipe for disaster. It is homogeneity in faith, theology, culture and ethnicity that makes for strength. Obama is selling the lie here of multiculturalism.

4.) Obama is embracing here the politics that target people because of their religion that disagrees with him. He is insulting those who disagree with him by suggesting that unless they do as he says and so follow his religion of multiculturalism they are imitating the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers. Et tu Obama?

While one might argue that Mosques should not be vandalized one can still insists that Mosques do not belong in lands that were settled by Christians and that Mosques should be swept off American soil.

5.) In this post I am merely channeling an older understanding of America.

“The real object of the [First] amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahommetanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.”

~ Joseph Story,
Associate Justice —  Supreme Court of the United States from 1811 to 1845

The only diversity that was ever envisioned for America was the diversity of different denominational expressions of Christianity as those denominations resided in States that could decide for themselves on what denominational expression of Christianity might or might not be the established religion for that State.

Dr. Piper and His Insistence that Christians Should Lie Down and Die — Part V

Dr. Piper offers,

7. When Jesus told the apostles to buy a sword, he was not telling them to use it to escape the very thing he promised they should endure to the death.

 
[Jesus] said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough [that’s plenty].” (Luke 22:35–38)
 
I do not think that Jesus meant in verse 36 that his disciples were to henceforth be an armed band of preachers ready to use violence to defend themselves from persecution. Jerry Falwell, Jr. said in his clarifying remarks on December 9,
 
It just boggles my mind that anybody would be against what Jesus told his disciples in Luke 22:36. He told them if they had to sell their coat to buy a sword to do it because he knew danger was coming, and he wanted them to defend themselves.
 
If that is the correct interpretation of this text, my question is, “Why did none of his disciples in the New Testament ever do that — or commend that?” The probable answer is that Jesus did not mean for them to think in terms of armed defense for the rest of their ministry. Jesus’s abrupt words, at the end of the paragraph, when the disciples produced two swords, were not, “Well, you need to get nine more.” He said, “It is enough!” or “That’s plenty!” This may well signify that the disciples have given a mistaken literal meaning to a figurative intention. Darrell Bock concludes,
 
Two events [are] commentary on this verse [36]: Jesus’ rebuke of the use of a sword against the high priest’s servant (22:49–51) and the church’s nonviolent response to persecution in the Book of Acts (4:25–31; 8:1–3; 9:1–2; 12:1–5). In fact, Acts 4:25–31 shows the church armed only with prayer and faith in God. Luke 22:36 sees the sword as only a symbol of preparation for pressure, since Jesus’ rebuke of a literal interpretation (22:38) shows that a symbol is meant (Fitzmyer 1985: 1432; Marshall 1978: 825). It points to readiness and self-sufficiency, not revenge (Nolland 1993b: 1076). (Luke, volume 2, page 1747)
 

What seems plain to me is that the uncertainty of this text (which I share) should not be used to silence the others I have cited.

Bret responds,

Those passages that Dr. Piper cites that are supposed to overturn the passage in Luke 22 Piper doesn’t like are in a historical context. Jesus is speaking to his disciples about eventualities that will come upon them. Even if the message to the disciples was to “lie down and die” that wouldn’t necessarily mean that would be the message for all time and all disciples everywhere. The fact that the passages that Dr. Piper quotes (Luke 21:12-19, Matthew 10:28, Matthew 10:16-22) are not necessarily for all disciples at all times everywhere is proven by a differing counsel that the Lord Christ gave to His disciples in Luke 22:36-38

36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

The Lord Christ counsel the purchase of a sword in vs. 36 because unlike the previous, in-house missionary journeys to their fellow Israelites, the Lord Christ knew that He was now sending his disciples out into the hostile/pagan Gentile world and they would need to be prepared to defend themselves. Dr. Piper is reading the Scripture through his Anabaptistic – Pacifistic lenses and so he concludes what he concludes but Anabaptist theology is not God honoring theology.

Dr. Piper follows up his eisegesis with more or arguing from silence. “The Apostles didn’t say anything about self defense therefore that proves we shouldn’t use self defense.” Can you say “fallacious argumentation?”

Dr. Piper complains about Dr. Falwell Jr. trying to use Luke 22 to silence other texts and then Piper turns around and tries to use the other texts to silence Luke 22 by appealing to the time honored evasion of “symbolism.”  On top of that there is the whole reality that Piper is trying to keep this debate in the New Testament. Dr. Piper does this because he knows that if the God’s Word in the whole of Scripture is allowed to speak on this subject his Anabaptist pacifism is even more dead on arrival than it has been seen to be demonstrated in this series.

Dr. Piper offers,

8. A natural instinct is to boil this issue down to the question, “Can I shoot my wife’s assailant?”
 
My answer is sevenfold.
 

1) This instinct is understandable. But it seems to me that the New Testament resists this kind of ethical reduction, and does not satisfy our demand for a yes or no on that question. We don’t like this kind of ambiguity, but I can’t escape it. There is, as I have tried to show, a pervasive thrust in the New Testament pushing us toward blessing and doing good to those who hate, curse, and abuse us (Luke 6:27–28). And there is no direct dealing with the situation of using lethal force to save family and friend, except in regards to police and military. This is remarkable when you think about it, since I cannot help but think this precise situation presented itself, since we read that Saul drug men and women bound to Jerusalem (Acts 9:1–2).

Bret responds,

a.) Everyone reading this should have pity and compassion for Noel Piper, Dr. John Piper’s wife.

b.) Note again how Dr. Piper goes out of his way to limit this discussion to the New Testament. This is all very Marcion of Dr. Piper.

c.) As I have shown in the first entry on this subject, the Reformed Confessions demand that we conclude that we shoot an assailant of our wife if that is the only means from keeping her from being maimed and killed. To not shoot such an assailant would incur God’s displeasure against us for being so cowardly in disobeying the 6th commandment.

d.) Dr. Piper, as I have demonstrated in previous entries, is in error, when he presumes that it is doing evil to those who intend to do harm to the judicially innocent, when we stop them from doing evil. It is not doing evil to them but is returning to them good for evil.

e.) In Dr. Piper’s last sentence above he, once again, argues from silence.

Dr. Piper offers,

 

2) Our primary aim in life is to show that Christ is more precious than life. So when presented with this threat to my wife or daughter or friend, my heart should incline toward doing good in a way that would accomplish this great aim. There are hundreds of variables in every crisis that might affect how that happens.

Bret responds, 

a.) Our primary aim in life is to glorify God. The 6th commandment, with the attendant Catechism explanations, demonstrate that if we do not defend life when defending life is possible we are defaming God.

b.) The fact that our primary aim in life is to show that Christ is more precious than life is itself reason to honor Christ by taking the life of the wicked who would take the life of my wife, daughter, or friend. Christ is glorified when the 6th commandment is esteemed.

Dr. Piper offers,

 

3) Jesus died to keep that assailant from sinning against my family. That is, Jesus’s personal strategy for overcoming crimes was to overcome sinful inclinations by giving his life to pay debts and change hearts. It is no small thing that Peter based non-retaliatory suffering from unjust treatment on the atoning work of Christ as exemplary: “To this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps” (1 Peter 2:21).

Bret responds,

a.) Dr. Piper does not know that the Lord Christ died to pay the debt of the assailant who is trying to kill a family member. If the Lord Christ did die for the debt of the assailant then Dr. Piper can be sure that when he fires his weapon to defend his wife, or daughter, that he will not inflict a mortal wound since God never fails to win His elect for whom Christ died.

b .) God’s personal strategy for overcoming crimes is for people to obey his law and the law in Exodus 22 clearly and unambiguously teaches self defense.

c.) Peter is writing a suffering people who have no recourse. Peter is not writing to recommend going out of one’s way to come under suffering.

Dr. Piper offers,

 

4) I realize that even to call the police when threatened — which, in general, it seems right to do in view of Romans 13:1–4 — may come from a heart that is out of step with the mind of Christ. If one’s heart is controlled mainly by fear, or anger, or revenge, that sinful disposition may be expressed by using the police as well as taking up arms yourself.

Bret responds,

a.) Here John’s Anabaptist pacifism reaches so far as to suggest that calling the police would be dishonoring to Christ.

b.) The only way the heart can be in step with the mind of Christ is by esteeming the law of God which requires, via the 6th commandment, self defense. Here John is divorcing God’s Word from the mind of Christ.

Dr. Piper offers

 

5) I live in the inner city of Minneapolis, and I would personally counsel a Christian not to have a firearm available for such circumstances.

Bret responds,

John might as well say,

“I live in the inner city of Minneapolis, and I, as a Anabaptist pacifist, would personally counsel that you make no provision to obey the 6th commandment.”

Dr. Piper offers,

 

6) I do not know what I would do before this situation presents itself with all its innumerable variations of factors. And I would be very slow to condemn a person who chose differently from me.

Bret offers,

That’s big of John to allow that someone who defended his family from murder and mayhem, by way of self defense, might not be condemned by John Piper.

Dr. Piper offers,

 

7) Back to the first point, it seems to me that the New Testament does not aim to make this clear for us. Its aim is a radically transformed heart that lives with its treasure in another world, longs to show Jesus to be more satisfying than life, trusts in the help of God in every situation, and desires the salvation of our enemies.

Bret responds,

a.) And yet here Dr. Piper has spilled vast amounts of cyber ink to suggest that the NT does make matters clear for us. This statement is schizophrenic on John’s part.

b.) Self defense does not negate, as I have demonstrated in all these entries, the desire for a “radically transformed heart that lives with its treasure in another world, longs to show Jesus to be more satisfying than life, trusts in the help of God in every situation, and desires the salvation of our enemies.” I can do all these things and defend my pregnant wife and toddler children as in keeping with the 6th commandment.

c.) Of course with the way that John has crafted his #7 we see his Marcion like admission that the God of the OT was different than the God of the NT. What John is implying here, perhaps without even realizing is, is that the NT God has one aim while the OT God has a different aim.

Dr. Piper offers,

 

9. Even though the Lord ordains for us to use ordinary means of providing for life (work to earn; plant and harvest; take food, drink, sleep, and medicine; save for future needs; provide governments with police and military forces for society), nevertheless, the unique calling of the church is to live in such reliance on heavenly protection and heavenly reward that the world will ask about our hope (1 Peter 3:15), not about the ingenuity of our armed defenses.
 
God is our refuge and strength. (Psalm 46:1)
 
My God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4:19)
 

You will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But not a hair of your head will perish. (Luke 21:17–18)

Bret Responds,

a.) Pretty soon, I expect Dr. Piper to go all John Reed on me and write, “Property is theft.”

b.) If John really believes this then why does he own anything? Is not his ownership of anything proof that he is not living “in such reliance on heavenly protection and heavenly reward that the world will ask about his hope?” Does John lock his door at night? Proof that he isn’t acting as a Christian. Does John lock his car doors? Proof he isn’t acting as a Christian.  Does John buckle up when he goes for a drive? Proof that John isn’t acting as a Christian.  Does John have a savings account? Proof that John isn’t acting as a Christian. Does John vote for the candidate he thinks will be best? Proof that John isn’t acting Christian. All these things that John is doing that is keeping the world from asking about his hope. John should be ashamed and riven with guilt.

Dr. Piper offers,

 

This article is about the people whom the Bible calls “refugees and exiles” on earth; namely, Christians. It’s about the fact that our weapons are not material, but spiritual (2 Corinthians 10:4). It is an argument that the overwhelming focus and thrust of the New Testament is that Christians are sent into the world — religious and non-religious — “as lambs in the midst of wolves” (Luke 10:3). And that exhorting the lambs to carry concealed weapons with which to shoot the wolves does not advance the counter-cultural, self-sacrificing, soul-saving cause of Christ.

Bret responds,

a.) On the potential spirituality of guns see the 3rd paragraph of this entry,

https://ironink.org/?p=5915

b.)  John Piper must really not like the 6th commandment and the Reformed Catechisms that comment on it.

c.) Piper continues with his false dichotomy to the bitter end. There is no dichotomy between protecting the lives of the judicially innocent and advancing the cause of Christ. Indeed, Dr. Piper might be amazed at how people stand up and notice the cause of Christ once a few Christians step forward to defend their wives and families from deranged sociopaths with weapons.

Honestly, I hope that Dr. Piper.’s writing can be explained by his suffering from some form of dementia that is driving him to write this kind of drivel. I would hate to think that Dr. Piper honestly is in full possession of his faculties and so really believes this eisegesis. This kind of drivel is detracting from the really stellar work he did 20-30 years ago.