Category: Apologetics

DR. PIPER AND HIS INSISTENCE THAT CHRISTIANS SHOULD LIE DOWN AND DIE PART III

We continue to deal with the Anabaptist theology of Dr. Piper

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/should-christians-be-encouraged-to-arm-themselves

#3.) Next John gives us a series of passages from the NT where Jesus talks about coming suffering and persecution. Because the Lord Christ does not say anything about self defense in those passages (even though it is brought forth in a passage Piper neglects [Luke 22:36-38]) therefore the implication is that we should lay down and die.

Response,

Those passages 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 “lay 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.

Next Dr. Piper goes on to say that there is more of Jason Bourne in defense of others and self then there is Jesus and the Bible. He is a very clever man to come up with such alliteration. Then he implies that those who would defend themselves and others haven’t been regenerated, unlike people who will lay down and die when they are unjustly attacked by sociopaths with guns. Indeed, per Piper, self defense of others and self is as “common and easy as eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil.” All Piper is doing here is demonizing his opponents.

Dr. Piper then insists that laying down and dying is the proper response to maniacs with guns shooting up the public square filled with unarmed and judicially innocent citizens. He implies it is impossible to bear witness unto Christ by defending unarmed and judicially innocent citizens against the attacks of madmen. If this is evangelical Christianity Piper and his ilk can have it.

Finally, on Piper’s point #3 he invokes the sainted and holy Jim Elliott and company who “refused to fire their pistols at their killers, while the spears plunged through their chests?”

Let’s keep in mind on this point that Elliott and company orphaned their children and widowed their wives with their behavior. A case could be made that, in acting so recklessly Elliot and company were in violation of the Scripture that teaches, “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

Second, Piper doesn’t and can’t know that if Elliott and company had defended themselves on that day the result still would have eventually been that the Auca Indians would have converted.

Third, there are countless examples of Christians being murdered where people didn’t convert. Stalin killed millions of unarmed Christian Ukrainians who didn’t fight back and Mother Russia did not convert. How many people were converted when Christians laid down and died when the shooter at Virginia Tech filled the facility with the dead who didn’t fight back? How many were converted when Christians died at Columbine High School when the shooters filled the facility with dead who didn’t fight back? Dr. Piper absolutizes the experience of Jim Elliott and company and suggests that if people defend themselves and others against the murderous intent of crazed gunmen then they aren’t as Holy, Righteous, and Noble as the Sainted Ecuador 5.

This is just pacifism on steroids and Dr. Piper needs to repent for writing like this and so misleading countless young people.

In his fourth “reasoning”  Dr. Piper offers as proof of pacifism the fact that Christ’s servants didn’t fight to keep Him from going to the cross (John 18:36). Dr. Piper seems to imply that we can’t defend ourselves because the followers of Jesus didn’t take up the sword to defend Him when He was about to die.

Response,

a.) When one defends others and one’s self, one isn’t necessarily trying to bring in the Kingdom with the sword. One is merely obeying the sixth commandment which esteems life as worthy of defending because it is the Image of God.

b.) Piper then appeals to I Peter for proof of the need to suffer. Nobody denies that there is a time and a place for silent suffering when God has placed us inescapably under such suffering. Having lived under that paradigm for years I gladly admit that there are seasons where God desires to bear suffering with grace. However, I Peter can’t be twisted into meaning that when maniacs show up at the local Boys’ High Schools basketball game and starts shooting up the place therefore all the Christians have to surrender because they love Jesus.

c.) Lastly, Piper assures us that if we conceal carry and return fire when a “Allahu Akbar Barker” shows up and starts spraying bullets in a crowded place that nobody will ask us for the reason for “hope that lies within us,” because, as Piper says, “they will already know” that our hope lies in our concealed carry weapons.

This statement makes us much as sense as saying that when Piper puts his seat belt on when he goes out for a drive therefore no one will ask him for “hope that lies within him,” because they will already know that he does not have a hope in Jesus but in his seat belt.

Piper’s “reasoning” throughout this piece is just atrocious but it must be dealt with because what John Piper is trying to do is hard bake Anabaptist Pacifism into basic Christianity. We must approach Anabaptist theology the way that the writers of the Belgic Confession dealt with it and agree that we detest it.

DR. PIPER AND HIS INSISTENCE THAT CHRISTIANS SHOULD LIE DOWN AND DIE Part II

We continue to pick apart Dr. John Piper’s Anabaptist theology.

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/should-christians-be-encouraged-to-arm-themselves

Next, Dr. Piper appeals to Romans 12:17-19

17 Recompense to no man evil for evil: procure things honest in the sight of all men. 18 If it be possible, as much as in you is, have peace with all men. 19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine: I will repay, saith the Lord.

The reader will have to look at Piper’s link under his #1 in order to the reason why I am responding the way I am.

1.) Self defense or the defense of others is not a matter of avenging ourselves. Self defense is self defense.

2.) Dr. Piper insists that when we enter into defense of others and / or ourselves that we instantly are guilty of not returning good for evil. But, if, as we saw in the previous post, our other and self defense is consistent with the sixth commandment then the firing of our weapons most certainly is an example of returning good for evil. Further, not to enter into self or other defense by firing a weapon would be a matter of returning evil for evil.  Any exaltation, or Christianization, of pacifism that silences the sixth commandment has lost its way.

3.) It is true, as Dr. Piper notes, that the Magistrates wields the sword but the Scripture likewise teaches that self defense is allowed,

Exodus 22:2 If –a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him…

In Proverbs 25:26, God tells us: “A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring.”

And Yet, Dr. Piper, in contradiction to God’s Word, would have the righteous falling down before the wicked be considered a matter of righteousness.

3.) Any claim that a private citizen doesn’t have the God given obligation to defend themselves or others from aggressive attack as coming from the unjust psychopath and / or the maniacal religious nutcase is elevating a misplaced Anabaptist pietism  that belittles the gift of life that God has given us over biblical revelation.

 

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

In the next few entries I hope to provide rebuttal to the link below as written by Baptist, Dr. John Piper,

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/should-christians-be-encouraged-to-arm-themselves

In his introduction Dr. Piper writes,

“My main concern in this article is with the appeal to students that stirs them up to have the mindset: Let’s all get guns and teach them a lesson if they come here. The concern is the forging of a disposition in Christians to use lethal force, not as policemen or soldiers, but as ordinary Christians in relation to harmful adversaries.

The issue is not primarily about when and if a Christian may ever use force in self-defense, or the defense of one’s family or friends. There are significant situational ambiguities in the answer to that question. The issue is about the whole tenor and focus and demeanor and heart-attitude of the Christian life. Does it accord with the New Testament to encourage the attitude that says, “I have the power to kill you in my pocket, so don’t mess with me”? My answer is, No.”

Dr. John Piper

___________________

Bret responds,

First, in terms of the quote above, we should note that the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches that the type of pacifism that Dr. Piper is advocating  is forbidden by the 6th commandment. We will see WCF Larger Catechism, Questions 135-136 again as I pick apart Dr. Piper’s Anabaptist convictions.

Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?

A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves[721] and others[722] by resisting all thoughts and purposes,[723] subduing all passions,[724] and avoiding all occasions,[725] temptations,[726] and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any;[727] by just defence thereof against violence,[728] patient bearing of the hand of God,[729] quietness of mind,[730] cheerfulness of spirit;[731] a sober use of meat,[732] drink,[733] physic,[734] sleep,[735] labour,[736] and recreations;[737] by charitable thoughts,[738] love,[739] compassion,[740] meekness, gentleness, kindness;[741] peaceable,[742] mild and courteous speeches and behaviour;[743] forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil;[744] comforting and succouring the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent.[745]

Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves,[746] or of others,[747] except in case of public justice,[748] lawful war,[749] or necessary defence;[750] the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life;[751] sinful anger,[752] hatred,[753] envy,[754] desire of revenge;[755] all excessive passions,[756] distracting cares;[757] immoderate use of meat, drink,[758] labor,[759] and recreations;[760] provoking words,[761] oppression,[762] quarreling,[763] striking, wounding,[764] and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.[765]

Also we note the Heidleberg catechism

105. Q.

What does God require
in the sixth commandment?

A.

I am not to dishonour, hate, injure,
or kill my neighbour
by thoughts, words, or gestures,
and much less by deeds,
whether personally or through another; 1
rather, I am to put away
all desire of revenge. 2
Moreover, I am not to harm or recklessly endanger myself. 3
Therefore, also, the government bears the sword
to prevent murder. 4

The great Puritan commentator on the Bible, Thomas Ridgeley (1667-1734), in his commentary on the Westminster Larger Catechism quotes the Catechism itself as I have above and then in his commentary on Sixth Commandment duties, Ridgeley says,

“We should use all lawful endeavours to preserve our own life, and the life of others [because]…. man is the subject of the divine image…. We are also to defend those who are in imminent danger of death…. Moreover, in some instances, a person may kill another in his own defence, without being guilty of the breach of this commandment….”

Ridgeley goes on to comment that if we cannot disarm an enemy threatening our life, or flee from him, “we do not incur the least guilt, or break this commandment, if we take away his life to preserve our own; especially if we were not first in the quarrel, nor gave occasion to it by any injurious or unlawful practices.”

The Heidelberg Catechism insists that the keeping of the Sixth commandment means that I am not to harm or recklessly endanger myself. It doesn’t take much to argue that we are living in times when not carrying a weapon on us for self defense and the protection of the judicially innocent most definitely constitutes a reckless endangering of ourselves and others.

Dr. Piper is just flat out in error when he offers that the New Testament (and why are we restricting ourselves to only the New Testament Dr. Piper?) does not encourage an attitude that says that, “I will honor God by esteeming the Sixth commandment and so protect my life and the life of the judicially innocent against harmful intent of people who intend to kill and maim with abandon.”

And, to be perfectly honest, we are doing future would be assassins a kindness by teaching present would be assassins a lesson when their intent is to go on Allah exalting killing sprees. Perhaps, it was the case that Dr. Falwell’s phraseology was a bit John Wayne but that doesn’t diminish the fact that it is a loving thing unto future would be assassins for present would be assassins to have Sixth commandment duties enforced against them by private individuals in harm’s way. There is no sin in using lethal force as a private citizen in defense of life. In point of fact, God is magnificently glorified by ordinary Christians using lethal force as consistent with the Sixth commandment and to the contrary when Dr. Piper’s, non Sixth commandment esteeming position is maintained, the reputation of God is sullied and His Glory is tarnished and diminished.

 

Impact of Obamacare & Obamagration On WASC’s

 

Obamacare and Obama-Immigration (Obamagration), which are a reflection of New World Order policy, are WASC (White Anglo Saxon Christian) destruction mechanisms against the WASCS aimed at those generationally ahead of me and those generationally behind me. Obamacare will kill the WASC elderly by depriving them of health. My Mother, my Aunts and Uncles are targeted by Obamacare. Deprivation of needed treatment, needed medicines and needed assistance, culminating in eventual death panels are in their future.

Obamagration is planned so as to eliminate the WASC identity of my Grandchildren and great grandchildren. Obamagration is the attempt to wipe out WASC seed to a thousand generations by the means of forcing assimilation upon WASC’s with those coming from non Western, Non-Christian lands.   If, in two generations, there remains a WASC presence in America that generation will be treated the way South African Boers are treated now. (See Illiana Ilana Mercer‘s book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot.)

In point of fact, I would argue that both Obamacare and Obamagration, as the cost and impact of each falls negatively, proportionally speaking, on the WASC community, is the attempt to genocide. Obamacare and Obamagration combined are, by the definition of the United Nations, genocide,

“Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.


One ironic aspect of all this is that it is WASP’s who will be paying for their own destruction as the transfer of wealth is going from their pockets to the pockets of those being enriched by Obamacare and Obamagration via taxation.

Obama came saying he was going to “fundamentally transform America.” Well, this is happening via his signature legislation of health-care and his criminal activity on immigration. Obama, as a NWO puppet, is seeking to kill off the Christian White majority in this nation.

People who can not or will not see this are not wise or worse yet, contributors to their own deaths and to the death of a whole people group.

Obama and NWO … thy name is DEATH for the Christian white man

White Privilege … A Further Consideration of Calvin College’s Professor Kuilema’s Position

A few points on “White Privilege” that I didn’t cover last week and are the result of continuing to ponder this.

Remember my scratching on this subject came about as a result of this,

http://www.calvin.edu/chimes/2015/12/13/racism-white-supremacy-and-white-privilege/

 Anti-White animus isn’t even the deepest foundation of the cultural Marxist system. Those forever trumpeting “white privilege” don’t just hate whites, though they do hate whites. Even more generally, they hate goodness, and all expressions of excellence in human action, transcendental of any person’s race. Even black excellence must be quashed in the white guilter worldview. Why? Because black excellence indicates a stirring in that black person of Christian activity. It is the hatred of Christ that is the ultimate motive here. Sure, whites are a rough proxy for the Kingdom, but we can’t be equated with it. And so the real goal, which is to establish a perfectly equal hell on earth, must include the subsidiary goal of discouraging even black achievement, despite the putative slogans about affirmative action for blacks. Affirmative action aims, not to pull blacks up from slavery, but to push whites down to slavery. 

Habbakuk Mucklewrath

“White conservatives don’t want to take the lead in preserving what remains of this country’s now tenuous White, Anglo-Euro culture. To take on such a responsibility would make them even more vulnerable to the racial bullets and daggers they have been ducking for years.”

~ Elizabeth Wright, Black Conservative Author

1.) The screed of “White privilege” provides a rational for the soft bigotry of low expectations. This is the “racism” of the liberal white crowd who forever have “white privilege” on this lips. The white liberals scream about how white privilege keeps non-Caucasians down. White privilege insists that it is the white man’s rigged system that keeps non-Caucasians from thriving. Indeed, so bad is white privilege that no non-Caucasian can advance. Non-Caucasians hear this reasoning and, in agreeing with this white privilege nonsense, many cease even trying. After all, why bother trying when the game is rigged for the non-Caucasian to fail? The screaming of white privilege by white cultural Marxists provides both the excuse and the answer for low expectations.  The white liberal, “white privilege screed,” says to non-Caucasians, “We don’t expect you to make it. You have a reason why you haven’t succeeded. You are not to be faulted for not even trying, after all the white man and his system is keeping you down. This is the soft bigotry of low expectations. If there is such a thing as “racism” and “white supremacy” it is most often found in the hearts of white liberals.

2.) Now we have to deal with the fact that many non-Caucasians do succeed despite White privilege. How can that be? White privilege says that the system is only for whites. How can it be possible for any non-Caucasian to make it?

Well, the only answer to that, which I can see, is that the white privilege crowd is subtly accusing the non-Caucasians who have made it of “Uncle Tom-ism.” How else are we to explain some non-Caucasians making it in a putatively white privilege system that keeps down all non-Caucasians while most other non-Caucasians don’t succeed, unless we conclude that the non-Caucasians who have made it, despite white privilege, have succeeded by acting white? The theory of white privilege looks to be a implicit accusation of Uncle Tom-ism against all those non-Caucasians who have succeeded in this white privilege culture.

So, here you have the “white privilege” crowd, on one hand, practicing the soft bigotry of low expectations against those non-Caucasians who don’t make it while at the same time implicitly accusing the non-Caucasians who do make it as all being Uncle Toms.

3.) Please understand how this game is played as seen in a couple quotes from the Calvin College professor,

“It must be clearly stated that those who deny white privilege functionally believe in white supremacy, whether they have the courage to write it on a car or not.”

Followed later by,

“This is how the social sciences define racism, not as merely the product of prejudice, explicit or implicit bias, but a system of power based on the invention of the “white race” by people in power. By this definition, we are not all racists.”

So, in Professor Kuilema‘s world if you deny that you are advantaged by white privilege then that proves that you functionally believe in white supremacy. Meanwhile, if you affirm white privilege then by definition, you are a racist because as being white you are part of “a system of power based on the invention of the ‘white race’ by people in power.”  That’s a pretty good trick on the Professor’s part giving us a Hobson’s choice of, “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” Actually, there might be a third option for those who don’t want to be either functionally white supremacists or white racists and that would be the option of just killing yourself and being done with your cruelty to non-Caucasians.  Actually, while I’m pondering it, there might be even a fourth option that some might embrace. They might reason, “if you can’t avoid racism and white supremacy, then go for the gusto.”

Today, they call it “white privilege.” When I was a boy in the 60’s they called it “institutional racism.” It’s intent, as used by cultural Marxists of all colors, is to find a way to guilt Christian white people, who don’t have a lick of animus towards non-Caucasians,  into surrendering their inheritance and contribute to a slow destruction of their generations. It is premised upon the idea that the white man, and the Christian culture he built throughout the West, is uniquely guilty for the lack of advance as seen among those the white liberals number as “the noble savages.” Rosseau would be so proud of the white guilters. “White privilege” premises that no other culture is guilty of sin the way white Christians are guilty of sin. If we could just subjugate the white man, then there would be harmony and understanding, with sympathy and trust abounding.

The ironic thing here is that the white guilters think that somehow if they join in the undoing of the white man that they will somehow escape the destruction of the white man of the type that Illiana Mercer describes in her book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot.” In reality white cultural Marxists (white guilters) will themselves eventually be swallowed by the very cultural Marxist culture they are seeking to create just as the old Bolshevists such as Radek, Zinoviev and Kamenev were eventually snuffed out by the very Revolution that they gloried in starting … just as Danton, and Robespierre finally kept a date with the very guillotine which they had sent so many of their fellow Frenchmen.  White guilters could be the second coming of Atticus Finch and it won’t matter. They will eventually be swallowed by the cultural revolution they are fanning to life.