Category: Apologetics

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.


The Insanity of the Notion of White Privilege

Inspired by this,

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

White people who complain about “White Privilege” should speak less and just go about leading by example in stripping themselves of their “White Privilege.” If they are a Minister they should resign from their pulpit so a minority member can have the pulpit. If they are a Student at a University they should quit so a minority member can have their slot. If they are a Politician they should cease from politics and get behind a minority candidate somewhere. If they are a College Professor, they should quit complaining about White Privilege and just resign so a minority member can have their post. If they are wealthy then let them give all their wealth away to minorities so that those white people can be done with their privilege.

The dirty little secret about White people who complain about white privilege is that they desire to retain their so called white privilege while seeking to create a climate where there occurs a stripping of other white people of their position, rank, or ability that those other white people have worked very hard to achieve. White liberals complaining about White privilege are all about seeking to get other white people to give up their position while they retain their positions that allow them to go on a screed about white privilege. As such, white people complaining of white Privilege are Hypocrites on human growth hormones because they complain about white privilege all the while refusing to give up their own status, place or position.

Really, the logical conclusion of White guilt is for Whites to commit suicide. That is the only sure way that white privilege can be ended once and for all.

White people of position, status, or rank complaining about white privilege are merely virtue signaling. They are in essence saying, “See how noble and virtuous I am. See, how much I suffer from white guilt. Like me. Like me. Like me.” They are telling the world how noble they are because they stand for this hip and irrational social construct, while at the same time casting evil standing on those who dare disagree with them.

We should speak to the White non Christian guilt angle because this is all very religious.  Here we find White Liberals creating false sins (White Privilege) that create false guilt. An answer must be found to these White sins and White guilt. What will the answer be? Well, the answer is to try and cast their White guilt and White sins on those who dare disagree. As such Biblical Christians who disagree with this notion of fake White guilt for fake White sins become the means by which atonement is achieved. Atonement is achieved and their liberal White guilt is paid for and relieved as they sacrifice biblical Christians on the Cross of public opinion.  They cover their own sins and relieve their own guilt by making a sacrificial lamb out of their Christian and White brothers and sisters who dare disagree with them. Behold, the lamb of the White guilters who taketh away the fake sins of  the white liberal. Those White people who disagree with the White guilters are being pierced for the transgressions of liberal Whites while being crushed for the iniquities of liberal Whites. By the stripes laid upon those who mock White guilters the White guilters are healed. At least that is the way it is in their false White guilt Gospel.

And keep in mind that what occurs should they get their way is the replacement of what they call white privilege with minority privilege. If the Reconstruction eras (1865 – 1877) taught us anything it taught us that the end of white privilege means the rise of non white privilege.

White people who complain about White privilege suggest that if one doesn’t agree with them that those who disagree are functional White supremacists. I would contend that the proof that White supremacy is a myth is found in white people complaining about white privilege. After all, how much intelligence can exist in someone who would disinherit their children and people in order assuage their pretend guilt about a completely fabricated social construct  so that they can  feel good about themselves?

White supremacy? Only if one considers  torpidity quotient to be a sign of supremacy.

Another point to demonstrate the ridiculousness of all this is to ask how it is that a son or daughter of a White Appalachia coal miner or a son or daughter of a White Indiana small dairy farmer has more privilege than the sons or daughter of Jesse Jackson, or Niki Haley, or  Colin Powell, or Barack Obama or  Bobby Jindal,  or Bill Richardson, or Maxine Waters or Clarence Thomas, etc. The idea that all Whites are privileged  over all minorities is simply ludicrous.

Yet, it won’t matter how utterly asinine such thinking can  be easily demonstrated to be. All that matters is that the Marxist Emperor has this idea and that all the White liberal court is ooohing and ahhhing over how brilliant he is.  Never mind that his ideas are naked and can be exposed as such, by a three year old, because the Emperor keeps on serving up the punch and the court just keeps on drinking.

Notre Dame Philosophy Professor Reflects the Zeitgeist

The love of a mother is no more or less important than the love of a father. We all know this. But then, in general, mothers should be under no greater burden than fathers to abandon their callings for the sake of their children. The asymmetry in our responses to working mothers and fathers, then, suggests that other factors are in play. In an evangelical protestant context, the context I have in view here, there is good reason to suspect that these other factors include a tendency to devalue the gifts and contributions of women particularly in positions of teaching and leadership

Michael Rea
Professor of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame

The above is culled from here,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rea/mothers-in-ministry_b_8760590.html

Why, instead of the conclusion that Dr. Rea draws in his last sentence above, don’t we conclude that the reason Evangelical Protestants don’t want women in social order leadership is,

1.) The Scriptures forbid it.

2.) We so value women and their role in hearth and home that we don’t want to treat them like roses used as kindling to start a fire by turning them into ecclesiastical versions of “Rosie the Riverter?”

It is a fallacy to think that all because women are not treated like men therefore women are devalued in their gifts and contributions.

3.) We understand and affirm that men and women were not created to be interchangeable cogs as if both sexes were created to do the same thing.

Overall I would say it is Dr. Rea, and people like him, who are devaluing the gifts and contributions of women. It is people like Dr. Rea who are taking from children their Mothers who are to be the leaders and teachers of the most impressionable in our social order.

As a young lady, stay at home Mom, friend of mind said, in discussion about this article,

“With ‘men’ like Dr. Rea, who needs women to run for church office? We already have them!”

(And believe me when I tell you that this young lady, I’m quoting above, could run circles around any three Woman Pastors combined, you might want to name, in terms of giftedness in leadership and teaching.)

Finally, note the methodological way that the Left works here. Suggesting that men and women are interchangeable is put into such noble and glowing words and sentiments, while at the same time, the idea that women are distinct from men is made to look cruel and mean. The appeal to emotion is made with the consequence that the rational is bypassed. This is a common methodological tool of the unholy Left.