Quotes & Commentary

Scripture Alone & Roman Catholicism

“It is the original lie of Satan that God, speaking in his Word, needs an interpreter to give man infallible guidance (Gen. 2: 17; 3: 4). This ancient error now is supreme in the Roman Catholic Church. Thus the Baltimore Catechism (Q. 1328) asks:

“How can we know the true meaning of the doctrines contained in the Bible?”

Answer: “We can know the true meaning . . . from the Catholic Church which has been authorized by Jesus Christ to explain His doctrines, and which is preserved from error in its teachings by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost.”

Thus, while affirming that God has spoken to men in the Bible, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that God has not made clear what he means, and so above the Word of God must stand the authoritative interpretation of the Church (which, we are to presume, has an expert opinion about what God’s Word means). This also means that Rome would have us trust in the clear word of man rather than the obscure Word of God.

The Reformed faith views the matter precisely in reverse, holding that Scripture alone expresses divine truth with perfect clarity, and so regarding the Scriptures alone as finally authoritative. The interpretation of the Church (as in its creeds) must always, therefore, be regarded as less than a perfectly clear expression of divine truth, and as necessarily subordinate to Scripture. The authority of creeds is determined by Scripture, not determinative of Scripture. They have authority only if, and to the extent that, they truly are faithful to Scripture.”

G.I. Williamson

The Westminster Confession of Faith: for Study Classes

1.) Now add the reality that if the average layperson needs the Roman Catholic Church to tell him what Scripture means because God’s speaking is so opaque in God’s inspired special Revelation (Scripture) how is the average layperson supposed to understand the uninspired interpretation of what God speaks in His Word as given by the Church without someone else explaining to him what the Church means when it interprets God’s perspicuous word. In other words this reasoning falls into an infinite regress. If man is not capable of understanding God’s spoken Word aright and so needs an interpreter then it is only reasonable to believe that man is not capable of understanding the interpreter of God’s Word aright and so needs yet another interpreter to interpret the original interpreter’s interpretation of God’s Word…. ad infinitum.

Are we to believe that the Roman Catholic Church can explain with more clarity than the God of the universe?

2.) The Roman Catholic church has made so many errors in Church history that it is laughable that they want to insist that they have been preserved in their teachings from error by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost. Whether it is the embrace of purgatory (nowhere taught in Scripture) or the embrace of relics (nowhere taught in Scripture) or having Mary as a co-redemptrix or mediatrix (nowhere taught in Scripture) the history of the Roman Catholic church is one error after another.

3.) It is a pretty good gig to be in the position as an Institution to give yourself the ability to be the one in charge of what God does or does not say. Rome, when it makes this move, has indeed ascended to the seat of God. It really doesn’t matter what God says if Rome is the one with the final authority of what God says and means. Honestly, it seems beyond obvious that with this doctrine of the Church having authority over Scripture that the Roman Catholic Institutional Church has made itself to be God. With this false doctrine promulgated by Rome it is the case that in the Church we live and move and have our being.

4.) This doctrine underscores another doctrine by Rome and that is their doctrine that their is no salvation outside the Church of Rome. This is an obvious implication of the above authority over Scripture. If the Church is God’s final interpreter of God’s mind then it is obvious that to be out of fellowship with the Roman Catholic Church is to be out of fellowship with God. This Roman Catholic doctrine of being the “mouth of God” keeps people who really believe this chained as slaves inside the Roman Catholic whore of a “church.” If one really believed this doctrine one would never leave Rome no matter what demonic deviation Rome might insists that God really says.

5.) Of course this issue was the formal principle of the Reformation. While “Justification by grace alone through faith alone, in Christ alone” was the material principle of the Reformation (the fuse that was lit that set the whole thing off) behind the material principle was the formal principle which was a dispute of where the authority lie in order to determine where to find the mind of God. Rome, following their epistemological doctrine that the Church is the ultimate authority, the Reformers insisted that the epistemological authority for men is the written word of God.

Roger Scruton & McAtee On Oikophobia and The Death of The West

“This disposition, in any conflict, to side with ‘them’ against ‘us,’ and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture, and institutions that are identifiably ‘ours,’ being the opposite of xenophobia I propose to call oikophobia, by which I mean the repudiation of inheritance and home.”

Roger Scruton

1944-2000

British Conservative

The West is racked from head to toe with oikophobia. Whites may well die as a people because they have lost the ability to love their own and in losing that ability, at the same time, they have lost the ability to desire to protect their own. The only cure for this is a Biblical Kinism but because we are so far down the oikophobia wormhole Kinism is abominated by both the cultural and church gatekeepers in the West.

You want to know why the West has surrendered to mass illegal and legal migration from third world countries? The answer is oikophobia. You want to know the explanation for diving birth rates in the West? The answer is oikophobia. You want to know the reason for the increase in our divorce rates? The answer is oikophobia. You want to know why interracial marriage is increasingly acceptable when as recent as 70 years ago 31 states had laws on their books making illegal miscegenation? The answer is oikophobia. You want to know the reason for Griswold vs. Connecticut and Roe vs. Wade? The answer is oikophobia. You want to know the reason for White folks being resolved to not commit the sin of noticing? The answer is oikophobia. You want to know the reason why putatively conservative Christian denominations keep asserting egalitarian like statements? The answer is oikophobia. It all boils down to the fact that the West and the Church in the West has embraced a intense desire to repudiate inheritance and home… they have embraced Oikophobia.

Unless Biblical Kinism is embraced once again the West will die, because the Christian faith has refused to be the Christian faith.

Doug Wilson On R. L. Dabney … No Disclaimers Allowed

Doug Wilson is one of those guys who will say anything that comes into his mind that sounds good at the moment. Here is a recent example. Now, I want to say at the outset that I don’t disagree with Dabney here – especially given the condition of the Black race in the South at the time – but I’m pretty sure that Doug would be insisting upon all kinds of disclaimers her regarding Dabney. The issuing of those disclaimers would prove that Doug often says things that are convenient for the moment.

“I think R. L. Dabney was a godly Christian man — a little irascible at places but nothing I think I need to put a disclaimer on.”

Doug Wilson

“[W]as it nothing, that this (Black) race, morally inferior, should be brought into close relations to a nobler race (White), so that the propensity to imitation should be stimulated by constant and intimate observation, by domestic affection, by the powerful sentiment of allegiance and dependence?”

R. L. Dabney
In A Defence of Virginia & The South – p. 282

LOL… I’m pretty sure Doug would be ruined if he didn’t put a disclaimer on that. Let the disclaimers be forthcoming.

Quoting Dr. Charles Hodge From His Theological Journal Article; “Emancipation”

Numerous people in “Reformed” “Churches” today are going after a handful of ministers today because they refuse to embrace what we might call “Racial Marxism.” Fathers like Dabney, Thornwell, Palmer, Girardeau, Machen, Rushdoony, and even Morton Smith are currently anathema to modern Reformed thought and so ministers today who advocate, in any measure, what those men advocated are being given the left foot of fellowship.

However, the views that these men held when it came to the issue of race were not unique to the men of the South, but were held by Reformed theologians of the North, including a giant of the Reformed faith, Dr. Charles Hodge. In a theological Journal before the War Against The Constitution the great Charles Hodge wrote on page 549;

“Another feature of that plan (to compensate slave owners for their freed slaves) was the expatriation of the liberated blacks. This also when feasible is wise. There are natural laws which forbid the union of distinct races in the same commonwealth. Where the difference is slight, as between Saxons and Celts, or the Teutonic and Romaic families, the different elements are soon fused. But even here we find that they often refuse to combine and remain apart for ages, the weaker constantly sinking, and the stronger constantly advancing. We have examples of this in the French payans of Canada, and Louisiana. The effect of the amalgamation of distinct races is seen in the physically, intellectually and socially degraded mongrel inhabitants of Mexico and South America. In these cases the chief elements were the Spanish and Indians, elements less widely separated than the Anglo Saxon and the Negro. The amalgamation of these races must inevitably lead to the deterioration of both. It would fill the country with a feeble and degraded population, which must ultimately perish. For it is a well ascertained fact that the mulatto is far more frail than either the white man or the negro. We read in the disastrous physical effects of the amalgamation of the blacks and whites, a clear intimation that such amalgamation is contrary to the will of God, and therefore is not an end which statesmen ought in any way to facilitate.”

Dr. Charles Hodge
Reformed Theologian – Old Princeton
Article — Emancipation

Now, the point here is not necessarily that Charles Hodge was correct in this view. The point here is that this view was considered consistent with the Reformed faith and nobody was screaming for Hodge to be excommunicated for this view.

This compels us to ask; “Does truth change?” If it was taught for centuries that race was/is real and that certain considerations must be made because race is real (as the two books “Racialism in Sacred Tradition,” and “Who Is My Neighbor” clearly demonstrates) then how can “Reformed” denominations today be seeking to cast out clergy who hold to comparatively thin versions of what the Church has believed for millennium– and that in all times and in all places? Isn’t this demonstrating a kind of cultural or historical relativism where these “Reformed” denominations are saying that truth is culturally conditioned and so what was true for one generation is a lie and offense for another generation and so cannot be allowed?

The warfare in Reformed denominations (ARP, PCA, OPC, etc.) has to end lest these denominational bodies be seen as fighting against God.

Advice On People’s Advice Concerning “Manliness”

Recently, there have been a spate of books written on what it means to be a man. Also there have been the requisite blog posts to the same end. Some of it is quite good (Rev. Zach Garris’ book Masculine Christianity for example) while others are questionable at best.

Yesterday, I came across a typical bite sized X post on the subject of manliness from someone who is getting a great deal of press these days that has stuck in my craw because I think it is nonsense and can do a great deal of damage.

Here is the advice I came across from some genius on the subject of manliness;

The best of men learn how to thrive in moments of intense opposition and adversity. This is the “it” factor. 4th and long. Bottom of the 9th, 2 outs. “Manliness loves…the position of being embattled and alone against the world.”

The first sentence and the last sentence do not necessarily coincide and are not really the same thing. It can be true that the best of men learn how to thrive in moments of intense opposition and adversity while not being true that “manliness loves… the position of being embattled and alone against the world.”

Also, it is facile to compare being “embattled and alone against the world” with 4th and long and bottom of the 9th, 2 outs. When we think of embattled and alone against the world we think of the martyrs of the faith. That is a bit more consequential and trying then needing to make a first down or get a winning hit. Embattled and alone against the world is Polycarp being burnt at the stake. Embattled and alone against the world is fighting with the Confederacy after Richmond fell. Embattled and alone against the world is Pilgrim in Vanity Fair.

I wonder if someone who is dishing out this kind of advice has ever really themselves been “embattled and alone against the world.” I don’t think someone who has genuinely been “embattled and alone against the world” would use such trivial comparisons to the sportsball world.

It’s easy to toss around this kind of advice when not embattled and alone against the world. Much more difficult to live it out when one is in the vice grip of being embattled and alone.

Now if it had been said that love for greater realities moves one to accept their duty — no matter how difficult — I would have been satisfied with the statement. However, no man loves the position of being embattled and alone. Scripture teaches that we can learn to be content in all things but being content is different than loving being embattled and alone.

I reckon the reason I have taken such exception to this quote is because in many respects my ministry has been one of being embattled and alone. I have some experience here. Now, my being embattled and being alone is nothing to be compared with the saints who have gone before such as are listed in Hebrews 11;

others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection.

The idea that manliness “loves” this being embattled and alone turns manliness into a masochistic ideal. Now, manliness does endure such but to endure something because of one’s priorities is different than loving being embattled and alone.

Paul can write to Timothy saying;

Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ.

⁴No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.

Timothy is counseled to endure hardness, just as Paul himself endured hardness. But love it, in the sense of being delighted in the hardness itself? Only a masochist would speak that way.

Manliness accepts the responsibility that one is called to. Manliness endures hardness out of love for Christ or for family or for the Church. But manliness does not love the being embattled and aloneness just as realities in themselves. That is not manliness and anyone telling you that it is has never been embattled and alone for sustained periods of time. They have never had to fight knowing that they wouldn’t win in the short term. They have never had to endure solitary confinement. They have never faced being the lone voice of sanity among peers that can damage them professionally for disagreeing as the lone voice. They have never had to endure being ground down year after year. They just are not being rational, choosing instead to embrace some kind of romantic nonsense about what it means to be a man.

And what of the others around this man who loves being embattled and alone? What of his wife and children? Is there no awareness that the man who is embattled and alone has no put his wife and children in the positions of being embattled and alone also? This is not to say that a man must do this if the issue warrants it but if a man chooses not only for himself but for his wife and children to be embattled and alone is it really sane to love that when he sees how much it hurts his wife and children to be embattled and alone — and that even if they agree with whatever the cause is that has them all embattled and alone?

Just to be clear, I do agree that manliness learns how to thrive when the chips are down. My beef is using silly sports analogies for something so serious and my beef is with the idea that real men love being embattled and alone. I suppose real men who are masochistic love being embattled and alone.

Anyway … be careful of the advice that is being thrown around out there in Christian corners. More than a little of this advice is not well thought out.