I Get By With A Little Help From My Son …

“… Israel assumed that the messianic king would be a political ruler and world conqueror, so that it equated the Kingdom of God with an historical state, a greater and world-wide Rome, as it were. The idea of government was equated with the state. This equation was radically pagan. In pagan antiquity as today, the state was seen as a divine-human order, and as the over-all lord and sovereign. In such a view, all things have their being within the jurisdiction and only with the approval of the sovereign state. Religion, art, family, school, and all things else are departments of the state and cannot be allowed to exist in independence of it. The state thus usurps the over-lordship of God and becomes God on earth. No area of freedom can exist outside the state: freedom becomes a privilege granted by the state and subject to its conditions.

Christianity, by asserting the supreme lordship of Christ over Caesar and all other human institutions, reduced the state to its Biblical dimensions, as a ministry of justice (Rom. 13:1-6).”

R.J. Rushdoony; pg 70, IBL II.

I am writing this out of frustration in seeing many people view Donald Trump as the president that will make America great again. In truth, as per the quote above, we will not be able to reform or make America great again (if it ever was great) through the civil realm. In point of fact, when we look to that area of government to create reform and to restructure areas where they do not belong, we are engaging in not only a pagan thought, but a Talmudic pagan thought. I will call people’s attention to where Jesus told Peter, after he had struck the ear off the high priest’s servant, “those who live by the sword, die by the sword.” If Rushdoony is correct in the above passage, which I believe is obvious, then a proper understanding of this passage would be that those who look to the state, die by the state, as the state’s administrative role has always been the sword. If Peter was faulted for expecting our Lord Jesus Christ to be a political savior (for lack of a better term), how much more are Christians to be faulted for expecting reform to come from someone who believes or would use the civil realm to dominate every other sphere. Therefore, as Christians, we are not allowed, per God’s law and Christ’s command, to advocate, vote, or participate in any function that furthers the state being used or seen as political savior, for that would be burning incense to Caesar.

So what must we do then, as there is no candidate and will be no candidate that is running on a platform of removing civil government intrusion? Should we not participate in the civil government functions at all? Certainly not. I believe we should do as God has commanded and not only obey Him by tithing to a faithful repository of the Church, but tithing to a faithful repository of the civil government. And by this, I do not mean the taxes we pay to the usurpers in the civil government. (The method you used to prevent that thievery is something I will leave up to conscience.) However, we as God’s people are still required to tithe to a faithful civil government. If none is in existence, then we should set the money aside as sacred and holy to the Lord until the time we can form or find one. Yes, I am suggesting to do as God commands and, like Gideon, send all the hosts away so that there are only three hundred men remaining. It is not the horse or the strength of men that win the battle, but it is the strength of God, and He has given us set rules and commands, though they may seem small or insignificant, they are much more powerful than any false vote for a king.  God is the omnipotent ruler, and if we look for reform, we must look to Him and His laws, and first apply them in our lives so that people may say who is this and what God do they serve?

If the Scripture is not enough, we can look to history and see what the early Christians did by setting up their own courts, and their own judgment halls, and abiding by them, so in the end the political savior had to accept their dominance of that sphere or face internal destruction.

In summary, we should not let our emotions become entangled with any political savior who seeks to rescue us through the use of civil government. We should not consider the money stolen from us in taxes to be the tithe that the Lord has commanded us to give to the state. If we engage in either of these practices, we run the danger of facing the Deuteronomic curses. We should set aside money to a faithful civil government so that the Lord’s commands might be obeyed, and His promised blessings received. For God is the omnipotent sovereign, and though the nations conspire against Him and His people, He will laugh at them in scorn and run the threshing wheel over them, causing them to be chaff in the wind. As He has promised, so it will be.

Anthony McAtee

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.

I Corinthians 4:4 … The God of this age (world).


The god of this age (world) has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

I Corinthians 4:4

When Scripture teaches that “Satan is the God of this world,” what one needs to understand is that Paul is using “world” in a technical fashion. “World” here means “as this world lies in Adam.” It is a truism that as this world lies in Adam Satan is the God of that world. However, what it does not mean is that Satan is over planet earth. To not see that distinction would give us a contradiction with Scripture that teaches that the Lord Christ is in possession of “all authority” in heaven and on earth as well as those passages that teach that the “Lord God omnipotent reigneth.” Obviously St. Paul is not introducing some kind of Manichean dualism by positing two competing Gods … one over things not of this world and one over this world.

Another example of this kind of language is used by John,

 I John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and that the whole world is under the power of the evil one.

What world is John speaking of when he writes that the ‘whole world is under the power of the evil one?”

Well, he is speaking of the world as it lies in Adam and opposed to God. He is speaking of the unregenerate world. We know that the world John is speaking of is not inclusive of Christians who live in the world because John writes that ‘we are of God.’

Neither Paul nor John, are saying that planet earth belongs to Satan. That would contradict passages which speak of Christ as the ruler,

Eph. 1:21  (Christ is) far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church…

Colossians 2: He (Christ) is the head over every power and authority.

So, if this is true of Christ then it cannot also be true that Satan is the God of this age, or the God of this World in the sense that Satan has some controlling ability in this world that rises above God.

So we have before us an example of the necessity of reading and interpreting Scripture in terms of Scripture. It is not proper to locate one verse and then say, ‘see, this proves that Satan is God over planet earth,’ or to say that God rules spiritually but Satan rules non-spiritually.’ We must compare Scripture with Scripture.

What shall we conclude about this. Well, Scripture forces us to say that Satan has been delegated certain authority so it can be fairly said of him that He is God over the people who refuse to bow the knee to Christ and His Lordship.

St. Paul begins to get at this when he writes,

13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,

You see… formerly they were in the dominion of darkness where the God of this world rules but now they have been rescued by the God who is over the God of this world and are delivered into the Kingdom of God’s dear Son. Notice though, if Satan were the absolute ruler as God of this world or age then God could never have rescued His people from Satan. We see then that the God of this world or age is not to attribute to Satan absolute power over any territory. It merely is to teach that those who are of their Father the devil have Satan as their God.

As an aside, this demonstrates again that there is no neutrality. Either one belongs to the God of this age or one belongs to the Kingdom of God’s dear Son.  One either belongs to the God of this age or one belongs to the God of the age to come.

You may be an ambassador to England or France
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes
Indeed you’re gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody

 

Another passage that supports what I am getting at is John 12:31. St. John quotes Christ as saying,

“Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out.” And again,

John 14:30 I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me,

John 16:11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

In the work of the Cross Satan was driven out. He has no power except to those who are of their Father the Devil, but even then, just as with Job, Satan is a permission seeking being in terms of his designs and intent. The Devil is merely God’s attack dog on a long leash.

The Devil does God’s bidding. The Devil may be the God of this Age but he does the work assigned to Him by God. Scripture is replete with examples regarding this. And it is to those examples we turn.

Book of Job

 Judges 9:23

God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the leaders of Shechem and caused them to treat Abimelech deceitfully,
 
1 Samuel 16:14
After the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, a spirit of distress from the LORD began to torment him.
 
1 Samuel 18:10
The next day a spirit of distress sent from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied inside the house while David played the harp as usual. Now Saul was holding a spear,
 
1 Samuel 19:9
But as Saul was sitting in his house with his spear in his hand, a spirit of distress from the LORD came upon him. While David was playing the harp,
 
1 Kings 22:21

Then a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD, and said, ‘I will entice him.’ ‘By what means?’ asked the LORD.

So, we see the Devil, evil spirits, do not operate independently of God’s boundaries. The Devil is God’s Devil.

Then there are other passages that says God Himself deceives those who hate him. This passage from Isaiah is quoted frequently in the NT

9And He replied, “Go and tell this people: ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ 10Make the hearts of this people calloused; deafen their ears and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.…

Romans 11:8
as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see, and ears that could not hear, to this very day.”
 
Deuteronomy 29:4

Yet to this day the LORD has not given you a mind to understand, eyes to see, or ears to hear.

Romans

God Turned them over …. (3x)

Thes. 2:11 For this reason, God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie,…

So, we see from all this that Satan is not an independent agent. We who are in Christ have no need to fear him or be preoccupied with Him. He is a very real enemy but He is an enemy who has been vanquished. Further, we see that Scripture cannot be appealed to in order to make the Devil out as someone who has a dominion that is outside of God’s dominion. The Devil is God’s Devil and his dominion is held at God’s leisure.

So, dear Christian, as Satan is not literally in charge of planet earth as belonging to him there is no room for surrendering anything in the Cosmos to Satan as if he has right of authority because he is “the god of this world.” Satan is the god of the dung heap, of falsity, of fiat non-reality. He has no hold over this world because in the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, God has and intends to continue to redeem the whole Cosmos so that it is even more than Eden ever was.

The age to come has come in Christ and is rolling back this present wicked age that has the prince of the power of the air as its Captain. This mopping up exercise is fait accompli. The “God of this age” is a grifter and the only weapons he has are smoke, delusion, and intimidation. Greater is He that is in us than he that is in the world.

Satan as “God of this world?” Only in the sense that a rebellious three year old thinks he is the “God of his bedroom,” in defiance of his parents placing him there for discipline.

Implications

1.) If we belong to God and are members of Christ’s Kingdom Lucifer is not a being we should be over consumed with. Yes, he exists, as do his lieutenants. Yes, they hate God and the Saints. But greater is He who is within us than He who is in the world as it lies in Adam.

2.) Because of this, there should be a growing confidence that is characteristic of us as God’s people. Do we really believe that as we belong to the Sovereign of the universe that anything can do us harm? The truth here should push us to attempt great things for God… to ask great things from God so that His name might be better known. We are more than conqueror because if God be for us (and He is) then truly opposition is insignificant.

3.) We should be extraordinarily wary of any theology that is consumed with the power of demons, evil spirits, or Satan. On the other hand we should be equally wary of any theology that ignores their reality upon those who belong to the God of this world.

4.) Because of all this we should be a people who fear God so much that we would do anything so as not to be deceived. We should be those who cry out for wisdom and to be delivered from all deception. We should hunger for God’s thinking so that we won’t find ourselves turned over.

5.) We see God’s absolute sovereignty once again. We should be preoccupied with God alone. No need to be preoccupied with the devil’s ability to destroy us if we are preoccupied with God’s ability to keep us.

6.) We are safe from the machinations of the God of this World because of the finished work of Jesus Christ.  As our catechims notes,

He has fully paid for all my sins
with his precious blood,
and has set me free

from all the power of the devil.

Conclusion,

So we need to make proper distinctions on this matter. The this “world” distinction is critical. When the scriptures say “My kingdom is not of this world” or “love not the world” or that “Satan is the God of this world,” it is not speaking of the Cosmos or physical world and creation of God, but the “way of the world” or the “philosophy of autonomous worldly men,” or the “world as it lies in Adam.” This is a critical distinction, that is too often lost on many in the Christian community.

From the Mailbag …Dear Pastor, We must allow immigrants

Dear Pastor,

I am bothered by your stance on immigration. Europe decided to help people who come from war-torn countries get a better life. The Daily Mail is full of lies and over-exaggerates every negative thing based on its own right-wing agenda. The Daily Mail’s reporting on what happened at Cologne is such an example. Yes, there are bad Muslims, but they don’t speak for the majority. There are bad Christians, but they don’t speak for everybody, either etc. Most people just want to live in peace. We all come from and have been immigrants. Or are we supposed to not care because they aren’t all Christians? Can’t we just look at each other as human beings rather than place divisions between us? Everyone deserves a better life and a few evil people (on all sides) should not be allowed to represent the masses.

Laura Lindson

Dear Laura,

Thanks for writing. Let’s try to be somewhat systematic in our approach to your letter.

1.) Laura is a white female like the ones who were raped and assaulted in Cologne and yet, here she is defending the rapefugees behavior. She probably also votes for those who want to continue to pursue these policies … policies that might find her some day raped.

2.) Laura cannot distinguish between people coming to get a better life and people coming here to colonize and destroy the West. These people are not coming here to find a better life. They are coming her to turn the life that is better for the West into the same latrine hole that the lands they are coming from already are.

3.) Laura makes the accusation of “exaggeration.” Odd, because that is the very same accusation that was made against the early reports of the same kind of behavior that Allan Antonio is describing in this thread as it occurred in Rotherham England between 1997-2013 when over 1400 pre-pubescent white girls and boys were raped, tortured, and sex-trafficked by filthy Muslim men. For years people like Laura turned a deaf ear to those who were insisting that there was a major problem by means of insisting that these accusations were all “exaggerations.” They weren’t then. They aren’t now. Laura either is grossly naive and so a useful idiot or she is in league with those desiring the fall of the West. I would guess she is a useful idiot.

http://s.telegraph.co.uk/grap…/projects/rotherham/index.html

4.) Laura wants to suggest that there is an equivalency between bad Christians and bad Muslims. Where are the news stories about gangs of Christians sex Trafficking children? Where are the stories about gangs of Christians gang-banging and raping minority women? Apparently bad Christians are not quite the problem bad Muslims are. Apparently civilized nations can function as civilized with bad Christians as opposed to being able to function as civilized with bad Muslims.

5.) Most people just want to live in peace? Really? Having been in the people business for over 25 years I can testify that it is just not true that most people want to live in peace. What most people want to do is to control everybody around them even if that means conflict, friction, and destruction.

6.) Laura involves herself in myth when she invokes the, “We’ve all been immigrants and have come from immigrants.” The myth here is that immigrants moving from Western lands to Western lands are the same as immigrants moving from non Western lands to Western lands. While assimilation is possible when going from Western lands to Western lands it has become manifestly obvious that the West can not remain the West and be absorbed and abolished by the massive influx from non Christian and non Western lands as influenced, shaped, and informed by anti-Christ religions.

7.) Laura then invokes “caring” as a reason why we should accept being inundated by the stranger and the alien. But what Laura doesn’t mention is that by caring for the stranger and the alien we at that moment are throwing our children and women to the wolves. We have a choice in terms of caring. We can either care for our families and clans or we can care for the stranger and alien who desires to devour our families and clans but we cannot do both. Either we protect our women and children or we sacrifice them on the altar of multiculturalism and political correctness. In short, it is precisely because I care that I insist that immigration must halt and those who have come here be returned to lands of origins.

8.) Laura invokes the necessity that we all look at each other as human beings as opposed to looking at what divides us from one another. The problem here is that we are not merely human beings. We are people who belong to a particular place and who have been claimed by particular Gods. We are people who belong to particular families and clans. We are not merely human beings as if human beings were merely cogs that can fit into any place at any time. The way the West and the God of the Bible has shaped human beings is categorically different and so completely non-amenable to how Allah has shaped the sons of the Crescent. Scripture asks, “unless two be agreed how can they walk together?” We might add, “unless two be agreed how can they live in one nation together?”

9.) Everyone most certainly does not deserve a better life contra Laura’s insistence. Do rapists deserve a better life? Do people who desire the death of Christians deserve a better life? Do people groups who are known for their violence and Jihad deserve a better life? If they want a better life than they should start by serving better Gods. That is the only way they can have a better life.

Later you wrote back to me saying,

Laura writes,

Better Gods? What are better gods? What about abuse that has been covered up by Christian religions all these years? Or the fact that hard-line people of ALL religions still view women as walking wombs who should be quiet and serve their men? Why are you only bothered about Christians being hurt or murdered? What about everyone else, including those who don’t follow any religion? Vile people exist in all walks of life, religious or not. My only point is that I hate the hypocrisy of it all. And also, on another note, can you stop starting every line with ‘Laura’ and talking about me in the third person. It makes you sound incredibly patronizing and makes a mockery of my freedom to express an opinion. I’m not asking you to agree. I’m asking you to respect my right to see things from different points of view and respect my belief that in spite of the barbarians living in this world, there are also wonderful people with hopes and dreams and we need to stop putting people in categories. The end.

Bret responds,

There is only one Better God and that is the God of the Bible. All those who don’t serve Him love death. It strikes me that you are a testimony of that truth. Having refused the God of the Bible you are now advocating the importing of those who will be death to you.

And what abuse of Christians have been covered up? The abuse of bringing modern hygiene to the world? The abuse of bring life extending medicines to the world? The abuse of ships that ply the seas and manned rockets that explore space? The abuse of bringing civilization to heathen nations? The abuse of ending the slaughter and cannibalism that was found among the Aztecs and other tribal Indians in newly discovered lands? The abuse of bringing reading and writing to whole people groups? The abuse of architecture that built mind stunningly beautiful Cathedrals and later skyscrapers? The abuse of creating Governments that provided the greatest liberty the world has ever known? The abuse of international trade and economies that could sustain a standard of living that the ancients couldn’t even dream of? The abuse of Missionaries traveling, at the cost of their own lives, to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the nations? You mean that kind of abuse?

Laura, you mention the possibility of those who don’t follow any religion. That, of course, is not possible, as religion is an inescapable category. No person lives who does not embrace a religion.

You ask if I am bothered by people from other religions being harmed and hurt. The answer, is obviously “yes, I am concerned about that.” The Holy Scriptures teach me that I must,

10  … While we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.

So you see, there is a priority listed here. Seeking to do good to all people but zeroing in on and prioritizing fellow believers in Jesus Christ.

Next,  Laura, it is the case that I do believe that God graced women with the beauty of the womb and so the ability to bear children. Further I believe it is the privilege of women to serve those who give up their lives to protect them. Finally, in terms of women being on the quiet side I agree with the Christian Scriptures which teach,

9 In like manner also, that women should adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobermindedness, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly array,  10 but, as becometh women professing godliness, with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

Finally, I don’t respect your right or anybody else’s right to be wrong when being wrong means the approach of death. Indeed, I’m not sure where such a “right” springs from.  Sorry, but people who are wrong the way you are wrong need to be silenced by means of demonstrating their arguments as foolish, and  so once again be embarrassed to utter such death bringing opinions for fear of again being the outcasts that such people once were.

All the best Laura,

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.