Just War?

I recently came across this interesting group through some YouTube videos which I found highly instructive.  Curious to learn more, I visited their internet pages. Here is how they describe themselves:

Operation Reconquista is a movement of Bible-believing Christians in Mainline Protestant denominations who recognize that our denominations have drifted away from the historic Christian faith. We are fighting to restore our churches to the true faith and revive them, because we do not want the great institutions built for God's glory to be used against His Kingdom. The word "Reconquista" simply means to "retake". The battle metaphor is NOT calling for violence or calling for a fight against anyone in our denomination, but a call to spiritual warfare against demonic forces that have infiltrated our churches.

Most commendable!  I whole-heartedly support a return by self-proclaimed Christians to the historic Christian faith.

On one of their internet pages, Operation Reconquista addresses 95 Theses to the Presbyterian Church USA.  I found nothing objectionable among these 95 Theses, and was gladdened to see they fully follow the 3 Ecumenical Creeds and the 5 Solas.

However. . .

When reading Thesis 66, which states the Church must honor the sanctity and inherent worth of all human life, my spirit was disturbed.  While all of the other 94 were immediately clear, the vaguity of this Thesis certainly gave me pause.  I sent an email seeking clarification, specifically if this honoring of life included adjuring Christians from supporting war. I quite speedily received the following reply:

Just War Theory is something the Church has universally held to since Augustine. This thesis is meant to say that abortion is murder and must be condemned by the Church.

God bless Operation Reconquista, I wish them much success in their church restoration project. 

That said, it is disheartening to once again find a self-proclaimed Christian group who condone war (which is mysteriously sanctified by man's judgement of *just*).  Outside of doctrines regarding the Lord Jesus Christ, the sanctity and inherent worth of life is of primary importance.  Yet here even the restorationists drift from the historic Christian faith.

The truly historic Christian faith (the faith prior to the calamitous time of Constantine) clearly condemned war.  Not a single surviving document from the first three centuries of Church history permits Christians to kill (or to even join the military).

It's almost impossible to find self-proclaimed Christians in the 21st century who renounce all killing (abortion, capital punishment, war, etc.), even though all advertise themselves as *pro-life.*   

In this regard, we must sadly conclude that in matter of the sanctity and inherent worth of life, Operation Reconquista reflect the kingdoms of the world (just as the Church largely has since the time of Constantine), and not the Kingdom of God.

Fun At The Motor City Comic Con

Last weekend was the Motor City Comic Con, a big fan convention where minor celebrities sign autographs and pose for photos, dealers sell Funko Pops, action figures, movie posters, comic books, manga and anime shit I have no idea about, and various other entertainment/art bric-a-brac. A fair portion of the attendees dress up like their favorite character from obscure pop culture, whether they have the physiques to do so or not.

People walk around and look at shit and each other, buy $6 bottles of water and then line-up to piss at one of the too-few shitters.

This is what passes for *fun* in Western culture.  Not that it isn't fun.  It's fun that is grossly merchandised and monetized.  Which robs the fun of some of its fun.  But that's just a minor complaint.  As minor as the celebrities.

Here's minor celebrity Christina Ricci frazzled and exhausted from acting like she wants to be so close to the unwashed masses that support her movies and television shows:

Here's aging minor celebrity Carrie-Anne Moss talking to a dude who probably beat-off to her in the Matrix twenty years ago:

Motor City Comic Con, fun for all!

Predestination VII

And the disciples came, and said unto Him, Why speakest Thou unto them in parables?  He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

*Free Willers* use these verses from Matthew chapter 13 to *prove* their *Free Will* doctrine.  

Their argument:

Well, if God has determined before the foundation of the world who will be saved, and did not determine this on His knowledge of how people would respond to Him from their own Free Will, but simply chose some who would believe and left all others with the inability to believe, then why did Jesus take the trouble to speak in parables?  If they had no ability to believe and be saved, Jesus didn't have to worry that any of His words would lead them to believe.  Jesus here hides His identity to prevent people from believing in Him.  But if Calvinistic predestination were true, these people never had the ability to believe.  There is no point in speaking in parables.

Now, before I answer their protest, let me protest their *proof.*

The *Free Willers* will say the verses quoted above from Matthew chapter 13 prove people have *Free Will,* because if Jesus had spoken plainly to the Jews they would have made Him their King, they would have *accepted* Him, they would have been saved and would not, therefore, have had Him crucified.  Jesus had to temporarily over-ride the Jews *Free Will* to make certain they would kill Him, that He would die on the cross and be able to save all nations, not just the Jews.  That's their *proof* of *Free Will.*  

Yet eight chapters later in the gospel of Matthew we read:

And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples, Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto Me. And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them. All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set Him thereon. And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way. And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.

You see how foolish the *Free Willers* proof is.  In chapter 13 of Matthew the *Free Willers* have Jesus terrified of the Jews believing in Him and being proclaimed King, but apparently a little later He has changed His mind, and orders His disciples to arrange His triumphal entry.

No, friend, it cannot be that the reason Jesus spoke in parables was not because the Jews had *Free Will* to believe, and that if He had spoken to them plainly they would be saved, and not allow Him to be crucified.  That cannot be the reason, for multitudes did indeed believe Him and hail Him as King.  

So what did Jesus mean when He said I speak in parables lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them?

There's no big *mystery.*  The answer is right there in the verses themselves, *hiding* in plain sight.

Jesus told His disciples:

It is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

No mystery, no controversy, the scripture couldn't be any clearer.  Those who are elect before the foundation of the world are GIVEN to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven.  But those who are NOT elect, it is NOT given.

And look at this beautiful explication from the Lord Jesus Christ:

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

The non-elect, who have been given nothing, from him shall be taken away even what he has.  The non-elect, the depraved man or woman, what little they could make of Jesus' gospel in their reprobate minds, even that dim understanding will be taken from them by Jesus' use of parables.

Predestination VI

The Apostle Paul, quoting Psalms 14 and 53, wrote the following:

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.

This is a quite convincing proof of predestination.  Those who believe human beings have *Free Will* believe people can seek after God.  But the scripture clearly says none seek after God.

The *Free Willers* would say none out of their own *Free Will* seek after God, not that they don't have the ability to seek after God.

But this can very easily be disproved.

At the time the Psalms were written, and at the much later date Paul was quoting them, the world was full of people seeking after *God.* The world was and is filled with *Gods.* The Egyptian *Gods,* the Norse *Gods,* the Hindu *Gods,* the Roman *Gods,* the Aztec *Gods,* the Babylonian *Gods,* etc., etc.

The world was filled with dopes seeking after *God.*  The world is still filled with dopes seeking after *God.*  How then can scripture say none seeketh after God? 

The people were seeking after a *god* of their choosing, a *god* of their understanding and making.  They were not seeking after The God.  God.  The True and Only God.

Only those God chose before the foundation of the world will seek after Him, because, as Jesus to said to the infidels:

No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Predestination V

A YouTube channel named Soteriology 101 seems to have a major axe to grind with Calvinistic predestination.  They produce numerous videos *exposing* the *errors* of Calvinism and the doctrine of predestination.  

.

A recent video titled Ephesians 2:8 De-Calvinized (almost as if to suggest de-lousing, LOL!) concerned the meaning of the scripture:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.

If we take the verse simply as it reads in English, we can see why a *Free Willer* would be so alarmed as to need to de-louse, I mean, de-Calvinize it.  If we understand, in English, the verse to say what it means and mean what it says, then, of course, there is no such thing as *Free Will.*  Salvation is purely a gift of God, no part of salvation, grace, faith, none of it, is generated or activated by man's *Free Will.* Every component of salvation is given by God as a gift.  

Well, of course it is not that simple.  Paul did not write Ephesians 2:8 in English, he wrote it in Greek.  I'm not a Greek scholar.  There are lots of Greek scholars.  It is a point of contention among scholars as to what the "that" in the above quoted scripture refers to.  The hot topic in particular being: does the "that" refer to faith?  If so, if faith is a gift of God, then man of his own *Free Will* cannot produce saving faith.  What does the verse in Greek teach?  Alas, as I said, there are many Greek scholars, and thus opinion is divided.  Don't trust me, check for yourselves on the internets, there are *scholars* aplenty who will conclude both for or against the idea that it is God who provides saving faith.

The narrator of the Soteriology 101 video states: "No one lacks what is necessary for their salvation.  God is not withholding the necessary gift of faith from some people leaving them without hope of salvation.  Paul taught us that those who perish only perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved (II Thess 2:10)."

The narrator then posits as one of the *proofs* that man's *Free Will* must be the source of saving faith these verses from I Timothy:

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

We are to left to conclude, apparently, (it is not explicitly stated, the video ends after the reading of the above verses) that if God wanted all men to be saved, He wouldn't withhold from some of them the ability to respond to the gospel with saving faith.

But the verse certainly does not prove men have *Free Will* to respond to the gospel with faith.  

If we interpret the above verses as the *Free Willers* interpret it:

God wants all people to be saved, God provides everything necessary for salvation to all people.

But if this is the correct interpretation it means God, the Supreme Wisdom of All That Is, willingly devised a plan of salvation that would frustrate His own will.

I'm not going to make that accusation against God.

God, the Supreme Wisdom of All That Is, knew before the foundation of the world exactly what His plan of salvation would lead to.  It would be exactly as His Son described it:

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

[A more reasonable interpretation of the verses from I Timothy is that if they teach anything at all they teach universal salvation.  That in this Age only a few will find The Way, but that God will, of HIS will, at some New Age, provide everyone with saving faith and bring everyone to salvation.  This is a decidedly minority view, of course.  Universal salvation is on the very farthest fringe of contemporary Christianity.  But it is still far more reasonable than the *Free Willers* belief that God, the Supreme Wisdom of All That Is, willingly devised a plan of salvation that would frustrate His own will.]

Obituary

On this day 207 years ago the English author and playwright Matthew Lewis died.  He wrote the notorious and first English language horror novel The Monk at age 19, of which we have lately written.  

Upon his death more than 20 years after the publication of The Monk, he was still being heaped with abuse, as we see in an obituary which appeared in The Tickler:

To my mind, this is an admirable legacy.  He got under the skin of the arbiters of taste, and stayed there, for eternity.  What better laurel for an author?

Predestination IV

The self-proclaimed Christian *Free Will* crowd are obsessed with flattering God as *fair.*  But of course, it is their limited, self-centered black-and-white concept of fairness.  It is the whiny, childish cry of the toddler who sees his sibling have something he cannot have.  It's not fair, they cry as they stamp their feet.

If God does not grant the individual the *Free Will* to decide for himself or herself if he or she will *accept* or *receive* or *believe* or *have faith in* their idea of God's plan of salvation (sinner hears the gospel of Jesus and evaluates it and judges it as appropriate), then God is not fair.  God is not fair if He has predetermined who will be saved if this predestination is not based on human merit or foreseen faith, but on God's own will.

Here is the sinner's prayer of the self-proclaimed Christian *Free Willer:*

God, I thank thee that I am humble to recognize I am a sinner, and that only through the shed blood of Jesus can my sin be washed away.  Father, You showed me this, You offered me Your plan for my salvation, and in my humility and spirit of brokenness, I carefully considered the pros and cons of Your plan, and in my humble opinion I have judged it worthy of me.  Thank you, God, for not making me as the Calvinist, who haughtily refuses to acknowledge Your fairness to all men everywhere, and would arrogantly deny all men everywhere the chance to judge You and judge Your plan of salvation. Amen.

Here is what I as a predestinationist (PD) would ask of the *Free Willer* (FW):

PD: Has everybody who has ever lived had the same opportunity to hear the gospel of Jesus?

FW: No.

PD: Is that fair?

FW: Yes.

PD: It's an irrefutable fact Saul of Tarsus received a much more compelling presentation of the gospel of Jesus than Aleister Crowley received, is it not?

FW: Yes.

PD: Is that fair to Crowley?  

FW: Yes.

PD: Untold tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions, a billion, lived and died without ever hearing the gospel, is that correct?

FW: Yes.

PD: So they had absolutely ZERO chance to be saved, is that correct?

FW: No.

PD: No?  Explain.

FW: Paul states in Romans 2 of those who are ignorant that God will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life.

PD: So the ignorant are judged on their own merits, Jesus didn't need to die on the cross, we could just be judged on our own merits and be saved?

FW: No.  This is just a plan until the gospel has been preached to the entire world, then there is no other path to salvation but through Christ.

PD: Does that seem like a plan devised by the Supreme Wisdom of the Universe, or just some theologian trying to argue in advance for God's fairness against the question of the fate of those who never hear the gospel?

FW: It seems like a plan devised by the Supreme Wisdom.

PD: Let me summarize what we have learned so far: people who do not hear the gospel are judged on their own merit, people who hear the gospel are only judged on their response to the gospel, and to the people who hear or read the gospel, some received a more convincing presentation.  Is this an accurate summary?

FW: Yes.

PD: What would be a fairer system: the system we just summarized, or a system in which every human being who has ever lived is thrown into a Lotto machine and God selects some number of whoever comes out of the machine to be saved?

FW: It is a much fairer system for people who do not hear the gospel to be judged on their own merit, and for people who hear the gospel to only be judged on their response to the gospel, and to the people who hear or read the gospel, that some of them receive a more convincing presentation.

PD: Thank you for contributing to our understanding of God's Plan of Salvation.

FW: You're welcome.