No devil like a white devil!

Papa Francis is no longer a straight talker (it is not for me to judge, if he ever has been), which will displease many of his hitherto ardent underlings. "Fiducia Supplicans" - On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings - means that Christmas had, indeed, apparently come early for many non-heterosexual members of the human race, who owe their God-given biological existence to Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

As far as I am concerned, anyone who claims to be the Triune God on earth (the Holy Father, the Head of the Church, the vicar of Christ), is utterly deranged, even demonically deluded, cf. "you will be like God", in Gen. 3:5! At any rate, to echo Martin Luther, the pope has no authority at all to create new articles of faith; thus, he cannot ‘bless’ (whatever that may mean, I have no idea) what is contrary to God’s design. One wonders what kind of blessings the pope might be able to bestow?!

But as any Jesuit will tell you, “to be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it” (Rule 13, ironically, The Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola, in loc.). I guess this also applies to the greatest of all non-miraculous miracles, the pernicious doctrine of transubstantiation!

Is it no far more honest to maintain that “the Bible believes that non-hereosexual sex outside marriage is wrong, and I disagree”, than to bend over backwards (no pun or slur intended, notwithstanding historical evidence to the contrary) to please the world that so desperately needs God’s redemption, if Romans 1:18ff. is anything to go by?

My humble contribution is n o t an attack on non-heterosexual relationships. One can only echoe, not re-write, what Scripture teaches. Contrary to rumour , I am not sinless myself, thus I am no longer into casting stones. Unlike the pope, I am not ‘anti-Christ’, i.e. ‘in the place of / opposed to Christ’, the final judge before whom every knee will bow one day. 

Behind this latest development lies the fear of displeasing men rather than offending God! It will always have to be either / or, not both / and. 

Let my reader also be reminded that I have not managed to surpass M. Luther in his critique of the papacy, per se, and neither has Richard Dawkins. 

Keir Starmer - His name suggests 'Tame Err Risk'

Starmer seems willing to change his views and principles (and I am not sure about them) by the minute to get our votes, just seeing how the wind is blowing will determine his direction! His chameleon-like behaviour will, no doubt, attract likeminded comrades. His opportunism is detectable even by a dimwit who wishes to pore over the recent Labour Party manifestos! We no longer seem to have any conviction politicians who are willing to nail their colours to the mast, let alone stand up for the man in the street. A lot of hot air means Starmer will soon be running out of steam. And this is the man who cannot tell us what a woman is, indeed, one is not allowed to talk about it! Blair, I noticed, did not complain about the economy he inherited in 1997, and then came Gordon Brown! I am disenchanted with the whole lot! But one is open to be proven wrong, for all that! I wish him well, for the good of the country.

Bad - sad - mad!

Matt Walsh Debates Transgender Woman Who Struggles with "What Is A Woman?" Question

Freedom of speech is a wonderful God-given gift, given to minions, like myself, who have to obey the powers to be! Well, I have been Shapiroed! If this egololical man is a woman, then I am mad person living in Lal-la land! Or, as Ben Shapiro may have put it, one does not need a PhD do recognise b***shit (pardon my language)! And I do, of course, apologise to all the bulls in the world! May I suggest an entry for the Guinness Book of Record for floccinaucinihilipilification? Notwithstanding the title, I would not even call the whole fiasco a debate. Let's look out for any lunatics that might want to take over the asylum! Or, as a Greek person may want to put it, totally 'διαβολικός' (confusing / diabolical!). And it isn't April 1st, either! At any rate, if a man wants to pretend to be a woman,  that is, of course, entirely up to him, and not me.  But, if he wants me to pretend to be a woman, then that is up to me, and not him!

Groen van Prinsterer and the Failure of the French Revolution

Click image for purchase

Groen van Prinsterer – henceforth GvP - (1801-1876) in his book “Vrijheid, Gelijkheid, Broederschap” (1848), which has now been translated into English by Jan Adriaan Schlebusch under the title of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity - A Refutation of Liberalism” [RefCon Press, 2022] and thus benefiting a wider readership, is nothing short of a frontal and often a scathing attack on the anthropocentric and thus anti-theistic mindset of the French Revolution with its deep taproots in the Enlightenment concept of the autonomy of human reason. The book is littered with historical allusions to countries and events too numerous to mention that point to the “the destructive nature of the Revolutionary ideas” [p. 104], invariably climaxing in political “despotism”[p. 123]. “Has the new doctrine lived up to its promises” [p. 77]? The answer always is a resounding ‘No’! The three slogans mentioned in the title of the book are carefully analysed one by one and utterly repudiated, each in turn, for being completely unbiblical in their reinterpretation along the lines of the contemporary utopian mindset that is entirely detached from real life – but still alive! Says GvP, “Liberty, equality, and fraternity…I would argue that, by their nature, these doctrines make improvements impossible. They don’t mitigate abuses but worsen them. And the very cause of the gravest abuses is inherent to them”[p. 73]. GvP maintains that “it is evident to all that these doctrines are utterly destructive to all peace and safety” [p. 70]. Nevertheless, the author tells us that he is “not an unconditional supporter of preserving the past”[ p.33] and goes on to say that “I do not oppose the remediation of the system, but I am convinced that the radical remedies proposed to us today are equivalent to death itself” [p. 108]. GvP argues for the possibility of creating a better world, without losing sight of the world to come. Where atheism has always failed - “every promise not only ends in disappointment but ends up delivering the opposite of that which was promised in the political program” [p. 86] -, Christians have often succeeded, such as William Wilberforce, Elizabeth Fry and Thomas Chalmers, in their respective spheres. In the words of another Dutch author, H. Bavinck, GvP insists that “the common foundation of all rights and duties lies in the sovereignty of God” [Reformed Ethics, in loc.]. A. Kuyper, under the influence of GvP, argues more rigorously for the kingship of Jesus Christ over every sphere of human existence! In contrast to and irreconcilably antithetical to French revolutionary thinking, it is “from the Bible, the Christian learns his duties, calculates his prospects, and appreciates his privileges”[p. 135]. One detects stronger echoes of GvP’s thinking notably in Abraham Kuyper’s more fully developed Calvinistic perspective on the creation ordinances and the historical outworking in human history as seen in the Kuyper’s emphasis on the sovereignty of God over every sphere of human existence, including the ‘public square’, to use an anachronistic term. GvP’s Calvinism is not confined to the ecclesiastical sphere, and the reader is encouraged to study culture theologically rather than anthropologically. Overall, GvP’s chief axiom (which, of course, is not original but Augustinian in essence) can best be summed up in his own words: “All of history, politics, and society is the battleground between faith and unbelief - a battle in which the Christian is called to engage with a confidence in the inevitability of Christ’s victory over the seed of the serpent” [p .123]. The 20 th century in particular, of course, bears greater and more eloquent testimony to GvP’s farsightedness to the failure of socialism! The post-modern mindset needs to hear GvP afresh – but only for starters, whetting one’s appetite for more! Much more needs to be said than has been said and can be said and must be said as we are witnessing the rapid decline of Western civilisation. GvP’s book offers a challenging and vigorous alternative to an effeminate culture of small-minded, pessimistic Nothingarians that is hell-bent on seeking yet again ‘to edge God out of His universe onto a Cross’ (D. Bonhoeffer)! There are certainly better works one could recommend on critiquing the French Revolution in more detail, but if God is not God of all and over all, then He is not God at all. This lies at the heart of GVP’s book. From that angle, there is no better and easily accessible introduction known to the reviewer.

Bravo to the brave!

Well - one could not make it up! How misguided can one get? I SO respect those pupils! As to those who identify as cats, well, feed them with cat food, or lock them up in zoo! 

The whole thing reminds me of 1984, the dystopian classic, which views human existence in a totalitarian state built on disinformation. A brave new world, indeed! Education is not about brainwashing, or insulting young people, I would have thought! There is no word in my vocabulary that describes such surreal madness! And there was me thinking that Hitler was bad! Everyone speak after me, or think after me! Well, thinking has disappeared, of course! 

That teacher is utterly deluded, and paid for it! I am pleased that a letter has been sent asking for an Ofsted inspection. Time will tell what will come of it! 

Meanwhile, I am hopeful about a better world. It may well take a child to find out that the emperor is wearing no clothes! The children have only spoken the naked truth! No semantic nonsense can dress up madness seen in one of its worst forms! But there is nothing to be said once fear has taken over! But the children have shown bravery. Or as Descartes may have put it, 'non timeo, ergo, sum'! Now that's what our new generation should look like! Bravo to those brave pupils, and shame on that deluded teacher!

No cross - no crown!

Now we know (BBC)! Well, according to John Calvin, "let us consider how many relics of the true cross there are in the world. An account of those merely with which I am acquainted would fill a whole volume, for there is not a church, from a cathedral to the most miserable abbey or parish church, that does not contain a piece. Large splinters of it are preserved in various places, as for instance in the Holy Chapel at Paris, whilst at Rome they show a crucifix of considerable size made entirely, they say, from this wood. In short, if we were to collect all these pieces of the true cross exhibited in various parts, they would form a whole ship's cargo. The Gospel testifies that the cross could be borne by one single individual; how glaring, then, is the audacity now to pretend to display more relics of wood than three hundred men could carry! " But who is interested in Calvin or truth these days?! Anythingism will do!

Wright is wrong and wrong is right!

T. Wright is not at all convincing! We have no N.T. list of qualifications for women elders, and we read of no appointing of women elders. I shall restrain myself from commenting on the post-biblical historical origins of Anglicanism, ironically linked to one woman, rather than to biblical Christianity! No woman can assume the office of eldership and most men cannot, either! It would be far more honest to say that Paul teaches ... and I disagree ... than trying to make a case by eisegetical gymnastics of the worst kind. Ask T. Wright anything and the answer may be anything, but right!

Justin Peters et al. - Let's Talk About Asbury

I have commented elsewhere on the above mentioned contribution, as follows: 

As to the recent Asbury phenomena, Acts 5:13 springs to mind (one notices the absence of the fear of God, the soul of genuine piety). The Coming of the Holy Spirit is evidenced in three ways, John 16:8-11. Acts 2 is a fulfilment of all that, with preaching being at the heart of it - as always. Word and Spirit belong together, or else deadness (without the Spirit) or fanaticism (without the Word the Spirit) will eventually take over. One also notes that Christ is no longer central (John 15:26). The most Spirit-filled Christian is also most Christlike! Here every true believer struggles. Discerning readers ought to familiarize themselves with the tests of a true revival by studying the Scriptures more carefully. The church must always be bred and led and fed by the Word of God. J. Edwards is of great help here. I note the gracious tone of these three men who have to teach us a lot.

His Holiness or His Hellishness?!

A highly respected Christian brother has expressed his personal view on the recent death of Pope Benedict XIII. (M. Luther would have called the pope not 'his holiness', but 'his hellishness' - even R. Dawkins can learn from that!), saying: "One thing is clear from the Bible, we know where the soul of the papa is right now - in the bottomless pit!". 

True, true, unless God granted him repentance before he died, and of that we cannot know with absolute certainty, though Benedict's successor would disagree with me as he seems to be a universalist! 

For all that, Rome - and the late pope - have deliberately rejected the biblical Gospel of 'grace alone, in Christ alone, by faith alone', anathematising any dissenters (see Canon IX.ff. / Session 6 - The Council of Trent) – in the name of God! Trent may be old hat, but its dogmatism has never been revoked, and it can't be as the Council convened under the Holy Ghost which surely is a new definition of blasphemy! 

Going back to the late pope, I find it inconceivable that the Spirit of truth could lead anyone to become a pope at all. Was it not Pope Gregory the Great who said that the “universal bishop” is the Antichrist?!

Ignorant friends need to read 'Pope Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam' (which no infallible pope can repudiate!). P. Schaff is surely right when he said, in less strong language than I could manage about that greatest of all human egomaniacs that has ever walked on earth, that in the Unam sanctam "the arrogance of the papacy finds its most naked and irritating expression." Amongst all Romish writings I find it to be the most detestable one! It makes Putin look nice!

The late pope was sound on some doctrines and outspoken on moral issues, but Matthew 7:21ff. remains as a strong warning to all who think that Christianity is just about being good and orthodox, or intellectually respectable! It is regrettable that so many so-called evangelicals have been taken in by Romanism.

Ratzinger certainly preached another gospel and he should have listened to the apostle Paul (Galatians 1, in loc.), but since when has Rome accepted ‘sola Scriptura’?! Not since the Protestant Reformation, at any rate!

What matters is not what we think of Ratzinger, or for that matter, about this writer’s opinion, but 'what do you think of Christ?'! He needs to be at the centre of our preaching and our living - and here Rome is of no help, whatsoever, as evidenced from Benedict's Funeral Mass, none of which can be squared with New Testament Christianity by any stretch of the imagination! 

R. Albert Mohler Jr. [see his ‘A warning from Rome The funeral of Pope Benedict XVI holds big lessons for evangelical Christians’], with whose brain no one seems able to compete these days, has missed the point altogether by not addressing my concerns, but I will have to forgive him, as we are strangers  to one another!