Monday, April 7, 2014

Living - And Then Marrying - In The Real World

 Updated 4/10/14

A recent  Ref 21  post by Prof. Carl Trueman compares the World Vision flip flop on homosexual "marriage" and the firing of the  Mozilla CEO because he donated to Cqlifornia's Prop 8 in 2008 which supported  traditional  marriage. His conclusion is that the sword of economic boycott works both ways and Christians shouldn't complain, but realize that's how the cookie crumbles in the real world. (World Vision reminds us  of Zondervan and their  gender neutral NIV. Public outcry put the last on hold, but Z had its way in the end. Any guesses on how long WV holds the line?) Besides evangelical doesn't really mean evangelical when it comes to evangelical para church organizations  or  businesses. So now we know.

**********************************************************************************
Hold the phone, Leon. This Just In.  Due to the moral leprosy that literally oozes from pores  of ex Mozilla CEO and inventor of javascript  B. Eich, the usual raft of amoral refugees, self righteous homophiles  and homosexualist twits  will be announcing their boycott of javascript real soon now on twitter. Along  with their boycott of the internet, because the internet  uses javascript indiscriminately and won't quit anytime soon. Uh, huh. Stay tuned. More late breaking fairy tales to come.
**********************************************************************************

The Stacked Deck
There are a couple of objections. One, there is not a level playing field out there. The main stream moron media, the courts, the schools  and the other elite powers that be, are all pushing for marital rights for sodomites and lesbians despite the fact that  the LGBTQ@#%?  whatever  contingent  in society is a marked minority. The Kinsey Report notwithstanding (Judith  Riesmann among others,  dismantled  that fraud and egregious propaganda long ago), at most we are talking about  1 to 3 percent of the population.  (Even 5 percent would be hopelessly  optimistic in our opinion, but in la la land, one never knows what the  progressives will dream up next.)

The Big Lie
Two, the campaign for  "equal rights/protection" is a lie. While it  purports to be another way of saying everyone is equal before the  law, all it really is  about is the French Jacobin notion of  egalite, i.e. the egalitarian  perversion of equal opportunity to mean "equal outcome" or "equal results". And since both male and female homosexual liaisons don't measure up to  the historic definition  of marriage, ergo  we need to do some meddling, preferably by  the coercive power  of the state, so that everybody can get "married"  and live happily ever after. See. Wasn't that easy, boys and girls?

After all, it is not just the  pursuit  of happiness that is constitutionally guaranteed, but the attainment of happiness. Which is to say government guarantees, if not supplies an education, a job, healthcare and a marriage. If not  also children, if homosexuals are allowed to adopt. (I  know.  It's not loving to forbid homosexuals to love children. Therefore they must be allowed to adopt them.)

Fundamental Reality, Not Fundamentalism
But  the  big objection in our opinion, is number three. This does not have to be a religious  or Christian issue  per se. While it is true that marriage between Adam and Eve -  not Adam and Steve -  was first instituted by God   in the Garden before the fall, so too the one in  seven day of rest is equally a mandate of the moral/natural law. Which means evangelicals   cannot really consistently violate one creation ordinance, even as they  complain about the  perversion of the  other. Still, it's  called  common sense. From time immemorial the union of a man and woman  has produced children which the  same couple by  and large with yes, help from other family members and the community  at  large,   raise to adulthood. Yes, there have been and  are exceptions to the rule, but when by the  same token have homosexual relationships ever  been raised to the status of marriage, even granting that homosexuality has been  around since time immemorial?

In other words, where  for all practical purposes do these knuckleheads think children come from? The dry cleaners? And who raises them? After  their three square  meals a day at the local daycare cum public government school and a trip to the Boys and Girls Club, we sit the young'uns down in front  of the HiDef TV section at Walmart open 24 hours a day to be further edumacated/entertained before they drift  off to sleep sucking  their thumbs? When all is said  and done, it still comes down to  a man  and a woman, regardless if  the same sexers resort to artificial insemination, surrogacy or adoption to provide children for  their categorically sterile unions. While it  is true, not all marriages produce children,  what is  the exception for traditional marriage, is the rule for  the sodomites and lesbians.

Luv, Luv, Luv
Further, the dessicated,  if not degenerate definition of marriage now current, is all about "love", if not emotion. We readily  grant  that charity, which is what the hoary  old King James Bible calls love, plays a distinct part in your average marriage, but really. To make it all boil down to affection or love, is to regress to an infantile narcissism. What's next? Will people  in the future be able to marry their suitcases? Their toasters? How about their bicycles? And if not, why not?

The  Other Big Lie (No, Not  Obamacare)
Or better  yet their offspring, siblings or parents? And if not the latter threesome,  again why not? As Joe Sobran would have it, channeling a  raucous Juvenal, at least the heterosexual  versions of  these pairings got the  poop chute figured out. Not to mention, so much for that  other Big Lie;  that heterosexuals  get  to marry "anybody they want to"/whomever they love. All the while incest, polygamy and group marriages are verboten. Which fact is conveniently ignored by the homosexualists. Because it contradicts the approved fairytale narrative  about "discrimination".

The Building Blocks of Society
The family is the first school, church, business and state.  If things go gunnybag in the  family, everybody else  in  society is playing catch up to fix it. (In  other words,  we interrupt the regularly scheduled dreck to announce  that the family has been around a  lot longer than the humanitarian hunger and  poverty fighting World Vision and it has done a better job to  boot.) Which means the whole pogrom about marriage equality is really about anything but. In  our day,  all  it actually does is further the growth of the totalitarian state. That is because when all is said and done, only the civil magistrate has  coercive power; the power  to physically compel people to do something - as in fine,  imprison or execute. As opposed to just firing, flunking, excommunicating or just avoiding someone in any other sphere of society. In  this case it is the coercive power that has been perverted in order to compel equal outcomes/results, if not the equal attainment of happiness, i.e. healthcare and marriage for  everyone. Because they are all "equally protected" by law.  Or so the non sequitur argument goes.

Equal Time For Reality?
But more than that, in reality the whole  "marriage equality" schtick really is nothing more  than an assault on reality. One might as well argue for equal protection for square circles or unicycles must be permitted to have two wheels.  In other words, this is not about discrimination - even that of discernment - rather this is all about distortion of reality, if  not history. What supercilious stupidities and audacious inanities will we be subjected to next? Will our stormtroopers for the brave new world order have something to say about gravity? That it  is not fair that what goes up, must come down? Or will we be  told on the  pains of a bankrupting lawsuit and threat of jail something a little more mundane? That pigs can fly and not just first class  on SouthWest, but solo in the pilot's seat?

Sexual nirvana and same sex utopia  awaits breathlessly. Boo reality. Hiss discrimination. Welcome stupidity and death.  Along with, in the mean time, more big government to speed up the process. Sounds like fun.  Only bigots, haters and homophiles homophobes could object.

Perverts? Nah, that category is just  a figment  of your imagination.

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Crooked Arrows and Analogies

All The While Spray Painting Targets  And Snipe-hunting For Protestant Fish In a Roman Barrel Full of Cloistered Monkeys

[corrected  2/4/14]
Well, the  combox zeitgeist over at Old Life Theological Society for Callers Cognitive Dissonance seems to have moved on to discussing the quality of home made vs. Safeway pastry. Still  it does provoke us to quietly weep a few crocodile tears for the eminent first commenter (as always) and his denial (as always)  on these kinds of posts at OLTS. 

Particularly since the same interlocutor has just given us "Clark, Frame, and the Analogy of Painting a Magisterial Target Around One’s Interpretive Arrow " in which he attempts to frame confessionalist RS Clark in his own words, of committing the same crime as Clark accuses biblicist John Frame to be guilty of: Setting oneself up as the interpretive authority over Scripture. 
As in do tell, William Tell.

The gentleman goes on at length – thankfully not quite as eye glazing as usual – in appealing to the Prot reader's private judgement in order to demonstrate the solipsism of that same private judgement and the subsequent necessity of privately judging that the sacred magisterial authority of the pope alone can break the solipsistic stranglehold. Circular pleading indeed, if not sophistical solipsistical.

Oblio's Obligatory Obfuscation/Inexcusable Ignorance
As for  Harry Nilsson, where is he  when we need him? You know, the singer  of the song  about "Me and my Arrow, taking the high road". Of integrity, honesty, credibility, stuff like that. Of correctly characterizing the Prot Roman paradigm if you are going to critique the Prot  Roman paradigm? (But  Protestants  paradigmatically eschew  paradigms/the Holy Father hasn't given them one, so no worries?)

As in the reformed confessions never claim to be above correction from Scripture, contra our protagonist's assumption/accusation. In short the whole "norma normans, norma normata" paradigm. The  Scripture is the infallible rule that rules; the norm that norms all other norms, while the creeds are rules that are normed/ruled by Scripture. And this Mr. Cross, as someone with an M.Div from Covenant Theological Seminary, (PCA) an ex-P&R churchman* ought to know. But doesn't. Or at least won't admit for all practical public purposes of his popish propaganda.

Just as he ought to have known that the Mormon claim to Joseph Smith's apostolic addition to Scripture in the Book of Mormon was contra Scripture as WCF Chapt.1 "Of Holy Scripture" confesses. And answered accordingly when the Utah missionaries knocked on his door. Instead, this incident supposedly precipitated his capitulation to Rome's claim to apostolicity  in order to resolve the existential torment, if not ecclesiastical angst that resulted from the encounter with the disciples of the  Mormon Apostles.

Apostolic Doctrine, Succession and Anarchy
But maybe from the paradigm  perspective of the romanist  in the ditch on the side of the road,  everybody else really does appear to be in the ditch on the other side of the road, Plato's cave notwithstanding.  Yet the reformed argue the middle of the road for  themselves,  all the while the anabaptist biblicists  are content to muddle around in the one ditch. As the papists do in the other, honestly, naively and solipsistically as they might in fact be.

The reformed again, at least have a case for their apostolic succession of doctrine, while romanists emphasize apostolic succession for their bishop and lump all who disagree into the camp of the anabaptists, who  only claim to read the holy Book by the light that comes in the crack in their own individualistic roof, the Scriptures having  just dropped out of the sky and down their chimney a half hour ago.

As for the standard charge of question begging from our accuser, to anyone who dissents from his version of the status questionis, what's with the implicit charge of solipsism? Doesn't that cancel out the power of one's private judgement to make an informed decision that the pope's solipsism sacred sacramental authority  is more sophistical scriptural superstitious sacred than me or thee's? But again the reformed aren't anarchic individualistic anabaptists. 

The Reformation and the Renaissance were in part the  fruit of the revolutionary technology of the moveable type of Gutenberg's press and the fall of Constantinople  which brought both manuscripts of the Greek New Testament and the early church fathers west, along with scholars who could read them, which produced critical editions and translations of Scripture and the fathers. And contra the Roman narrative, the reformed can and have demonstrated a reasonable claim on the fathers for their doctrine. 

A Multitude of Counselors
H.O.Olds might have his disagreement with the Second Commandment and the Regulative Principle of Worship, i.e."whatsoever is not commanded, explicitly or implictly in Scripture, is forbidden in the worship of God", but as he says in his Worship That is Reformed According to Scripture , the "reason the Reformers studied the Church fathers" was because "They are witnesses to the authority of Scripture. The Reformers studied the patristic commentaries on Scripture because it enriched their own understanding of Scripture (2002, p.4)". Likewise, he goes into more depth in his Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship. The Reformation was primarily " a return to the Scriptures, but  the writings of the Fathers were read as witnesses to the purer forms of worship of the ancient church (1975, p.1)". 

Warfield's comment is well known: "(T)he Reformation inwardly considered, was just the ultimate triumph of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the Church" (Calvin and Augustine, 1971, p.322). Or as the Proverbs has it, "In the multitude of counselors, there is safety (11:14, 15:22, 24:6)". The official Roman Church's pronouncement of anathema on the Reformation doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide did not come until the Council of Trent 1545-1563. Till then Rome truly was a big tent, (as it is today and promises even more so to become with the latest occupant of the Petrine throne.)

After all, Luther had acknowledged that his teachers Arnoldi, Trutvetter and von Staupitz had first pointed him to Scripture and helped him clarify the true biblical meaning of repentance in the sense of metanoia or 'an about face turning from sin' contra the prevailing understanding of "doing penance". And all of his teachers were Roman clergy in good standing with the church.

But of all this, not a solipsistic whisper of refutation from our ex-prot Roman apologist. Rome says it, I believe it, Scripture, reason or history to the contrary. In other words, this is fideism of the most raw and rank variety. Implicitly ignorant fideism.

Holy Hegelianism
Regardless of Rome's prejudiced appeal to history/tradition, for those of us who don't quite get or buy into the dialectical doublecross -  that Scripture can never interpret itself and that we can never know what Scripture truly says apart from the Holy Spirit  the  sacramental magisterial authority of little papa's sacred chrismata  -  implicita fides - implicit faith, i.e. ignorant fideism,  fundamental pillar of Romanism that it is, is the sop thrown to your conscience in order to further  beat it into submission. If you haven't reached that stage upon the end of Mr. Cross's chain of non sequiturs and misrepresentations, regardless that he does not call attention to ignotus fide or admit it in any way in  his zeal to defeat the protestant alternative of Sola Scriptura. The sufficient  and  perspicuous Scriptures are the only infallible rule for faith and life.

And this from a papist apologist who has told us elsewhere that:
Of course an inquirer who is considering the Catholic paradigm as a whole will consider how the Catholic paradigm (which includes these five doctrines) makes sense of all the available historical, biblical, patristic, and philosophical data, in relation to the other available paradigms.
Yet perhaps there really are no other available paradigms, aside from the anabaptist straw man masquerading as the Presbyterian and Reformed paradigm of Sola Scriptura contra the Sola Solipsism parody that Mr. Cross and the Called to Communion cadre continually parrot. 

But all  it all amounts to in the end is:
Submission.
To the Pope.

End of Story.

Oblio's Obligatory Encore
Me and my Arrow
Straighter than narrow
Where ever we go
Everyone knows
It's me and my Arrow

Evidently for those only capable of licensed with a papal imprimatur to hunt snipe, one's own cognitive dissonance is not on the religious  radar screen.

IOW Mr. Cross went a hunting for a target and a target he did find. 

The only one his crooked arrow would allow him to shoot in that by definition, the sacred sacramental magisterial authority of the pope is ineffable, indefectable, infallible and unreformable. But for all practical purposes, he can only "claim" (otherwise known as Mr. Cross's inevitable rejoinder of "handwaving assertion") that protestant confessionalism is contradictory because inescapably it lords it over Scripture. Fine. But then he needs to make his case rather than resort to misrepresentation, assertions and accusations of the same to carry his argument. 

Scripture Interprets Scripture According To Scripture
The dogfood version of a pig's breakfast that he serves up regarding solipsistic private judgement, which curiously enough, can only escape itself long enough to perceive the pope's perspicuous sufficiency and authority - but never Scripture's - all the while that he fails to mention that implicit faith/ignorant  fideism is fundamental to and goes hand in hand with submission to the sacred magisterium's papal judgement is,  at bottom,  no more than a dog returning to its vomit. Have at it, Rin Tin Tin.

All this again,  contra the countless examples in the Old Testament, never mind that of Christ and the apostles in the New, or even the solitary example of the Bereans Act 17:11,  of: "it is written". As in the constant refrain and  the repeated appeal  in Scripture . . . . to Scripture. Not "it is written in Tradition". Not "it is written by the Magisterium". Not "it is written in the ex cathedra Papal Bull". Rather "it is written" is written  in -   of all places -  Scripture and it refers to -  of all things -   Scripture, i.e. the written  word of God.

Of all this, Mr. Cross writes not,  though somebody like the apostle Paul does. In his second letter to Timothy, Paul has the audacity to say that Timothy "from a child (brephos) has known the Scripture which enabled him to become wise unto salvation in Christ Jesus (3:15)". Of our roman interlocutor's schtick, that Scripture is unknowable, if not uninterpretable, apart from the sacramental magisterial authority of the Roman bishop, Paul knows and says nothing. But then again, perhaps our Romanist philosophy professor has never been a child and has always been a grown up adult that  wears a purple biretta beret and all this has escaped him. Like the con man Papillon's  fraudulent  escape from Devil's Island?

But not to put too fine a point on it, if the Word of God had not come in the flesh and spoken to us in the Word of God written, we would have had no sin, but now cognitive dissonance is no cloak for our contradictions (cf. Jn. 15:22). Better yet,  Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. Jn. 9:41

Assumptions, Presumptions and Accusations vs. Proof
But if as Mr. Cross tells us elsewhere, "The accuser has the burden of proof", then Mr. Cross assumes what he needs to prove:

One, that the reformed confessions are  not in  submission  to Scripture, but lord it over Scripture contra what they explicitly declare; that they are  unreformable not only  in principle, but in  practice.

Two, Scripture never ever clearly interprets or expressly appeals to itself over and above other authorities, magisterial or no. IOW “it is written” cannot be found within the apostolic deposit of canonical Scripture nor does it refer to the same.

Three, solipsistic private protestant judgement, if  it is even  capable of understanding his (infallible?) argument for the  infallible sacred sacramental magisterial authority of the pope,  is just as equally incapable of understanding Scripture.

In other words, Mr. Cross needs to come clean about his magisterial witch hunt with a crooked arrow  if he really expects to be taken for anything but a sophist for the papal cause;  which is to say,  a liar for an ecclesiastical regime, which is itself built  on lies about Scripture, reason or history (aka tradition). Till then he gets to  play bow and arrows all by himself as  by all rights he should. But only if his mother, Rome does not come and take his sharp toys away from him  for fear  he'll  hurt himself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Correction: with apologies for the mistake. See here for an  overview of Cross's background.