Well, let me tell you, Rich is one happy camper. He got the bright idea today, really only a few hours before we started, to use Zoom to allow folks to call in to the program today. And…it worked. So I started off with about 20 minutes or so in response to a King James Only advocate giving a completely fictitious history of the TR and the KJV, and then we dove into the calls, both from landlines as well as Zoom. And man did we cover the topics! Colossians 2 and baptism related to the Church of Christ; Synoptic Christology; why Chris Hohnholz is a secret Elf fan; tips for doing street evangelism with tracts; importance of church history; the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis; responding to common KJV Only claims, and finally a call on dispensationalism and the kingship of Jesus. Wow! Well, given how pleased Rich is, I can tell we will be doing that again, and Rich thinks we could actually pull it off in the big studio, which might allow me to put stuff up on the board in providing answers. We will see! Thanks to everyone who participated!
[embedded content]

The Dividing Line will be LIVE at 4:00pm EST – Open Phones

James White, November 4, 2021November 4, 2021, CBGM, Christian Worldview, Debate, Pastoral Theology, Persecution, Post-Evangelicalism, Reformed Apologetics, Textual Issues, The Dividing Line, Theology Matters, TROnlyism OK, we covered the waterfront again today! Let’s see, started off with a response to some immature bullying on Twitter, and then moved on to this important and dangerous study regarding vaccines and the spike protein and the long-term degradation of the health and immunity that can result from that spoke protein. Then we moved into a completely different area, responding to this article in the Aquila Report promoting TR Onlyism. Finally, we moved back to our reading through William Lane Craig’s presentation of Molinism and middle knowledge in The Only Wise God. A full show that went well over 90 minutes! Enjoy!
[embedded content]

Started off with a few minutes on another example of how fear and panic has molded the minds of people in the West since the beginning of 2020, and then transitioned into some more in-depth discussion about God’s decree and His knowledge. This then allowed us to talk about the concept of “middle knowledge” and its role in the Counter-Reformation, and in synergism to this day.
[embedded content]
Tags: Divine Decree Middle Knowledge Molinism

In Book VIII of City of God, Augustine takes up a discussion regarding the Platonic philosophers. He gives a fascinating genealogy of the philosophers (which he takes from Plato) who were in the line of succession up to Aristotle. In this post I want to review what he said there, consider some of the implications, and then consider what Augustine had to say regarding Plato himself.The Ionic SchoolBelow is an overview of what Augustine wrote about each of these. This is taken from chapters 2-4.Thales of Miletus (died circa 545 BC) investigated the nature of things and thought all things came from the first principle – water. He “set nothing of the nature of divine mind.”Anaximander (died circa 545 BC), his successor, believed in an infinite principle of things which generated all things in innumerable worlds which would each dissolve and regenerate (this sounds like planetary reincarnation). Like Thales, there was no divine principle.Anaximenes (died circa 526 BC) succeeded Anaximander and he believed all things sprang from the air, including any and all gods. Anaxagoras (died circa 428 BC), one of his disciples, thought a divine mind was the cause of everything. “All the various kinds of things were produced out of an infinite matter consisting of homogeneous particles, but by the efficiency of a divine mind.”Diogenes [of Apollonia] (died after 425 BC), another of his disciples, believed a “certain air was the original substance” of all things and that air “was possessed of a divine reason”.Archelaus (died 5th Century BC), the disciple of Anaxagoras, believed all things “consisted of homogeneous particles” which “were pervaded by a divine mind, which perpetually energized all the eternal bodies, namely, those particles.”Socrates (died circa 399 BC) was said to be the disciple of Archelaus. He believed the causes sought by those prior to him were “ultimately reducible to nothing else than the will of the one true and supreme God” only understood by a pure mind. This led to the emphasis on morals.Plato (died circa 347 BC) was the disciple of Socrates. Augustine stated that to Plato all other philosophers must give their place. “Why discuss [theology] with the other philosophers?” They should “give place to the Platonic philosophers, who have recognized the true God as the author of all things, the source of the light of truth, and the bountiful bestower of all blessedness.”As we can see over a 200 year period of the line of succession from Thales (the founder of the Ionic School of Philosophy – as opposed to the Italic School, founded by Pythagoras), the philosophical reasoning was continuing to be developed in its progression from having no thoughts about a divine principle to arriving at Socrates and Plato’s (and Aristotle following them) understanding of one god.One could say that natural theology, as it should be called, was a true work in progress as the greatest philosophers of the day were arriving at, through their reason, an ultimate cause of all things. To be sure, these philosophers eventually arrived at a single god being the cause of all things. But to summarize things, this progression can be seen as the following chain of thought regarding a first principle/cause: water > infinite number of vague principles > air > a divine mind producing all from homogeneous particles > air possessed of divine reason > a divine mind energizing homogeneous particles > the Socratic belief of a will of one God > the Platonic belief of one God being the author.AristotleContinuing this trajectory, let us also direct our attention at some statements that Aristotle made about God. Since much of the discussion of Natural Theology has Aquinas’ use of Aristotle as its epicenter, we should keep in mind exactly where the philosophical reasoning of Aristotle led him.Aristotle would state the following in his two works Politics and Nicomachean Ethics:The rule of a father over his children is royal, for he rules by virtue both of love and of the respect due to age, exercising a kind of royal power. And therefore Homer has appropriately called Zeus ‘father of Gods and men,’ because he is the king of them all. For a king is the natural superior of his subjects, but he should be of the same kin or kind with them, and such is the relation of elder and younger, of father and son.Aristotle, Politics, Part XIIAnd this is most manifest in the case of the gods; for they surpass us most decisively in all good things. But it is clear also in the case of kings; for with them, too, men who are much their inferiors do not expect to be friends; nor do men of no account expect to be friends with the best or wisest men. In such cases it is not possible to define exactly up to what point friends can remain friends; for much can be taken away and friendship remain, but when one party is removed to a great distance, as God is, the possibility of friendship ceases. This is in fact the origin of the question whether friends really wish for their friends the greatest goods, e.g. that of being gods; since in that case their friends will no longer be friends to them, and therefore will not be good things for them (for friends are good things).Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book VIII, Chapter 7In the above two quotes, we see clearly that Aristotle was not led by his philosophical reasoning to an understanding of monotheism. Even when we look at the result of his discussion of motion and a first mover, he said that “The first mover, then, exists of necessity; and in so far as it exists by necessity, its mode of being is good, and it is in this sense a first principle.” All of his reasoning, under-girded by the work of those before him, led him to say that there had to be a first mover because something had to first be moved. The fact of motion necessitated an ultimate mover. Aquinas sources this and applies it to God. Below is an excerpt from the section regarding the first mover from Aristotle’s Metaphysics.The first mover, then, exists of necessity; and in so far as it exists by necessity, its mode of being is good, and it is in this sense a first principle. For the necessary has all these senses-that which is necessary perforce because it is contrary to the natural impulse, that without which the good is impossible, and that which cannot be otherwise but can exist only in a single way.On such a principle, then, depend the heavens and the world of nature. And it is a life such as the best which we enjoy, and enjoy for but a short time (for it is ever in this state, which we cannot be), since its actuality is also pleasure. (And for this reason are waking, perception, and thinking most pleasant, and hopes and memories are so on account of these.) And thinking in itself deals with that which is best in itself, and that which is thinking in the fullest sense with that which is best in the fullest sense. And thought thinks on itself because it shares the nature of the object of thought; for it becomes an object of thought in coming into contact with and thinking its objects, so that thought and object of thought are the same. For that which is capable of receiving the object of thought, i.e. the essence, is thought. But it is active when it possesses this object. Therefore the possession rather than the receptivity is the divine element which thought seems to contain, and the act of contemplation is what is most pleasant and best. If, then, God is always in that good state in which we sometimes are, this compels our wonder; and if in a better this compels it yet more. And God is in a better state. And life also belongs to God; for the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God’s self-dependent actuality is life most good and eternal. We say therefore that God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God. …It is clear then from what has been said that there is a substance which is eternal and unmovable and separate from sensible things. It has been shown also that this substance cannot have any magnitude, but is without parts and indivisible (for it produces movement through infinite time, but nothing finite has infinite power; and, while every magnitude is either infinite or finite, it cannot, for the above reason, have finite magnitude, and it cannot have infinite magnitude because there is no infinite magnitude at all). But it has also been shown that it is impassive and unalterable; for all the other changes are posterior to change of place.Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book XII, Part 7From the section above, I want to highlight the impersonal traits that Aristotle is led to attribute to the substance, which he refers to as God, that is the first mover. “It” exists and is good and is a first principle. “It” is an impassive and unalterable substance. Life belongs to this God because “the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality”.One can see from Aristotle’s persistent belief in polytheism that even though he reasoned that there was a single substance he called God who was the first mover that he was actually suppressing his knowledge of God. Such knowledge as was plain to him and even shown to him by God. Yet Aristotle did not honor him as God. In his claiming to be wise he ultimately exchanged the glory of God for idolatry.In my next post, I will continue where we left off with Augustine’s discussion of the Platonists and then review some specific things regarding Plato.

Catching Up on the Culture of Death

The Decree of God: Foundation, Vindication

A Response to John PiperJohn Piper made a major mistake in late 2020 when he weighed into the US Presidential election with an article that emphasized the sinfulness of arrogance in a candidate that, at the same time, naively missed the reality of the arrogance of the worldview of the other candidate. Today we live with the results of that mistake as the US government overthrows all restraints in its promotion of ungodliness all across the nation and the world, from the murder of the unborn to the profanation of marriage, to the demand that we celebrate the destruction of male and female in our law. For some reason, Dr. Piper has a form of tunnel vision that causes him not to see (or to entirely dismiss) vital and important worldview issues that go beyond the moment of his spiritual vision.This problem has arisen yet again with his promotion of the experimental mRNA vaccines being mandated by governments around the world in an article published by Desiring God on October 19, 2021, titled “A Reason to be Vaccinated: Freedom”. Dr. Piper says, “My aim in this article is to encourage Christians to be vaccinated, if they can do so with a good conscience and judicious medical warrant.” He states that his target audience are those who have not yet been vaccinated “because of fear of being out of step with people they respect, and in step with people they don’t admire.” His message for these people is this: you are free.What is most problematic with Dr. Piper’s position can be expressed in relatively few words, so it would be helpful to dismiss the bulk of the article where we either have agreement, or where it is difficult to see the relevance of his presentation. Thus we can summarize a major portion of his article in his own words:Christians are owned by no man — no society, no company, no clan, no family, no school, no military, no government, no political interest group. God alone owns us. And God alone rules us. We are not ruled by any man. We are free from all human ownership and rule.Just how Dr. Piper would apply these sentiments is difficult to determine, but we would emphasize that God’s ownership of our bodies implies our own stewardship thereof, which is why many of us take serious issue with experimental genetic therapies with record-breaking reports of adverse reactions, including death, with no long-term studies relating to safety (cancers, fertility), for a disease with an average mortality age above life expectancy and a mortality rate of less than 0.5%. Piper goes on to say, Our freedom does not make us brash. Bold, yes. Brash, no. There is a peculiarly Christian boldness — a brokenhearted boldness. Our freedom does not make us cocky. Courageous, yes. Cocky, no. There is a peculiarly Christian courage — a contrite courage.It is hard to say if here the good doctor is reprising his article against arrogance from prior to the US elections as he makes no specific application. But we might observe in passing that there is arrogance and brashness on the obvious, open level, and then there is the arrogance of the secular worldview that actually leads man to believe he is wise enough, while remaining in rebellion against his Creator, to meddle with the very essence of his being (genetics). When such arrogance is joined with a lust for power and dominion, it becomes deadly.So the bulk of the article, comprising numerous biblical citations about freedom, is not the issue. Instead, the problem is found in the section that reads like a Pfizer promotional advertisement, and then the application portion at the end. Thus we should consider the “facts” as Dr. Piper presents them.Using the Wrong FuelThe article has a section titled “What Fuels the Cooking Fire.” Here Piper presents the current, mainstream narrative found throughout Western media. To summarize: the vaccines are safe and effective, and the only people dying now are the unvaccinated. After citing all of five sources (none of which were actual medical papers, all of which were secondary media sources) he concludes that, “The team called ‘vaccination’ just made a first down, even if monkeys are holding the chains.” In other words, without even acknowledging the other side, Piper has concluded the dominant narrative is spot-on: the vaccines are great stuff. The trouble with this is that Piper is simply wrong about the facts. Now, it is possible he, like many in our world today, does not want to deal with the reality of the control of the narrative by powerful forces. Perhaps he dismisses this reality as mere conspiracy theory. But the thinking person cannot help but notice that only one narrative is allowed free rein, while any questioning of that narrative results in censorship and cancellation. We all know that Dr. Piper’s article will be allowed by the “fact checkers” while mine is far more likely to be flagged, tagged, or deleted. So it is possible he simply has not done the extra work that is now required to dig past the digital firewall erected by the tech giants, in cooperation with Big Pharma (both entities have benefitted from the past two years to the tune of trillions of dollars), to get to the “rest of the story.” Nor do I wish to do a data dump of all of the counter-evidence in this article. Let me just point out the obvious.From late October of 2020, as word about the technology that is behind the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines came out, I have stated that I would consider use of these vaccine once three and five year safety studies had been completed. Prior to 2020, this would have been considered a sober, even mundane position to take. You do not do genetic manipulation at “warp speed,” especially when the threat you are seeking to counteract is one that almost always requires multiple co-morbidities and results in an age of death equal to or above life expectancy. But we do not have such data, and with how this one particular disease has been handled, we have good grounds to wonder if we will ever have geniune data in the future. The VAERS database, maintained by the CDC, has catalogued record numbers of negative results from the vaccines, so it is now regularly dismissed as “untested” (the irony is palpable) by the media. The amazing reality that we are now counting deaths with the Covid-19 as the same as deaths from Covid-19 has resulted in massively inflated numbers, numbers Dr. Piper repeats without comment, and uses in his final argumentation as well. The fact is we are playing with dangerous and unknown long-term impacts with these types of experimental1 therapies. Dr. Piper does not even acknowledge this reality.It should be pointed out that if Dr. Piper had done some digging he could have discovered, for example, that Singapore is the most highly vaccinated location in the world. Yet, two days after his article was published online, the Guardian carried this headline: “Singapore hospitals risk being ‘overwhelmed’ after record daily Covid deaths”. Far more concerning is the report, also two days after the article, from the UK Health Security Agency in its Covid-19 vaccine surveillance report, Week 42, that “N antibody levels appear to be lower in people who acquire infection following two doses of vaccination.” What does this mean? It means we have foolishly jammed a narrow-spectrum “leaky” vaccine into the bloodstreams of billions of people around the world. Aside from the fact that this has never been done before, many are now seeing in the data evidence that this is one of the primary factors in driving new variants and in the rapid decline of the efficacy of the current vaccines (requiring an endless series of boosters and, eventually, regularly altered and new formulations). Many studies are now showing efficacy rates below 50% and dropping for these vaccines. But the UK report is even more dangerous. We are now seeing that the vaccines are inhibiting the natural ability to produce antibodies against not just the well-known “spike protein,” but against the shell of the virus as well. Our bodies provide not only a much more robust immunity (as all studies are showing, and which Dr. Piper misrepresented when he said natural immunity is “as effective as vaccination immunity” when it is actually 13 to 27 times greater), but it is a much wider immunity, responding to more of the structure of the virus. This study is telling us that vaccination degrades our natural immunity, leaving us even more exposed to future infection.While they were loathe to admit it, the truth has been forced out of places like Israel and the UK: “the pandemic of the unvaccinated” is simply a false advertising mantra repeated by talking heads, whether journalistic or political. Though we use the euphemistic phrase “breakthrough” infections, the reality is, these are failures of the vaccine. As one doctor put it months ago, “We are vaccinating people for last year’s virus.” This is self-evidently true.Surely the discussion of spike proteins and antibody production leaves most folks without a background in biology a bit bewildered. But we must realize that there is a reason why thousands of specialists and scholars have been writing statements and seeking to sound an alarm. Even if you lack a background in science, you must understand that we have never responded to a virus the way we have responded to this one. Wise and sober people must ask the question, “Why?”So we conclude that Dr. Piper added the wrong fuel to his camp stove as he brewed up his article, and the result was more like salmonella than a pleasing aroma.Making His PointAfter the imbalanced, media-based set of facts was presented, and three sections of cited (but not really applied or interpreted) texts were given, Dr. Piper gets to his point, that of encouraging vaccination amongst those who might otherwise be dissuaded by the weight of the popularity of those who are raising an alarm (like Doug Wilson, specifically, I assume). He makes reference to us watching “hundreds of thousand of people die.” Yet, at least 85% of these deaths involved co-morbidities and were not due solely to the virus. Prior to 2020 no one would have understood this kind of calculation, but then again, prior to 2020, few ever looked at death numbers so as to have a context into which to place the current claims, either. His hypothetical person has “considered the short- and long-term risks of the vaccines as you watch millions get the shots” yet he made no reference to the now documented (though originally disputed, now admitted) short-term risks such as heart inflammation, blood clots, etc. He did not even mention the reality of the utter lack of long-term safety data. He refers to the “frequency of hospitalizations and deaths of those with and without vaccines” and yet only provided partial and inaccurate media-based numbers on this very important issue, ignoring the many other sources reporting large proportions, even now majorities, being amongst the fully vaccinated. As noted above, he errantly equates natural immunity to vaccinated immunity, when natural immunity is far more robust and long lasting. He then provides one of the most disappointing lines in the article: “You have pondered the likelihood and unlikelihood of conspiratorial conjectures.” Without defining his meaning, or providing examples, Piper does us no favors. Is the recognition of the cooperation of Big Tech and Big Pharma with the extreme leftists in political power resulting in the transfer of literally trillions of dollars of wealth a “conspiratorial conjecture”? Are the banishments from social media of medical experts who are warning about dangers fictional? We are not told.Let us be clear. If one examines all of the information and decides to take the risk (and it is a risk), that is their decision, and there should be no condemnation. On this we agree. But it is the huge elephant standing in the room staring at all of us like he is in the middle of a Gary Larson cartoon that must now be addressed.That is One Really Huge PachydermThe common element that joins the “arrogant tweets” article from 2020 with this current piece is the fragmented worldview problem that accompanies Dr. Piper’s view of himself in a prophetic context. Though I do not know John personally, I know many who do, and a common element of their interactions with him is his “prophetic aura.” He sees himself in a prophetic role, and as such, is unconcerned about how his current emphasis may be seen by others. The well known incident of his changing his assigned topic at the Shepherd’s Conference years ago because he felt compelled to do so is illustrative of the mindset. It is part of his zeal and passion that we all love and admire. But, with all due love and respect to Dr. Piper, I must say it likewise often results in the kind of scattered, disconnected presentation we find in this current article. Dr. Piper completely missed the reality of the connection of the governmentally mandated, “take these or lose your job, your business, your freedom, your children, your life” vaccines and the rest of the current rush into global secular totalitarianism. How can this not be a part of one’s calculations? We all know this jab will not be the end of the series. The “boosters” are already being administered. Once one submits to the first in the series, upon what basis does one object to the next, and the next? Upon what basis do we define “public health emergencies” in the future? The CDC has already, at the very same time they are in control of our lives and livelihoods regarding Covid, proclaimed the use of transgender pronouns a “public health” issue. It is undeniable that the vaccines are not a solo issue. They are coming to us after mask mandates and church closures and pastoral imprisonments and before the next onerous demands from governments drunk on the power that inevitably comes from the rise of secularism. The secular state is far worse than the ancient pagan context of Rome (which was bad enough), for by its very definition it must be ultimate in all things as there is no Creator. Why Piper does not see the role the vaccines play in the overall demands of the newly empowered totalitarianism I cannot say, but it is not the first time he has missed the role a particular element plays in the whole. Mean, arrogant tweets are, in the overall scheme of things, significantly less important than the fact that the Biden regime is intent upon forcing your children to celebrate drag queens and likewise just as intent upon taking control of every aspect of your life to force you to live in denial of the lordship of Christ. What Piper has missed, badly, is the role these vaccinations play in a much bigger, much more basic movement into a technologically based, chemically and medically controlled secular totalitarianism. That elephant is intent upon staying, and until we are all intent upon removing him from the living room, he will continue to create soul-destroying havoc for all. Oh that John Piper would stop examining the tip of one of his tusks and help us all with the bigger issue. 1 Yes, they remain experimental. The FDA approved the Pfizer jab without public comment, fundamentally altering the entire process. Video exists of Anthony Fauci in 2019 (Milken Institute found on CSPAN2) lamenting how long it would take to get these kinds of vaccines approved. Given his own role in the Wuhan lab, gain-of-function funding, etc., the reality of the situation is clear.Note: I have written a fuller statement on the basis for Christian rejection of vaccine mandates here: https://standwithwarriors.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Statement-on-Christian-Faith-and-Mandated-Experimental-Medical-Procedures.pdf

Well, it was actually OVER two hours long, and I still did not finish up, but we made good progress. First I responded to Evangelist Ted Alexander’s comments wherein he not only identified Reformed theology as fundamentally Roman Catholic, but said I am a Catholic, and a plant in the church, etc. and etc. So, we demonstrated he is suffering from some serious cognitive dissonance to be sure. After that full refutation of his claims we moved back to Leighton Flowers and moved into the section where he proves, repeatedly that Provisionism has not efficacious grace. He has passive, powerless, unintentional provisions, but no powerful, purposeful, intentional grace. We will finish up our response to him later, but may not dedicate an entire episode of RFG to it, we will see.
[embedded content]

Today we started responding to Leighton Flowers’ attempt to respond to our basic discussion of one simple truth and reality: the Provisionist view of man’s will and God’s grace is completely in line with the Roman Catholic view at the time of the Reformation; that is, Flowers stands firmly with Erasmus against Luther on this topic. This is all about the sufficiency of grace versus the mere necessity of grace. This has been a theme we have discussed for decades. Flowers’ attempt to respond revealed so many important errors and weaknesses in the Provisionist position that we simply could not allow the opportunity to pass. We got about 20 minutes through the 50 minute or so response, so, be ready for another RFG in the near future!
[embedded content]